The laws of Unintended Consequences again raise their ugly head. There are no simple answers to complex problems in the real world.

It is nice to see that someone has done some work to try to determine, in advance, what might be some of the consequences to a rapid shift to Ethanol. Just don't expect this to be the only unintended consequence.

I'm a fan of diesel power which in time will make the ethanol problem moot. Diesels get better mileage, up to 52mpg in VW Golf, and last longer, 250,000 or more. With hybrids you have thousands to spend on a new battery pack while the diesel is purring down the road. Biodiesel, using animal fat, uses a waste, non-food product. Diesels will rule!

Don't know if its a 100 percent fact; but have heard that "DRUG" Hemp (Pot) Plants are very very high in the oils necessary to produce good fuels. Grows like (excuse the expression) a weed; renewable and also good for the enviroment. The fibers are a good alternative to wood fiber in construction etc. Its a win win situation if our goverment could get its head out of its rear and see the benefits instead being blind to the benefits.

Wow corn prices rise to a profitable level for the first time in years and panic rises overnite. In the recent past loud voices are heard about discontinuing "subsidized" agriculture. Well here you have market pressures moving up and instantly the whining starts. What a shock. What do you want, stable prices for consumers and profitability for a strong agriculture base or totaly market driven prices. Thanks DB

Excuse me, John B. Schroeder. But I don't think you grasp the issue clearly.

Allow me to define what diesel fuels are.

Diesel is a specific fractional distillate of fuel oil (mostly petroleum) that is used as fuel in a diesel engine. The term typically refers to fuel that has been processed from petroleum, but increasingly, alternatives such as biodiesel or biomass to liquid (BTL) or gas to liquid (GTL) diesel that are not derived from petroleum are being developed and adopted.

But the problem with using petroleum diesel is that petroleum is a non-renewable resource. Which means eventually it will run out.

Ethanol itself is a Biodiesel and can be made by corn or other plants. The problem with animal biodiesel is that it requires animals, which are harder to raise and populate than plants.

There shouldn't be any problem with this would-be crisis. It is just a game made to help influence more use over straight up petroleum. It would be better if we would acknowledge that there are many farmers that are paid to not grow so much corn and that much of our plants that our farmers do grow isn't being used for anything at all. We only consume a small percentage of what we grow. Therefore, we could certainly do a lot better than what is being imprinted by this propaganda. I don't see any problem at all.

We use other plants to eat like potatos, wheat, carrots, and tomatos. Brasil has no problem with using ethanol and they are more likely to have such a food-consumption problem than we ever will.

So what's the problem again? Halliburton doesn't want to be taken out of business by a little plant competition?

Maybe the answer is to not depend so much on ethanol as a fuel. Does ethanol really decrease oil imports? During the last ethanol craze (in the 80's) I recall reading a number of articles that the total energy cost of producing and distilling the ethanol exceeded its energy content as a motor fuel. So the only way it can actually reduce oil imports is if the energy to produce the fertilizer, harvest the grain, and distill the ethanol comes from renewable resources. Alan, perhaps you could give us an update on how today's ethanol industry is dealing with this issue.

Sorry, sounds like another gloom&doomer. Potential solution? Better be against it, and predict disaster! That way, he (and the EPC) get some attention. Bet if they came up with some GM corn that had heads double the size with triple the amount of sugars for ethanol production, which could grow with less than half the fertilizer and water a normal corn crop needs he'd find something wrong with that too.

Bill, I do remember that study ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11103942/

But Lester told me that the price for ethanol is twice the cost of producing it nowadays. That's what's driving the investment. Subsidies definitely factor into that, as well as higher oil prices, I suppose.

I do hear over and over that eventually we'll have to get to a wind/electricity/hydrogen economy ... unless, of course, we take the nuclear option.

I suggest Alan Boyle visit an ethanol plant to review his facts and finish the story.

After extracting ethanol from the starch portion of the grain the resulting "wet mash or grind" is used as a food source for livestock. The sale of this "wet grind" helps ethanol plants maintain proftability. Very little is wasted in this process.

There has been research to formulate the grind into a human food source as well.
Additionally there is on-going research to develop enzymes to convert lawn clippings and yard waste, rich in celluose into ethanol.

Just curious, is Mr. Boyle an oil industry lobbyist?

