Ethanol Math.

[RandomGuy]

The negative energy theory may have been true years ago but not now. Believe me, there's a million things that aren't being factored in in just the production stage. Ethanol and Biodiesel are tied together tightly in the production area.

They can make gas out of turkey shit and have been able to do that for years now but its not feasible enough to do widespread. Geuss what? there's still improving it! Should they stop bc its not penciling out?

Ok let's do some math.

Let's assume:
1. Corn is as efficient as sugar cane in producing ethanol. The reading that I have done is that it is still much less productive at converting mass into fuel, but let's roll with this for simplicity's sake.

2. Ethanol has as much energy in it per volume as gasoline. I seem to remember it is a bit less, but again, simplicity.

From the wikipedia article on ethanol in brazil, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil) we can pull out the following information:

Amount of sugar crop acreage allocated to Ethanol in 2003-2004:
8789 square miles.

45,000 km2, of which half is used for ethanol, and converted into square miles)

This square area produces:
88 Million barrels of ethanol per year

(cubic meters converted to liters at 1000 liters per cubic meter, converted to gallons at .256 liters per gallon, converted to barrels at 42 gallons per barrel of petroleum)

Directly converting this to gasoline would yield 88 million barrels of gasoline per year using our simplified assumptions.

The US uses 3,321,500,000 barrels of gasoline per year per ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/ep/ep_frame.html )

3.3Bn divided by 88M= 37.75 (the number of times larger that US gasoline consumption is than Brazil's consumption)

37.75 times 8789 square miles is 331,521 square miles.

Assume we can find 50% of that figure in unused crop land, that leaves us with 160,500 square miles of NEW crop land that would be need to completely replace gasoline with ethanol at current usage rates.

Factor in the fact that Ethanol has less energy per unit of mass, and that square mileage will go up. Substitute a less efficient crop of corn, and that square mileage will go up.

According to the CIA factbook (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) the united states has only 87,000 square miles of irrigated land now.
Where would we get the water to irrigate the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES of crop land that fully replacing gasoline with ethanol will take, ASSUMING we can find the arable land?

Saying "let's just replace our gasoline powered cars with ethanol" doesn't make it viable as a realistic solution.

Rolling forward a bit:

Yes, we will have to start driving less and buying more efficient vehicles. This will reduce the square mileage needed.

Our population is also growing, as is the economy. This will increase demand for fuel. This will offset gains from efficiency somewhat, if not a lot.

Yes, agricultural production will become more efficient, again reducing the square mileage issue. But not by enough of a conceivable factor to replace gasoline as it stands.

Biodiesel will face the same problems of water and arable land. Keep in mind that the figure given was just for gasoline, and not for diesel. Replacing oil-diesel with biodeisel will require a similar ramp up in devoted area to crops.

One good factor that the wikipedia article pointed out is that a good chunk of the waste mass from producing ethanol can be used to produce electricity beyond what the refining process uses.

I am not saying that ethanol is stupid.
Ethanol is certainly part of what I consider part of an energy solution that takes a longer term view. I am all for ramping up usage of this renewable source of energy.

I simply wanted to point out the scale of the problem we are trying to address.

[scott]

Two things to consider:

1) The amount of feedstock (be it corn, sugar cane, sugar beets or wood chips) required to make a (insert unit here) of usable fuel (E100 or gasoline/distillate blendstocks) is not a constant in the long term. Because it takes X bushels of corn to make a gallon of ethanol today, that doesn't mean it can't take .25X bushels of corn to make a gallon of ethanol 10 years from now. Given a free marketplace, effeciency improvements and innovative solutions will work themselves out in the longrun.

2) Ethanol, or any other alternative fuel for that matter, doesn't need to replace all the gasoline we use to make a huge impact on prices. But in the big picture, lower prices may not be ideal because they encourage demand to grow at a faster rate, traditional gasoline production will eventually restricted by declining oil supplies, and ethanol production will reach is practical limit and we are faced with even higher prices.

[Guru of Nothing]

It's a 3 mile drive from my house to my work.

I'm GoN, and I support $10 per gallon.

