Corn-Based Ethanol: Is This a Solution?
Posted by Gail the Actuary on June 7, 2007 - 10:51am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: ethanol [list all tags]
Many people have high hopes for ethanol made from corn--that it will prevent future gasoline shortages, prevent global warming, be a wonderful investment, and improve the income of farmers, among other things. Other observers raise a whole host of concerns including scalability, impact on the environment, and impact on food prices. Why is there such a huge disparity in views? What is the real promise for corn ethanol? Many questions and answers under the fold.
1. Why don't we see more stations selling E85 (85% ethanol/15% gasoline mixture)?
In 2006, about 20% of the US corn crop was used to produce ethanol. Even with this huge share of the corn crop, US corn-based ethanol amounted to only about 3.5% of the US gasoline supply by volume, and 2.4% of the supply by energy contribution.
Even if all the corn-based ethanol that was produced were used as E85, there would not be many gasoline stations selling E85. In fact, only a very small portion of the corn ethanol that is produced is used to make E85 -- the remainder is used as a fuel additive, in concentrations up to 10% of the gasoline.
2. Why is so much ethanol used as a gasoline additive?
There are two reasons:
a. E85 isn't very popular. The fuel is quite corrosive, and only a small percentage of cars that have been specially manufactured (or adapted) can use it. E85 is also quite expensive for the energy it provides. It is often priced similarly to gasoline, but gets about 25% worse mileage.
b. MTBE is being phased out, and ethanol can be used as a substitute. Until recently, methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) was used as a gasoline additive, to raise octane of gasoline and to make fuel burn more cleanly. MTBE does not biodegrade and often gets into the ground water, where it gives a bad taste and smell. Furthermore, laboratory tests suggest it may cause cancer. MTBE was banned in some states, and is being phased out in other states because of liability concerns.
Ethanol can be used as a substitute for MTBE. The amount of ethanol needed as an MTBE substitute is huge -- roughly equal to the 5 billion gallons of corn based ethanol produced in 2006. With so much ethanol used as a substitute for MTBE, there is very little left over for E85. One advantage of using ethanol as an additive is that in concentrations up to 10%, it can be used in any car without modification.
3. How does ethanol compare to MTBE as a gasoline additive?
Ethanol is clearly better than MTBE in one regard -- Ethanol biodegrades well, so there is no issue with it contaminating the ground water.
In other regards, ethanol's score is mixed. Ethanol makes gasoline somewhat cleaner burning, so it helps oil companies meet emission standards.
There are several areas in which ethanol is not as good as MTBE:
a. Ethanol, when blended with gasoline, tends to evaporate in summer, causing smog. This tendency can be partly overcome by modifying the gasoline base to which it is added.
b. Ethanol needs to be shipped separately from gasoline. Because of its corrosive nature and tendency to combine with water, ethanol needs a separate truck/barge/train shipping system (or a dedicated pipeline, but this would be very expensive). MTBE can simply be added to gasoline at the refinery, and shipped by pipeline.
c. MTBE acted as a US-produced non-petroleum gasoline extender. While it may seem strange, ethanol is not as good as MTBE in this role. MTBE (made from natural gas) was relatively plentiful, and could be added in quantities up to 15% to gasoline as required. Ethanol is less available, and can only be mixed to a concentration of 10% of gasoline. Adjustments must also be made to the gasoline base, in order to minimize ethanol smog problems.
4. What kind of impacts did the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expect when oil companies phased out MTBE and increased the use of ethanol as an additive?
The EIA expected that phasing out MTBE and substituting ethanol would tend to decrease the amount of gasoline available and raise prices, as discussed in this report. It would also somewhat negatively impact air quality.
Currently, most ethanol is used between the months of May and September. It seems likely that the use of ethanol during this time-period contributes to the higher gasoline prices experienced in recent summers.
5. To what extent can the production of corn-based ethanol be increased?
We are currently using 20% of the corn produced in the United States to produce ethanol. Under the most optimistic scenarios, this amount could be tripled, to the equivalent of 60% of our 2006 corn production. At this production level, corn-based ethanol would replace about 10% of the volume (or about 7.2% of the energy content) of the US gasoline supply. This is still not very much, and there are serious questions whether this optimistic production level can in fact be reached.
