ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Food vs. fuel?

Posted: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:47 PM by Alan Boyle

Is ethanol the answer for what ails our energy economy? Or could the ethanol boom destabilize grain markets, and even governments? In a report issued today, the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute says a rapid rise in the demand for corn - the current crop of choice for ethanol production - could stir up global economic chaos, and soon.


AP
A handful of corn is shown before it is processed at
the Tall Corn Ethanol plant in Coon Rapids, Iowa.

"If there are enough urban food riots in the world, it would create a very difficult situation with potentially a lot of instability, and perhaps on a scale that could disrupt global economic progress. ... We're not talking about something five or 10 or 15 years down the road, we're talking about something that might happen in a year or two," Lester Brown, the institute's president and a longtime environmental campaigner, told me today.

The source of Brown's concern is the sharply increasing investment in ethanol production facilities. Some energy industry analysts see fuel-quality grain alcohol - distilled primarily from corn - as one of the best alternatives to foreign oil. Last year, President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative gave a multimillion-dollar boost to ethanol production.

That buzz over ethanol has really taken hold, and everyone agrees that corn prices will rise as a result. In fact, that's happening already. But how high will those prices go?

Almost a year ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that the nation's ethanol distilleries would require 60 million tons of corn from the 2008 harvest. The Earth Policy Institute factored in the additional investment in facilities since then, and came up with a figure of 139 million tons - more than twice as much. That includes:

  • The institute's estimate of current annual production levels, 53 million tons used by 116 plants.
  • Expansion of existing facilities, which would increase requirements by 8 million tons.
  • Production by 79 plants under construction, requiring another 51 million tons.
  • Another 27 million tons of corn that would be consumed by distilleries currently in the planning stage and scheduled for completion by September 2008.

The institute's report notes that the increased demand for corn will affect not only prices for that commodity, but for other crops as well. Rapidly rising prices for grain could spark trouble abroad, it says:

"The competition for grain between the world's 800 million motorists who want to maintain their mobility and its 2 billion poorest people who are simply trying to survive is emerging as an epic issue. Soaring food prices could lead to urban food riots in scores of lower-income countries that rely on grain imports, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria and Mexico. The resulting political instability could in turn disrupt global economic progress, directly affecting all countries. It is not only food prices that are at stake, but trends in the Nikkei Index and the Dow Jones 500 as well."

How bad could things really get? Is the report too alarmist? Well, the Agriculture Department's chief economist shares Brown's concerns - up to a point.

During a Senate hearing in September, chief economist Keith Collins told lawmakers that the ethanol boom is indeed exceeding the department's long-term projections. To keep markets stable, America's farmers will have to produce more corn, and other exporters will have to raise their output as well, Collins said.

"The corn sector will be highly vulnerable to market disruptions - ethanol plants and other users will be operating in a much riskier environment than we have today," he said.

But Collins is more confident that the market will be able to sort things out. Today he told The Associated Press that the Earth Policy Institute was making "a valid point," but took issue with its estimate of future demand. "That strikes me as high," he was quoted as saying.

If corn prices rise, the euphoria over ethanol would likely settle down, and some of the distilleries currently being planned may never be built. Congress could also conceivably adjust the current ethanol subsidy to fine-tune the economics.

Whether or not an ethanol apocalypse is looming, Brown said the U.S. government and the industry needed to develop a much more precise picture of the ethanol energy market.

"The reality is that whether it's farmers or ethanol investors, or food processors or feeders, people have been making decisions in financial terms based on a misleading sense of what the corn market is going to look like," he told me.

The report calls for a "moratorium on the licensing of new distilleries, a time-out, while we catch our breath and decide how much corn can be used for ethanol without dramatically raising food prices." That kind of industrial policy may not fly in the current political environment, but several other recommendations from the report provide additional food for thought:

  • Putting much more effort into producing ethanol from non-food sources of cellulose, such as switchgrass, wood chips and cornstalks. This is already a major thrust of the Advanced Energy Initiative.
  • Raising fuel efficiency standards for automobiles by 20 percent.
  • Promoting a shift toward gas-electric hybrid plug-in cars.
  • Investing in wind farms to provide the electricity  for next-generation automobiles. "U.S. cars could run primarily on wind energy - and at the gasoline equivalent of less than $1 a gallon," the report said.

