Energy crops and renewable energy: overall and process efficiency

Introduction and Objectives The crop scientist focuses his research on high quantity and quality of yield based on a sustainable tilth. The engineer is interested in maximisation of the process efficiency. He interprets the crop scientist’s ap-proach as maximisation of photosynthesis efficiency. Objective of this paper is to support the assessment of energy crop production applying engineering sciences methods in energy accounting. Methods and results The sustainability of energy crop production is assessed by calculating the overall efficiency using rape as example. The results show that the high process energy efficiency of the rapeseed cultivation fosters com-mon acceptance of rape as energy crop. Even under Finnish climate conditions, exergy of rape crop ex-ceeds up to 11-times the energy input for production and exergy of seed up to 3.7 times. Conversion of rapeseed into fuel decreases the energy surplus. Rape methyl ester (RME) delivers still 1.2-fold the energy input for cultivation and conversion. The whole rape crop (root, straw, seed) contains 3 to 6 ‰ of the overall energy input, RME 1 to 2 ‰ only. Animal production converts rape meal feed into manure, which is suitable for anaerobic digestion together with glycerine. The biogas augments the overall efficiency additionally 0.2 to 0.5 ‰. Rape cultivation requires a 4 to 7-year crop rotation. This and the low overall efficiency make it difficult in Finland to achieve energy self-sufficiency replacing diesel fuel by RME. The technical efficiency of the photosynthesis limits the maximum energy yield and reaches up to 0.8 % in Finland. By comparison, the efficiency of a photovoltaic collector is 165 to 248-fold better than the con-version efficiency of biomass or biogas produced from rapeseed and rape straw into electric power. The efficiency of the thermal collector exceeds heat production from burning the rape crop 157 to 443-fold. However, storage and continuous production of power and heat from sun energy is very limited. For that reason, the storage of sun energy in liquid carbon hydrates is subject of present research. Conclusion Energy crop production is captivating with many win-win situations: environmentally neutral bio-fuels replace polluting fossil fuels, farmers get better prices for energy crops, the agrochemical industry gains from intensification of energy crop production, and turn over of power industry grows due to increasing energy consumption to produce agrochemicals and to process biomass into fuel. As a following, the state tax income improves too. However, better prices for mainstream energy crops may trigger export of envi-ronmental pollution at the expense of food production because higher overall efficiency in tropical coun-tries favours the import of organic raw material for bio fuel production. Yet, high process efficiencies of technical processes to convert biomass into fuel justify the production of renewable energy from organic waste and residues. Thus, agriculture should not focus on energy crop production but produce high quality food environment-friendly. The overall efficiency of energy production from energy crops will never be competitive with solar techniques. Solar collectors replace fossil fuels for heat production outside agricul-ture already now sustainable and more efficient. Research on solar-technical processes to produce liquid carbon hydrates from methane, carbon dioxide, and water powered by solar energy without diversion into photosynthesis offers much a greater potential than research on energy crop production. As a measure for sustainability of renewable energy production, the energy surplus from sun energy conversion per capita and square meter is proposed.

Influence of protein fermentation on gas production profiles

Since automated gas production equipment became available (Cone et al., 1996), there is an increasing interest in this technique. The gas production technique is not only widely used in reasearch programms, but is also used as a routine feed evaluation technique and will soon be used in feed evaluation systems, as the gas production technique potentially can replace the nylon bag technique. Although many investigators use the technique, the interpretation of the gas production profiles is still difficult (Cone et al., 1997). The gas production caused by the fermentation of carbon hydrates is well understood and described (Beuvink and Spoelstra, 1992). Since, the gas production caused by fermentation of protein is not the same as that of carbon hydrates, comparing the gas production data of feedstuffs, differing largely in protein content, may lead to misinterpretation of the results. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of protein fermentation of gas production profiles.

Influence of protein fermentation on gas production profiles

Since automated gas production equipment became available (Cone et al., 1996), there is an increasing interest in this technique. The gas production technique is not only widely used in reasearch programms, but is also used as a routine feed evaluation technique and will soon be used in feed evaluation systems, as the gas production technique potentially can replace the nylon bag technique. Although many investigators use the technique, the interpretation of the gas production profiles is still difficult (Cone et al., 1997). The gas production caused by the fermentation of carbon hydrates is well understood and described (Beuvink and Spoelstra, 1992). Since, the gas production caused by fermentation of protein is not the same as that of carbon hydrates, comparing the gas production data of feedstuffs, differing largely in protein content, may lead to misinterpretation of the results. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of protein fermentation of gas production profiles.