If this level of production can be reached, the full amount of corn-based ethanol produced could be used as a fuel additive (as the 10% level), with no ethanol left over for E85.
6. What impact does corn-based ethanol have on global warming gasses?
Many people believe that using ethanol from corn would greatly reduce the emission of gasses implicated in global warming. This belief is based on the observation that if a corn plant grew, and then was burned, without any fossil fuel inputs or fertilizer, there would be no net gain in global warming gasses. This is because the carbon dioxide released in the burning of the plant would be offset by the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plant while the plant was growing.
This simplistic model is not correct for the production of corn-based ethanol because fossil fuels are used in the growing of corn and the production of ethanol, and these contribute to global warming gasses. Nitrogen used in fertilizer also tends to produce nitrous oxide, which is 300 times as potent a global warming gas as carbon dioxide.
There are also secondary impacts -- for example, increasing US corn production is likely to result in less US soybean production. If this occurs, Brazil, the largest producer of soybeans, is likely to increase its soybean production. Space for this increased Brazilian production is likely to be obtained by cutting down rain forests, which will tend to increase global warming gasses.
One review of the impact of ethanol on global warming gasses found "ambiguous" indications, with some studies indicating small increases, and others indicating small decreases. The authors' best estimate was a 13% decrease relative to the emissions made by gasoline. This implies that burning ethanol still contributes to global warming gasses -- but to a slightly smaller extent than gasoline.
7. What other biological/ environmental impacts does the production of corn-based ethanol have?
• Huge use of water. Approximately 4 gallons of water are used for every gallon of ethanol produced. Water use is much greater if irrigation is required. If ethanol production is in an arid region, non-renewable aquifers may be drawn down.
• Increased soil erosion. Even when corn is grown using the latest “no till” methods on flat land, there is some soil erosion. The amount of erosion increases if land in hilly or low-lying areas is tilled. Since soil regenerates very slowly, soil loss is a serious concern.
• More fertilizer use. Nitrogen fertilizer use is associated with increased global warming gasses and its run-off causes "dead" areas in the sea. Nitrogen fertilizer is made from natural gas, which is is in declining supply in North America. In the future, we will depend more and more on foreign imports of nitrogen fertilizer.
• More herbicide and pesticide use. Causes pollution problems. Also, since these are made from oil and natural gas, future supply is likely to depend on imports.
8. To what extent does the use of corn-based ethanol reduce fossil fuel use?
Studies vary in the extent to which the extent to which corn-based ethanol can be expected to reduce fossil fuel use, depending on how the corn is grown, and the "boundaries" considered in the analyses. Some studies show that more fossil fuel energy is used in the production of ethanol than is provided in the ethanol produced. Other studies show a small net gain - typically about 20% of the fossil fuel inputs. Thus, the ratio of energy output to fossil fuel input is about 1.2 to 1.0.
One concern is that this net gain is much lower than for many other liquid fuel sources. For oil produced from wells, typically 15 gallons of oil are produced for each gallon of fossil fuel used in production. For ethanol from sugar cane produced in Brazil, the net energy gain is about 8 or 9 to 1. For most types of biodiesel, the net gain is about 2.0 and 3.0 to 1.0. Thus, even when the best planting areas are available, ethanol from corn appears to be inefficient compared to other liquid fuels.
9. Does it matter whether there is a net energy loss in the production of corn-based ethanol -– that is, it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol itself produces?
Some argue that we need liquid fuels, and we have large amounts of coal and natural gas, so it does not matter if we use an inefficient way of converting these fuels to a liquid form. Thus, having a net energy loss is the production of corn-based ethanol is OK.
This argument is wrong for two reasons. First, our fossil fuels are much more limited than most people believe. Natural gas is in especially short supply. If we use large amount of natural gas for ethanol production, we risk shortages for other purposes, including electrical production and home heating. We also drive up the price of natural gas.
Second, using large amounts of fossil fuels to produce ethanol is likely to exacerbate global warming. One argument for using ethanol is that it (hopefully) reduces fossil fuel use, and thus produces less carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. If instead of decreasing fossil fuel use, it really increases fossil fuel use, the effect is reversed – more carbon dioxide is produced, rather than less.