What do you think? How do you separate the wheat from the chaff (or the corn from the stalks) in the energy debate? Feel free to add your comments below.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Not quite, Marty,

Data from 2000, see

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson
/funda/Sidebar/OilConsumption.html

... shows that US oil production is about 30% of US consumption (and dropping all the time). Another 3% is not going to make much of a difference, unless you are in the agri business.

I am all for exploring a number of options, but some ideas (like FOOD -> FUEL) deserve to be dismissed out of hand. Let's at least narrow the field to those candidates that may actually work.

Slight correction to one remark from somewhere near here in the Milky Way: Biodiesel and ethanol are not the same. Ethanol is not a biodiesel. It is an alcohol substitute, a gasoline additive, an octane booster. Ethanol is usually added into gas as a percentage [E-85 is 85% ethanol, 15% regular petro]. Biodiesel, on the other hand, is a diesel replacement. It can be made lotsa ways: ag products, waste products, etc. It can also be added to petro diesel to help clean it up.
Concerning a previous comment about diesels, I currently have a VW diesel that I plan to modify so it will run on pure vegatable/animal oil. This oil can be used or fresh, preferably used as this must be disposed of anyway. The only petroleum I will use is a little diesel fuel to get the engine running, the lubricating oil, and whatever petroleum it takes to make the hoses, tires, etc. If I has someone else do the modifications, which consist of adding a second fuel system for the veggie oil and no mechanical modifications, it would cost about $2000, or I can by components and assemble them myself for about $1000 or less. Once done I will be primarily burning a waste product that would have to be disposed of anyway. Also, if the government is so dedicated to reducing our energy dependancy, there should be substantial subsidies for solar power and heating of residential homes. And don't overlook LED(light emmitting diode) lighting technology. They last on average 100,000 hours which would be 11 years if burned 24 hours a day, and consume a fraction of the energy per lumen, and give off negligable heat. I'd like to see a study that shows the total energy savings and heat output reduction if every incandecent light in the country were replaced with LED's. We have the means to drasticlly reduce oil consumption but something is holding back all these technologies. Everyone needs to ask themselves a question. Why do all the currently promoted options all have some connection to the oil industry and the ones that are not being utilized have little or no connection to petroleum? I beleive that Detroit and Houston are running this country, not DC, at least as far as energy production and consumption are concerned.
what about indian corn it's edible if picked young but i have not heard about using it as it does grow taller and with longer stocks it may contain more energy

I saw a few posts reference corn prices going up, government subsidies to corn farmers and taxes.  Here is a link to a 2003 Oxfam article regarding U.S. farm subsidies and how it affects Mexico’s economy.

  http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/
press_releases/archive2003/art5911.html

I’m not an expert in this area, but only hope to provide some food/fuel for thought.  My impression of the situation today is that much of corn farmers’ income comes from sales of crops destined for export to other countries.  Since the U.S. produces so much more corn than needed domestically, rules of supply & demand would make corn farming unprofitable.  So the U.S. government gives subsidies to farmers to artificially lower the selling price of corn exports, ensuring that much of the world is buying U.S.-grown corn and American farmers aren’t going broke.

But in doing so, the U.S. government is actively harming the economies of many other would-be corn-exporting countries.  I would guess the cost of corn production is nearly the same regardless of where you’re growing it.  But these other governments can’t afford to subsidize the price of corn grown in their countries, making it harder to sell. So it’s not so much that other countries can’t grow corn… they just don’t.  They can’t compete in the international market with subsidized U.S. corn. 

But if ethanol demand in the U.S. grows, so too does the domestic demand for corn.  Does a drastic increase in corn production necessarily follow?  I don’t think so.

