True Cost Of Ethanol Becoming Clearer
April 15th, 2008 by joe
Skeptics have long questioned the value of diverting food crops for fuel, and the grocery and live- stock industries vehemently opposed an energy bill last fall, arguing it was driving up costs.
A fifth of the nation’s corn crop is now used to brew ethanol for motor fuel, and as farmers have planted more corn, they have cut acreage of other crops, particularly soybeans. That, in turn, has contributed to a global shortfall of cooking oil.
Spreading global dissatisfaction in recent months has intensified the food-versus-fuel debate. Last Friday, a European environment advisory panel urged the European Union to suspend its goal of having 10 percent of transportation fuel made from biofuels by 2020. Europe’s well-meaning rush to biofuels, the scientists concluded, had created a variety of harmful ripple effects, including deforestation in Southeast Asia and higher prices for grain.
Even if biofuels are not the primary reason for the increase in food costs, some experts say it is one area where a reversal of government policy could help take pressure off food prices.
Some studies have shown the amount of energy required to create ethanol (i.e., to grow and transport the crops) exceeds the amount of energy ethanol provides. In any case, this seems like as good a time as any to pull the plug on this feel-good experiment.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 15th, 2008 at 7:39 pm and is filed under Environment, Technology/Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Popular Mechanics had a good article on Ethanol recently :
“The National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that, “Today, 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.” Even that modest payback may be overstated. Skeptics cite the research of Cornell University professor David Pimentel, who estimates that it takes approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.
If the benefits are in doubt, the costs are not. It would take 450 pounds of corn to yield enough ethanol to fill the tank of an SUV. Producing enough ethanol to replace America’s imported oil alone would require putting nearly 900 million acres under cultivation—or roughly 95 percent of the active farmland in the country. Once we’ve turned our farms into filling stations, where will the food come from? ”
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4237539.html
April 15th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
this is a serious concern for using corn to make gas. it will cause food prices to rise. On the bright side, though, most of that should be junk food and fast food that’s all corn syrup based.
you also have to keep in mind that the tech. is new, so low yields should be expected. The question is whether “the experts” think it’s going to be possible to vastly improve efficiency in production.
have you heard of this algae stuff? Supposedly it promises to yield like 4000 times as much fuel per acre or something crazy like that
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/algae-farm-to-p.html
April 15th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
What about the abiotic oil theory? The best evidence for it I’ve seen is the oil which has been discovered miles below the SEA FLOOR in the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (under water 5 or 10 miles deep). Supposedly there is no way those parts of the Earth were ever forests. When we consider the fuel discovered on the moons of Jupiter recently (maybe it was Saturn) this seems to lend more credence to the idea.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Huge-Methane-Cloud-Found-to-Fuel-Saturn-039-s-Moon-Lakes-46191.shtml
April 15th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
If we deforest the earth any faster than we are already doing then global warming will increase AND oxygen will decrease. There has always been a need for balance (proportion of forests to areas of water to open lands) for the earth to function and sustain current life. We can get fuels from the BY-PRODUCT of food crops without having to use total crop for fuel but it doesn’t seem the logical way to go. At least not with todays technologies. Besides, feeding humans is much more important than feeding mama’s minivan.
When you make the statement that there were no forests in the deeper parts of the oceans, think about the methane vents that are flowing today and how they bring warmth and nutrients to a cold, dark and seeming lifeless area. In fact it promotes life (marine) being both plant and fish. This in turn would also have decay in its natural cycle to possibly generate fuel oil.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:35 am
What if oil is generated from within the planet. Seems just as reasonable as the proposal that less SUVs on the road will result in weaker hurricanes.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:09 am
There is another side effect to the demand for ethanol derived from corn. A farmer can grow crops for maximum yield or nutritional value, not both. As the demand for corn rises, so does the demand for increased yield, which is currently about 180-200 bushels an acre I believe. Our corn now is junk compared to just a generation ago, which contained more germ and less endosperm than corn being grown today. More endosperm equals more starch, and more ethanol. Some believe this is at the root of our nation’s obesity problem already, will ethanol demand just worsen this ?
Oil being a non-renewable resource I think in time will be shown to be a myth. Hydrocarbons are not unique to our planet Earth, see planet HD 189733b, and closer to home, Jupiter. Neither of the planets were likely to have ever had plant life.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:33 am
For your further reading pleasure :
http://trilogynet.net/Thomas_Gold/usgs.html
April 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Looks like CO2 is here to stay. Long and great read. Although it can’t be determined that oil might be a renewable source, it seems pretty evident that it is a manufactured chemical and that its abundance is unknown due to the depths that it can be obtained. The “renewable” aspect may be derived from volcanic activity and the very nature of bringing near-core liquids to the surface.
Bottom line: Forget ethonal, forget Gore, move over polar bears. I say drill for the oil because it is there and the earth loves and lives by co2. If you want unlimited energy, pop the core. Just know what to expect so that, not unlike a balloon, we don’t go whizzing thru the universe as we deflate.