10. To what extent does corn-based ethanol replace imported foreign oil?
As discussed above, ethanol in the quantity produced today is almost exclusively a replacement for MTBE. MTBE is made from natural gas, and was primarily US produced. Thus, what we are doing is replacing one US produced item with a more expensive US produced item. Since some diesel fuel is used in the production of ethanol, one might argue that we may even be slightly increasing our use of foreign oil.
11. What economic impact does corn-based ethanol have?
Since at this point we are replacing one US-made product (MTBE) with a more expensive US-made product performing a similar function, the basic impact is inflationary. We are reducing the amount of corn available for export abroad, so we are most likely making our balance of payments worse. It is not clear that there is any savings on the amount of petroleum needed to be imported from overseas.
The price of corn, and in fact many food products, is expected to increase with the greater use of corn ethanol. This tends to raise the income of farmers. Costs to farmers are also expected to rise, as the price of land rises and the cost of other inputs, such as fertilizer and fuel oil, rise. Consumers are likely to have to pay more for food products, so this transfers more of their wealth to those producing food.
The overall effect is expected to be a slightly lower standard of living for Americans, because a less efficient approach is being used to produce a fuel additive. Resources which might have been used for goods with higher value to consumers are now being devoted to ethanol production. There will be some transfer of wealth among groups, with farmers and ethanol producers perhaps being winners.
12. Is there a possibility of a better economic outcome, if the production of corn-based ethanol is greatly expanded?
It is not clear that corn production can be greatly expanded, without harmful impacts. At this point, nearly all of the land that can reasonably be used for corn without undesirable impacts is already being used for that purpose. To increase corn production, one or more of the following approaches are likely:
• Grow corn on land that needs to be irrigated. Result: more fossil fuel energy used than obtained from ethanol; may deplete aquifers.
• Grow corn on hill sides, or on other areas subject to erosion. Result: soil loss; not sustainable.
• Grow corn without crop rotation. Result: much more fertilizer used; more fossil fuel energy used than obtained from ethanol. Soybean production shifted overseas, resulting in increased imports of soybeans.
Even if expansion of corn production is accomplished, it is not clear that it can be maintained for long. The amount of natural gas available is expected to decline in the next few years, making fertilizer less available, and reducing the fuel available for producing ethanol.
If ethanol expansion occurs, transportation of the ethanol is also a question. Existing train/rail/barge systems are being strained with the current volume of ethanol. Significant investment in infrastructure may be needed if much larger volumes of ethanol are produced.
13. There are a number of new approaches to producing corn-based ethanol, using more renewable energy in the production of ethanol (such as methane from waste products or wind energy). What role do these efforts play in corn-based ethanol's future?
These efforts are to be applauded. To the extent that they are successful, they can perhaps be substituted for some of the natural gas and coal used in producing ethanol today. The use of the renewable fuels in ethanol production will tend to give corn-based ethanol a more positive energy balance and will reduce the use of fossil fuels. Some of these efforts may prove to be cost-effective as well.
It is not clear that these new methods will have a significant impact on the total amount of ethanol that will produced. Current ethanol production seems to be guided by a government plan to increase production to the maximum amount which can produced. This maximum amount apprars to be governed by factors such as the amount of corn that can be grown and the amount of transportation that is available for the final product. Whether or not it is economic to produce fuel in this way does not seem to enter into the decision.
14. What do recent analyses say about expanding ethanol production?
There recently have been two major studies looking at the question of expanding biofuels, one by the Congressional Research Service for Congress and one by the United Nations. Both urge caution in the expansion of biofuels because of the likelihood of unintended consequences. The Congressional Research Service Report looked specifically at the issue of ethanol from corn; the UN report report looked at biofuels more generally.
One concern raised in the Congressional Research Service Report is that corn-based ethanol is likely to be quite variable in supply, depending upon the weather. Thus, if we expand corn-based ethanol production, we will be exchanging the variability associated with foreign oil with the variability associated with weather.
15. Is there any reason why corn-based ethanol should continue to receive tax subsidies?
No. Corn-based ethanol does not appear to have any particular advantage over other biofuels, and it is questionable whether it can be significantly expanded without adverse consequences. If other types of biofuels make more economic sense, they should be given a level playing field. Corn-ethanol will continue to be produced if it makes economic sense, without tax subsidies. The subsidies in place currently benefit the corporations that produce ethanol, with little benefit for individual farmers.