Couldn’t the U.S. simply reduce its corn exports and subsidies, and instead use more of that for domestic ethanol production?   It seems to me this would level the field in the international markets, raising the price of corn and allowing other countries to compete fairly.  Further, though our taxes might stay the same, the U.S. government could continue to subsidize corn sales domestically. This would keep our farmers profitable while keeping our food and fuel prices down. Both are benefits to American taxpayers rather than the subsidies today that serve to maintain the dependence of other countries on the artificially cheap American corn.  Finally, doing so would improve the economies of those other countries and thereby reduce the amount of aid the U.S. doles out.

I haven't seen anything yet about the exact chemistry this whole issue is based on. Is this all based on a 10% ethanol mix in gasoline? Does that mean 10% less gasoline refinement? if this is the case then the whole "better air quality" arguement is baloney!! This is just another way the governemnt is appeasing the environmentally conscious and marketing this as a panacea. It's all BS and will never work. They should be looking into and subsidizing the auto industry to make hydrogen and hybrid vehicles widespread for one thing rather than this ethanol pork barrelling!!!

Why can't there be a mix solution to this crisis?  Ie, the use of both petrol fuels and bio fuels? This way reliance does not fall into one category as we currently are now.

With regard to electric/battery operated cars?

Ummmm, where do they get their power?  The electrical utilities.  What utility is very fragile at the moment?  The electrical utility/grid.  What does the Electrical utilities use to create electricity?  coal/oil/nuclear.  That is not resolving the issue.
And this does not even address the disposal of all the batteries from these new cars, which would be highly hazardous.  I do not even consider electric cars a reasonable solution.  There is more problems then solutions.

Again, a mix of bio and fossil.  Ie, up the bio mix into the fossil fuels so that it is half and half or more.  Find the technology to do that.  At least in a short term solution, this would lower our reliance on foreign oil.  Would address the issue of the article, because complete reliance wouldn't be on the bio fuel.  And would lower polution.

Yea, ok. Flame me because I think electric cars are a joke.

Dan

Global warming is a major issue today! We as a planet must decide whether we destroy our world or turn to alternate resources at what ever cost. We really have no time to wast. If we do not act now, we all shall surely perish.....STOP burning fossil fuels
Interesting comments.  Seems everyone has an opinion which differs from every other opinion stated.  There are a few additional facts which need exposition.


Back in the early 70s, a long time ago, there was an'oil crisis' concerning OPEC and their crude oil.  OPEC is and was a co-operative effort by foreign oil companies owned by their various governments.  During some tumultuous times, OPEC decided it deserved to receive higher prices for its crude oil as the markets for gasoline were comparatively much higher. One of the top gasoline executives in New York (Exxon?) was greatly put out by this move, and said, in effect, "Those Ay-rabs will get what we decide they get!"  The Arabs, not known for their understanding patience with the system, became understandably irate, and jacked their prices outasight.   This led to a knee-jerk reaction by the business leaders in the USA and there were long lineups formed at gas stations all over the place.  The auto makers went into immediate panic and laid off their workforce.  Lay-offs followed in the appliance sector, as laid-off auto workers cancelled plans to buy new stoves and dishwashers, dryers, etc. Then more lay-offs for the workers who made furniture and rugs and clothes followed.  The USA (and most of the rest of the world) went into deep depression --  financial depression, that is.  Pride indeed goeth before a fall. It took several years to recover, a lesson we should remember.  By the way, Exxon is currently disputing responsibility for the wreck of their single-hulled tanker, The Valdez. many years ago.  The free market is a wonderful concept, except when it is not allowed to operate for other people.


None of the solutions suggested here concerning the power problem will be allowed to operate soon enough, before global warming takes over our world and makes more problems than the military-industrial complex can handle, as Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us when he left the presidency.
I really liked the comments about how electric cars would tax the current electrical grid too much and how cellulose ethanol production would need a staggering amount of biomass just to keep in operation.  Makes you think twice now doesn't it?  