So we won't be dependent on OPEC for oil, gas will be American grown and made, Farmers will actually have a dependable market, and worst case scenario your box of cornflakes might double in price. So you take the money saved on subsidies for farmers that can hardly make it now, and give that money in aid to the poor countries that can afford a military but not food and everyone will be happy. I've never heard American farmers say we are cutting corn output by 10% to raise prices, but seems like OPEC has no problem cutting production. Personally I think this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's all based on estimates. My choice, worry about it when we get to that point.

The only reason ethanol is an issue is because we opt for corn and oil has too much power. Brazil is making ethanol from sugar canes, as far as renewable resources. The fastest and easiest would be bamboo, not only does it have a higher tensile strength than steel but it can be ready to extract in 3 - 5 years. I agree that big oil is scared their power struggle will end, they'll end the world before it happens though. So no, ethanol will not last and cold fusion will probably hit the backburner.

I really get tired of all of these people who can't understand that conspiracies don't lie everywhere.  Very few farmers are paid NOT to grow corn.  They may be paid to keep a field fallow but that is in the interest  of proper farm management.  I have no problem with on the surface with increases of ethanol production in the US (Brazil, by the way, does not use corn for its ethanol production) except that I'm afraid production of corn will increase in areas where corn requires irrigation to help it grow.  Corn requires much more water than say cotton or sorghum or wheat, and increases in its production in these areas could seriously disrupt the water tables.  As with everything in life, there are always tradeoffs that have to be determined.  We will need to decide whether diverting large amounts of edible foodstuffs and increasing agricultural water use is the answer to solving our nations dependence on not just foreign oil but oil in general.

We could solve this whole plant to fuel issue if we could just grow hemp in quantity and exploit it's inherent plant oil potential. The hemp seed is disproportionally rich in oils which could satisfy a bio-diesel niche and fuel vehicles,small engines etc. This is not an oft repeated panacea but a viable, effective alternative. However powerful forces within the oil industry have been utilized to squelch this beneficial alternative...remember Harry Anslinger anyone? Oil industry stooge back in the 30's.

Does anyone notice "The Ugly American" in this subject. It could surely add fuel to the world hatred of wastrel Americans. CONSERVATION by greater efficiency, etc. can beat out any help from ethanol. What a terrible example we are with our inordinate appetite for gas guzzling SUV's, etc.. It seems to me that too many are hellbent on taking the food  (I know cornstalks are not eaten by many people) from the mouths of starving children and adults (by bringing about too high prices for corn etc.) and pouring it into their wasteful machines. Talk about the rich stealing from the poor and their grandchildren. Not a pretty sight, hence, the ugly American. It seems that almost "everyone is doing it"; so, Americans should not be singled out, but Americans are, currently, the worst offenders with China
expected to take over in the not too distant future. Limiting the size of families brought worldwide condemnation of China, but such limiting has helped China become a potential economic giant (most Chinese would, probably, grant that China, PRC, would not be in their present bright future possibility if PRC had not had said limit); so, maybe the Chinese will find another world-widely-condemned idea that will save the rest of the world as well as China (hence, nuclear devastation or wiping out is NOT the answer).

 I don't know if Al Gore's electric cars, etc. are the answer, because I don't know if the production and use will be more efficient than our current situation, but it does seem to have at least a chance when ethanol, currently, does not.

 I can remember when our energy crisis got rid of many of our gas guzzling big cars (almost put Detroit out of business) and had the government handing out a sticker with praying hands to be placed on our electric light switches. If gasoline prices get high enough, maybe the gas guzzlers will be junked again; but, if we keep prices down with ethanol, it may delay the day of reckoning and maybe make the reckoning far more severe, not remove it for someone's grandkids. One can be optimistic and hope said delay will be long enough to avoid the major crisis ever arising. Let's hope such optimism is not like the ostrich with its head in the sand.

 Isn't the huge National debt enough cruelty towards and selfishness for our grandchildren to bear without adding depleted natural resources and polluted air for more kicks?  

How ironic when ethanol produced from corn is discussed; the US as a major producer of corn must be concerned about feeding the worlds hungry yet OPEC is not held to the same standard. It takes oil to plant, fertilize, harvest, dry and process that corn. It takes oil to produce other food crops as well. It costs OPEC next to nothing to pump that oil out of the ground yet they charge what ever the world economy will take. Ethanol is the answer I'll eat Wheaties rather than Corn Flakes than you. OPEC can eat their sand!!!!!

Soylent Green is people!