One potential disadvantage of removing tax subsidies is that this may tend to raise the price of gasoline at the pump. If higher prices encourage consumers to conserve fuel and companies to explore other types of biofuels, the higher prices may in fact be an advantage.
To Learn More
Supply Impacts of an MTBE Ban, US Energy Information Agency
Refining 101: Summer Gasoline, Robert Rapier on TheOilDrum.com.
Discussion Questions
1. Read the section in Robert Rapier's Refining 101 article about Senator Diane Feinstein's campaign to limit ethanol blending in California, because of smog problems. Would you side with Senator Feinstein or the Environmental Protection Agency? Why?
2. How would the market be different today, if, instead of providing subsidies only for corn ethanol, subsidies had been provided over the years for any type of biofuel, including potato based ethanol, diesel from soybeans, and any other type of biofuel considered?
3. How would the market be different today, if no subsidies had been provided for any type of biofuel?
4. Does it ever make sense for the government to select one "winner", such as corn ethanol, for subsidies?
5. Suppose the government taxes gasoline, but not biofuels. What is likely to happen to government revenue if gasoline production declines and biofuel use increases? Would this make public officials happy or unhappy? Is there any way of avoiding this problem?
This is a good review, thanks Gail. The only thing I would add is that there is another potential change coming in the economics, since there is work going on to improve the yield of corn per acre, with numbers that go to more than double current yields being quoted (ethanol conference in St Louis last year).
I find this very hard to believe - my biology professor told me (I cant get him on phone this am) that some of modern crops , especially corn, are approaching maximum theoretical yields. Im sure we could increase the yield, but a doubling sounds farfetched - any corn geneticists in the room?
Not a corn geneticist, just a corn producer. A generation ago the corn yield contest winners were producing 200 bushel corn, good corn ground was raising 100 bu/acre, and the national average was probably 80 bushel per acre.
Today, the contest winners are raising 400 bushel corn, good corn ground is raising 200 bu/acre, and the national average is about 150 bushel per acre.
Also, I have heard that corn has been pushed as high as 800 in the lab..
Ethanol is not the silver bullet to peak oil, probably no more than a couple of B.B.'s, but the amount of disinformation and negative press on this site is astounding. I realize there is a ton of knowledge here, but very little with much connection to agriculture, or life "down on the farm".
In general, water issues are very, very real, but they have nothing to do with ethanol and everything to do with landowners having long-term water rights to a supply that is rapidly shrinking -- the transition back to dryland production will happen, and result in less corn.. ethanol or not..
The soil erosion, conservatoin issues are severly overblown. Sure, there is some farmers who are poor stewards of the land, but they increasingly are the ones exicing farming. Most successful farmers realize the land is their livelihood and take very good care of it.. (Witness the rise in no-till where appropriate... with no government mandate telling us we HAD to.)
Most reasonable senario -- the areas of the country with productive land resources will be energy AND food exporters as fossil fuels tighten -- although that may not be ethanol!
do you know the incremental yield on irrigated crops vs dry land farming, on average?
irrigation was a big part of the paper a colleague and I have pending publication called "Burning Water - The Energy Return on Water Invested" - using irrigated water numbers, the best biofuels required 10 times the water input as the most water intensive fossil fuel. But I couldnt find much data on large scale dryland farming, that also included fertilizers, pesticides, etc.
I don't know about an average. Clearly, there are quite a few places where the yield would be zero without irrigation, and can be quite good with irrigation.
I found this Colorado USDA publication. It says that in 2005 in Colorado, the average yield of irrigated corn was 184.0 bushels per acre, while the average yield of the dryland corn was 38.5 bushels per acre.
That is right – corn crop yields have been rising at 2 percent annually for decades. And Monsanto has the gene guys on it now. Meanwhile, farm inputs per output have been shrinking for decades. In other words, much like manufacturing, we are getting more and more out of farmers all the time.
The E3 guys say they are targeting 5-1 positive energy returns, by burning cattle dung and corn stalks to make ethanol. The leftover distillers grain is fed to the cows. If crop yields keep rising, it is reasonable to expect high single digit positive energy returns (say, 7 to 1) from ethanol, within 10 years, from the best ethanol plants. (I still say pig-potato plantsare next, as there are a lot more calories per acre of potatoes than corn, and pigs convert to meat faster than cows).
