Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems_Benefits and Risks Episode 2 Part 11 doc

18 Biofuel Production in Italy and Europe 491
Troeh F.R., Hobbs J.A., and Donahue R.L., 1991. Soil and Water Conservation (Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Turkenburg, W.C. (Convening Lead Author), Faaij, A. (Lead Author), et al., 2000. Renewable
Energy Technologies. Chapter 7 in World Energy Assessment of the United Nations, UNDP,
UNDESA/WEC. UNDP, New York.
USDA. 1993. Agricultural Statistics. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.
USDA. 1994, United States Department of Agriculture. Summary Report 1992 National Resources
Inventory. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Vitale, R., Boulton, J. W., Lepage, M., Gauthier, M., Qiu, X., and Lamy, S., 2002. “Modelling the
Effects of E10 Fuels in Canada”. Emission Inventory Conference Emission Inventory Confer-
ence, Florida, USA.
Wackernagel M. and Rees W., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint. New Society Publishers.
World Resources Institute (WRI) 1994. World Resources 1994–95. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Chapter 19
The Power Density of Ethanol from Brazilian
Sugarcane
Andrew R.B. Ferguson
Abstract The power density of ethanol produced from sugarcane in Brazil is about
2.9 kW/ha. That is equivalent to capturing a little more than a thousandth part of
solar radiation, and is also a little more than a thousandth part of the power density
we are used to from oil and gas. So ineffective is 2.9 kW/ha, that about 5 million
ha of land would have to be put down to sugarcane every year just to satisfy the
increase in transportation energy demand that results from the annual expansion of
population in the U.S.A.
Keywords Brazil · sugarcane · ethanol · power density
19.1 Introduction
In an eleven page paper, Sugarcane and Energy, the relationship between sugarcane
and energy has been covered in considerable detail (Ferguson, 1999); however it
may be useful to make available a more concise summary of this essential question:

what is the power density of ethanol from sugarcane? The question needs to be
asked since one great problem with biofuels is their low power density.
The lack of agricultural potential in the USA to achieve anything significant from
biofuels has been superbly demonstrated by Donald F. Anthrop, professor emeritus
of environmental studies at San Jose State University, in the Oil and Gas Journal,
Feb.5, 2007. For instance, he brought up the fact that if the whole of the US corn
crop were to be devoted to producing ethanol from corn, this would satisfy only
11.5% of gasoline demand in the US. Note, too, that the reference is to gasoline,
and since gasoline represents about half of transportation fuels, it could also be said
that the ethanol produced would satisfy only about 6% of transport fuel. My thanks
go to Walter Youngquist for sending me this important paper.
Donald Anthrop did not cover sugarcane, and since the ‘energy fantasists’ are
not easily brought to see reality, some will doubtless hold on to the hope that the
A.R.B. Ferguson
11 Harcourt Close, Henley-on-Thames, RG9 1UZ, England
e-mail:
D. Pimentel (ed.), Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems,
C

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
493
494 A.R.B. Ferguson
supposedly huge unused acres of Brazil can come to the rescue. Thus a look at the
power density of ethanol from sugarcane would appear to be timely.
As with all liquid biofuels, there are various power densities which could be
assessed:
a) The calorific value of the ethanol produced each year per hectare of land.
b) The calorific value of the ‘useful’ ethanol produced each year per hectare of
land, that is after subtracting the portion of ethanol that is needed for input into
the agricultural and production processes.

c) The calorific value of the ethanol and by-products produced each year after sub-
tracting the calorific value of all the inputs. This is the net energy capture (or net
power density).
Choice (c) might seem to be the most revealing analysis, but there are both practical
and almost philosophical questions about how to assess the inputs, particularly: (1)
to what extent it is misleading to subtract the calorific value of non-liquid inputs
from the calorific value of liquid outputs; and (2) what value should be assigned to
by-products, especially when some of the by-products could be used to improve soil
fertility and prevent erosion.
Albeit at the cost of being potentially misleading, the type (b) analysis gets
around that, and so is a useful starting point, but it requires an assessment of the
liquid inputs needed, for which data are not always available.
Although using corn (maize) as feedstock to produce ethanol differs in several
important respects from using sugarcane, there is bound to be a degree of similarity
in the amount of liquid inputs needed as a fraction of the total inputs. So as a guide,
let us look at a statement in Shapouri et al., 2002:
As discussed earlier, some researchers prefer addressing the energy security issue by look-
ing at the net energy gain of ethanol from a liquid fuels standpoint. In this case, only the
liquid fossil fuels used to grow corn and produce ethanol are considered in the analysis. On
a weighted average basis, about 83% of the total energy requirements come from non-liquid
fuels, such as coal and natural gas.
That is clearly a statement of method (b) above, and it implies that 17% of the
inputs need to be in liquid form. However, we should not take corn as being too
accurately aligned with sugarcane in this respect, so I build in a 3% error margin,
and assume that only 14% of the total inputs needs to be in liquid form.
To establish the power density of sugarcane I have, with the kind permission of
David Pimentel, reworked the tables on pages 238–239 of Food, Energy, and Society
(Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996), which refer to sugarcane production in Brazil, up-
dating the yield to the latest average yield which is being achieved over 5.2 million
hectares of sugarcane. From Table 19.2 we have the answer to our question. It is that

