<Cyclone Gonu Thread 4The Oil DrumDrumBeat: June 8, 2007>

177 comments on Corn-Based Ethanol: Is This a Solution?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PeakOil Tarzan on June 7, 2007 - 2:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Meanwhile, farm inputs per output have been shrinking for decades.

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mtnlion44 on June 7, 2007 - 2:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Burgundy on June 7, 2007 - 5:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on June 7, 2007 - 10:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BenjaminCole on June 7, 2007 - 11:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakOil Tarzan on June 8, 2007 - 8:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BenjaminCole on June 8, 2007 - 4:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.