Seriously, though, while ethanol *might* help to wean us from foreign oil (and it isn't at all clear that this alone will do the trick w/o serious changes in efficiencies), it will do little to nothing to stem the production of greenhouse gases. We have too damn many people on this planet for the available resources. And as world population continues to increase, so too will the attendent problems.  Something is going to give sooner or later.

Cellulose ethanol is the key. It won't affect food stocks, is far more renewable, and ultimately is the best long term solution in regards to ethanol.

Brazil has been primarily ethenol based for numerous years ......the rest of the world should learn from them.

Eventually though, I think hydrogen fuel from converted sea water will be the best end all solution.

I am concerned about the heavy use of corn and other plant products to produce fuels degrading our limited soil resources. With potential climatic change in the offing, relying on plant based fuels may prove disasterous. Look at Diamond's "Collapse of Civilizations" for more details.

CORN PRICES GO UP
FARM PRODUCTION OF CORN GOES UP

I don't see ethanol as a viable option until (like Honda has just learned to do effectively with a new enzyme) they can create it with discarded plant matter: grass clippings, discarded Christmas trees etc.

I will certainly agree with J. Lawson that Lester’s overall prediction is a bit over the top... Suggesting global instability and the potential fall of world governments by 2008 just because the U.S. finally got its act together is a bit hard to swallow.  As much as I love what people like Al Gore have done, I continue to urge them to broaden out their message.  Ultimately, you don't have to believe in global warming to want to be an environmentalist.  Wastefulness and carelessness—I would think—are "morally” wrong?

Apart from improving our health, living greenly and efficiently SAVES MONEY.  Any economy car that gets 45-mpg vs. just 15-mpg can save you $16,000 over the life of the car (figured at $2.00 per gallon).  Isn't that worth it right there?  Our national security improves when we are less dependent on other countries and when we are more insulated from spikes in energy prices.  Burning less fuel and being more careful about toxic substances creates less smog, less air pollution, and less soil contamination.  Living more efficiently ultimately lowers our impact on wildlife and forest areas in the form of less acid rain, fewer catastrophic oil spills, and less strip mining.  And finally, if we can become more energy self-sufficient on a "local level" (like ethanol, hydrogen, solar and wind can do) we become that much less vulnerable to region-wide disasters and economic downturns.  In this regard, green renewable energy, isn't just good for the environment.  It is also the real key to keeping the lights on when everybody else is sitting in the dark i.e. Californians.

I think this is great news! Not for the people in the other countries but for the farmers here in the USA. For years they struggled with increasing prices to operate while the grain prices stayed the same because we where just giving the grain away. Now with the increasing demand and subsequent increase in prices farming will once again be profitable. As for the Biodiesel debate planting Canola could be a much better option for many farmers across the country. The seed is around 40% oil and the byproduct is high in protein which is good for cattle production. With energy demands as high as they are farmers could never produce enough corn, soybeans, canola, sorghum, or any other crop to eliminate the need for fossil fuels to drive our economy.

What I have a problem with is the fact it is mostly made in the southwest, and it cannot be sent thru a pipeline. That means there will be thousands of trucks bringing the product east, which means tons of spent diesel fuel going into the air. This adds to pollution, more congestion, more possibilities of serious accidents, etc. I think it should be used only regional. Other alternatives can be found for other parts of the country. I do not believe ethanol will help the enviroment that much, if at all. Congress srewed up once forcing MTBE on us, so we can all have a better chance of getting the big C. I think ethanol needs to be studied much more before being fully placed in use.

Simple answer ... we grow the corn - we can use it as we see wish. If Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria and Mexico need corn to eat - the should grow it themselves! Whatever happen to Darwinism?? If you live in a desert, don't expect your cupboards to be full! America is not responsible for feeding and supporting the world!

Corn requires fertilizer which is made from natural gas which is a hydrocarbon which has to be drilled for which the environmentalist are againts. So it's going to come full circle and the environmentalists will eventually rule out ethanol from corn. And besides, ethically we should not use food for SUV's when people around the world are starving for carbohydrates. Unlike Americans, some people are skinny.

You go Zhayne, thank you for a voice of reason.

I think we should be using other plant based ethanol and plant oil biodiesel. Corn is such a huge burden on the environment, with all its need for pesticides and such. Our trash could be used a a source for biodiesel, too!

I agree though, we cannot let people go hungry. But we do not need to support agriculture with pesticides and gmo's, in this day and age.

I'd like to see hybrid biodiesel cars.

And big business as usual companies like Halliburton need to be taken down a notch or more.