the power density achieved in producing ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil is about
2.9 kW/ha—but that is on the very lenient measure of accounting only for the liquid
inputs.
19 The Power Density of Ethanol from Brazilian Sugarcane 495
Table 19.1 Average energy inputs and output per hectare for sugarcane in Brazil
Quantity/ha 10
3
kcal/ha
Inputs
Labor 210 hr 157
a
Machinery 72 kg 1,944
Fuel 262 liters 2,635
Nitrogen (ammonia) 65 kg 1,364
Phosphorus (triple) 52 kg 336
Potassium (muriate) 100 kg 250
Lime 616 kg 192
Seed 215 kg 271
Insecticide 0.5 kg 50
Herbicide 3 kg 300
Total 7,499
Output
Sugarcane (fresh) 71,400 kg
b
One thingtonote isthatsugarcaneis usuallygrown insunny areas, so theinsolation
would be around 2200 kW/ha, so the energy capture is only a little more than 0.1%
of insolation, that is a bit more than 1 part in a thousand. This is very relevant in the
Table 19.2 Inputs to transform 71,400 kg of Brazilian sugarcane (fresh) to ethanol
Quantity/ha 10
3

kcal/ha
Inputs
Sugarcane (fresh) as per Table 19.1 71,400 kg 7,499
Transport 71,400 kg 994
Water 482,140 kg 270
Stainless steel
c
12 kg 174
Concrete
c
31 kg 58
Bagasse (fresh)
d
21,340 kg 38,760
Pollution – –
Total 47,755
Gross output of ethanol = 5,525 liters = 28,343
Liquid inputs = 47,755 × 0.14 = 6,686
So output of ‘useful’ ethanol
21, 657 = 4,222 liters ethanol/ha/yr.
So power density = 21,657,000 kcal/ha/yr = 90.7 GJ/ha = 2.9 kW/ha
a
There is some debate as to whether the energy associated with the labor input should reflect the
lifestyle of the laborers, but that is not germane to this analysis.
b
The original tables were associated with 54,000 kg of sugarcane. No increase in inputs have
been introduced into Table 19.1, and the only items that have been proportionately increased in
Table 19.2, to allow for the 71,400 kg of sugarcane, are transport and the heat provided by the
bagasse.
c

The embodied energy associated with these raw materials are amortized over their lifetime.
d
The calorific value of fresh bagasse is 1816 kcal/kg (see Ferguson, 1999), which is used to cal-
culate the weight. Bagasse is a by-product and is used to produce the heat needed for the transfor-
mation process, thus arguably its energy content need not be included in an input/output analysis.
It is relevant here anyway because it helps in the assessment of the required liquid inputs.
496 A.R.B. Ferguson
context of the fact that‘energyfantasists’ like to dwell atlengthon the amountofsolar
power that is available, as though we are likely to capture much of it.
It is not easy to conceive of the paucity of 2.9 kW/ha. Another useful way to look
at the matter is to consider that while it is hard to measure the power density of oil
and gas, it is clear that the figures are numerically in the region of solar insolation
in the United States, that is about 2000 kW/ha. So capture of sunlight in the form of
ethanol achieves a power density that is once again only a bit more than a thousandth
part of what we are used to enjoying while oil and gas are available.
A further point of reference is to consider how much land would be needed to
provide the burgeoning U.S. population with liquid fuel using ethanol from sugar-
cane. Dividing transportation fuels by the number of citizens, each American uses,
on average, about 3 kW of fuel for transportation (out of a total energy use of about
10.5 kW). Virginia Abernethy (2006) has pointed out that the Census Bureau greatly
undercounts the extent of illegal immigration, and that the correct figure for the
growth of the U.S. population is between 4.7 and 5.7 million per year. Taking a
central figure of 5.2 million, since each American would need 3/2.9 = 1.03 ha to pro-
vide transport fuel from ethanol, there would be a need for an additional 1.03×5.2
million, say 5 million hectares to be put down to sugarcane every year,justsoas
to keep pace with the expansion in population. It is clear that even borrowing land
freely from Brazil this becomes impossible within a decade.
There is also this moral question: will conscience allow us to satisfy the motoring
public this way when the WHO assesses that 3700 million are suffering from mal-
nutrition and over 800 million from hunger? Not everyone will be as unconcerned

