Germany has painted itself into a corner. It is increasing its coalfired electric generation and releasing many more tons of CO2. It is simple to calculate that there is not enough grain or biomass production in Germany to meet a substantial part of its automotive energy demands. The lignite that the article mentions forms the basis of much of german energy. Braunkohlenbriketten were once stacked all over Berlin rail yards.

Plug-In-Hybrid cars are presently the most economical answer to the automotive fuel issues. Electricity can be shipped from anywhere in Europe as an undersea cable now brings energy from Norway to Holland most of the time. This cable can be used to send Dutch energy to Norway or even nuclear energy from France to Norway through Holland. Similar cables connect Germany to the north. France should be encouraged to supply nuclear electricity to Germany to run its Plug-In-Hybrid cars.

Both the production of ethanol and the production of gas from organic materials release much CO2 that would not be released if the grains and cellulose were turned to carbon and placed in the soil. Coal, turf(peat) and ordinary forest soil are all the result of the natural accumulation of organic materials over the years. In the cases of coal and turf not much CO2 is released over the years so there is a natural accumulation.

6HCOH gives 2H3CCH2OH and 2CO2
SUGAR gives 2 Ethanol and 2 Carbondioxide

6HCOH gives 3H4C and 3CO2
SUGAR gives 3 methane and 3 carbondioxide

There is obviously a saving of six carbon dioxide units per sugar unit if plant residues are left in peat bogs to be preserved for thousands or millions of years. Artificial and recreated peat bogs need to be constructed wherever possible to capture CO2; clean agricultural residues can also be placed in regulated quantities into such bogs.

There is No other answer to the cost effective reduction of green house gases than nuclear reactors. People must be reminded that the Sun is a nuclear reactor and also bombards the earth with much radioactivity and kills many people every year. Nuclear power reactors, including Chernobyl, have resulted in the demise of at most five or ten people a year. Highways and other streets combined with automobile are much better at this elimination than reactors as are airplanes. People also must be informed that they and all their ancestors and every plant and animal have about 50 built in nuclear explosions in every kilogram, two pounds, of their body every second. And if all of a persons electricity use over a lifetime were generated with nuclear reactors, that persons share of spent fuel rods would weigh one kilogram. All of the spent fuel rods of the whole world could be enclosed in one US super store with room to spare.

Nuclear electricity can displace carbon producing sources as well as become the energy source for new industries. In a short time nuclear energy from reactors will produce both food and fuels and now can displace both foods and fuels when used to heat houses so that people do not have to eat as much to keep warm.

Heat pumps can double or triple the heating effect of electricity. Gas engine powered heat pumps can double the energy that can be gotten from the natural gas. Energy efficiency legislation can reduce CO2 more than any use of grain by requiring in all cases cogeneration for the heating of buildings with natural gas. Most electric heating must also be replaced with heatpumps. This reduction of CO2 can be done far more cost effectively than with wind turbines or solar cells.

No new power plant should be built in Germany without district heating if Germany is serious about reducing green house gases. This also applies to nuclear power plants.

Nuclear reactors should be built 50 meters deep under every city for the production of steam heat alone. This would be very similar to geothemal heat, and the much lower pressure of operation would result in much lower costs. No cooling towers or water is needed as only heat is produced. The deep burial makes any failure of the reactor easy to contain, and even a Chernobyl type reactor failure, now impossible because of lower steam pressure, would cause no noticable surface effects and require no evacuation. Few or no human operators are needed for such a system.

Very long lived ductile iron pipe insulated with foam glass can make a system that would last for hundreds of years at reasonable costs and produce almost no green house gases.

The fields and forests and oceans of the world have been inadequate for two hundred years to supply the population of the world with industrial energy. The increase of the population of the earth has been solely possible through the use of fossil energy for more food production and transportation. ..HG..

If wheat ethanol is so much better than corn ethanol(CO2-wise) why are Canadian ethanol producers importing corn from the US?

Al vin:

Canada does produce small amount of ethanol from wheat, but only from sub-quality stock: damaged, soiled, spoiled grain and alike. Production of ethanol from good wheat is 2-3 times more expensive than from genetically modified high-yield feed corn.

How wheat ethanol is 4 times less CO2 extensive than corn ethanol is a secret of Enron-style CO2 emissions accounting, flourishing in Europe. Like the paradox of decreasing GHG emissions from EU, while consumption of oil, NG, and even coal in EU is increasing steadily.

Agree Harvey. Which is why the push for cellulosic technology like Range Fuels and Coskata is so important. Even so, there needs to be some acceptance of the transitional period between sustainable liquid fuel types for the next two decades. By then, with concerted effort (like government purchasing PHEV fleets)we should see a 50-60% reduction in consumption of transportation fossil fuels.

Kit P:

I do not making up stuff. See, for example, here:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/mit_ethanol_lif.html

“…while mean values for Iowa Corn (Kernel) Ethanol production show moderate energy benefits, there is little to no GHG benefit when compared to gasoline consumption”

Compare with claim in the discussed article:

“Bioethanol produced from grain (rye or wheat) by German biofuels producer VERBIO Vereinigte BioEnergie AG can emit up to 80% less CO2 than gasoline on a lifecycle basis”

Andrey did you actually read the LCA? Simple question!

How the Germany company achieved their results are transparent. Read the LCA and learn.

Andrey if you want to question the ethics of folks by cherry picking a high number from one study and a low number form another study, then you are the one being unethical.

If you are interested in reducing the ghg from making ethanol reading the LCA would be worth your time.