Ethanol could leave the world hungry

There is much more to it than that. I like the twist they put on it though. Kind of an either/or type arguement which never works. I like how they used starvation as a con to the argument isntead of talking about real issues.

Corn is not the greatest choice in biofuel production but since we'd have a hard time growing sugarcane or Palm Oil it might be the only alternative for us lol.

The problem isnt stavation in the U.S., that wont happen, at least not in the near future. Currently most hunger related issues are due to inadequate income and distribution rather than food scarcity. Our food is already so heavily subsidized that its much cheaper than it should be for economic and evironmental reasons and there are plans in the works with WTO and others to reduce or even eliminate these subsidies. IMO to truely make the ethanol idea work we would have to:

A: Keep the farms small and in the hands of the family farms and NOT the corporate farmers.
This would help with wealth distribution problems and keep rural communities together and slow urban migration. It would also actract investment in agricultural production with these small and medium farmers and thus increase income for the poorest class of people. Worldwide, not just the U.S.

B: Reduce the U.S. or better yet the worlds consumption of meat products. A very large portion (40%) of our grain uses are simply to feed stock animals, cows, pigs etc. Meat consumption with this large of a population is destructive is definately not sustainable. With China and Indias economic growth their meat consumption is also growing and that can spell big trouble for the world.

C: Refine our technology to rely on organic wastes and residues. We could create the bio-fuels from rice hulls, corn stalks, sawdust or waste paper. This would not directly effect our food production yet still yield good results.

Nothing is easy in this world and changing a fuel type for the entire world is no exception. IMO its going to be all about diversity. Nature has shown us that diversity in communities is what works. You cant have every organism in a community eating the same thing or else the supply cannot keep up with the demand and the ecosystem will collapse. We are no different and the sooner we figure that out the better off we will be. There is A LOT more to this but I've covered some of the basic concerns.

 

I think that the real biofuel solution is cellulose ethanol/butanol/whateverol. Using agricultural and forestry waste to produce fuel is getting more cost competitive and makes so much more sense than corn ethanol. There are companies in the US that are starting to construct modest cellulose ethanal plants (~35 mgy). For a little info on one such facility check out this one.

Corn ethanol doesn't completely consume the corn. The protein rich material that is left over is sold as "distillers' grains" to cattle ranchers as feed. So there you're getting two uses from the material. That's not all bad. There is a way to also recoup a small amount of biodiesel from the spent grains as well. I read an article somewhere about an ethanol plant that was also producing 1.2 mgy of biodiesel but I forget how much ethanol capacity the facility had.

In the end I think the waste to ethanol will win out, especially if PHEVs are really coming in the short/midterm. That'll really cut into our need for liquid fuels.

 

And thirsty.

It takes a lot of water to grow all of that corn.

 

Not to mention all of the fertilizer. Corn is also very hard on the soil. Switchgrass sounds like a great alternative since it needs way less water and fertilizer. Also, as Dave pointed out on anther thread, the roots sequester a lot of carbon. You don't have to harvest the whole plant so you probably have to replant a lot less. The only question is how much ethanol you can get from an acre. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 16 2006, 02:33 PM) [snapback]304241[/snapback]</div>

An acre of corn (125 bushels) produces 313 gallons of ethanol

I think the answer is going electric, the reason I bought a Prius - when the warranty runs out in 3 yrs I'm going plug-in!

Oh yeah, and I rode the bus to work today, even though it meant a 2 mi walk to the bus stop. It's a nice day.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 16 2006, 12:33 PM) [snapback]304241[/snapback]</div>

I agree corn is not the best way to go but we waste more water with meat production so we could see some gains there if we push ourselves away from corporate farming methods. Soil degradation is a very big issue but there are numerous ways to cobat that problem naturally but it often makes planting and harvesting more difficult so the corporate farms dont like to do that. Something like Switchgrass or a simliar perenial grass would be our best bet, especially if mixed in with plantations of woody crops in an alternating and rotational fashion so that soils are not so easily depleted of nutrients and still maintaining viable habitat for wildlife. With strategic placement of these crops we could effectively cut down on sediment, total nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff by 90% or so. In this instance it only took a 50' barrier strip at the end of a heavily fertilized conventional crop upslope.

Not 100% sure of these figures but:

Crop Ethanol
.........................................
Wheat = 2,900 liters/hectare
Corn = 3,100 liters/hectare
Sugarcane = 6,500 liters/hectare
Switchgrass = 5,700 liters/hectare

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 16 2006, 02:12 PM) [snapback]304201[/snapback]</div>

Nice answer, I like it.....

I remember reading some were there was no real nutritional value in corn. Also its very hard to properly digest. thats one of the reasons it ends up floating in the pot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Aug 16 2006, 06:19 PM) [snapback]304414[/snapback]</div>

McDonalds would love that!

 

Corn based ethanol is only really talked about in the US because the corn lobby kicks butt in the US. It's not a good idea, but it is a well-funded idea. There's a reason Coke in the US uses corn syrup and real sugar everywhere else: the corn lobby's gotten corn so cheap in the US and sugar so taxed, that it was the only way that made sense.

It's stupid to think that you'd have to question corn... it's just corn. But if you hear there's a new use for corn think twice about it. I've read something to the effect that sugar-ethanol is 4x as efficient as corn-ethanol, and that basically corn-ethanol loses a lot of power in the conversion, to the point that it's wasteful. But you'll keep hearing the corn lobby pushing it... .

I really like the grease-based vehicles, using McDonald's waste. McDonald's is already at every highway rest stop, it couldn't be a better fit. You eat the fried burger, I'll run my car with it. It's a deal.

 

My understanding is that by the time you factor in all the fossil fuels used to fertilize, grow, harvest, transport corn for ethanol, you are actually at a net loss, but the claim that ethanol is an "alternative renewable resource" gives regressive industries (and their friends in Congress) a shiny green cover story for nonsensical financial subsidies. It's all a shell game.

The fact is, the ugly fact is, that negative population growth is the only real solution to any and all of our environmental and energy problems, but you'll never ever get enough people to overcome the evolutionary imperative of self replacement. So instead, we fumble about, looking for technological "solutions" and let wars sort it all out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LMA @ Oct 15 2006, 11:30 AM) [snapback]333044[/snapback]</div>

From what I've studied it could be a net loss if you don't set up the regulatory forms correctly. Putting bio-fuel vegitation growth in the hands of the corporations you can be assured that it will be just as destructive as using only fossil fuels. if set up correctly and the refining process advanced so that we dont have to use a "crop" and can instead use "by-products" then we are indeed stepping in the right direction. They can do it now, all we have to do is push for it so the process is cheaper through technology and not just subsidies.

Population is our biggest problem BUT a lot of growth rates have slowed down and if people can curb their appetite for material goods we could still find this planet habitable... Like you said though, it goes against what generations of Americans, Japanese and Europeans have been taught to do. Amass as much wealth and crap you can before you die. Remember "I - P A T" While not perfect it still represents the basic idea.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Aug 16 2006, 11:06 AM) [snapback]304123[/snapback]</div>

Since we pay many of our farmers "not" to farm to keep supply and demand in balance.... it seems appropriate to put them to work on something we need "like making grain for ethanol.

We're already paying them anyway? "me and you"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Oct 15 2006, 12:08 PM) [snapback]333058[/snapback]</div>

The WTO is "talking" about changing this for agriculture and commerical fishing subsidies. Not sure what the current status after 2005 is but it was defiantely an issue on the agenda.