about that as President George Bush, who in his State of the Union address called for
a 20% cut in gasoline consumption by 2017 and indicated that biofuels would pro-
vide a substantial part of the solution. Yet surely his advisers told him that the power
density of ethanol from corn, assessed on the same basis as above, is lower than for
sugarcane, being about 2776 liters of ethanol/ha/yr = 59.0 GJ/yr = 1.9 kW/ha (see
OPTJ 3/1, p. 12 for more detail), and other biofuels have even lower power densities
(excepting sugarcane). Biofuels can hardly be regarded as even part of the answer
when, as we have seen, the growth of biofuels could not match the growth in U.S.
population. Insofar as that attempt is made, it will continue to increase the cost of
food. Donald Anthrop showed that to be happening, with figures that illustrated a
94% increase in the contract price for corn, between March 2006 and March 2007.
19.2 Errors and the Potential for More Relating to Sugarcane
The subject of sugarcane seems to abound in substantial errors, and perhaps the
‘energy fantasists’ cling on to them. It may be the very high moisture content of
sugarcane (about 70%) which causes confusion. Anyway information sources which
are otherwise reliable contain gross errors both about ethanol from sugarcane and
sugarcane itself.
19 The Power Density of Ethanol from Brazilian Sugarcane 497
The most egregious must surely be that in an old book Biological Energy Re-
sources, 1979, by Malcolm Slesser and Chris Lewis. Several times it is repeated
therein that the yield of ethanol from sugarcane is about 17 tonnes per hectare per
year. That would be 457,300 MJ = 21,520 liters of ethanol. Because Brazil is the
place where the ‘energy fantasists’ assume there are boundless hectares of potential
sugarcane land, we have taken Brazil as an example, but even with a high yield of
88 tonnes of sugarcane per hectare, as might be obtained in Louisiana, the ethanol
yield would only be about 6290 liters.
Regarding sugarcane itself, Howard Hayden, in the revised edition of his book
The Solar Fraud, page 242, states that the power density of “Sugar cane (whole
plant, tropical conditions, plenty of fertilizer and pesticides)” is 37 kW/ha. That is
far too high. Once again taking the high yield of 88,000 kg of fresh sugarcane, the

calorific value would be about 88,000 × 1212 kcal/kg = 107 million kcal/ha/yr =
446 GJ/ha/yr = 14 kW/ha. The figure is easy to cross-check, as 88,000 kg at 70%
moisture content would contain 26,400 kg of dry matter, and as dry matter has an
energy content in the region of 4180 kcal/kg, the calorific value must be in the region
of 110 million kcal.
A hope which lingers around (so far only a potential error) is that the by-product
bagasse is so plentiful that it can not only provide the heat needed to carry out
the distillation processes but also contribute large amounts (‘energy fantasists’ steer
clear of giving actual figures!) of heat for providing electricity. That too has now
been quantified, and amounts to only 0.1 kW(e)/ha. Clearly that is hardly significant,
and anyhow it is doubtful that the bagasse should be put to that purpose, as the next
section makes clear.
19.3 Soil Erosion Problems
It will be noted from Table 19.2 that the heat value of the bagasse used to effect the
transformation of the sugarcane to ethanol amounts to about 1.8 times the amount
of useful ethanol produced. So it is true to say that the only reason that producing
ethanol from sugarcane is not a very substantial energy loser is that the heat can
be provided by the bagasse instead of from fossil fuels. However it is doubtful that
much of the bagasse should be so used if the sugarcane production is to be truly
sustainable, for one dire problem with sugarcane is its tendency to cause soil erosion
(Pimentel, 1993). That is a matter of considerable importance to which we will now
turn.
Corn has a total yield of around 15 dry tonnes, half being grain and half stover
(Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996, p. 36). With reference to corn, David Pimentel has
continually stressed the problems arising from soil erosion, and the need to keep all
the stover on the ground to maintain the fertility of the soil. Thus in the case of corn
about the maximum biomass that should be removed permanently is 7.5 dry t/ha/yr.
The Brazilian sugarcane we are considering has an average yield of 71.4 t/ha/yr
fresh which is 21 t/ha/yr dry. To remove no more dry matter than recommended for
corn, 14 dry t/ha/yr (47 tonnes fresh) of sugarcane biomass should be either left on

