Tobacco for Food and BioFuel
In An Inconvenient Truth
But what if tobacco plants had positive alternative uses?
Using research from university studies, Bill Drake makes the case for growing zero-nicotine tobacco for biomass rather than smoking.
Tobacco-based ethanol can be produced for far less cost per gallon, with far more economically valuable sidestreams, than corn-based ethanol. . .tobacco is a heavily coppicing plant, enabling it to produce very high biomass tonnage. . .tobacco thrives on poor soils in a wide range of environments. . .not only would tobacco fuel not take away from food crop production, as corn-based ethanol does, it would actually add immense tonnage of food-grade protein that can be extracted from the sludge remaining after ethanol is produced.
A recent Reuters story makes similar claims from different sources.
[Safety reminder for biofuel homebrewers:
BBC reports Man hurt in fuel-making explosion]
July 29th, 2008 at 4:44 am
Tobacco might very well be a better alternative to corn based ethanol, but the real problem is our usage. We use too much of everything. Bamboo flooring was the answer to sustainable flooring until the demand for it rose to the point that farmers were clearing forest in order to plant enough bamboo to meet the demand. We have to use less no matter what the resource is.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:03 am
My impulse is to have everyone on their own acre growing their own food, fuel, pharmaceuticals, building materials, and clothing. This would obviate most travel as homesteaders could subsist like the Dervaes family rather than commuting and consuming products shipped from distant locations.
For those who insist on living in cities, plug-in hybrids (using 70 cent/gallon equivalent recharge from clean power) covering most daily 50-mile travel and biodiesel for the rare longer distance trip would be the biggest step to solving the energy crisis. I’m not a fan of mass transit unless you like crime, delays and tuberculosis outbreaks.
William McDonough, the Cradle To Cradle co-author, claims that renewables restricted to biology (bamboo, tobacco, cork, cotton, etc.) would only support a population of 500 million on Earth. Non-biological chemical renewables, selected based on health, safety and environmental criteria, will support everyone sustainably.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Dear PermaKent,
For the record . . .
If tobacco is good enough to burn for fuel, It’s still good enough to smoke — sure, I’ll grow my own!!!
Yours truly,
grahams
December 11th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
[…] There are advocates of hemp for biofuel, just as there are for tobacco. […]