From the top down, everything looks impossible.  It won't be until the consumer starts reducing energy use (i.e. not turning the AC or heat on just because it is two degrees above or below 72, driving more reasonable/functional vehicles, and building homes that produce their own power needs) that things can be turned around.  We can do this.  If you were to draw a circle around us, everything we need to know and the resources to do it are here.  Building communal homes that allow us to combine our resources and work right from home is one of the keys we are missing. It would reduce our vehicle needs by 60% to 85% as nothing a mere service economy does is really all that hard to do from home.  Probably more important than that is far better city planning.  Our city planning is so bad that I have to wonder if the oil companies influance that over the years just to keep us all dependant on vehicles and gas.  As far as they are concerned, the less we do for ourselves the more dependent we are on them.  Heck, we don't even garden anymore.
Where is the focus on totally renewable, practically limitless resources that have almost no impact on the environment: solar, wind, & ocean currents? It's bad if some migratory birds get pureed in wind mills, but it's worse if we push the planet into another ice age! We need to think & act on the long term now. The technology exists. Doing the right thing isn't always doing the easy thing. Wake up before we destroy our planet!
Dan: You should spend a little time considering what you said about electric hybrids. You fail to see that they work and pollute far less than gasoline engines even if power plants (windfarms maybe?) power the batteries. Biofuels work too but their real impact is useless unless you biofuel every car truck and SUV in the world. That's right, the world. Not just the USA. This thread is about ethanol too and my OP was only about ethanol and it's uselessness at having real positive impact. The current US government really doesn't want to see beyond the end of their collective noses and seems quite happy with horse blinders too.
Here is a link that describes and compares all vehicles that have environmental benefit.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/
vehicle-fuels.cfm?text=N&printview=N
It makes no difference if we switch to ethanol because the fuel used to distill the alcohol comes from oil, and in the real world energy obtained from a process is generally less than the input. So how is ethanol an answer

I think that we all can agree that in the interest of our national and economic security we need to reduce our importation of liquid transportation fuels.  Our country will grind to a halt if the flow of liquid petroleum imports is interrupted by war, terrorism, or national catastrophe.  We are vulnerable to extremists and to economic blackmail.   However, I am more optimistic than I've been in many years by the confluence of many events and technologies that, if we work together, can end our dependence on imported transportation fuels.  


But first, it's important to understand that our electric grid is not part of this problem as it is based mostly on "home grown" energy and is essentially petroleum free(roughly 50% coal, 20% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 3% petroleum, and the balance renewables incl wind, geothermal, hydro, solar). In fact, the grid as it stands today has great untapped potential to power plug-in hybrids.   This is because at night the generation stations idle at 50% or lower capacity.   Yes, we have surplus electric power, but only at certain TIMES OF THE DAY, especially at night.   It has been estimatd that the majority of the typical American family's personal car usage consists of short trips and commutes that are less than 40 miles/day.   Furthermore, that our electric grid could supply up to 85% of that energy if the demand could be directed to the low demand periods of the day (night).  


In my view, replacing liquid petroleum imports with homegrown energy will require the application of a wide portfolio of solutions which will eventually be sorted out by economics (the law of supply and demand distorted of course by national policy).  We are fortunate to have some very good options some of which are ready now (ethanol & biodiesel). Others include more attractive higher efficiency vehicle choices (there are over 30 vehicles sold in the US that get over 30 mpg, so why don't we buy only them?)  Another great option would be cars like the new plug-in electric "Volt" that GM announced today at the auto show. Unfortunately, it will have to wait for battery technology to catch up, probably 2-3 years. To speed battery development along, GM has signed up with two separate battery development consortiums to ready the battery technology by improving the energy storage density.  


Back to the Law of Supply and Demand.   I believe in it because it always works, even when distorted by politics (aka subsidies).   Therefore, as the price of corn increases, the farmers will grow more corn.   The Ag Dept of the State of Indiana in cooperation with Purdue U. has estimated that farmers will increase production of corn dramatically in 2007 by many means, including putting 10,000,000 more acres into production.  


