Posted on 08/29/2006 5:55:39 AM PDT by Hydroshock
The growing myth that corn is a cure-all for our energy woes is leading us toward a potentially dangerous global fight for food. While crop-based ethanol -the latest craze in alternative energy - promises a guilt-free way to keep our gas tanks full, the reality is that overuse of our agricultural resources could have consequences even more drastic than, say, being deprived of our SUVs. It could leave much of the world hungry.
We are facing an epic competition between the 800 million motorists who want to protect their mobility and the two billion poorest people in the world who simply want to survive. In effect, supermarkets and service stations are now competing for the same resources.
FORTUNE 500 Current Issue Subscribe to Fortune
More about bio-fuels Why Wal-Mart wants to sell ethanol
E85 is available at only a tiny fraction of gas stations. But the giant retailer is poised to change that. (more) Manure mountains to fuel ethanol plant One company's drive to locate domestic sources of energy is taking a turn into the barnyard. (more) Soybeans that give you gas Argentina is a prime market for making and selling renewable biodiesel fuel thanks to cheap land and labor, as well as bumper crops of soybeans. (more)
This year cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in world grain consumption. The problem is simple: It takes a whole lot of agricultural produce to create a modest amount of automotive fuel.
The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year. If today's entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel for cars, it would still satisfy less than one-sixth of U.S. demand.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Most of the newest plants coming up burn coal. The huge amount of co2 produced in ethanol production, not to mention by burning coal or natural gas (or even waste), means environmentalists will never accept ethanol as fuel.
BTW, recombinant DNA work now underway is going to provide us with high cellulose content crops which when heated will release enzymes that turn the entire mass of material into ethanol.
Think weeds!
do you have a reference?
Since you asked, read this: Pimental
In addition, according to WSJ and the EPA, ethanol is a greater pollutant, and costs more per gallon than gasoline while delivering lower mpg.
For the most part, the land which is not being farmed is less than satisfactory for good yields.
Thank you for your reasoned reply:- a breath of fresh air on this thread. Please note: it is not just the ethanol plant that needs fuelling - one also has to harvest the grain. Combine harvesters need fuel and we also need to transport our bio-fuel to the vendor. If we look at the entire process - does it produce excess energy?
The very simplest way of checking this without doing exhaustive sums is to ask the question: does the process require subsidy? Is there free-market investment in a non-subsidised industry? At the moment the answer is no.
The answer might not always be no, of course. A genetically created crop might come along that pushes ethanol over the edge. But Govt subsidy of corn ethanol is actually holding back such research - the profit barrier is raised by having to beat subsidy as well as the normal problems of research
Pimental does. See link in post #66
In 9 years, with the investment of $105 Billion (Canadian) they might get the production up to 3 million barrels a day. If they get enough labor, material and equipment to proceed with all the projects. A good help to us, but a long way from the 20 million BPD we use.
Cite facts ... this is so false, we should not dignify it with a reply!
What then would you suggest as an alternative? It's easy to poo-poo an idea without offering another option.
Just basic highschool chemistry ~ besides, coal has many uses beyond energy production and should be husbanded for the indefinite future.
Oh no doubt, but are the ones that suddenly show it to be a net energy producer wrong or are the ones that have for decades shown it to be a net energy consumer wrong? or are they both wrong and it''s energy neutral, but another great way for Kongress to justify pouring gobs of taxpayer money into special interest groups.
If you really want energy independence ramp up coal synfuel and use more diesels. There is a steady supply of coal synfuel that works it's way into the diesel fuel supply, but no one seems to care about it since it's not a tree hugger thing.
Thank you for making the point. You are right on target.
Thank you for making the point. You are right on target.
Two things. If it really is a net energy consumer, then doing nothing is a better alternative, sincer its use just makes us more dependent on fossil fuel, but as it turns out there are a number of viable alternatives - drill in ANWAR, coal synfuel, build 200 more nuclear plants and use them to provide the energy to synthesize fuel.
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.