Also in sugar's case you process the WHOLE stalk, not the seeds, and the crushed stalk than can be burned to generate electricity.

So, onedip, what do you use to fertilize the soil if no part of the cane goes back into the soil?

Ammonia from natural gas, of course! We use fossil fuels to make biofuels!

No, wait, I mean... er... Well who cares anyway, Europe will get to say it's low carbon! Just like Italy boasts of being non-nuclear... while importing electricity from nuclear France. Ahem.

Oh please. Sugarcane is not corn and need far less fertilizer. You might know that sugarcane extracts nitrogen form the air. The nutrients from bagasse ashes are recycled too.

Se this PDF to educate yourself:
http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf

I guess these CSIRO guys don't know what they're doing, then.

Nitrogen fertilisers are used by the sugarcane industry to promote plant growth and high sugar yields. Whilst much of the nitrogen applied to fields is taken up by the sugarcane crop, a percentage leaches through the soil into groundwater tables or nearby waterways.

[...]

To support long-term sustainability, the sugar industry is seeking new ways to maintain productivity while minimising the environmental impacts of nitrogen fertiliser use.

Stupid scientists. There they are thinking that sugarcane requires nitrogen fertiliser, when according to Pholostan it actually adds nitrogen to the ground. They should listen to the random internet guy!

No commonly-used crop adds nitrogen to the soil. Legumes and some leafy vegetables have a fungus/bacteria on their roots which adds nitrogen; this is the reason for alternating wheat with beans in cropping, or introducing alfalfa and other manure crops.

Turning sugar cane into ethanol leaves behind a slurry which is typically disposed of in landfills. Bagasse ashes contain very little nitrogen, however are useful as potash (potassium, with nitrogen and phosophorous one of the three main artificial fertilisers in use around the world).

It's pretty simple, really. If you take something out of the soil, you need to put something back in, or there's less next year. Nowadays we decide to maximise production, taking a lot out, and putting it back in in the form of ammonia and the like. If those artificial inputs are absent, we'll have to put more back in by putting stalks back in the soil, manure crops and the like.

Using the entire crops for biofuels will mean we're taking more out than we put in. So either we use artificial fertilisers to make up for that, or we degrade the land and have to get new agricultural land by deforestation.

Hmm. Or learn how to make biofuels out of beans...

Stupid scientists. There they are thinking that sugarcane requires nitrogen fertiliser, when according to Pholostan it actually adds nitrogen to the ground. They should listen to the random internet guy!

Where do I claim that? Please do tell. What I said was thet sugarcane need far less fertilizer compared to corn.

Corn needs about 160 lb/acre, sugarcane needs about 90 lb/acre. And in the case of sugarcane about 70% of this need can be fullfilled with biological nitrogen fixiation. If you actually read the pdf you would know this.

Sugar cane fixes Nitrogen

• Different from corn, sugar cane may obtain up to 70% of its need of Nitrogen directly
from BNF BNF (Biological Nitrogen Fixation). This is accomplished by four types of
diazotrophic bacteria, living inside stalks (endophytic) and not at the roots (symbiotic):

• Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus, by far the most important
• Herbaspirillum seropedicae
• Herbaspirillum rubrisubalbicans
• Burkholderia brasiliensis

• They require good management of micronutrients, specially Molybdenum

•In organic cane cultivation, intense recycling of materials and the absolute absence
of burning process, permit self-sufficiency in Nitrogen, the most expensive fertilizer
for chemical corn cultivation, highly dependent on natural gas for urea synthesis

...intense recycling of materials and the absolute absence
of burning process, permits self-sufficiency in Nitrogen...

So, philistine pholostan, if you use the whole plant, you are not recycling any part of it, and especially not "intensely recycling" it. Ergo, self-sufficiency in nutrients is not possible. I'm glad we agree. So in the end we need fossil fuel inputs, or other inputs, as that pdf document shows (nitrogen is only one input).

It's only about 30 pounds per acre. You can easily source enough hydrogen gas from pyrolysis or gasification of a tiny fraction of the bagasse harvested from a field to produce this ammonia if you feel compelled to do so.

I thought that was obvious...

www.biofuelsnow.com

•Sugar cane fixes Nitrogen
•Different from corn, sugar cane may obtain up to 70% of its need of Nitrogen directly from BNF (Biological Nitrogen Fixation). This is accomplished by four types of diazotrophic bacteria, living inside stalks (endophytic) and notat the roots (symbiotic):
•Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus, by far the most important
•Herbaspirillum seropedicae
•Herbaspirillum rubrisubalbicans
•Burkholderia brasiliensis
•They require good management of micronutrients, specially Molybdenum
•In organiccane cultivation, intense recycling of materials and the absolute absence of burning process, permit self-sufficiencyin Nitrogen, the most expensive fertilizer for chemical corn cultivation, highly dependent on natural gas for urea synthesis.

Brazil•Vinasse–12.5 liters per each ethanol liter distilled•This very important residue recycles water and nutrients to soiland so it pays very well for the extra energy invested in pumping itRecently cut sugar cane sprouts vigorously from under the layer of straw left over the soil surface by the mechanical harvester. This is another great characteristic of sugar cane, once weeds can’t thrive under the straw layer. For organiccultivationparticularly, these layer acts better than the best of all herbicidesused in common chemical cultivation

Ok, so with a fully organic approach, in areas of sufficient rainfall and heat, you can get some ethanol, after making place for this crop by clearing away other crops and wildlife reserves, forests etc (because that is what will happen in places like Africa, believe me, and I know because I am an exiled white African). Whoop de do. It leaves me cold. In Africa this crop will be used by the rulers or sold to the Bazungu (white men), and the peasantry will starve. So what's the point of your argument anyway? Is this the answer to peak oil? You make me laugh. Hah ha ha ha.