Maybe a little "unrest" in some of these grain-importing countries is needed. None of them seem to care one whit about the costs and problems with petroleum imports by the US and others, but when we try to start taking care of our problems by keeping some of what we now export, they clamor about hunger, poverty, and the unfairness of it all. I know it sounds harsh, but people have to care for themselves first, and then turn to others if they can afford to. Let OPEC try to feed the world with crude oil for a while, and let them see just how truly ungrateful the needy populations can be. I don't remember how long it has been since any country has thanked the US for its' more-than-bountiful exports, much of it free, of edible grain for food. Maybe, just maybe, with a rise in the cost of grains, we would see an accompanying drop in the cost of US government subsidies for grain crops (mostly to huge corporate structures), and a resultant drop in my taxes. Hmmmmmmm.....

Zhayne,

Just a correction for you.

Ethanol is NOT a Biodiesel. Ethanol is an alcohol, second only to methanol in molecular simplicity.

Biodiesels - ALL biodiesels - are esters. These are very different molecularly from alcohols.

To simplify, ethanol is made from the starchy parts of a plant, while biodiesel is made from the oils.

Additionally, biodiesel only runs in diesel cars, and ethanol only runs in gasoline cars.

 

to DJS in NJ:

You have the proverbial blinders on and sound as if you've listened to far too many soundbites!

The United States relies on every one of the countries you mentioned in order to be the world's only true Superpower.  We cannot afford to ignore our international neighbors out of utter ignorance of macro economics.

Indonesia provides raw materials, electronics, agriculture, and a mid-ocean economic market that US investment takes a heavy hand in.  Nigeria provides a multitude of ore & hydrocarbons.  Algeria and Egypt provide many resources as well as material & psychological support for the war on terror.

The top importer for the world is the United States.  We are the peak predator in a consumer jungle.  The means we use to get to this pinnacle need to be examined and appreciated.

[...]

Dear J. Thomas: Just to set your mind at ease, I'm not an oil industry lobbyist.  ;-)

Because it's a Friday, I'll add a personal sidelight and mention that I grew up on a farm in Iowa, where corn was a big part of daily life. I well remember the annual "Corn Boil" in Cascade, and have shoveled a good deal of corn in my life.

(Since we used all that corn to feed the dairy cows and hogs we raised, I also shoveled a lot of other, less palatable stuff growing up.)

The Earth Policy Institute study does note that there are feed byproducts from ethanol production. Here's the relevant quote (which you could have seen by clicking on the link to the report):

"Fuel ethanol proponents point out, and rightly so, that the use of corn to produce ethanol is not a total loss to the food economy because 30 percent of the corn is recovered in distillers dried grains that can be fed to beef and dairy cattle, pigs, and chickens, though only in limited amounts. They also argue that the U.S. distillery demand for corn can be met by expanding land in corn, mostly at the expense of soybeans, and by raising yields. While it is true that the corn crop can be expanded, there is no precedent for growth on the scale needed. And this soaring demand for corn comes when world grain production has fallen below consumption in six of the last seven years, dropping grain stocks to their lowest level in 34 years."

I also asked Brown about the idea that acreage could be taken out of set-aside programs. He pointed out ("and rightly so") that the set-aside program per se has gone by the wayside. The successor is known as the Conservation Reserve Program. "That was designed to retire highly erodable land," Brown said. "There'll probably be some of that returning."

The CRP land is taken out of production based on contracts that are phased in and out by year. Brown said "it doesn't look like a lot of that is going to come back in" next year. He noted that the people who enroll in the program are often folks who have essentially retired from farming. "For them, the program is a very comfortable source of income," Brown said. But I suppose if there are changes in the economics and politics of farming, that could change as well.

There's a lot of research going into making the conversion of non-food cellulose into ethanol much more efficient, and I'm sorry if I didn't put enough emphasis on that in the original item.

Just based on my reading of what Brown and other economists are saying, my guess would be that there could be unexpected market twists ahead, leading to financial reversals, but nothing on the scale of an ethanol apocalypse.

But what do I know? I'm just a former farmboy.

Rather than throw money away around the world by killing people into accepting democracy, the U.S. should embark on an Apollo scale project to build newer and safer nuclear reactors and build a hydrogen based infrastructure to fuel cars.  The electricity to produce the hydrogen and or to power batteries can come from the nuke plants.

The spent nuke waste can be dumped into a subduction zone and sent on its merry way back into the mantle of the earth.

