News, TN legislators may scrap $70M biofuels project.

[yarddawg]

A couple of years ago I sat through a seminar where we got the ag guys and the chemistry guys in one room to hash out the possibilities of using corn stalks/cobs as a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol. The biggest problem that shook out was that the chemistry guys thought that since the stalks and cobs were being ground up and blown back onto the fields that they were waste, as in worthless and better removed. From the ag perspective they're erosion control and a nutrient source that you'll have to replace if you remove. Manufacturing fertilizer uses a lot of fossil fuels. Add in the fuel to transport the materials to make the fertilizer, transport the fertilizer, spread the fertilizer, transport the corn stalks/cobs, transport the ethanol.......... yeah, figuring out the net benefit or lack thereof is a complicated equation and I'm not sure anyone has solved it yet. But there are some sweet government grants is you act like you think it might be a good idea.


The switchgrass project is back on, at least for now, no new funding, already appropriated money was released. There's a lot of political growling about it, 2010 budget hearings are this week and Departments are presenting 6% and 9% reduction versions. I doubt they'll get any new funding if they have more problems with their partners or pilot plant no matter how solid Gov. Bredesen is behind it.

[marmac]

I don't know much about switchgrass, but usually with every other grass, once you start harvesting it extensively, yields start dropping off unless you start supplementing it with fertilizer.

Farmers who have been making grass hay in low land meadows found that out.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by yarddawg

A couple of years ago I sat through a seminar where we got the ag guys and the chemistry guys in one room to hash out the possibilities of using corn stalks/cobs as a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol. The biggest problem that shook out was that the chemistry guys thought that since the stalks and cobs were being ground up and blown back onto the fields that they were waste, as in worthless and better removed. From the ag perspective they're erosion control and a nutrient source that you'll have to replace if you remove. Manufacturing fertilizer uses a lot of fossil fuels. Add in the fuel to transport the materials to make the fertilizer, transport the fertilizer, spread the fertilizer, transport the corn stalks/cobs, transport the ethanol.......... yeah, figuring out the net benefit or lack thereof is a complicated equation and I'm not sure anyone has solved it yet. But there are some sweet government grants is you act like you think it might be a good idea.


The switchgrass project is back on, at least for now, no new funding, already appropriated money was released. There's a lot of political growling about it, 2010 budget hearings are this week and Departments are presenting 6% and 9% reduction versions. I doubt they'll get any new funding if they have more problems with their partners or pilot plant no matter how solid Gov. Bredesen is behind it.

You make a VERY good point about what happens when city boys, with pocket protectors full of pens, start talking about farming practices. They're brilliant in certain areas, but they don't have a clue about what happens on farms.

Unfortunately, those are the same people who talk loud and long about the pros & cons of ethanol - and they inevitably miss the point!

- The processed corn is EXCELLENT feed - in fact, highly sought after. It is NOT waste they have to pay to dispose of.

- Farmers who know what they're doing WANT the crop residue on their ground. Again, it is NOT waste.



That said, I'm happy to hear that they're not completely abandoning the SwitchGrass option. Every little bit has the potential to be a great benefit.