As the price of corn increases, substitutes for corn will become economically attractive and monies for genetic research to increase crop yiels will increase; the profitability of the new corn fed ethanol plants will decrease, discouraging more from being built.  As the price of corn goes up it will encourage the  conversion of the ethanol distilleries to move to lower cost processes including, cellulosic feed stocks (bio-mass).  


I am very optimistic and excited about the opportunities that are before us now including new technologies for renewable energy production, alternative fuel vehicles (ethanol, biodiesel, electric).  Furthermore, I strongly support the concept of "growing our own" energy and sending our dollars to our hard working fellow Americans in the Mid-West, instead of to the people who hate us in the Middle East.



Finally, I support a comprehensive energy policy that encourages all viable alternatives (that portfolio of options I mentioned above).  This energy plan should include incentives to build a floor under the new fledgling industries so that they can gain a foothold and not be forced out of business if the price of oil suddenly tanks at it has done several times since OPEC was formed in the 70's and cut us off.  Yes, I know, this will distort the supply and the demand, but if done well, we can throw off the dangerous yoke of our dependence on unstable suppliers and secure our future, and the futures of our children and grandchildren.


Optimistic retired chemical engineer

Corn-based ethanol is a lie.  Corn is incredibly harsh on soil...demanding much nutrients.  What will we fertilize with?  The usual chemicals?  What happens when corn production quintuples to fuel gluttonous SUVs?
 

algae-based solutions are actually tenable.
corn-ethanol is a pipe dream of farmers and lobbyists that is only reasonable because of subsidies paid to farmers!
Just saw the report that '06 was the warmest in US history and then followed the link to the British study that '07 will likely be even worse. I guess what really surprised me is the estimate that global temperatures could rise 2.5 to 10 (TEN) degrees by the end of the century. I also noted that the El Nino events shown in the chart are becoming much more frequent and how they said temperatures were increasing three times faster over the last 30 years. I think we all know what even a five-degree temperature change would bring and how the absence of ice in the artic would cascade such warming even more. This is no longer a game. Something has got to change. Marking and moving away from coastal areas seemed like a wise precaution last week but an absolute necessity this week. Is there any sort of chart that indicates how much sea levels will rise for a given degree increase. Is three feet still the expected rise by the end of the century? How can that be so if the temperature jumps so high? Is 10 feet out of the question? How long until a twenty-foot rise (like Al Gore mentioned in his movie) is expected? These are no longer “what if” questions… Heck, our climate crisis may put our species more at risk than thermonuclear war. Time to dust off and update the Terminal Planet series I think. Just the name of that thing was a call to arms. Good night and good luck!
Re: Chris Eldridge's "Marking and moving away from coastal areas seemed like a wise precaution last week but an absolute necessity this week. ... How long until a twenty-foot rise (like Al Gore mentioned in his movie) is expected?"


If you start walking tomorrow towards the mountains and make at ten miles a day you can probably stay ahead of the rising oceans caused by global warming. I agree global warming is a problem but don't panic or try to imply things will happen this fast. You write books on issues. Don't you do research also?


Perhaps your quote of Al Gore is revealing about the sources of information you chose to use. He is hardly a good source of information about global warming.  The PC cause of global warming, touted by Mr. Gore and many others, is atmospheric release of CO2. In fact, it is more complicated.  The climate models which best fit the available data show that doubling the CO2 concentrations currently existing would raise global temperatures only 0.18 degrees Centigrade.      


Everyone is so eager to charge off and solve global warming that the failure of the US to adopt crash measures to reduce CO2 emissions is seen as irresponsible.  These Tokyo accords are so economically harsh that they would cause enormous economic strain and lead to many deaths world-wide if implemented by all and not just by the US which meets it treaty obligations rather than sign on the bottom line with the intention to cheat.


Governmental efforts restricting CO2 emissions will have little effect on global warming.  We need to do a lot more basic research of this problem and unfortunately we will probably find that global warming is far too large a problem for the human race to prevent and that we need to learn how best to adapt to it.


