<DrumBeat: November 29, 2007 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: November 30, 2007>

59 comments on The Implications of Biofuel Production for United States Water Supplies

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

ANewLand on November 29, 2007 - 12:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

US Cropland: 442 million acres (20 percent of the land area)

1 bushel of corn yields 2.5 gallons of ethanol.

1 acre yields 160 bushels. (All-time record in 2004.)

1 acre yields 400 gallons of ethanol (2.5 x 160).

One gallon net takes 3 to produce (optimistic EROEI of 1.34 to 1 so
400/4 = 100)

442 million acres x 100 = 44.2 billion gallons net return

Ethanol has less energy density 44.2/1.5 = 29.5 billion gallons net ethanol

We use 144 billion gallons of gasoline per year

29.5 is 21% of 144 billion demand.

To summarize: we could plant the entire US cropland in corn for ethanol. No more food for anyone and that would only account for 21% of our gasoline needs .

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nate Hagens on November 29, 2007 - 12:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I believe the nails are all but in the coffin for corn-based ethanol. But I am hearing (from not one but numerous sources) that there are some new biotechnologies that will become commercial in the next few years that are show stoppers (from an energy and profitability standpoint). Like 10+ EROIs. I'm not sure if they are real or not because most of it is 'in the lab'. But what I am sure of, and quite concerned about, is that people need to start thinking in wide boundary terms. Will I make $$ on this biofuel at the expense of borrowing from the local and regional commons etc.? Will I get more liquid fuels but then run low on natural gas? Linkages are tighter than the market is telling us, because a)we price things at the marginal unit, so everything is copasetic until its not and b)many of the things we truly need (water quality, trees, fresh air, dolphins, etc) are not included in decisionmaking/moneymaking models.

Ya - its become evident that corn ethanol doesn't make sense as a national policy. It was a knee jerk reaction to high oil prices - we need to be smarter about large scale deployment going forward - and we need to look at the source - why do we want more and is more good for us?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mdsolar on November 29, 2007 - 2:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It might not be corn but rather corn ears that are the problem. A friend sent me this link about tropical maize that gets very sugary in the stalk (25%) when grown at higher latitudes. There may be some evidence that Algonquin cultivated this variety for sugar. Corn does not need a lot of nitrogen until it starts to set ears.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on December 1, 2007 - 9:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

sugary in the stalk

Such should not be shocking - cellulose (way oversimplified) is a complex sugar. And a few old references for making distilled ethynol suggest stalk from sweetcorn.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
netfind on December 2, 2007 - 12:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think you're right about the nails being put in the coffin for corn ethanol. The fact that it's an ineffective oil displacement fuel is becoming widely accepted. Corn is being seen now as what the biofuels research arm of the University of Tennessee has termed a "first generation feedstock" for the ethanol infrastructure that's being built. They are hard at work developing high net energy switchgrass feedstocks that are inedible and not a food inflation problem. Even the science challenged U.S. Congress is mulling over things like all new ethanol infrastructure facilties built after 2012 being noncorn based. But all fuel crops are going to induce a huge water problem. Even without the dire need for fuel crops and the lucrative export driven economic growth they imply, the developing populations of the world are becoming desparate for water that's fit for human consumption. The U.N. estimates that 80% of the hospital beds in the world are occupied by cases of drinking bad water. There is a tandem bull market emerging in agriculture and water while everyone debates runnin' on corn sqeezins just as there was a bull market emerging in oil 4 years ago with everyone poking fun at peak oil.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Pholostan on November 30, 2007 - 11:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I hear you, I hear you.

I think it was known from the start that corn-based ethanol wasn't a viable alternative.

When you guys over there started to crank upp production of corn-based ethanol, I had a hard time believing that people really thought it was a good idea. Political lobbying from the farmers yes, but seriously a good idea for a fuel source? Wheat has a better EROI, at least a positive one anyway. But wheat is not a really good crop for ethanol production either. Sugarcane is. Heck, sugar beets have much better yield per acre compared to corn. There is everal alternatives to corn that is better.

A cellulosic process is the only real saver for corn-based ethanol. But a true cellulosic process don't need to be based on corn, it can be based on wood, grasses whatever has the best yield locally.

A better way would be to make biogas (methane) from corn instead, it has a much better EROI. The by-product can be used as a fertilizer for the next planting. If you absolutely have to use corn for energy production.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

59 comments on The Implications of Biofuel Production for United States Water Supplies

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version