
Top Biofuel Crops - yakovb
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/biofuels/10-biofuel-crops.htm
======
supernova87a
You know, the mark of an article or perspective on renewables technology that
knows what it's talking about is that it goes into the $ economics or cost
curve of the thing. $/MMBtu, $/ton eCO2 etc. You want to know at what price
the proposed new fuel will displace certain tranches of existing fuel sources
that people/industries choose to use.

This article is 1-2 steps above clickbait (as is, correct me if I'm wrong, the
website itself) where someone was paid $50 to do internet research and write
it.

Maybe more informed people can talk about it here anyway.

~~~
AtlasBarfed
Or its just disinformation to try to undermine renewables and EV investment.

------
snovv_crash
The photosynthesis in sugarcane is about twice as efficient as any other
plant. In addition, the sugar is easily extracted (unlike eg. maize), and a
large percentage of the crop mass (also unlike maize).

IMO a big chunk of what killed biofuels was the wrong choice of crop.

~~~
AtlasBarfed
Is corn syrup superior in cost for Coke/etc because of subsidies?

~~~
tuatoru
It's either tariffs or outright bans on importation into the US, I can't
remember now.

------
scythe
Biofuel for land vehicles is largely dead, or rather limited to legacy systems
(Brazil etc). Whatever EVs can't do (if anything) will likely be taken up by
hydrogen.

Biofuel for airplanes however will probably be around for a while. Unlike
cars, airplanes are usually built to last for decades. It might be possible to
fly planes fuelled by hydrogen or ammonia, but many of the planes currently
flying today should still be flying in 2050 -- not necessarily a bad thing
because building an airplane isn't exactly low-impact. Synthesizing jet fuel
from plant matter is probably easier than starting from "scratch" (syngas).

~~~
ArkVark
The fertilizers used, the soil degraded, and the runoff from it all into water
sources, plus the fact that the energy return is barely higher than the energy
investment (or in some cases actually negative) means that Biofuels are
already dead - they survive only based on Government subsidies.

~~~
xyzzyz
I can scarcely believe that EROEI for biofuels is negative. Can you provide
source for this?

~~~
ArkVark
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.2464&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

EROEI of 1.07 from this metastudy for Corn Ethanol.

Society needs at least an EROEI of 3:1, so corn ethanol, at least, is a
boondoggle.

~~~
credit_guy
I'm not sure how much I can trust that document. It's written by some
academics, they might or might not have an agenda.

Here's a study done by the USDA, published in 2016 and describing the state of
the affairs in 2015

[https://mnbiofuels.org/images/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.p...](https://mnbiofuels.org/images/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdf)

Bottom line: ignoring any carbon credits, the return on energy using the
existing facilities in Iowa is 2.3 (page 14, bottom of 3rd column).

------
aliswe
What about barley/oats? I read on a swedish website for ethanol production
that it's a formidable biofuel crop, if not only because it can grow even on
the worst suited kinds of lands.

BTW, I wanted to get into the biofuel business, but it only then occurred to
me that ethanol production is equivalent to making distilled alcohol, which is
a no-no for us muslims.

------
Pfhreak
I'd have thought algaculture might have made the list, but maybe it's not
great for fuel production?

~~~
Meandering
I didn't even think about algae. I know big oil has invested a lot into
researching it. Not sure if that is marketing/virtue-signaling or a true
business interest.

Switchgrass! The facilities required to produce algae must be extreme in
comparison to a perennial grass that requires limited maintenance. I guess
algae has higher energy density but, I think grass would be more cost
effective.

~~~
socialdemocrat
Yes that is always the trade off. You can waste lots of space and make things
cheaper or use a lot less space but require more investment.

Algae will win in the end though. Over time capital intensive solutions tend
to win because you are not short on capital but land.

~~~
tuatoru
Have they solved the problem where wild species would contaminate and
outcompete your GMO algae?

There were a lot of lab experiments going at the time of the commodity price
spike (2005-2008), but I've heard nothing since. There always was this
scepticism about captial cost, extraction cost, and contamination costs.

Edit: missed a word.