[RandomGuy]

Two things to consider:

1) The amount of feedstock (be it corn, sugar cane, sugar beets or wood chips) required to make a (insert unit here) of usable fuel (E100 or gasoline/distillate blendstocks) is not a constant in the long term. Because it takes X bushels of corn to make a gallon of ethanol today, that doesn't mean it can't take .25X bushels of corn to make a gallon of ethanol 10 years from now. Given a free marketplace, effeciency improvements and innovative solutions will work themselves out in the longrun.

2) Ethanol, or any other alternative fuel for that matter, doesn't need to replace all the gasoline we use to make a huge impact on prices. But in the big picture, lower prices may not be ideal because they encourage demand to grow at a faster rate, traditional gasoline production will eventually restricted by declining oil supplies, and ethanol production will reach is practical limit and we are faced with even higher prices.

1) Yup. I alluded to this in my post but it bears repeating, and thanks for fleshing it out a bit.
Also:
Remember that the calculations in my first post were using several assumptions that diminished the amount of land needed to supply the same amount of miles driven. Increasing efficiency by a factor of 3 as you suggest would still require doubling, tripling or even more the amount of irrigated land in the U.S. Leading to:

2)Yup again. Ethanol can, and I think should, play a part in meeting our energy needs. I posted this bit as a reality check for those who have read a little bit on the subject and seem to think that ethanol is a cure-all for what ails us.

[George W Bush]

Sounds like "fuzzy math" to me.

[CubanMustGo]

The key to making ethanol work better in the US is a new process that breaks down all cellulose, not just crops such as sugar cane or corn. Improvements still need to be made in cost and efficiency before it is a viable soloution.

Just google "ethanol cellulose" ... plenty of info out there pro and con. I appear with RandomGuy that's it not THE solution to the US' oil problems, but it certainly could be a factor in an overall solution. A government report (http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf) states that the land resources in the U.S. are capable of producing a sustainable supply of 1.3 billion tons per year of biomass, and that 1 billion tons of biomass would be sufficient to displace 30 percent or more of the country's present petroleum consumption. Even if that is overoptimistic by a factor of three, a 10% reduction would be significant.

Of course, so would increasing the overall mileage of the corporate US automobile fleet by 10%, driving 10% less, ...

[Yonivore]

It's a 3 mile drive from my house to my work.

I'm GoN, and I support $10 per gallon.
Unfortunately, it's not a 3 mile drive -- to all the places you shop -- for those who deliver the goods you buy. Ten dollar per gallon gasoline would drive consumer prices on all things transported through the roof.

[RandomGuy]

The key to making ethanol work better in the US is a new process that breaks down all cellulose, not just crops such as sugar cane or corn. Improvements still need to be made in cost and efficiency before it is a viable soloution.

Just google "ethanol cellulose" ... plenty of info out there pro and con. I appear with RandomGuy that's it not THE solution to the US' oil problems, but it certainly could be a factor in an overall solution. A government report (http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf) states that the land resources in the U.S. are capable of producing a sustainable supply of 1.3 billion tons per year of biomass, and that 1 billion tons of biomass would be sufficient to displace 30 percent or more of the country's present petroleum consumption. Even if that is overoptimistic by a factor of three, a 10% reduction would be significant.

Of course, so would increasing the overall mileage of the corporate US automobile fleet by 10%, driving 10% less, ...

The thing is that breaking down cellulose probably doesn't provide as much chemical energy as breaking down sugars. It's all about the physics...

[sickdsm]

Ok let's do some math.

Let's assume:
1. Corn is as efficient as sugar cane in producing ethanol. The reading that I have done is that it is still much less productive at converting mass into fuel, but let's roll with this for simplicity's sake.

2. Ethanol has as much energy in it per volume as gasoline. I seem to remember it is a bit less, but again, simplicity.

From the wikipedia article on ethanol in brazil, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil) we can pull out the following information:

Amount of sugar crop acreage allocated to Ethanol in 2003-2004:
8789 square miles.

45,000 km2, of which half is used for ethanol, and converted into square miles)

This square area produces:
88 Million barrels of ethanol per year

(cubic meters converted to liters at 1000 liters per cubic meter, converted to gallons at .256 liters per gallon, converted to barrels at 42 gallons per barrel of petroleum)

Directly converting this to gasoline would yield 88 million barrels of gasoline per year using our simplified assumptions.