And to the spare hippies the trouble of toting out the tired "there is no safe nuclear power" canard, I would just point out France's safe, progressive nuclear fuel process.  If the French can do it, anyone can.  The French are like environmental hippies times ten.

All the points I have read are very good – and there are pros and cons to each and every one of them. It is simply supply and demand and you should not limit your view of the world to just how a country overseas would react to an increase in corn prices.

People fail to realize just how many food products in the US have corn or corn derivatives in them – the sweetener of choice in the US for food production is high fructose corn syrup; the cooking oil of choice is hydrogenated vegetable oil (corn). One reason why, we as a country, are so over-weight is because of the low cost of these two items – the corn syrup replaced sugar in production because of low cost and the oil is used because of its cost and stability… if you double (think quadruple and higher) the price the key ingredients in all prepared or pre-packaged foods – you get the idea. With so many people in the US making a minimal living wage, if you increase the price of their food (and the cheapest food available to them at that), the people doing without are not the ones in Africa or Asia, but here at home.

The farmers will sell their crop to the highest bidder – the prices will be driven up by money-hungry speculators and you will see dramatic fluxes in fuel prices as people hear about droughts in the Midwest (causes for the Dust Bowl in the '30s – warmer Atlantic temperatures – sound familiar?) or water shortages or whatever the disaster of the day is… even though the entire country’s corn crop on an annual basis might produce 5%-10% of our fuel requirements.

I have read every comment on this article and am astonished that not one person mentioned the impact that ethanol production would have on the food prices in this country. Keeping in mind that almost every consumable product in this country from fast food to the food you buy in a grocery store contain some form of processed corn. (on the average, not referring to fresh fruits and vegatables) We are already exceeding our demands for food in this country as well as with the countries that we help support. As we all have seen, supply and demand will dictate prices and as corn demands increase because of ethanol, so will every derived product that is made from it rise in price. Soda, tortillas, certain types of bread... several food business will need to increase their prices as well resulting in a major shift in the way people eat. I'm sure there are many pros and cons that people can think of when it comes to ethanol, but I can't swallow a ten dollar soft taco, can you?

The other point here that some of the readers have mentioned is the greed of OPEC and its partners but also that our dependencies on oil in some respects will not change, just the amount of it that we will consume will. What about the need for oils (petroleum based or not) in other applications, like lubricants for machinery? Ethanol is not the final solution to our energy concerns, it is just a small piece of the equation. If you do some research on the Internet, you can find reliable information about some of the energy alternatives that are being studied. Money should not be dumped into one idea just because it looks good on paper.

I recall a man by the name of Tom Bearden who I saw once in an interview (possibly the Discovery channel?) who had an alternative energy solution using magnets. I've also seen other published studies and conceptual devices worked on by Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Department of Energy which were the size of a home air conditioning unit and could possibly power an entire single-family home that have shown promise with producing reliable and totally clean energy from nothing more than magnets. Why haven't these technologies been exploited more? The answer that strikes me is what others have already mentioned. Some of these alternatives bring a bigger problem to the table than others - world instability and economic failure. Just imagine if next year you could go buy a piece of equipment that you might only have to replace once in your lifetime (if that) and you would never have to pay a power bill again? Or if businesses around the world did not have to pay for oil for fuel and could allocate that money towards better investments and products, do you think that would change the world as we know it? I do, and I think that is the bigger problem that nobody can come up with a good enough plan to make it happen the right way. My hope is that someday it will and I hope that what I've said here enlightens others as to what an amazing race of people we are and what we could really do if we want to. Maybe if enough people become aware of it, we'll have a loud enough voice to make a change.

I have never really done this but here it goes.  There are no quick fixes or easy answers.  Radicals, conservatives, and moderates need to understand all the little snap shots of this issue to understand the panoramic view of a very real concern that will lead us as a group to a real solution to the world’s oil dependence.

    I believe Bill H of Sugar Land TX is correct.  Most of the real scientific studies indicate that there isn’t enough Bio Mass in a field of Corn to produce the fuel to plant the seeds, produce the fertilizer to nourish the plants, spread the fertilizer in the fields, produce the weeding agents to protect the plants, spread the weeding agent in the fields, harvest the plants, transport the seeds to a storage facility, move the seeds from the storage facilities to the fuel processing centers, process the seeds to fuel, and transport the finished fuel to the gas stations for sell to the consumer.  Those same studies also indicate that increasing the size of the planted fields does not increase the amount of fuel available to the consumer.

