Biomass Electricity More Efficient Than Biofuels, Study Finds.

California's Mercury News (5/8, Torrice) reports, "Ethanol from plants can fill up drivers' gas tanks, but people could drive 80 percent farther if we converted those crops into electricity, according to a new study by Stanford and University of California researchers." In terms of converting plants into energy, the scientists considered conversion "into ethanol through fermentation" and converting the plants into electricity by burning biomass to power electrical generators. The researchers "compared the energy costs and output of the electricity and ethanol produced from the same patch of land," and concluded "that an acre of switch grass could power a small SUV for 15,000 miles if converted into electricity, but 8,000 miles if turned into ethanol." Biofuel advocates counter that "battery technology is still developing," while ethanol uses technology that "is currently cheaper and more accessible." The researchers conceded "that their calculations do not account for every factor in comparing the two energies."

The Financial Times (5/8, Cookson) adds that "bioelectricity was a clear winner over bioethanol, whether the energy came from corn or switchgrass (a new cellulose-based crop). A car powered by bioelectricity could travel almost 14,000 miles on the net energy from an acre of switchgrass, while a car powered by bioethanol from the same crop would go only 9,000 miles." Bloomberg News (5/8, van Loon) reports that the researchers studied "land-use efficiency, or how much transportation can be achieved per acre of cropland that's being used to produce plants for energy."

The study also found "the electricity option would be twice as effective at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions," Technology Review (5/8, Hamilton) reports. In addition, "there's also the potential, according to the study, of capturing and storing the carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that use switchgrass, wood chips, and other biomass materials as fuel -- an option that doesn't exist for burning ethanol." The findings are said to "imply that investment in an ethanol infrastructure, even if based on more efficient cellulosic processes, may prove misguided."