Fossil fuels are valuable resources and should be preserved by conservation and development of alternate energy resources and the US does not do enough in this area.  Just don't jump to the assumption that this will have any measurable effect on global warming.  In the enthusiasm for agricultural alternative's, we need to avoid the trap we fell into with ethanol with enormous subsidies cynically promoted by greedy  business interests in spite of their knowledge that ethanol production from crops consumes far more energy than it promotes.  This exploitation was promoted uninformed green enthusiasm and our current government by lobbyists political system. The best start on dealing with serious environmental and economic problems would be to enact all of Senator John McCain's political campaign reforms.          

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12801929/


The combustor!  Now this is really some kind of breakthrough. In spite of this, you can bet such a panacea won't be hitting the markets anytime soon. I would hope that such a discovery would be jumped on and made real. They put humans on the moon in 10 years and so these technologies of clean combustion should meet parallel developments.

Oh NO !!!  corn prices will go up..... This is how i look at this situation


There is no doubt that that prices will incase thats what happens in Capitalism, but i rather see the "farm boy" making the long over due Dollar then the already Bloated wallet of OPEC.  They just keep raising prices and we just pay....    

TIME FOR AN ARGRICULTURERAL RE-REVOLUTION 
It's time for america to be more self dependent

"O beautiful for spacious skies,
"FOR AMBER WAVES OF GRAIN",
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea! "

Patrick from Warner Robins GA,

Can I be the FIRST to raise my hand and say that I would NOT want to gamble that a DOUBLING of atmospheric CO2 would only alter temperatures by .18 degrees?  I mean isn't the whole concept of the hockey stick to show that there is direct correlation between CO2 and temperature?  Why take such an unprecedented gamble if we don't have to?  The "Crash Measures" you speak of: driving more efficient vehicles, switching to energy efficient lighting and appliances, conserving where we don't realize we are being wasteful, car pooling... are all things that save us money regardless and should be a no-brainer.  Why be wasteful when we can do things more soundly?  More efficient coal plants save power companies money.  More efficient airliners save the airlines money.  More efficient buildings save businesses money... Where is the problem?  Al Gore suggested that if we do tax carbon we should cut wage taxes by an equal amount.  Thus, even if that more extreme measure was introduced, it would arguably balance out.

I do like your suggestion that corn ethanol is probably more of a subsidy to help farmers than a real solution.  Last I heard, the word is still out on whether corn ethanol took more energy to produce than it created, but I would not be at all surprised if it took more energy like you say.  I think we are obligated to work with everything we have and perhaps get the system more efficient.

Hopefully (and I actually think more likely than not) scientist and engineers will come up with some SUPER efficient energy breakthrough, solar panel, lightweight alloy, battery, or whatever and there won't even be an issue 10 years from now. Commercial scale Geothermal using new oil drilling technologies is said to be able to tap 100,000 times the amount of energy that the earth is currently using just to give an example.  I really have hope that - using all the technology we have at our disposal and a little something called EFFORT - we may soon all be free of such struggle and hardships everywhere you look.  If it helps, think of environmentalism as a measure of efficiency.  If your beloved classic car/motorcycle that you helped rebuild had billowing black smoke coming from the exhaust, extreme vibrations and a heck of an engine ping, would you just say... Aw the heck with it?

1.  Global warming is real AND imminent.

2.  Evidence is obvious in the accelerated melting of the ice in the polar icecaps - over land for the South Pole and over water for the North Pole - and in all of earth's glaciers - check Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa, the Columbia Icefields in Alberta, the Alps in Switzerland.

3.  Ice melts at an exponential rate, not a linear one, which makes ice turn liquid the more liquid there is around it as the heat in the water transfers to the ice faster and faster.

4.  As the glaciers melt the water they provide to rivers (like the Columbia) will dry up except for the groundwater that now drains into the rivers, which will also dry up, though more slowly than the exposed glaciers themselves.

