Food vs. fuel?

Patrick Coyle, Seale, AL — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:38:32 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

John B. Schroeder — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 03:12:48 GMT

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!

Food vs. fuel?

Don Shaffer — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 03:57:23 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Dennis Bruns, Renville, Mn — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:29:00 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

Zhayne, Alpha Quadrant of the Nigel Sector of the Milky Way Galaxy — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:35:28 GMT

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?

Food vs. fuel?

Bill H, Sugar Land, TX — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:43:05 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

J. Lawson — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:58:55 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Alan Boyle — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 06:28:29 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

J. Thomas San Jose, CA — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 06:36:08 GMT

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?

Food vs. fuel?

exfarmboy, Sitka AK — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:31:03 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Harim Arevalo, — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:43:07 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Rick S. — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:16:59 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

TimBob, Motor City, USA — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:44:47 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Carlton Lane. Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:29:41 GMT

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?

Food vs. fuel?

John Mt Pleasant SC — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:57:45 GMT

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!!!!!

Food vs. fuel?

Michael Lloyd, Columbus, OH — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:39:55 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Mike — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:44:24 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

B. Cronk, Ft Hood, TX — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:30:51 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

David L McHenry — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:53:33 GMT

CORN PRICES GO UP
FARM PRODUCTION OF CORN GOES UP

Food vs. fuel?

Eco Author Chris Eldridge — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:01:41 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Tyson Morley, Lubbock, Texas — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:11:59 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Marshall Darrow Charlotte NC — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:37:18 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

DJS in NJ — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:49:46 GMT

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!

Food vs. fuel?

Jeff, Houston, TX — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:21:54 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Michal, Portland OR — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:24:46 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Darrel In Edinboro, PA — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:28:04 GMT

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.....

Food vs. fuel?

N Morris, Durango, CO — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:40:55 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Jerry W, Tempe, AZ — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:43:52 GMT

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.

[...]

Food vs. fuel?

Alan Boyle — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:18:29 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

JC, Riverton, CT — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:29:24 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

IB, Grafton, MO — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:39:32 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Jason B, California — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:12:05 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

A Correa, San Diego, TX — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:12:25 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Alan Boyle — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:29:36 GMT

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!).

Food vs. fuel?

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:03:27 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

RS — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:43:58 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Robert Rapier, Billings, MT — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:56:09 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

John, Salisbury, NC — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:44:30 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Bill Smith; Jefferson, Iowa — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:57:01 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

DHI - Traer, Iowa — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:39:51 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Ned Lucas, Shelby, NC — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:00:03 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Steve- Reno, NV — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:18:12 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Engineer, Mission Viejo, CA — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:22:15 GMT

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...

Food vs. fuel?

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:47:38 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:34:48 GMT

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?).

Food vs. fuel?

Engineer, Mission Viejo, CA — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:07:43 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

Dan Bradford Murrietta, CA — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:36:04 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

Michael Hubbard, Santa Fe, Texas — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:44:18 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Marty, Carson City, NV — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:59:07 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

joe, Mesquite TX — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 01:56:31 GMT

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...

Food vs. fuel?

Engineer, Mission Viejo, CA — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:09:43 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

rhonda, los angeles — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:31:51 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

G Wood, Windsor, Virginia — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:08:25 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

allen,massachusetts — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:12:29 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

Thinking, Nashville, IN — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:46:14 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 22:55:43 GMT

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!!!

Food vs. fuel?

Dan, Parma Ohio — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:15:51 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

Brian Walker ny NY — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:48:02 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 05:37:12 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:11:31 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Rick K — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:04:05 GMT

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!

Food vs. fuel?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:37:45 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:01:02 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

Anonymous, Edison NJ — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 04:47:03 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

Curt, Okemos, MI — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 05:59:23 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

Sean, Torrington CT — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:24:39 GMT

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!

Food vs. fuel?

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 03:13:44 GMT

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!

Food vs. fuel?

Patrick, Warner Robins, GA — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:33:13 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:09:47 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

coop, boston Ma — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:23:06 GMT

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! "

Food vs. fuel?

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:31:28 GMT

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?

Food vs. fuel?

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:42:50 GMT

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?

Food vs. fuel?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:26:00 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON Canada — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 05:00:46 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:55:46 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Michael S. — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:27:44 GMT

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?

Food vs. fuel?

Michael Hubbard, Santa Fe, Texas — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:07:14 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Michael Hubbard, Santa Fe, Texas — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:11:02 GMT

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.)

Food vs. fuel?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:31:29 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Engineer, Mission Viejo, CA — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:58:04 GMT

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%!

Food vs. fuel?

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 05:35:32 GMT

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?

Food vs. fuel?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:34:57 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

kelvin — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:44:40 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

James Carlisle, NY — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:20:46 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Stephen R. Morbley, Washington D.C. — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 07:56:03 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Steven Murrrell, Brooklyn, NY — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:33:18 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Paul R. Millet — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:18:40 GMT

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

Food vs. fuel?

Mr Safe — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:59:52 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Marty, Carson City, NV — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:35:22 GMT

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.

Food vs. fuel?

Jay Kelly; Grayson, Georgia — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:00:10 GMT

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.)

Food vs. fuel?

Jae Bon, Riverside, AL — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:09:40 GMT

My Volvo is supposed to use 100% gasoline to avoid damage to seals and engines. Getting more and more difficult to find.

Food vs. fuel?

Vera Pappas, Cinnaminson, NJ — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:58:52 GMT

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".