The Oil Drum

I agree with some of what you say but much of the world grain production is used to feed livestock which could do just fine on a grazing diet although weight gain would be slower. For cattle and other livestock this produces a more heathful product (apologies to vegans) with less impact to the land due to a grass cover vs the production of grain and all of the environmental problems (chemical use, soil loss) that go with it.

* National Farmers' Union, May 11, 2007
Straight to the Source

SASKATOON, Sask.-Today, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its first projections of world grain supply and demand for the coming crop year: 2007/08. USDA predicts supplies will plunge to a 53-day equivalent-their lowest level in the 47-year period for which data exists.

"The USDA projects global grain supplies will drop to their lowest levels on record. Further, it is likely that, outside of wartime, global grain supplies have not been this low in a century, perhaps longer," said NFU Director of Research Darrin Qualman .

Most important, 2007/08 will mark the seventh year out of the past eight in which global grain production has fallen short of demand. This consistent shortfall has cut supplies in half-down from a 115-day supply in 1999/00 to the current level of 53 days.

Australia dropping to 15 million tons while
Russia, Ukraine, China stop exports, while India,
Pakistan import puts the current level below 50 days.

Below MOL.

See the Great Grain Robbery 1973 for a preview
of coming attractions.

Wheat at $15!?

Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens

Paal, that's true on a global basis. But that's not how the world works.

Consider Argentina or Brazil, two big soybeans exporters with fuel consumption per capita much lower than in the US. If they turn all their soybean oil into biodiesel, possibly diverting some of the land today growing e.g. wheat to soybeans as well, they will be able to run THEIR economies more or less like they are today. Why wouldn't they?

So, people depending today on agricultural exports from other countries will have a serious problem.

Paal, you're being reactionary and doom-focused again, as you were with the windmill/transport truck comparison.

First, a few flaws in your approximations and assumptions:

• The specific gravity of crude oil is closer to 900 than 1000, so cut 10% off your estimation for oil amounts from the get go.
• You assume that the only source for biofuels is grain - foodstuffs and feedstock. Alternatives like switchgrass grow well in arid or inhospitable regions, where grain cannot be grown, and produce quite acceptable quantities of ethanol for the effort entailed in their groth. (Also algae, but that's as yet unproven.)
• You're talking about biofuels, so that cubic mile of oil has to shrink again. When biofuel is extracted from biomass, it's ready to roll. Crude has (at best, from the article you sourced) an 89% efficiency in its conversion to fuel oil, so we're down to 80% of that effective fuel you spoke of in that cubic mile.
• Finally, you're once again making the "things are hopeless" generalization by saying "this one technology will not solve our problems". Barring huge advances in farming technology, biofuels cannot replace all the fuel oil consumed in the world wholesale. This is true. However, biofuels are a handy supplement to buy time, and to replace some of the oil in a long-term manner. Electric transport gives us more options. Increases in efficiency act as a multiplier on the effectiveness of any energy source. All you're doing is trolling by decrying the effectiveness of any one source, and, though I've fallen for it (again), I feel that someone ought to point out the flaws in your argument for the benefit of those reading what you write.

Incomplete information, a limited worldview, and calculations based on sketchy numbers trotted out as proof - just as before.