Effects of input management and crop diversity on non-renewable energy use efficiency of cropping systems in the Canadian Prairie

2011 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.P. Zentner ◽  
P. Basnyat ◽  
S.A. Brandt ◽  
A.G. Thomas ◽  
D. Ulrich ◽  
...  

Energy ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 4468-4481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Alluvione ◽  
Barbara Moretti ◽  
Dario Sacco ◽  
Carlo Grignani


Agronomy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1835
Author(s):  
Robert Oliver Simon ◽  
Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen

The main objective of the cultivation of energy crops is the production of renewable energy, the substitution of fossil energy resources, and a substantial contribution to energy supply. Thus, energy yield and energy efficiency are the most important criteria for the assessment of energy crops and biomass-based renewable energy chains. Maize is the energy crop with the highest cultivation acreage in Germany because of its high energy yields, but is the subject of controversial debate because of possible detrimental effects on agro-ecosystems. This raises the question as to which energy crops and production systems could be used instead of maize, in order to increase crop diversity and lower environmental impacts. We examined yields, energy inputs, energy outputs, and energy efficiency of alternative energy crops (combinations of catch crops and main crops) compared to maize in four-year field experiments at three southern German sites by means of process analyses. Maize showed moderate energy inputs (11.3–13.2 GJ ha−1), with catch crops ranging from 6.2 to 10.7 GJ ha−1 and main crops ranging from 7.6 to 24.8 GJ ha−1. At all three sites, maize had the highest net energy output compared to the other crops (x¯ = 354–493 GJ ha−1), but was surpassed by combinations of catch and main crops at some sites (winter rye/maize: x¯ = 389–538 GJ ha−1). Although some combinations yielded higher net energy outputs than maize, no other crop or combination of crops outperformed maize regarding energy use efficiency (energy output/energy input: x¯ = 32–45).



2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-264
Author(s):  
Omar González-Cueto ◽  
Fidel Diego-Nava ◽  
Elvis López-Bravo ◽  
Ruslán Ferreira-Camacho ◽  
Diana Estefania Zambrano-Casanova ◽  
...  

HighlightsOrganic cropping systems were less efficient in energy use.Sugarcane for seed was the highest energy input due to the consumption of 12 t ha-1 of seed.The second largest part of the energy input was the fuel consumed during mechanized operations.Abstract.Analysis of energy use efficiency provides an assessment of non-renewable energy consumption; it is a useful indicator of environmental and long-term sustainability when comparing cropping systems. This study aimed to estimate the energy use efficiency of organic and conventional cropping systems of sugarcane for sugar production in central Cuba. Estimation of the energy use efficiency included analysis of four cropping systems. The energy input in the field until harvest and transport to the sugar mill was the limit of this analysis. The results showed that organic cropping systems were less efficient in energy use because of the greater number of field operations, mainly for weed control by manual and mechanical cultivation. Organic cropping systems also had lower yield compared with conventional systems due to their use of low doses of organic products, instead of agrochemical fertilizers, for plant nutrition. In all cropping systems evaluated, sugarcane used for seed was the largest part of the energy input due to the consumption of 12 t ha-1 of seed, representing an average of 89% of the total energy input for the sugarcane cropping systems. The second largest part of the energy input was the fuel consumed during mechanized operations. Irrigation was the third largest part of the energy input for organic cropping systems and the second largest part of the energy input for conventional cropping systems. Keywords: Agricultural systems, Energy balance, Energy input, Energy output.



Author(s):  
H. H. Sahin ◽  
B. Yelmen ◽  
C. Kurt

Utilization of alternative sources named as new and renewable energy sources; Due to technological development and difficulties in competing economically with traditional resources, it has not reached the desired level until today. Due to the rapid increase in energy consumption today; It is a fact proved by scientific findings that fossil fuels will be consumed in the near future. Therefore, in the development of countries; Providing timely, reliable, clean and uninterrupted energy, creating a market environment, in other words, successful implementation of energy management have become imperative. Energy has become one of the most important problems of the world countries today. As is known, the lifetimes of energy sources such as coal and oil are limited. In addition, due to the use of fossil fuels; It is a fact that global warming is increasing day by day. In the light of the data obtained, for our energy needs; alternative solutions should be found, renewable energy sources should be evaluated. The importance of renewable energy sources has increased as the problems related to environmental pollution increase, and projects related to them have started to get support. These energy sources can basically be classified as hydroelectric energy, wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, modern biomass energy and hydrogen energy. Economic and efficient operation of new and renewable energy sources should be transformed into a common understanding in order to provide clean energy. In this study, energy production methods from green energy sources, environmental relations and new technologies used with these energy sources are explained. It has been compared among energy sources; In Turkey, energy management issues are discussed, new and renewable clean energy use efficiency and energy saving and new strategies are determined. In addition, recommendations were made on energy use efficiency and energy saving measures in various sectors.



Pedosphere ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 952-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiter M. PARIHAR ◽  
Malu R. YADAV ◽  
Shankar L. JAT ◽  
Aditya K. SINGH ◽  
Bhupender KUMAR ◽  
...  


2004 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.P Zentner ◽  
G.P Lafond ◽  
D.A Derksen ◽  
C.N Nagy ◽  
D.D Wall ◽  
...  


2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabuj Kumar Mandal ◽  
S. Madheswaran




Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document