I wish for a better crop than corn, but we have 26 corn state Senators. Given the remarkable ability of US farmers to glut any market, ethanol seems okay. Remember, corn crop yields are up 40 percent in the last 20 years. Much acreage was left fallow. If yields rise another 40 percent in the next 20 years, and just 20 percent more acreage is put into production, we get 1.2 x 1.4= 68 percent hike in corn output, using roughly the same amount of land we did in 1980.
Not so bad, and farmers actually make money for a change.
Benjamin, that's a broad statement that you should back up with some hard data. I made a quick plot of US fertilizer consumption vs corn yield for the years 1961 to 2002 and, at a glance, the two are pretty well correlated. I didn't have the best of data. All I had was gross fertilizer consumption -- in other words, not specifically what was applied to corn. The data though, don't seem to support your contention that unit input per unit output is shrinking.
What my plot does show is that until the early eighties, US fertilizer usage was rising more rapidly than avg per ac corn yield, but since that time the two look to be more closely correlated.
Keep in mind, too, that when talking of putting idled agricultural lands back into production, any farmer is not going to take his best land out of production. If he/she takes land out of production, it will be the marginal land -- that which yields less output per unit input than the best land.
Right on. What industrial farmers call "soil." is really just dirt. it is a dead medium in which crops are essentially grown hydroponically w/ fertilizer. Genetics only increases the ability of the crop to utilize more nutrients but not increase the "efficiency" of the crop. There is no way to get something for nothing in this game. THis whole type of farming has no future long-term.
Good point. Even if the soil doesn't erode via physical removal (ie. soil erosion), it still erodes by consumption of organic material by the plant or microbes, etc. Fertilizer does not add organic material to the soil.
I see this clearly on my own land between the areas previously used to grow wheat and pasture. The cultivated area is dead and reduced to clay, you could use it to build adobe style buildings; whereas the uncultivated areas are loose, dark and crumbly in comparison. Modern farming methods have destroyed the topsoil, fait accompli, for anyone looking it is black and white, no yes, buts or perhaps.
Modern farming destroys the soil. Producing biofuels destroys the soil without producing food, which is doubly destructive. It is possibly the most stupid thing humans have ever done, in a long list of really stupid things.
I have absolutely no qualms about the production and use of biodiesel done in a sustainable way. This also absolutely negates any possible argument for their mass production or use to lessen the impact of Peak Oil. It simply isn't scalable and isn't a solution to oil unavailability in regards to the current economic system.
As far as I'm concerned, we don't need new technology, new energy sources or social systems. We just need common sense, we need to use what we have sensibly and we need to get rid of the nonsense that is unnecessary. If this cannot be achieved by society as a whole, then the individual must go it alone without society.
Triumvirate of collapse - Economy, Ecosystem, Energy
Consider the effect on the soil of growing perennial grasses instead, with all the non-CHO elements returned to the soil after processing the cut grass.
Dear Peak Oil Tarzan;
I am intimidated by your moniker, but here is a link: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/AgProductivity/
It shows farm output per input rising about three times since 1948.
I do not know how the USDA calculates everything. But, it makes sense. Farming is a form of manufacturing, and output per worker and unit of energy has been rising for decades as well in manufacturing.
In all, this is good news. We can expect farm output per input to rise for many decades hence, if the past six decades are a clue. This is especially good for ethanol and biofuels, which I contend is still an infant industry.
We have been growing jatropha for oil just a few years. Algae still just a hope, not a reality. Corn ethanol output only got serious in last two years – and only now are the new generation ethanol plants being brought on line which promise 5-1 positive energy returns.
It is reasonable to hope that, even with the so-so crop of corn, we can acheive very high single-digit ernergy returns in 10-20 years (7 to 1 , or 8 to 1).
As crop yields are rising 2 percent a year, and if PHEVs come on, this may move us huge steps to a post-fossil economy, long before we run out of oil. I think we can acheive Peak Demand for fossil oil a good 10-20 years before Peak Oil.
Last year, world crude demand grew by only 0.9 percent, after growing 3.1 percent in 2004, and then 1.8 percent in 2005. Check with EIA, these are hard stats.
One more year like the previous three, and we are at Peak Demand.
