The Oil Drum

Ok. I'll go out on a limb and make a case sugarcane ethanol. Of course it is no panacea, no energy alternative at this point is one, but it can help bridge the gap and promote even raise levels of income on some desperately poor countries.

Sugarcane ethanol does have an EROEI of 8 (against 1.4 for corn). Anyone who has sunk their teeth on a cane stalk knows how much sugar it packs. Sugarcane is an amazing little engine for turning sunlight into sugar/energy. Also in sugar's case you process the WHOLE stalk, not the seeds, and the crushed stalk than can be burned to generate electricity. This biomass, when properly used, is often enough to cover for all the Mill’s needs and even sell electricity off to the grid. Also, on the newer mills, the trucks and machinery run on a mix of diesel and ethanol, and even the crop duster planes fly exclusively on ethanol. This eroei has even room to grow. In 2007, energy from bagasse actually generated amounted to around 3000 MW (including the energy saved at the mill). The association of Sugar Growers estimates that by changing existing boilers the capacity could easily reach 7,6 thousand MW, and by optimum utilization of bagasse and straw the sector predicts a generating capacity of 10 thousand MW by 2012/13.
Second, at least in the case of sugarcane and Brazil, ethanol production has not seriously impacted food production: Brazil produces about 4.8 billion gallons of ethanol from sugar cane in 6.3 million hectares. This is less than 2% of the area available for agriculture in Brazil (this calculation excludes the whole of the Amazon). This number is even more relevant when we consider that about 45% of the sugarcane produced in the country goes to make sugar, not ethanol. The government estimates that production could expand by a factor of 10, without seriously impacting other cultures or the Amazon.
Third. Sugarcane ethanol can have a positive environmental impact. The whole production cycle absorbs almost as much CO2 as it produces. The utilization of ethanol as a blend in gasoline (25%) coupled with the utilization of ethanol on flex-fuel vehicles in Brazil avoids the emission of around 4.3 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere per year.
Fourth. Sugarcane, a tropical plant, might be used to mitigate the effects of Peak Oil especially in the poorer countries, in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Of the 50 poorest countries in the world, 38 are net importers of oil, and 25 import all the oil they consume. It is clear that the situation can only get worse as the prices go higher. Many countries spend more on oil imports than on public health. In these very poor countries, famine and what oildrummers call die-offs are already a reality, and famine was widespread long before food prices went up. What keep the poor in the Third World from eating from eating is not a lack of food, but a lack of income. It is symptomatic that food prices went up mainly in the wake of the rise of China and India, as their incomes went up, they consumed more and better food. (more recently demand for corn ethanol also increased prices, but the phenomenon is older).

I do understand the risks that converting arable land to fuel vehicles presents. There is an enormous possibility for abuse, and it is possible (indeed it looks likely) that the US government might be sending the wrong signals by supporting corn ethanol to the extent it is, given its low eroei and immediate impact on food prices.
Still, ethanol (especialy from sugarcane) might deserve a chance. It will most probably not be the silver bullet some claim it would be, but it can help bridge the gap after PO, and in certain conditions really help poorer countries in the tropics not only lessen their oil bills, but also improve living conditions and income. To this end, developed countries with temperate climates might consider dropping clearly sub-optimal bets on corn (US) and /or sugar beets in the EU, and instead invest in better technology for cellulosic ethanol , as well as efficient mills in third world countries.

Cheers