    If these studies are correct then Zhayne, Alpha Quadrant of the Nigel Sector of the Milky Way Galaxy is wrong.  No increase in Corn production would solve our dependence on petroleum .  I believe Zhayne is under the impression that excess Corn yields go unused.  Most of that excess is exported to other countries in the form of Food Aid.  Corn seeds are more resistant to rot and spoilage and require almost no special handling for distribution as do potatoes, carrots, and tomatoes.  In the end Bio Mass is what counts and a field of Corn at current yields does not work.

    Don Shaffer has a better idea but I don’t think Hemp is the best answer.  There is a weed that grows in areas that will not easily support Food plants.  I wish I knew the name at this time but I don’t.  It is well know to those scientists looking into the alternative fuel issues.  I understand it requires almost no fertilizer and weeding agents to grow.  It also produces more Bio Mass to the acre then Corn and because it will grow in areas not suitable to food plants it does not compete for the same acreage usage.  This point of this paragraph is that we need smart people thinking ‘outside of the ‘Corn’ box’ and looking to other sources of Bio Mass.

    I am not sure what the author, Alan Boyle, was attempting to convey in his article FOOD VS FUEL.  He refers to the Bio Mass in his article as Corn and includes pictures of a yellow seed food product most Americans would recognize as the new world food we eat ‘on the cob’ at home or picnics.  Corn is a general term of all types of cereal grains that includes oats, barley, wheat, and by some definitions rice and sorghum.  The food we Americans eat ‘on the cob’ is really Maize.  Americans don’t eat sorghum.  It is used primarily as fodder for cattle, swine, and poultry.

  Oats, wheat, rice, and barley are consumed by humans, farm animals, and house pets.  Maize comes in two different forms; that consumed by humans and that grown for and consumed by animals.  Mr. Boyle’s assertion that using Corn/Maize as a Bio Fuel substitute for petroleum would cause Maize/Corn prices to rise and people to go hungry has no real bases in scientific or market fact.  It is an assumption.  I am not saying that it is a bad assumption on his part but it is conjecture and therefore should not be taken as fact.  I am not sure which Maize seed he is referring to in his article but I will ASSUME he means the Maize most Americans eat.   If this is the case then I would submit that using non-eating Maize as a fuel Bio Mass would not have any appreciable effect on the price on the Maize we consume everyday.

    Dennis Bruns, Renville, Mn has an interesting thought that needs to be expanded upon.  The Consumer Market will be determine if and when there will be a need to shift away for Petroleum base fuel to Bio based fuels.  The market will determine which Bio Mass will make the best alternative to petroleum products. The market will decide which vehicles will best deliver performance, efficiency, quality, and cost to burn those alternative fuels.  Let the Market and Consumers decide on the future of  alternative fuels.

    This is a complex issue.  No one has touched on reduced power and fuel economy of ethanol fuels, industrial conversion to ethanol fuels, who really pays for increased fuel prices and the affect on American’s lives, and a myriad of other consumer issues.  They are all very important and need to be considered in this discussion.  As a retired service member, having fought in the petroleum rich Middle East I would like to see America’s dependence on Middle East petroleum products end.  As a hunter and outdoorsman I would like to see our world a little cleaner.  As a father I want a better world for my children.  BUT, as a Middle Class Working American, who enjoys his Gas Guzzling pick-up truck, 4X4 SUV, motorcycle, and boat, I want the right to drive what I want, where I want and when I want so long as I can afford gas to pump into my gas tanks. I told you it was complicated.

Right... Just to be totally clear, we're talking specifically about the grain that's known in many parts of the English-speaking world as maize. Also, I'm just writing about the projections from Earth Policy Institute. I hope I've made clear that I'm not totally sold on the idea that there will be a corn crisis. However, corn prices have already risen due to the ethanol factor, and the only question is how much more they might rise (or perhaps fall if for some reason there's an alternative-fuel bust!).

I still think skipping the middleman (that is the use of portable fuel itself – i.e. gas, diesel, ethanol, or hydrogen) and just using electric cars will be a much more long-term solution (given the rapid progress of battery technology). That way it would be much easier to use solar and wind (which are rapidly progressing as well) on a very local level. Working at home (or within your own neighborhood) in sub-industrial-scale shops and professionally-equipped offices has even more advantages.

Stock up on your grains and dry beans now, kids. I wish the news was better, but it's all coming down, no matter how much we wish we could just lose ourselves in Disney cartoons and fantasy-land instead.