It may be game over for the fossil boys, any day soon.
The problem is, crude prices may collapse, wiping out the alternative fuel industry for another 20 years.
Benjamin, thanks for the link -- there's a lot to chew on and I'd rather not reply without studying the data presented here.
One thing I would like to know: "Productivity" does not -- to me anyway -- imply anything about output per unit of fossil fuel inputs. It is not argued by anyone that a single farmer, today, is able to produce many times what he/she could have a generation ago. But it is also not argued that much of this increase in "productivity" owes to substitution of mechanization and agri-chemicals. Ask any farmer what would happen if he/she had to give up the machinery and agri-chemicals and return to "the old ways" and they will tell you that half of the population would starve.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that minimum tillage, improved crop varieties, and more judicious use of fertilizers and agri-chemicals had helped farmers increase the margin between inputs and outputs, but I'm not sure there aren't other factors at play, as well. For instance, I would presume that removing a lot of marginal lands from production over the last twenty years or so (via programs like the USDA's CRP) have also made the numbers look better as the less productive land was idled.
Thanks for the link.
P.S. -- sorry you find the name POT "intimidating." It was a joke.
Tarzan:
Actually, when I reviewed the chart, I see farm productivity is up "only" 2.47 times 1948 levels, not three, but going the right direction.
I keep reading that "progressive" farming works, but few seem to do it. I don't know why. Culture can be a strong influence. Some say Europeans were wiped out on Greenland 700 years ago (when it got colder) as they refused to take on an Eskimo lifestyle. They preferred to die than to eat whalemeat etc.
I do know there is a terrific network of ag schools, ag journals, websites even coffee shops, and farmers are smart. I think they will adapt. After years of snorting, they are beginning to believe in turning animal dung into fuel, for example.
I share your concern about how much fuel farmers use. Can they do with less? Can they go to ethanol-based tractors etc? Or can they make their own energy? I don't know.
I prefer to be optimistic. Farmers have great networks of information.
And Monsanto has the gene guys on it now.
Meaning?
And, given how much you want to project you know something on the topic. feel free to talk about the water issue.
Eric-
Monsanto put out press releases a few years back, heralding new corn strains selected for ethanol. My layman's understanding was that the better corn was the result of simple selective breeding. Going forward, I gather they intend to introduce corn which is somehow the result of genetic research.
Water? I know nothing about water, except that I drink it. But, if we can build a an oil pipeline all the way across Alaska, why can't we build a pipeline from Lake Superior (a practically infinite source) to the Midwest or wherever water is needed? My layman's understanding is that the water in Lake Superior is good.
"Lake Superior (a practically infinite source)"
Last I looked Lake Superior had definite boundaries, depth, and watershed making it a finite resource just like everything else humans have depleted. Lets drain it to keep the fountains at the casinos going, the golf courses green, and ethanol to run our wasteful lifestyle.
After we drain Lake Superior dry, we will go after Lake Michigan next. Chicago has it way too easy anyway. Still three more lakes to go after that.
Seriously, I doubt we could even dent water levels at Lake Superior. That is why I used used the word "practically."
I am surprised more people are not considering using Great Lakes water for Midwest farmers. Seems like a solution to me. Must be a reason it won't work.
Aby water and pipe guys out there? Would it be prohibitively expensive to pipe Lake S. water to Midwest?
What if we made Paris Hilton pay for it?
I am surprised more people are not considering using Great Lakes water for Midwest farmers.
Because there are MANY state laws AND international law saying "no".
Towns 30 miles away on the other side of the watershed can't get the water, why should 'midwest farmers'?
Well, my layman's understanding is that the Great Lakes are terribly polluted. Mostly as a result of humans' use of the water drainage system to double as the sewage drainage system. Water from Lake Ontario, for example, is grey, and requires you to shower after exiting, for risk of skin irritation.
Furthermore, if you drained the Great Lakes you'd lose valuble shipping lanes, not to mention environmental damage.
Also, you'd still have to treat the water for human consumption, no getting around that, no matter how clean your lake water is.
The record 2004 corn harvest was about 11.8 billion bushels. If we can boost that by 68% and get 3.0 gallons/bushel out of it, that's an increment of 24 billion gallons of ethanol. This is about 1/6 the volume and a mere 1/9 the energy of US gasoline consumption, even if you assume that there are no offsetting energy inputs whatsoever.