The US uses 3,321,500,000 barrels of gasoline per year per ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/ep/ep_frame.html )

3.3Bn divided by 88M= 37.75 (the number of times larger that US gasoline consumption is than Brazil's consumption)

37.75 times 8789 square miles is 331,521 square miles.

Assume we can find 50% of that figure in unused crop land, that leaves us with 160,500 square miles of NEW crop land that would be need to completely replace gasoline with ethanol at current usage rates.

Factor in the fact that Ethanol has less energy per unit of mass, and that square mileage will go up. Substitute a less efficient crop of corn, and that square mileage will go up.

According to the CIA factbook (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) the united states has only 87,000 square miles of irrigated land now.
Where would we get the water to irrigate the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES of crop land that fully replacing gasoline with ethanol will take, ASSUMING we can find the arable land?

Saying "let's just replace our gasoline powered cars with ethanol" doesn't make it viable as a realistic solution.

Rolling forward a bit:

Yes, we will have to start driving less and buying more efficient vehicles. This will reduce the square mileage needed.

Our population is also growing, as is the economy. This will increase demand for fuel. This will offset gains from efficiency somewhat, if not a lot.

Yes, agricultural production will become more efficient, again reducing the square mileage issue. But not by enough of a conceivable factor to replace gasoline as it stands.

Biodiesel will face the same problems of water and arable land. Keep in mind that the figure given was just for gasoline, and not for diesel. Replacing oil-diesel with biodeisel will require a similar ramp up in devoted area to crops.

One good factor that the wikipedia article pointed out is that a good chunk of the waste mass from producing ethanol can be used to produce electricity beyond what the refining process uses.

I am not saying that ethanol is stupid.
Ethanol is certainly part of what I consider part of an energy solution that takes a longer term view. I am all for ramping up usage of this renewable source of energy.

I simply wanted to point out the scale of the problem we are trying to address.


Corn doesn't need irrigiation in most parts of the country. 180 bu last year in a state with an annual rainfall of less than 20 inches. You previously tried to add the amount of corn required to produce ethanol on top of total corn consumption which is complete bullshit. Ethanol byproducts produce a highly sought after feed which REPLACES corn feed instead of adding to the demand on it. You CAN have your corn and eat/heat it too. That's why Richardton North Dakota is building an ethanol plant. No corn for miles around. Cattle country however that needs feed. Corn gets railed in, ethanol gets railed out, coal is available there.


Being from Texas shame on you for not knowing that cattle is almost just as big of a demand for ethanol than cars. No where have i seen that part of any study factored in like it should be.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

even though this conversation is above my plateau of scientific learning I must say I appreciate the discussion quite a bit. Way to go chaps

[TDMVPDPOY]

another thing you gotto take into consideration is the energy source thats absorb to make this work, like fuel.

and isnt ethanol bad for car engines?

i wonder if you can turn rice into ethanol.....then all you gotto do is use those rice paddocks in asia :D:D, and the wheat fields in australia since they have a bad outting with this kickbacks in iraq.

is there any profit in this?

[sickdsm]

Any cellose based material can be made into ethanol, some are more effiecient than others such as sugar cane.


Enviro's have tossed around using hay, cornstalks and popular? tree's for ideas.

Funny how an enviromentalist nutjob howls when you dare mention cutting down said trees for lumber but praises farming them to produce fuel.

[RandomGuy]

Corn doesn't need irrigiation in most parts of the country. 180 bu last year in a state with an annual rainfall of less than 20 inches. You previously tried to add the amount of corn required to produce ethanol on top of total corn consumption which is complete bullshit. Ethanol byproducts produce a highly sought after feed which REPLACES corn feed instead of adding to the demand on it. You CAN have your corn and eat/heat it too. That's why Richardton North Dakota is building an ethanol plant. No corn for miles around. Cattle country however that needs feed. Corn gets railed in, ethanol gets railed out, coal is available there.


Being from Texas shame on you for not knowing that cattle is almost just as big of a demand for ethanol than cars. No where have i seen that part of any study factored in like it should be.

