Posted on 04/14/2009 2:11:40 PM PDT by thackney
It's corn planting time in the U.S. Plains, and that means Kansas corn farmer Merl "Buck" Rexford is worrying about the weather — and hoping there is enough water.
Rexford plans to start seeding his 7,000 acres near Meade, Kansas, this week and he is relishing a recent heavy snow storm that dropped several inches of much-needed moisture.
Like corn farmers throughout the United States, Rexford hopes to grow a healthy crop yielding more than 150 bushels an acre this year. Much of his crop will wind up at a nearby ethanol plant.
And that puts the 65-year-old Rexford at the center of a bitter divide over biofuels, particularly corn ethanol.
Critics argue that precious water resources are being bled dry by ethanol when water shortages are growing ever more dire. Federal mandates encouraging more ethanol production don't help.
Proponents say corn ethanol for transportation fuel is far better for the environment, national security and the economy than oil and the first step toward cleaner fuel sources.
"We really have to ask ourselves, do we want to be driving with renewable fuels or with gasoline made from petroleum resources," said Brent Erickson, executive vice president at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which backs ethanol.
Corn ethanol's future is already muddied by concerns that it requires a substantial amount of energy to produce and that heightened demand makes corn more costly in human food and livestock feed. Now, with climate change concerns mounting and drought becoming more of a problem in many areas, the water-intensive nature of creating ethanol also is a growing concern.
"Biofuels are off the charts in water consumption. We're definitely looking at something where the cure may be worse than the disease," said Brooke Barton, a manager of corporate accountability for Ceres, a group backed by institutional investors focused on the financial risks of climate change.
Corn is a particularly thirsty plant, requiring about 20 inches of soil moisture per acre to grow a decent crop, but most corn is grown with rain, not irrigation. Manufacturing plants that convert corn's starch into fuel are a far bigger draw on water sources.
Water consumption by ethanol plants largely comes from evaporation during cooling and wastewater discharge. A typical plant uses about 4.2 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol, according to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
The ethanol industry pegs that at about 3 gallons of water to 1 gallon of fuel.
Washington lawmakers and the White House have been encouraging the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel to help lighten the nation's costly dependence on foreign oil.
But the moves are meeting opposition from many groups who fear that population growth and climate change are combining in ways that will leave not only the United States, but the world, with too little water. Many ethanol plants are located in agricultural areas — close to the corn, but also close to other users who need a lot of water to operate, such as hog farmers and cattle ranchers.
"We're headed in the wrong direction and this problem is not going away," said Mark Muller, program director at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "This water issue is like the financial crisis . . . and I'm afraid something awful is going to happen."
The group says much of the Corn Belt stretching through Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Minnesota and Indiana has enough water for all, but water availability could challenge the ethanol industry in areas including greater Chicago, western Iowa and Nebraska, and generally west of the Missouri River.
"Water use could be a limiting factor (for ethanol) if we don't introduce and support more water-saving technologies, " added the Institute's Jim Kleinschmit.
"Water is a worry," agreed Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst for energy and and environment Ben Lieberman. "When we expand corn ethanol as we have with these federal mandates," he said, "we are starting to see corn in more marginal areas that may need more irrigation. We are seeing increased water use not just for the processing plants but also the water in growing the corn."
Last month, a coalition of environmental, agricultural, business and consumer groups asked the Obama administration not to raise the amount of ethanol blended into gasoline without further study.
Ethanol supporters don't dispute the water-intensive nature of the industry. But they say much of the corn crop relies on rain from the skies, not pumped out of the ground, and even irrigation systems are improving to reduce water usage by almost half. More water-efficient production plants are also reducing water use. In January 2009, there were 170 ethanol plants operating in the United States and 24 more new or expanding plants.
In 2008, the United States led the world in ethanol production, generating 9 billion gallons, or 52 per cent of the world production. That is up from 6.5 billion gallons of U.S. ethanol in 2007, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. The U.S. aims for 15 billion gallons by 2015.
Freshwater consumption worldwide is expected to rise 25 per cent by 2030 due largely to world population growth from 6.6 billion currently to about 8 billion by 2030 and more than 9 billion by 2050, according to Ceres.
Some believe crop biotechnology could offer at least a partial solution, and several companies are racing to develop corn that is drought-tolerant, including Monsanto Co, which hopes to launch a product in 2012.
DuPont Co.'s Pioneer Hi-Bred unit plans to roll out a low-water conventionally produced corn as early as 2010.
Back in Kansas, farmer Rexford would welcome a more drought-hardy corn seed. Water to irrigate his crop is getting harder and more expensive to come by.
Still, farmers need the premiums selling their corn for ethanol can bring, he said, just as much as the nation needs to break free from dependence on foreign oil.
"If farmers go out of business you'll have a lot worse crisis than an oil crisis," he said.