5.  As the water now held in ice, above sealevel, flows into the oceans the sealevel will rise accordingly.  The surface area of the seas will expand and submerge low-lying islands and peninsulas (Bikini and Florida) and could break through narrow ithmuses (the Panama Canal) and the Pacific Ocean could join the Atlantic, wiping out a lot of Caribbean islands while disrupting the present flow of the warm currents to the northeast.  At the same time the expanded ocean surface will evaporate more water to raise the general levels of humidity around the world.

6.  The cause of global warming is not so much the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the decreased levels of oxygen.   Is it too late to plant a tree?  

That maybe so Des but the fact remains, all fuel produces CO2. The trick is either to not put back into the atmosphere CO2 that was locked up 100's of millions of years ago or drastically reduce fossil fuel CO2.
True, Thomas, energy stored in fossil fuels, or any fuel, when released by being burned produces carbon dioxide. But it is the imbalance of that CO2 with plain old oxygen that is the cause of global warming, which is just Earth's way of keeping things in order. At the beginning of the age of dinosaurs there was a much greater volume of oxygen available and Earth compensated by growing things larger - like dragonflies with a wingspread of a metre or more. Atmospheric composition needs more 'corn' producing oxygen than we need ethanol as a gasoline alternative producing more CO2. Lock up the CO2 again in comparative volumes to that which we produce in burning fossil fuels.
I don't know about the US but here in Calgary Mohawk charges about 17 cents USD more for a US gallon of 10% ethanol blended fuel than regular gasoline. That's 6 cents CAD more per liter. No wonder no one takes this fuel seriously. I did fill up however, just to see if gasoline mileage is different.

Um,,,Food vs Fuel? Well, we do not even use up a lot of the food we produce. Sure, let's use it for whatever benefits it has, but lest we forget, most vegetation does'nt have too many uses.

Now, not enough mention of Hemp. A few throw it in there, but fail to elucidate. THE most  versatile, multi-use bio-mass on this planet, and for those who want to know, read Jack Herers book: The Emperor Wears No Clothes.

Hey, Science, get it?

Corn isn't the only plant that will be used for energy. Switchgrass is around 3x more effective than corn. Algae alone is believed to be 15 to 60x more effective than corn, it just simply requires a huge investment to enable it to occur along with the risks on output due to weather.
Also, we can make a far better use of the energy we already use. To become energy independent America must not just develope a new energy source. We must also become energy efficient. It is entirely possible to create an ultra-efficient vehicle. Simply create substantial prizes (cost per vehicle, mpg, fuel flexibility, emissions, safety, etc). Encourage people to invest more in getting more out of vehicles by offering a very substantial (say, a billion for 500 mpg after 5 year contest... with the prize going up if they meet the requirements before hand at certain rates... within 4 years, so much of an increase, instead of 5 maybe 4 1/2 gets you bit more, etc.)
I did a fair test with city driving in winter with 10% ethanol regular gasoline and it appears that mileage per gallon is worse by about 2 miles/gal. (4.54 liters as opposed to 3.8 liters/gal US). I am going back to regular fuel for a while to make a further comparison. It may be that snowy roads required more fuel or maybe there was more idleing. All in all, there is probably no difference however.
Thomas,
It is worth pointing out that the difference between E10 and E0 (regular gasoline) is so small, it would require an extremely accurate test to show the difference.

In other words: ethanol has about 2/3rds the energy that gasoline has (BTU/gal or kJ/l). So compared to regular gasoline, E10's energy content would be:
0.9 [the gasoline part] + 0.1(0.67) [the ethanol part] = 0.967, or 3.3% less than regular gasoline.

Now, for E85, things are quite different, the reduction is 28%!
Big Agri-business and Big Oil must have some sort of pact between them in order to impose a limit, though an increasing one, on the amount of ethanol that can be used in gasoline as an 'additive.'  What we need is a substitute entirely.  Thomas Ashby is right on.  There are plans to re-lock the CO2 again, such as floating all the corn residue down the Mississippi and securing it underwater in the Gulf.  And that from an astronomy professor.  

