The Oil Drum

104 comments on The St Louis Renewable Energy Conference - Day 1

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Robert Rapier on October 12, 2006 - 12:04pm

I'm not sure about CO2 ethanol v. gasoline. I'm not sure how one hydrocarbon can have 80% less CO2 emitted than another. Seems to me the CO2 emission ought to be pretty proportional to the amount of energy released?

It is true that both would release the same amount of CO2, but the net is lower for sugarcane ethanol because the process heat is provided by bagasse, which took up CO2 while it was growing. In the case of gasoline, the process heat is provided by fossil fuels.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mjacobspaj on October 12, 2006 - 2:03pm

I think it is fair to say that a significant proportion of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from burning ethanol were originally captured when the sugar cane was grown.

However, it is important to realize that diesel to run equipment to grow, transport, and process the sugar cane and additives like chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc. require fossil fuels and contribute to green house gas emissions. These factors make corn based ethanol far less preferable than sugar cane based ethanol.

Further, the possibility using renewable sources of energy for stationary production facilities, capturing the CO2 and other green house gases, and re-injecting them deep underground could potentially provide a reduction of green house gases to the atmosphere.