Just remember, violence begets violence. Keep your humanity and don't fight with your neighbors, rather work together as community for survival. All killing other people will do is prove you have something they want, and the numbers will not favor your odds.


There's no better time to read the works of Gandhi.

I think some people have unreasonable expectations for cellulosic ethanol. I have research experience in this area, and there are still some substantial hurdles to overcome. There is no guarantee that they will be overcome. I documented some of the issues here:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/11/
cellulosic-ethanol-reality-check.html

I think biomass gasification has a better chance at being part of a long-term solution, as documented here:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/
2006/10/cellulosic-ethanol-vs-biomass.html

But ultimately, we are going to have to make do with much lower levels of energy consumption than at present.


Cheers, Robert Rapier

The idea of going to all-electric cars might sound nice, but there are a number of negatives that aren't getting too much publicity. For one thing, unless an enormous amount of money is spent on improving the power generating system in this country, all-electric cars will remain a pipe dream. For the past few years, I have seen stories from southern California about the summer energy crises they have. Imagine what will happen some August evening when a couple of million Angelinos plug their electric cars into an already strained power grid. And what about the people who live in areas where the grid is subject to weather damage? How are they going to recharge their cars for a week or two after a hurricane or blizzard destroys the power system in their area? I agree with the idea that corn based ethanol is not a very good long term solution for the oil crisis. The big research money should being going to develop ways to produce fuel from corn stalks, not corn kernels. Wheat straw, sugar beet tops, and other non-food biomass will be a much better way to generate fuel.

Interesting comments all upon this issue.

You might be interested to read the take by the newspaper "Iowa depends Upon" a/k/a the Des Moines Register.

http://desmoinesregister.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=NEWS
&theme=FUELING_THE_FUTURE&template=theme

This is a dumb article.  We (in Iowa and surrounding States) - have NOT even begun to come close to the limits of corn production that is possible.  Put even 10 % of the land in setaside that we have now - and stop the current limits on our production - and we will NEVER run out.

ONLY those in "Think Tanks" would think this - realists know the reality.

I don't think anyone has brought this up yet - algae.  There are varieties that have yield over 40% oil.  There have been a number of studies done (one very good one from the University of New Hampshire) that detail how vegetable oil from algae farms could replace the total US usage of petroleum based fuels without impacting the our agricultural economy.  Algae "farms" would be located by their very nature in areas not suited for traditional food crop farming.  I know it sounds "out there", but "horseless carriages" were considered pretty "out there" when they were first introduced.

All of the above points are valid and its good to see contructive discussion on all of this. Eventually money will enter into the discussions and all the above, except maybe conservation, will require it. What would happen if the US government took a small portion of the $450B+ defense budget and reassigned it to alternative energy, converted the now and pending closed automobile factories for producing wind turbines etc., and make higher mpg standards mandatory. This would decrease the death-and-destruction (hopefully), improve our standing internationally, decrease our oil dependence, decrease global warming etc.? The only problem is that all this may make too much sense which precludes it from being implemented in DC.

Perhaps a few FACTS help clear up the issue: in 2005 the US converted ~14% of its corn harvest into 4 billion gallons of ethanol. Sounds like a lot? After factoring in that a gallon of ethanol hold only 2/3 the energy of a gallon of gasoline, that is enough to replace 1% of US oil use (~20 million bbl/d).

This explains why the agricultural industry is all excited about corn ethanol (who wouldn't like a 14% increase in sales), while the oil industry does not even bother to respond (1% after all that noise?).

It also shows that corn ethanol is going nowhere: taking the entire US corn harvest and converting it into ethanol will only replace ~7% of US oil use...

Fuels made from petroleum are "energy positive" -- meaning that they yield more energy than they consume in their production.  The conversion of a barrel of oil to fuels produces waste fuels that are used for other purposes (including the operation of the distillation tower, transportation, recovery, etc).

Fuels made from plant objects are energy negative -- they require energy from an outside source to convert them to fuels similar to those from petroleum.  That outside source, of course, is almost always a petroleum-based product.  

Incidentally, everybody that points to Brazilian production of ethanol as a great example of how to go about this.  I would think that they are simply depleting the rain forests faster because of ethanol, in order to recover combustable wood and coal for use in the ethanol conversion process, plus generating farmland for growing the plants needed as stock.