498 A.R.B. Ferguson
the soil or returned to it. Also common sense dictates that it is not sustainable to
remove 21 dry tonnes of biomass from the land each year without sooner or later
causing soil impoverishment and erosion.
We can conclude that while it is possible to deliver a ‘useful’ 2.9 kW/ha as liquid
fuel from Brazilian sugarcane, there would need to be considerable ‘external’ inputs
to replace the heat provided by the bagasse if the process is to be made sustainable
by maintaining soil quality and preventing soil erosion. While that is not relevant
to the uncontentious power density calculations of this paper, it does remind us that
the simplified calculation of power density made here—so as to escape the more
philosophical points of net energy—does not paint the full dismal picture of the
great difficulty of producing liquid fuels sustainably.
References
Abernethy, D.V. 2006. Census Bureau Distortions Hide Immigration Crisis: Real Numbers Much
Higher. Population-Environment Balance.
Anthrop, D.F. 2007. Limits on energy promise of biofuels. Oil and Gas Journal, Feb.5, 2007
(pp. 25–28).
Ferguson, A.R.B. 1999. Sugarcane and Energy. Manchester: Optimum Population Trust. 12pp.
Archived at www.members.aol.com/optjournal/sugar.doc
Hayden, H.C 2004. The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World (2nd edition). Vales
Lake Publishing LLC. P.O. Box 7595, Pueblo West, CO 81007-0595. 280pp.
OPTJ 3/1. 2003. Optimum Population Trust Journal, Vol. 3, No 1, April 2003. Manchester (U.K.):
Optimum Population Trust. 32 pp. Archived on the web at www.members.aol.com/ optjour-
nal2/optj31.doc
Pimentel, D. (Ed.) 1993. World Soil Erosion and Conservation. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge Uni.
Press.
Pimentel, D. and Pimentel, M. 1996. Food, Energy, and Society. Niwot Co., University Press of
Colorado. 363 pp. This is a revised edition; the first edition was published by John Wiley and
Sons in 1979.
Shapouri, H., Duffield, J.A., and Wang, M. 2002. The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Economic Report Number 813.
Slesser, M. and C. Lewis. 1979. Biological Energy Resources. London: E. & F.N. Spon Ltd.
Chapter 20
A Brief Discussion on Algae for Oil
Production: Energy Issues
David Pimentel
Abstract Further laboratory and field research is needed for the algae and oil
theoretical system. Claims based on research dating over three decades have been
made, yet none of the projected algae and oil yields have been achieved. Harvesting
the algae from tanks and separating the oil from the algae, are difficult and energy
intensive processes.
Keywords Algae · biomass · energy · harvesting algae
The culture of algae can yield 30–50% oil (Dimitrov, 2007). Thus, the interest in
the use of algae to increase U.S. oil supply is based on the theoretical claims that
47,000–308,000 liters/hectare/year (5,000–33,000 gallons/acre) of oil could be pro-
duced using algae (Briggs, 2004; Vincent Inc., 2007). The calculated cost per barrel
would be only $20 (Global Green Solutions, 2007). Currently, a barrel of oil in the
U.S. market is selling for over $100 per barrel. If the production and price of oil
produced from algae were true, U.S. annual oil needs could theoretically be met,
but only if 100% of all U.S. land were in algal culture!
Despite all the claims and research dating from the early 1970’s to date, none
of the projected algae and oil yields have been achieved (Dimitrov, 2007). To the
contrary, one calculated estimate based on all the included costs using algae would
be $800 per barrel, not $20 per barrel previously mentioned. Algae, like all plants,
require large quantities of nitrogen fertilizer and water, plus significant fossil energy
inputs for the functioning system (Goldman and Ryther, 1977).
One difficulty in culturing algae is that the algae shade one another and thus there
are different levels of light saturation in the cultures, even under Florida conditions
(Biopact, 2007). This influences the rate of growth of the algae. In addition, wild
strains of algae invade and dominate the algae culture strains and oil production by

the algae is reduced (Biopact, 2007).
D. Pimentel
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 5126 Comstock Hall, Ithaca,
NY 15850
e-mail:
D. Pimentel (ed.), Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems,
C