But until all the oilfields of the world run dry we are going to be held prisoner by the ATVs, the Indy 500s, the powerboats, the planes, trains, and automobiles.  Maybe Michael S. could get us all some  hemp, and then we wouldn't care about global warming.   Or CO2.  Or MPG.  Or 28% of... what?
Engineer, CA...It's kind of bizarre that they offer such a huge difference in mixtures. E10 and E85, Why not E50?? A 50-50 proposition. Oh, and I did talk about the elevated price just for E10!! A whole 4.5 cents per liter USD.
As environmental science student, i agree that we need more ideas to solve this kind of possible problem in the future.BIOFUEL will be one of the possible anwers to solve our environmental crisis.GOD is GOOD because of the talent that we have.We should not waste it but instead use it in a good way.here in the Philippines we have coconut and geminina. we will preseve and develop this kind of treasure and in tha future we will live in a place were no pollution.CARPE DIEM
Transportation fuel should not compete with a food source.  The planet has many options for transportation fuel, GTL makes the most sense today with oil above $40 bbl.  The USA has a 300 year supply of coal that can be easily converted to GTL diesel.  As competition for corn increases and our grocery bill also increases as a result, people will seek to develop these alternative resources.
Heavy  use of ethanol is no real threat to the food
supply.  Corn is a crop that has a high surplus rate. Farmers are paid not to grow it at times. The use of ethanol will provide the agricultural industry
added income. Still there are other sources of ethanol. Switchgrass, grain stalks same rice stalks, tobacco and even scrap paper. These alternative are not only non edible, they are no value to the food industry and in some cases are waste products from
farms and homes.
 The ethanol industry developement has potential for cleaning the environment as well as developing
energy independence.
   It appears that the threat that ethanol has on food production is seen only in the eyes of the
petroleum industry.  
Inflation on the rise, women having multiple babies, food prices rapidly growing, global warming rearing its ugly head in the news, housing and rent prices through the roof, and to top it all I read this article on ananova.com regarding how men are renting out their apartments to women in exchange for sex.

Sounds like the SOYLENT GREEN era is just around the corner.

There is a device called the 'onboard hydrogen generator which' supplies hydrogen from water to fuel any internal combustion engine. This device is available today and requires almost no modification to existing engines. These will be in mega mass production in the very near future. for info, contact Paul soccit2me2000@yahoo.com
Go to www.endofworldhelp.com/forum and debate this on a long term! We are dedicated to bring you all help in case of disasters before the occur. Go to our page and read about disaster prevention.
Corn is very cheap now only because it is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government.  As soon as we start using it in large quantities to compete with big oil (which pretty much OWNS the government), they will stop subsidizing it.  Taxpayers win.  Food prices will rise a limited amount, because there are many other food sources, and we will save more than the difference in fuel costs, directly and indirectly.
Wouldn't it be great if the U.S. farmers had to 'buy' tractors and equipment, instead of having to 'auction' off all of their worldly goods? Ag comes to the rescue for fueling up our cars! I say, bring back our farmers, lets grow some corn, beets, or whatever we need to replace gasoline. (I remember when 'Ethyl' gas was 32 cents a gallon.)
My Volvo is supposed to use 100% gasoline to avoid damage to seals and engines.  Getting more and more difficult to find.  
It seems to me, some people feel a need to have problems.

Someone thinks of a solution, a positive mode for change and the betterment of something.  Whether it be the fuel issues or what have you.  Then the problem makers and the alarmists come along and say, what if this goes wrong, what if that goes wrong.

If we were all a little more focused on solutions and not problems, we would be in a much better, happier state.

Giving the farmer's of our nation a reason to actually grow crops rather than selling their failing farmland to developers, seems like a positive to me.

Teaching developing countries to grow a product that can be sold around the world and feed them as well, that seems like a positive too.

Be positive, be part of the solution.  If we are unified towards a goal and work together (in a positive manner) to achieve a goal for the betterment of the world, there would be no such thing as "Impossible".



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=26743

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google