The numbers behind ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel in the U.S

This article summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the stated three “clean” energy processes. They began by talking about how corn ethanol is inefficient and that the only reason why we keep making it is “the fuel has qualified its producers for a federal tax credit, which now stands at 51 cents to the gallon. Ethanol producers also benefit from a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on sugarcane ethanol imported from Brazil — a country where production is not only cheaper but more efficient, given sugarcane’s superiority as a feedstock.” Basically it is only competitive because our government gives it a full dollar per gallon head start on Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol.

They then began talking about cellulosic ethanol. They started by talking about how cellulosic ethanol will reduce greenhouse gases by 80%. They went on to give a few land consumption numbers which were moderately unconvincing since they used switch grass for their models rather than miscanthus which is twice as productive. The author is convinced that by 2050 if we can improve the yield of switch grass and cut down on urban sprawl, then cellulosic ethanol will be effective. Otherwise, maybe not.

Finally the author began talking about biodiesel. Biodiesel does not compete directly with ethanol since it is used as a substitute for diesel rather gasoline. There is potential for biodiesel, but it will never be able to fully replace diesel because of the large amount of land that would be required to grow the crops that go into biodiesel. The greatest potential for biodiesel is for processing waste from restaurants. Restaurant grease is a very good feedstock for biodiesel, and while it will not replace all diesel usage, it will definitly replace some of it.