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
499
500 D. Pimentel
Another major problem with the culture of algae in ponds or tanks is the har-
vesting of the algae. Because algae are mostly water, harvesting the algae from the
cultural tanks and separating the oil from the algae, is a difficult and energy inten-
sive process. This problem was observed at the University of Florida (Gainesville)
when algae were being cultured in managed ponds for the production of nutrients
for hogs (Pimentel, unpublished 1976). After two years with a lack of success, the
algal-nutrient culture was abandoned.
The rice total yield is nearly 50 tons/ha/yr of continuous culture and this in-
cludes both the rice and rice straw (CIIFAD, 2007). The best algal biomass yields
under tropical conditions is about 50 t/ha/yr (Biopact, 2007). However, the high-
est yield of alga biomass produced per hectare based on theoretical calculations
is 681 tons/ha/yr (Vincent Inc., 2007). Rice production in the tropics can produce
3 crops on the same hectare of land per year requiring about 400 kg/ha of nitrogen
fertilizer and 240 million liters of water (Pimentel et al., 2004).
Obviously, a great deal of laboratory and field research is needed for the algae
and oil theoretical system.
References
Biopact. (2007). An in-depth look at biofuels from algae. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from
/>Briggs, M. (2004). Widescale biodiesel production from algae. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from

/>alghae.html
CIIFAD. (2007). More rice with less water through SRI – the System of Rice Intensification. Cor-
nell International Institute for Food, Agriculture, and Development Retrieved January 7, 2008,
from />Dimitrov, K. (2007). GreenFuel technologies: a case study for industrial photosythetic energy cap-
ture. Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from />CaseStudy.pdf
Global Green Solutions. (2007). Renewable energy. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from
profiles/7-26-07.html
Goldman, J.C. and Ryther, J.H. (1977). Mass production of algae: bio-engineering aspects.
(In A. Mitsui et al. (Eds.), Biological Solar Energy Conversion. (pp. 367–378). New York:
Academic Press.)
Pimentel, D., Berger, B., Filiberto, D., Newton, M., Wolfe, B., Karabinakis, B., Clark, S., Poon, E.,
Abbett, E., and Nandagopal, S. 2004. Water resources: Agricultural and environmental issues.
Bioscience 54(10): 909–918
Vincent Inc. 2007. Valcent Products. Initial data from the Vertigro Field Test Bed Plant reports
average production of 276 tons of algae bio mass on a per acre/per year basis. Retrieved January
7, 2008, from />Index
A
Agriculture, 43, 51, 54, 64, 67, 68, 72, 111,
129, 158, 164, 166, 187, 188, 192, 198,
199, 201, 204, 206, 207–209, 217, 225,
235, 237, 242, 247, 249, 250, 252, 255,
259, 279, 285, 297, 313, 326, 365, 404,
425–456, 467, 469, 473, 477–479, 482,
487
Agrofuel, 19, 25, 33–44
Algae, 165, 280–281, 499–500
Alternative energy sources, 173–174, 176, 183,
186, 194–205, 206
B
Bagasse, 92, 134–135, 201, 217, 219–221, 224,

225–226, 240–241, 308, 337–338, 340,
358, 361–362, 367, 475, 495, 497–498
Batteries, 8, 133, 142–145, 271
Biodiesel, 73, 81, 84, 85–86, 89–90, 91, 93,
100, 128, 129, 130, 155, 156–161, 162,
164–166, 167, 168, 231, 240, 243–245,
249, 251–252, 274, 277, 279–281, 290,
306, 308–310, 386–390, 404, 406,
408–410, 443–444, 452, 466, 469–473,
475, 477, 479, 481–486
Biodiversity, 27, 153, 162, 163, 195, 204, 208,
226, 322, 349–350, 352, 397, 402,
425–429, 435–437, 449, 453, 455, 476,
485, 486–487, 488
Bioeconomics, 173, 183–194
Bio-ethanol, 321–352, 466, 483, 484, 486
Biofuel, 2, 57–59, 62, 64, 65–66, 71–72,
73–76, 82–84, 85–86, 88, 90–104,
154–156, 161, 163–167, 173, 184,
194–195, 196–209, 216, 218, 225, 227,
231, 232, 235–238, 240–245, 252,
254–256, 274–275, 280, 289, 303,
312–315, 321–322, 323, 330, 332, 341,
351, 366, 376, 379, 382, 389, 390, 395,
396–397, 400–401, 403, 405, 407–411,
418, 426, 443–444, 448–449, 451–454,
455, 465–488, 493–494, 496
Bioheat, 395–397, 402, 403, 404, 407–411,
418
Biomass, 2, 3, 4–5, 9, 11, 19–54, 73, 91, 112,