Grow corn for the intent of eating it.
Novel idea, but it just might work! And, BTW, there's another article on FR about how the world is awash with oil and there's no demand for it. How about we use the oil first, and then burn up our food.
The article said — Proponents say corn ethanol for transportation fuel is far better for the environment, national security and the economy than oil and the first step toward cleaner fuel sources.
—
The first three words that came to mind were — stupid, stupid, stupid — which sums it up quite nicely.
Keep food products for food and energy products for energy... LOL...
Here’s how we should power the country. Get these mini-nuclear power plants in operation. They don’t require a manned facility to generate power from the nuclear materials. You just bury the plant and only dig it up when refueling it.
Hyperion Mini-Nuclear Power Plant
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos#history-byline
—
And furthermore, since we get about 50% of our power from coal in this country, didn’t I read or hear about something regarding Germany being self-sufficient in fuel/oil products as a result of its coal and making the necessary fuel from it, from coal. Now, that one, I’m not entirely sure about, but it seems that there was something to that. We do have a lot of coal here. There should be something good about it.
Since this is about Anthropogenic Global Warming (implicitly), the following is the AGW mandatory post...
Yes, folks this is the *one* to see.., you can forget about all the other books, all the other articles, all the other movies... just see this one... LOL...
It’s one thing to gripe and complain about these things and disagree with it, but it’s quite *another* to convince your friends and neighbors and relatives and coworkers...
THEREFORE..., it’s also absolutely necessary for people to know the information in the following documentary. If there were simply *one* video that you could see and/or show people you know... this would be the *one*...
The following is an *excellent* video documentary on the so-called “Global Warming” I would recommend it to all FReepers. It’s a very well-made documentary.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle”
If you want to download it, via a BitTorrent site (using a BitTorrent client), you can get it at the following link.
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[this is a high-quality copy, of about a gigabyte in size...]
It’s worth seeing and having for relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see.
Also, see it online here...
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php
[this one is considerably lower quality, is a flash video and viewable online, of course...]
Buy it here...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000WLUXZE
[this one would be the very highest quality version, on a DVD disk, of several gigabytes in size...]
Why don’t you try including some #2 yellow dent corn in your diet and report back on how that works out.
Freakin' genius, but I take credit for planting the seed for that idea you just spoke of.
Germany is FAR from self-sufficient in petroleum.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=GM
They import over 90% of what they use.
What? You don't like cornbread?
Well, I sorta made a mistake in how I wrote that. I was referring to the time when World War 2 started... and them making fuel from coal... is that true?
If it is corn, and can be ground, what could I expect from eating it?
You’re right, and should get all the credit!
They did uses the Fischer-Tropsch process to supplement their sources during WW2 but I don’t think it was ever a majority of their production.
In 1944 it reached 124,000 barrels per day from 25 plants, about half their total petroleum needs of the day.
http://www.fe.doe.gov/aboutus/history/syntheticfuels_history.html
..you wouldn’t want to eat what passes for corn today, good old seeds are rare but if you get a chance to grow and taste real corn you be amaized.
Sir Isaac Newton - "F=ma"
Einstein - "E=mc^2"
Lormand - "Grow corn for food"
Pure genius if I say so myself
I happened to have heard something about it, from a documentary history of the Second World War, and they said that even with Germany being blocked from getting supplies from outside, it had no problem because of being self-sufficient and using coal to make fuel products.
So, what I was wondering about — is if it would have any significance for today — for us — in terms of our coal reserves.
I grew the fastest growing and sweetest varieties I could buy.
The Germans figured out how to make gasoline from coal in 1935 or there abouts.
With all our coal here in the U.S. — is it worth it, or not?
Very worth it. It’s the point the coal industry makes - that we have about 450 years worth of coal here in the US. We also have oil shale. Best of all, however, is that we have one of the world’s largest supplies of Uranium in Colorado.
If you want a truly electric automotive economy AND solve some of the fresh water problems we have, you could build hundreds of nuclear power plants on the coast, and co-locate sea water desalination plants on the same site. The waste heat, instead of going out the cooling towers, ends up being used to desalinate sea water into fresh water.
The question of whether the US could be energy self-sufficient isn’t even a debate. The answer is clearly yes.
The debate is whether we have the will to become energy self-sufficient. With our new Muslim President bowing to the Saudi king, I’d say probably not.
It’s why they shut down Yucca Flats, for example.
Nuclear and coal are not part of this administrations strategic energy policy.
You said — If you want a truly electric automotive economy AND solve some of the fresh water problems we have...
—
Don’t these solve the fresh water problems?
Hyperion Mini-Nuclear Power Plant
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos#history-byline
—
It does seem (at least to me) that we’ve got a long-term energy solution here, in today’s technology, without building “tomorrow’s technology”. I really don’t know why we can’t “go for it” with — nuclear and coal...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.