Ethanol from corn is a scam on the taxpayer, no more.
The only serious solution is to move away from chemical (and especially liquid) fuels for transportation. The most feasible replacement is electricity, which can power perhaps 80% of light-duty vehicle mileage and 100% of rail energy requirements and already has infrastructure installed and paid for.
Even with your fabulous "Monsanto gene guys", the net energy densities don't even compare. A field of bushels of corn and a barrel of oil as about as far apart as geological time can have it. Ethanol is another "guppy" of a subsidized swindle, easily belittled by far more strategically adventurist role as the worlds' remaining superpower willingly able to start wars, which, of course, revolve around oil and the propaganda to keep everything-okay-all-the-time except mushrooms clouds are out to get you if you don't go along with our policy! Tricky world, the media is. Ethanol makes gasoline slightly pricier while hardly at all pinching on the fat ass of oil demand. Don't get me wrong about the price of gasoline, I don't own a car and live in a unsustainable urban environment which at least has good, comprehensive public transit. I've accepted that the price of gas is going to go up, just pick your political, military or geological duck, reasons and beliefs abound. Or stick your head in the ground like a cornucopian, so be it. Ethanol is just another non-starter, Federal Ponzi scheme while subsidizing farmers and higher gas prices--but they're gonna go up anyway so thank your wasteful federal spending! Meanwhile, lie to the public and make them feel good, a la the corporatist praising mentality that Benjamin Cole flaps on about all day and all night...The absurdity quickly presents itself as conservatives bemoaning government intervention and subsidy, aka pork--but ah, oh my how quickly they'll run to it when the best crop to grow by farmers in the US is corn (sugar cane only grows in tropical climates--lets tear down the fucking Amazon, yay forward-bound progress!), particularly when the government is paying you to produce a commodity we use for everything from feeding it to cows to make cheeseburgers to chicken for--yummy!--chicken tenders... Again, don't get me wrong, I think *all* politicians sound like such dumbfucks, it is truly astounding. The amount of contradiction and nonsensical rationalization that spews forth from politicians, lobbyists, corporations, et al ad infinitum is just too fucking much to actually address. It's like trying to understand a creationist if you're an intelligent, well educated, scientifically literate individual. That's why they win by default. Rapid fire nonsense can never be adequately responded too, and there is much of it--and many people get taken in... Until next time, thaa thaya, tha, thaaaaat's all folks!
You don't have a car? And you are in a non-urban environment? Really? Cool. But do you have a horse, or mule? I am not asking these questions to be snotty. I really want to know. You are on the Internet, so I assume you have electricity. From solar panels, or are you on the grid?
For 10 years I lived w/o a TV. Now I live in an Airstream trailer, but my wife wanted a TV. I walk to work, but I have a car. 1986 Isuzu Trooper. I get carp sometimes out of the LA River, and grow vegetables.
Check out what China is doing in Indonesia with jatropha. A $5 billion, 2.47 million ace jatropha plantation. When up and running, it is hoped it will produce just under 60 mby (year). That is about 2 days US consumption, From one plantation. Which will never be depleted.
Personally, I think we have to go to PHEVs and biofuels. We can make enough biofuels, if we use PHEVs. We are just learning now how to make biofuels. But I am sure my fellow man will get better and better at it.
I deeply respect and admire scientists and engineers who can solve riddles for the betterment of the rest of us.
I hope we can make a more prosperous and cleaner world. I don't hope it –– I know we can. I can see it. The technologies being created in the last 20 years are marvelous.
I agree that many Westerners live a wasteful lifestyle. But when you need serious medical care, or to talk on the Internet, or the telephone, or see a terrific art performance on TV, or have a varied diet all year long, or go to a wonderful library full of books, or fly an jet to Thailand, think about wha happened to allow you to take advantage of these modern inventions.
It is pretty easy to snipe from the sidelines. It is a lot harder to actually solve problems.
Hothgor, your cover story gets even more ridiculous.