128, 134–135, 136, 137, 147, 153–155,
160–167, 184, 191, 197, 199, 205–206,
216, 221, 231–256, 260, 269, 275,
300–301, 309, 313, 348, 357–358, 365,
367, 373, 379, 380, 381, 384, 385, 390,
396–418, 426, 444, 448–451, 453–454,
465, 467–469, 475, 477, 479, 484–485,
488, 497–498, 499–500
Biomass energy, 4–5, 184, 301, 397, 468
Biophysical economics, 295
Biorefinery, 234–236, 238, 242, 243–244,
246–252
Boundary, 34, 48–49, 176, 179, 232, 238–240,
306, 311–312, 313
Brazil, 86–87, 101, 160, 161–162, 199–201,
203, 215–221, 222, 223–228, 275, 278,
321–353, 357–367, 376, 407, 475,
493–498
C
Carbon dioxide emissions, 39, 119, 147, 217,
261, 263, 264, 267, 281, 288, 290, 366,
447, 479–480, 488
Cellulosic ethanol, 19, 27, 28–33, 70, 75, 85,
95, 101, 103, 313, 380–382, 395, 400,
402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 409, 410,
426, 448–451
CO
2
balances, 224–225
CO

2
mitigation, 223–224
Coal, 1–4, 12, 19, 24, 27, 29, 32, 35, 37, 43, 93,
110, 111, 119, 128–129, 134–137, 147,
160, 186, 218, 220, 236, 238, 240–241,
259, 260–263, 265, 268, 271–272, 276,
501
502 Index
281, 282, 285–286, 292, 297–299,
301–303, 313, 344, 374, 376, 388, 390,
400–401, 406, 408–410, 415, 418, 476,
494
Co-generation, 236, 241
Combustion, 4, 50, 154, 156, 160, 167, 216,
218, 219, 227, 240–242, 251–252, 262,
266, 279, 281–282, 301–302, 324, 396,
399–400, 402, 403, 409, 411–418, 443,
444, 447, 454, 479–480, 483
Combustion quality, 26, 110, 118, 129, 276,
395–418
Complex Systems, 173–209
Conventional agriculture, 51, 425–426, 427,
435, 441, 444–446, 447, 450–451, 452,
453–454, 455
Conversion Systems, 6–7
Converting biomass, 367, 401
Corn, 5, 9–10, 11, 20, 27, 30, 32, 43, 54,
57–63, 65–71, 73–76, 79, 81–82, 84,
85, 93–94, 98–99, 101, 103, 104, 127,
129, 134–135, 136, 155, 198, 201–206,

218, 231–233, 236, 243–248, 251–252,
254–256, 274–279, 290, 296, 303–304,
305, 306, 309, 313, 314, 315, 357–358,
361–364, 366, 367, 373–390, 398–399,
402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408–410, 416,
418, 435, 440, 442–444, 454, 469–470,
472, 474–475, 479, 482, 483, 485–486,
493–494, 496–497
Crop, 4, 11, 30, 35, 37, 50, 51, 58, 67, 69,
70–71, 75–76, 94, 98, 103, 134, 136,
155, 163, 168, 191, 197, 198, 231,
232–233, 235–238, 241, 243, 244–245,
247, 249, 250, 251, 253–256, 274, 276,
313, 322, 325–330, 331, 334, 335, 336,
345, 347–350, 365, 378, 381, 386–388,
397–402, 410–411, 412, 415, 418, 430,
431, 433, 435, 439–442, 445, 447, 449,
451, 455, 477, 480, 493
E
Ecology, 34, 167, 192, 261, 412, 425, 426, 427,
444, 449, 450
Economic impact, 57, 58, 59–64, 65–66, 73,
115, 121–122, 130, 488
Energy
energy costs, 10, 31, 117, 118, 120, 121,
143, 297, 299, 304, 306–307, 311, 333,
336, 358, 359, 361, 367, 376, 381
energy crop, 76, 155, 197, 207–208,
395–418, 453, 466, 475, 478–479
energy return on investment (EROI), 3,

117–119, 128, 174, 296–297, 300,
302–306, 473–476
energy security, 149, 280, 395–454, 488,
494
energy use, 2, 4, 8, 12, 43, 110, 111, 148,
178, 185, 264, 271, 295–296, 314, 330,
339, 347, 399–405, 426, 434, 436, 437,
439, 442, 446, 466, 467, 475, 477, 479,
482, 485, 496
Environmental
costs, 9, 10, 76, 113, 128, 166, 361, 367,
374
impact, 4, 5, 7, 26, 57–58, 93, 99, 102,
130, 160, 188, 204, 226–227, 233, 269,
302, 321–322, 330–352, 364–365, 367,
378–379, 425, 426, 431, 434, 436–437,
441, 443, 446, 455, 488
EROI (Energy Return On Investment), 3,
117–119, 128, 174, 296–297, 300,
302–306, 473–476
EROLI (Energy Return on Land Invested),
307, 313
EROWI (Energy Return on Water Invested),
307, 313
Ethanol, 57–76, 79–104, 215–228, 321–352,
357–367, 373–390, 493–498
F
Farmer ownership, 65–72
Fischer-Tropsch, 32, 159, 160, 262, 302–303
Flex-fuel vehicles, 322, 324

