Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> Rather than do this, I think that a government of either the US,
> or Western Europe, or Japan, or China should spend 2% or more of
> its gross domestic product each year on researching and
> developing alternative sources of energy ...
And Alberto Monteiro said,
The USA _is_ doing that: currently the greatest world producers in
ethanol to replace gasoline are Brazil and the USA. We started the
program in 1974 (or so - but back in the 30s we already had
alcohol cars), but the USA started it quite recently.
No, the US government is not spending US$200 billion per year on
biomass work, such as genetic research and development. At least not
to my knowledge.
In any event, with current plants, if people starve, the US can
provide 5 - 10 % of its energy from biomass. That is all.
(I hope some genetic engineers create a plant or bacterium whose
growth is properly controllable, that converts ten times as high a
percentage of the sun's energy as any now do. But meanwhile ... )
According to
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
a "target" bioenergy crop yield might be: 5.0 US tons/acre
(10,000 lb/acre) = 11.2 tonnes/hectare (1120 g/m2)
Energy content of agricultural residues (range due to moisture
content) = 10-17 GJ/t (4,300-7,300 Btu/lb)
or 110 - 200 GJ/hectare or 11 - 20 Megajoules/sq meter
According to
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html
US land area is only about 2.3 billion acres of which 1/5 is
arable, or about 440 million acres (~178 million hectares)
(A hectare is ~2.47 acres; conversely, an acre is ~0.4 of a hectare.)
So, to repeat myself, if people starve, the US can provide 5 - 10 per
cent of its energy from biomass.
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