Now, of course, the ideal solution would be to genetically engineer a plant that converts to a fuel at a much lower energy cost (perhaps, even, by burning waste stems, bark, etc, to liberate the fuel) or even engineer a plant that has the fuel in its sap and can simply be tapped like a maple tree is for syrup.

WOW! If I had given an example of "the ugly American", there might have been cause for claiming I was creating a STRAWMAN, but here's a quote from a comment to this Alan Boyle topic which destroys any STRAWMAN claims. "---BUT, as a middle class working American who enjoys his Gas Guzzling pick-up truck 4X4 SUV, motorcycle, and boat, I want the right to drive what I want where I want and when I want as long as I can afford gas to pmp into my gas tanks."

 
 One does wonder what such a person will be doing when they can no longer "afford gas to pump----" and does such a person understand that people who can't afford food deserve more consideration than those who can't afford gasoline. A grave concern of the rest of the world (Americans included) is those unable to afford gasoline for their "toys" are likely to STEAL it from others or KILL to get it. What valid set of morals will not place "killing" for food above "killing" for non essentials ("toys")? My concern (and I suspect many others around the World) is that the not small majority of Americans (U.S. citizens especially) who favor the DEATH PENALTY, another source of disfavor and mistrust around the World, favor, support, or adopt said quotation, above. My fear is  that most U.S. citizens do, which makes them prone to adopt war rather than give up their favorite "toy". No wonder many in the World see Americans as spoiled brats. I do sincerely hope, that the minority will eventually prevail or become the majoriy without the need for another U.S. civil war to set things right. We may have to be very patient and and have lots of enduring hope because a majoriy of citizens is not always enough, consider the current problem with defining "marriage" (especially in Massachusetts?).

Sorry Alan,
You don't know what you are talking about. That's OK, it happens to be a trademark of the followers of the religion of PeakOil. Let's see if we can clear up some of your misconceptions:

Apparently you think that the only source of energy out there is oil (does gas and coal count too?). Apparently, it has never occurred to you that plant matter contains energy (hint: it burns) and that you actually don't need any oil to release, use or convert that energy to a different form (hint: we humans were using biomass for energy long before we started using oil). Try thinking of plants as self-propagating solar collectors.

Admittedly corn ethanol is not the most promising renewable fuel: converting FOOD -> FUEL is such a dumb idea, Congress should outlaw it, not subsidize it. But there are better renewable fuels out there. WASTE -> FUEL is win-win-win. Free feedstock (you might even get paid to take it). Clean up the environment (by converting waste into something useful). Replace fossil fuels with renewable fuels and producing carbon-neutral products.

One of the more interesting examples is a plant in Carthage, MO that converts turkey guts (innards, feathers, heads, feet and other inedibles) into Fuel Oil #4. FO #4 can be refined into gasoline and diesel, i.e. the exact same fuels we love and use today (minus a few nasties like aromatics and sulfur). That is important: none of the blending, transporting or storage issues of ethanol or biodiesel.

And yes, the Carthage plant is "energy positive" - for heating it uses the gas produced from part of the feedstock. The only external energy is a bit of electricity to run the pumps (and control systems). Add a generator, and you could run the plant without any external energy.

Admittedly, there is not enough turkey guts out there to get us off foreign oil, but there is plenty of agricultural and forestry waste. Enough, reportedly to replace one-third of our transportation fuel use, at least according to USDA/DOE. That's way ahead of the 7% that we can (almost) get from corn ethanol.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf

One word!  BIODIESEL!!!!!  Much easier to grow soybeans than corn, can even be made from algae!

I don't think ethanol will be the answer to our energy needs, but it is a valid supplement. I also think they're underscoring the potential for relatively near-term future revolutions in the food industries that will likely signifigantly boost food production, boost the potential energy creation in plants, etc.

Engineer, even if we increase ethanol to 3% of our fuel, that is far from going nowhere.  We produce most of our petroleum in the U.S. already, and if we use ethanol, biodiesel (and no, ethanol is NOT diesel), and electric cars (using solar panels and wind power), we can fire OPEC as well as cut into the Bush family's profits from oil.  We need to use ALL of these alternatives.

Hmm, so now I am supposed to worry about corn for ethanol production eh? This in a country that uses high fructose corn syrup (which science says is bad for the body) because we can't import sucrose from the evil commies in Cuba? In fact, we buy Cuban sugar from Japan. Meanwhile we have massive reserves of coal? Politics and science do not mix. I do think you guys have a great plot for a movie of the week here though...

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):