Fuel, 19–54, 231–256, 259–292, 395–418
Fuel production, 13, 94, 153, 237, 244, 298,
323, 330, 400, 408
G
Geothermal, 2, 3, 260, 271–272, 284
Geothermal Systems, 8–9
GHGs emission, 344, 426, 437, 443–444,
455–456
Global warming, 128, 163, 186, 205, 215,
227, 228, 259–264, 267, 276, 281–283,
285, 288–289, 290, 366, 390, 443, 445,
479–480
Grain supply, 57, 69
Green diesel, 159–161, 164, 166
Greenhouse gas, 28, 79, 80, 82, 99–101, 103,
104, 163, 216, 231, 254–255, 263, 266,
271, 278, 289, 297, 312, 321–322, 330,
351, 352, 396–397, 407–409, 418, 454,
466
Greenhouse gas emissions, 254, 271, 297, 312,
322, 330, 344–347, 351, 352, 454, 466
Index 503
H
Harvesting algae, 499
Hydroelectric power, 2–4, 111
Hydropower, 2, 3, 141, 145, 147, 260, 265, 269
I
Infrastructure, 69, 72, 76, 91, 92, 95, 97,
102–103, 118, 123, 124, 201, 203, 231,
232, 233–234, 236, 242, 246, 248, 250,

252, 255–256, 271, 288, 300–302, 304,
306, 313, 315, 340, 344, 347
Investments, 65, 67, 70, 91, 186, 188, 208, 286,
302, 315, 323, 358, 478
L
Labor conditions, 9, 12, 71, 75–76, 90, 127,
178, 179, 188, 192–206, 235, 241, 247,
255, 281, 296, 298, 300, 301, 306,
358–360, 367, 374–375, 383, 387, 389,
470–472, 481–482, 495
Land requirement, 2, 7, 484–485, 488
Liebigs Law, 312–315
M
Mass balance, 36, 48–52, 469
Methodology, 158, 176, 231–256
Model, 39, 65, 69, 122–127, 130, 175, 398,
442, 444
Modular, 232–240
Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal and
Ecosystem Metabolism (MuSIASEM),
174, 192, 194–195
N
Natural gas, 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 24, 27, 43, 62, 63,
66, 71, 103, 110, 111–115, 117, 119,
127, 129–130, 139, 142, 145, 160, 218,
260, 262–264, 268, 270, 272, 282, 286,
291, 297, 298, 301–302, 313–314, 358,
366–367, 374, 379, 396, 400–401, 406,
407, 409–410, 418, 471, 476, 494
Natural resources, 5, 90, 122, 205, 238, 302,

322, 406
Net energy
balance, 231, 240–242, 248, 396
value, 19, 231–233
Nuclear fission, 259, 260, 265–266, 268
Nuclear fusion, 259, 260, 272–274
O
Oil, 1, 4, 11–12, 13, 19–28, 33, 43, 58, 66, 71,
76, 82–85, 102–104, 109–130, 134,
136–137, 145, 153–168, 174, 175, 177,
183–184, 186–188, 198, 205–207, 215,
217, 218, 225, 236, 260–261, 264–265,
267, 270, 272, 275–276, 278–280, 286,
290, 297–299, 300–306, 313–315,
323–324, 331, 344, 347, 358–359,
363–364, 366–367, 374, 375, 379, 383,
386–390, 397, 400–401, 406, 408, 410,
426, 444, 452–453, 466, 469–474,
476–477, 482–484, 486, 493, 496,
499–500
Organic agriculture, 425–456, 487
P
Pellets, 382, 395–396, 402, 404–406, 408–410,
411, 414–415
Perennial grass energy crops, 403
Petroleum, 2, 11, 20, 22, 25, 27, 32, 33, 37,
57, 61, 63, 64, 71, 79, 82, 84, 86, 94,
95, 96, 103, 104, 110–112, 114, 115,
117–119, 121, 128–129, 153–168, 220,
238, 240, 241, 259–262, 264–265, 267,

