Get a sweet solution for your energy problems

Does that title surprise you?

Energy research scientists have found out that sugar cane biomass, the waste product from sugar cane production, is a good renewable resource for producing electricity. This renewable energy news was published in Progress in Industrial Ecology, an international research journal. According to Vikram Seebaluck from University of Mauritius & Dipeeka Seeruttun from Royal Institute of Technology an optimal mix of ‘sugarcane agricultural residues and sugarcane bagasse’ (it’s the fibrous residue left after sugar production) can be used to make electric energy. The report says that the cost would be only 0.06USD/kilowatt hour. This is a very reasonable amount when compared to the other renewable energy resources.

Sugar, the perennial grass from genus Saccharum is usually found in wet and dry tropical regions and moderately sub tropical areas. 30 tonnes per hectare of sugar cane fibre and juice are usually taken to factories as a part of sugar production. This leaves a waste biomass of 24 tonnes /hectare. At present sugarcane bagasse is burnt for onsite heat and production of electric energy at sugar factories. The excess electricity is getting transferred to the grid. But about 24 tonnes/hectare of sugarcane waste remains unused.

This waste contains energy content similar to sugarcane bagasse. According to the researchers this can be used along with sugarcane bagasse effectively to produce electricity at a cheaper rate. A 30:70 combination of sugarcane waste and bagasse considerably reduces the chance of fouling of the furnaces which are used to burn the material. On considering the technical and economic side, sugarcane waste and bagasse are the most feasible options for creating electricity. This would also create rural jobs, decrease the cost of energy imports and reduce the emission of green house gases. It is estimated that the use of sugarcane waste in electricity generation can displace about 230 kg of coal for an equivalent quantity of energy produced and 560 kg of carbon dioxide /tonne.

Don't they burn the waste to power the refining of the sugar? It takes a lot of heat to extract the sugar from the cane juice, and power to operate the machinery. I'd be surprised if the sugar factories could produce extra power, after satisfying their own requirements.
Then again, you can do the same with corn stalks, although I'd rather they used sugar than corn sweeteners.

Couldn't we just burn spam to create energy?

besides, all of these "let's grow fuel and burn it" plans leave out of the equation the cost to the soil. What would ordinarily be going back into the soil is being burned. There is no perpetual motion machine folks! Gonna have to come up with ways of reducing consumption, not finding a new resource old lady to swindle.

squirell nutkin;650273 wrote:

Couldn't we just burn spam to create energy?

Well certainly, but that is a net loss too.

Spam is primarily meat, and producing 1 pound of meat requires the energy from 16 pounds of grain. So you would be better off just burning the grain in the first place.

Yebbut, barbequed spam would surely be more appetising than barbequed cornflakes?

just burn the cow patties. They're mostly grain anyway.

glatt;650275 wrote:

Well certainly, but that is a net loss too.

Spam is primarily meat, and producing 1 pound of meat requires the energy from 16 pounds of grain. So you would be better off just burning the grain in the first place.

What about the other spam. I'll donate what's in my in-box.

classicman;650287 wrote:

just burn the cow patties. They're mostly grain anyway.

Then what's going to fertilize the soil?

squirell nutkin;650274 wrote:

besides, all of these "let's grow fuel and burn it" plans leave out of the equation the cost to the soil. What would ordinarily be going back into the soil is being burned...

Well, we eat or wear the other stuff we grow. Is there that great a difference?

Don't go in the sugar cane! There's triffids in there! Just waiting for you! They spit poison and KILL!

Spexxvet;650288 wrote:

Then what's going to fertilize the soil?

Duh - the dead Hobo's.

classicman;650296 wrote:

Duh - the dead Hobo's.

So that's what leaves cow patties. :idea:

Spexxvet wrote:

Well, we eat or wear the other stuff we grow. Is there that great a difference?

Absolutely, it's the difference between a chemical change and a physical one. Eventually, your poop does make its way back to the ground. And that cotton shirt eventually goes in a landfill and degrades back into the ecosystem. But burned stuff is different; you can't unburn it, at least not without putting back in a whole lot of energy. At least as much energy as you released when you burned it in the first place...

Gotcha.

Also the crop residue, the stuff you don't eat or weave into cloth, can be composted and put back into the soil replacing minerals, organic matter, hobos, etc.

A plant is mostly made out of what comes from the air, not what comes from the ground, so if you burn the plant residue it will go into the air and eventually will be used to make new plants.

And making the plant does take a lot of energy, which comes from the sun.

Umm, I need to check your work there HLJ.

But the moon is just the sun at night!

sugarcane itself degrades the soil more than just about any other crop you'll find. Farmers grow soybeans as a fallow crop once a year just to plow into the soil so it has at least some nutrient (nitrogen in particular). The whole suggestion of growing enough cane to create energy makes no sense. Sure, use what's left over from normal production, but don't destroy more land than is necessary.

But we need more sugar. Mmmm sugar. :yum:

glatt;650275 wrote:

1 pound of meat requires the energy from 16 pounds of grain.

I got your point but this is hyperbole :eyebrow:

efficient meat animals only require 7.5 lbs of grain for a 1lb gain. :p:

But I'd rather eat the meat than the grain. :dead3:

And without the meat, where are the organic people going to get the poop to put on their vegetables?

xoxoxoBruce;650741 wrote:

But I'd rather eat the meat than the grain. :dead3:

How about the meat eats grass and no one eats the grain?

I'd rather eat meat than grass.

Burn the grass and eat the meat?

Let the cows eat the grass and they won't give a rat's ass if I eat them.