|
Post by jeffolie on Oct 12, 2007 12:08:01 GMT -6
corn-based ethanol bad for the environment & energy And it’s bad for the environment October 12th, 2007 OK, so we already know what a bad deal corn-based ethanol is from an energy standpoint — that is, the amount of energy it requires to produce a gallon of ethanol is roughly the same as you get from the gallon of ethanol itself. Now we learn it's also a bad deal from a greenhouse gas standpoint: Biofuels, once championed as the great hope for fighting climate change, could end up being more damaging to the environment than oil or gasoline. A new study has found that the growth and use of crops to make biofuels produces more damaging greenhouse gases than previously thought. German Nobel-prize winning chemist Paul Crutzen and his team of researchers have calculated the emissions released by the growth and burning of crops such as maize, rapeseed and cane sugar to produce biofuels. The team of American, British and German scientists has found that the process releases twice as much nitrous oxide (N2O) as previously thought. They estimate that 3 to 5 percent of nitrogen in fertilizer is converted and emitted, as opposed to the 2 percent used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its calculations. Crutzen is widely respected in the field of climate research, having received the Nobel Prize in 1995 for his research into the ozone layer. The study, published in the scientific journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, finds that the growth and use of biofuels produced from rapeseed and maize can produce 70 percent and 50 percent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. So there's something else to remember next time you see one of those feel-good commercials from Archer Daniels Midland. www.dailyreckoning.us/blog/?p=570
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 14, 2007 4:51:59 GMT -6
I don't know how much relative benefit/harm ethanol has on pollution, compared to oil.
But ethanol is renewable-- unlike oil. Ethanol can be produced from crops we grow. Oil cannot. There's a definite limit to how much oil we can get out of the ground. There's no limit to how much ethanol we can produce from crops, since we can re-plant the crops it was made from.
Ethanol won't fully replace oil at any time in the near future. But it could certainly put a dent in our oil consumption. Lowering our oil demand, even a little, would lower prices. It would also give the U.S. more control over its own energy supply.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Oct 14, 2007 5:28:44 GMT -6
But ethanol is renewable-- unlike oil. Ethanol can be produced from crops we grow. But that is the problem. It directly competes with our food supply.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Oct 14, 2007 5:37:36 GMT -6
It also is helping to drive up prices on farm products so the famrer can make some money again rather than rely on subsidies. Farm subsidies could then finally be eliminated.
We have a LOT of fallow land here in the midwest the govt is paying people NOT to farm so the effect on actual arable land will be minimal. We also import up to 30% of our food now (which blows me away being the so called worlds bread basket). it may also have a side benefit of limiting urban sprawl when farmland gets some value again as farm land rather than a half vacant strip mall or empty office park.
As far as ethanol is concerned yes, it is ineffecient in terms of production. There will be some gains in efficiencies from technology and economies of scale however.
Ethanol was never meant to be the be all and end all of oil replacement as the ethanol opponents keep framing it, but as UC says, a piece of the energy independence puzzle which will include other alternative fuels like bio diesel, wind, solar and maybe even "nucular".
We must do something to break our addicition to fossil fuels and the instability around the world that it creates.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Oct 14, 2007 6:07:31 GMT -6
It also is helping to drive up prices on farm products so the farmer can make some money again rather than rely on subsidies. Farm subsidies could then finally be eliminated. My state, WI, is in the ethanol business. When plants began opening up, milk prices jumped. The problem is much of this corn is feed, and turning it into a fuel makes it more expensive. I think your assumption is wrong. Using corn for fuel will in fact force us to outsource more not less of our food supply. For those farmers still in the business, it will require greater not lessor subsidies. I am in full agreement that we need some sort of alternative fuel, but don't believe we should screw with the food supply as part of the process.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Oct 14, 2007 8:09:57 GMT -6
Optimistically, the net yield of corn ethanol is about 100 gallons per acre PER YEAR. There isn't enough spare farmland in the US to power the needs of one small city. Ethanol makes more sense in the tropics, where sugar cane grows year round. I've even seen studies where corn ethanol has zero net yield.
Global warming is accelerating. Are there any studies showing the effects in the corn belt, and the rest of our farmlands? The Greenland ice cap is melting faster than expected, which is expected to bring more rain to the Pacific Northwest, and drought to Calif and the Southwest.
We have much better things to do than subsidize ethanol. Right now, I'm staying just north of Tucson - you know, the desert - and the main crop is cotton. You can bet the water to grow it is subsidized, as it is in Calif. Back when we had textile mills, there was at least an excuse to subsidize cotton. Meanwhile, we import at least 15% of our food, only 1% of which is inspected.
GB
|
|
|
Post by nomad943 on Oct 15, 2007 6:00:01 GMT -6
My two cents on the folly of ethanol ... Actualy its two words .... SOIL DEPLETION. Of course I hear that the masters have planned for this and it can be somewhat offset by the use of petroleum based fertilzer.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Oct 15, 2007 12:15:25 GMT -6
I have to amend some of what I wrote above. There's water flowing in the desert in the Santa Cruz river north of Tucson. That water is sinking into the ground at some rate, providing a source for the wells that irrigate the cotton, milo, etc., growing here. I speculated the source was rainfall in the mountains.
Just found out the water in the Santa Cruz river is processed sewage from Tucson. Therefore, it flows year round, and will increase with the population.
All the desert around Tucson was grassland 150 years ago, before the introduction of cattle. It takes 400 gallons of water to put a pound of beef on the table..
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 15, 2007 22:45:13 GMT -6
Optimistically, the net yield of corn ethanol is about 100 gallons per acre PER YEAR. There isn't enough spare farmland in the US to power the needs of one small city. Ethanol makes more sense in the tropics, where sugar cane grows year round. I've even seen studies where corn ethanol has zero net yield. GB Sugar cane ethanol is an interesting idea. As a child, I lived in Hawaii for 2 years - on the island of Oahu. The island was almost completely covered with sugar cane. And Oahu is nowhere near as large as the island of Hawaii. If sugar cane can be used for ethanol, the U.S. has great potential growing area in the Hawaiian islands. And if corn really does become more expensive (and profitable for farmers), maybe some of the thousands of acres of California wine country could be converted to corn.
|
|