274, 279–280, 286–287, 289, 300, 303,
314, 323, 352, 364, 376–377, 379, 386,
400, 401
Photovoltaic Systems, 1, 7–8
Plantation, 28, 40, 51, 163, 218, 222, 227, 322,
327, 332, 334, 335, 336, 344, 348, 381,
468, 478, 486
Policy, 27, 58, 60, 64, 65, 71, 73, 75, 76, 80,
82, 85, 89, 94, 96, 99, 103–104, 110,
163, 175, 177, 239, 303, 304, 310, 315,
363, 410, 418, 436, 465–488
Political and social conditions, 285–289
Population, 36, 112, 123, 141, 146, 178, 186,
191, 193, 194, 197, 272, 278, 291, 302,
315, 454, 474
Population growth, 2, 12–14, 22, 110, 115,
116, 133, 136, 139, 140, 149, 206, 288,
290, 312, 313, 366, 368, 373, 379, 475,
477, 482, 485, 487, 493, 496
Power density, 133–137, 141, 146, 196–197,
201, 313, 379, 493–498
R
Renewable diesel, 153–168
Renewable energy, 12–14, 72, 73, 133–135,
232, 302, 307, 312, 365, 378, 390, 396,
400, 402, 408, 411, 418, 453–454
Renewable Energy Systems, 173–209
Rural development, 60, 76, 82, 452, 466,
486–487
504 Index

S
Scale economies, 71–72
Scenario, 22, 100, 104, 124, 201, 215, 218,
220–225, 232, 237–238, 242, 244–255,
447, 473, 480–482, 485
Soil ecology, 426, 444, 449–450
Solar, 1–14, 19, 33, 109, 111, 127–129,
178–179, 206, 240, 241, 260, 284, 289,
290, 298, 300–302, 313, 357–358, 373,
379, 390, 396, 398, 399, 437, 452, 474,
476, 496–497
Solar power, 3, 109, 259, 269–270, 271,
291–292, 496
Soybean, 11–12, 35, 58, 70–71, 93–94, 154,
158–159, 161–166, 231, 236, 244–245,
249–254, 256, 279–280, 306, 308, 327,
349–350, 357, 373–390, 395, 399,
402–406, 408–410, 435, 442–443, 446,
475
Storage, 2, 8, 57, 58, 69–72, 84, 103, 128, 133,
140, 141–146, 149, 234, 235, 236, 238,
247, 249, 250, 255, 263, 270–271, 338,
403, 404, 412, 446, 447
Subsidies, 13, 31, 64, 68, 71, 73, 76, 79–104,
129, 208–209, 232, 236, 280, 323, 363,
367, 377, 396, 402, 409, 454, 467, 485,
487
Sugarcane, 54, 134, 136–137, 199–201, 454,
475
Sugarcane ethanol, 215–228, 321–352,

357–368, 476, 486, 493–498
Support, 5, 53, 58, 59, 63, 64, 79, 80,
82–87, 90, 93, 94–104, 130, 145, 168,
208–209, 260, 287, 289, 291, 303, 323,
439, 468, 473, 474, 476, 483, 487
Sustainability, 11, 36, 58, 72–76, 163,
175–176, 189, 207, 259, 291, 365,
431–432, 435–438, 441–442, 450, 455,
456, 469
Switchgrass, 11, 236, 250, 252–253, 279,
373–390, 395–396, 398–399, 402–406,
408–410, 412, 413–417
T
Template, 146, 231–238, 242, 244, 249,
252–256
Thermal energy, 3, 4, 6, 300, 308, 375, 387,
389, 395–396, 401, 407, 411, 418
Thermodynamics, 48, 50, 52, 179, 180, 296,
382, 401
Tropics, 27, 28, 52, 227, 397, 407, 500
U
Uncontrollables, 133, 140, 141, 146, 149
United States, 1–5, 8–9, 12–14, 79–104,
110–112, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124,
128–129, 161–162, 163, 168, 259–267,
269, 272, 273, 275–280, 283, 285–291,
313, 357, 358, 363, 374–375, 377, 387,
400, 401, 408–409, 414, 415, 496
U.S. Economy, 60, 122–124, 130, 271
W

Wind, 65, 73, 111, 128, 130, 177, 298, 301,
302, 304, 306, 310, 313, 365, 410, 452,
474, 476, 479, 480
Wind power, 5–6, 133–149, 240
Wind, rivers, and tides, 267–269
Y
Yield, 4, 5, 9, 11, 29, 30–31, 37, 42, 52, 65,
68, 74, 84, 93, 115, 134, 136, 155,
161–165, 168, 184, 223, 225, 232,
236–238, 243–245, 247, 255–256, 275,
277, 290, 297, 304, 306–308, 312–313,
321, 325–326, 328–330, 332–333,
340–341, 343, 349, 351, 358–360, 362,
374–376, 379, 381–384, 386–389, 397,
399, 402–408, 413, 435–442, 446,
465–468, 472, 475, 477–478, 482, 484,
485, 488, 494, 497, 499–500