In addition to your 1972 Airstream trailer and vegtable patch next door to your factory in downtown LA
You eat carp out of the LA River!?!
give me a break
Genetically Modified plants may have ugly side effects.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/032307EA.shtml
jbunt
Farmers never, ever make money and they never will. Just ask them (or check their tax returns). But, when you group any category of Americans - doctors, lawyers, CPA's, dentists, etc (let's leave out NY investment bankers and hedge fund managers) they are by far the wealthiest group. Please do not throw me into the briar patch and please, never make me farm.
Precisely... The only way farmers make money is if they are heavily subsidized--and mostly even then it isn't the small/mid-level farmers that are *really* reaping the benefits, although a rising tide does lift even the little boats a little... It's for the large part the argibusiness giants which benefit from the subsidy--as they are the ones that can really bank all the politicians.
The FDA and monsanta have had a revolving door during the Bush Admin, but I'm sure it is/was little different under DLC democrats.
Nate, you might find this Lester Brown publication useful.
From the linked article
"USDA plant scientist Thomas R. Sinclair observes that advances in our understanding of plant physiology let scientists quantify crop yield potentials quite precisely. He notes that “except for a few options which allow small increases in the yield ceiling, the physiological limit to crop yields may well have been reached under experimental conditions.” For farmers who are using the highest-yielding varieties that plant breeders can provide, along with the agronomic inputs and practices needed to realize their genetic potential, there may be few options left to raise land productivity."
Jon Freise
Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows
I'd like to see the analysis. I tend to be a little skeptical about big increases in yields for several reasons:
1. We are talking about planting on more marginal land and doing less crop rotation.
2. Natural gas prices are rising, and can be expected to rise more in the next few years. Fertilizer is therefore likely to become more expensive (and possibly less available).
3. Irrigation may become more of an issue. Aquifers in the Southwest are depleting. Available water limits are being reached in other states as well - where river water is used, some states, like Georgia, are getting "maxed out".
4. Peak oil is likely to result in problems of all types - including monetary - that may indirectly affect farming.
That's the problem with going to too many conferences, it is hard to find the exact quote from my rather messy notes. But one I found was by Martha Schlicher at the "Life Sciences and Society" meeting in Columbia in March, where using "improved agronomics and transgenic crops" the current increase in yield per acre is growing at 3 bu/acre/year with no reason to anticipate this not continuing. They anticipate going from an average yield of 114 bu/acre in 1995 to 190 by 2015. Concurrently they can increase the ethanol yield going from 285 gal/acre to 475 by increasing corn production, and then further raising this to 618 gal/acre by using different hybrids.
(Incidentally she also noted that whereas corn has a 1-2 day fermentation it takes 7 days for cellulosic, which I didn't know).
I heard higher numbers at the ethanol conference in St Louis, that went up to 900 gal/acre based on plants currently in development. At the Columbia meeting Dr Ganesh Kishore of Dupont stated that they have been able to achieve 450 bu/acre ultimately anticipating being able to get up to 1,000 gal/acre of ethanol, though this may have included some cellulosic (my notes aren't that good).
Heading Out,
From your ...
.
... do you have any information about increases in fertilizer use with the new hybrids. I would find it hard to believe that the increase would be a result of increased photosynthesis efficiency, am I wrong there?
And then,
did they say how this increased production was to be done, maybe take it out highway 61 and leave it on bleachers out in the sun...sorry but old neural pathways die hard.
Gail, great work and lots of it, for all readers.
There was some debate about the issue of fertilizers at the Columbia meeting, but since the most advanced crops (in terms of both yield per acre and gallons per bushel) are still being developed in the labs I don't have the parameters that they are being bred for. It is reasonable to assume, though, that they will be looking to provide more drought-resistance and other favorable features, but I really don't know. The increase in corn production is coming from creating better varieties, I believe. But here I am functioning more as reporter than expert since this is not really a field I know huge amounts about. So I am glad to yield the floor to those who farm and know more about it.
Benjamin and Gail:
Most irrigation pumps in Texas use natural gas to fuel the pumps, and I presume elsewhere in the US also as it is less expensive that electricity for pumping, and I assume diesel too in places because the fuel is portable.
the farmers must also use seed corn purchased from a big seed company, corn hybrids don't breed true so the farmer can't just dedicate part of his crop for seed.
Ground water sources are often quite high in salts, and irrigation can salt up the topsoil so that the yields decreease.
Calling Airdale! Do you know wher to get data on irrigation vs. dry land farmin and also hybrid seed costs