Coal is available there. What, pray tell ,would one use coal for? Making ethanol? Why bother indirectly using coal in that manner? Would it not be more energetically/economically efficient to directly use it for energy?

"Corn doesn't need to be irrigated in most parts of the country" I call bullshit on that one. Prove that thesis to even a minimal degree.

BUT

For argument's sake, let's assume this is the case. We would still need one or two hundred thousand square miles of this magically un-irrigated corn to supply even half of our energy needs for transportation. Assuming no droughts interrupt the process. Where do we get this land? At what cost? When do the costs of converting two hundred thousand square miles of the continental US cover or beat the cost of the next best alternatives (whatever form they end up taking)?

Ethanol replacing more than a fraction of our energy needs for transportation is simply not economically viable.

"cattle is almost just as big of a demand for ethanol than cars"

Um, cows drink ethanol? :lol

Seriously though, despite your best efforts at not communicating clearly, I still managed to figure this one out.

Ok, cows eat corn. How much corn do cows eat in the US in one year?

How much corn is produced in the US in one year?

How much ethanol does one square mile of corn produce in one year?

[Phenomanul]

The thing is that breaking down cellulose probably doesn't provide as much chemical energy as breaking down sugars. It's all about the physics...


Cellulose is a polymeric molecule composed of sugars.... essentially a molecule with a sugar matrix/backbone... so technically, if we could more efficiently breakdown celluloses to sugar (of all types; not just the weak versions found in sugar cane and bannana trees) -- then we would have a great source of energy... but this is harder than it seems without having to pre-invest a great deal of energy upfront (in fact we humans can't even digest cellulose... that's how hard it is to break apart...)

A simple illustration of the amount of stored energy in cellulose would be to consider the amount of energy a single piece of firewood releases when burned...

[RandomGuy]

Cellulose is a polymeric molecule composed of sugars.... essentially a molecule with a sugar matrix/backbone... so technically, if we could more efficiently breakdown celluloses to sugar (of all types; not just the weak versions found in sugar cane and bannana trees) -- then we would have a great source of energy... but this is harder than it seems without having to pre-invest a great deal of energy upfront (in fact we humans can't even digest cellulose... that's how hard it is to break apart...)

A simple illustration of the amount of stored energy in cellulose would be to consider the amount of energy a single piece of firewood releases when burned...

Thank you. This is a good bit there.

All chemical reactions require something called "energy of activation". That is the "pre-invest" bit.

Cellulose in wood does release a good bit of heat, but that rapid exothermic reaction, let's call it, um, "fire" for lack of a better word, requires some energy to be applied to it first, such as a match.
Fire is actually nothing more than a chemical reaction. The NET amount of energy you get out of a reaction is the result of how much energy it takes to start MINUS how much energy is released. This is, by the way, exactly why ethanol is less efficient in a combustion engine than gasoline.

While I do not have figures or studies that readily prove that cellulose mass provides less ethanol than sugar mass, I would be willing to bet quite a bit of money that this is the way it pans out.

[sickdsm]

Coal is available there. What, pray tell ,would one use coal for? Making ethanol? Why bother indirectly using coal in that manner? Would it not be more energetically/economically efficient to directly use it for energy?

"Corn doesn't need to be irrigated in most parts of the country" I call bullshit on that one. Prove that thesis to even a minimal degree.

BUT

For argument's sake, let's assume this is the case. We would still need one or two hundred thousand square miles of this magically un-irrigated corn to supply even half of our energy needs for transportation. Assuming no droughts interrupt the process. Where do we get this land? At what cost? When do the costs of converting two hundred thousand square miles of the continental US cover or beat the cost of the next best alternatives (whatever form they end up taking)?

Ethanol replacing more than a fraction of our energy needs for transportation is simply not economically viable.

"cattle is almost just as big of a demand for ethanol than cars"

Um, cows drink ethanol? :lol

Seriously though, despite your best efforts at not communicating clearly, I still managed to figure this one out.

Ok, cows eat corn. How much corn do cows eat in the US in one year?

How much corn is produced in the US in one year?

How much ethanol does one square mile of corn produce in one year?


Why build a plant in Richardton?

Red Trail Energy is bringing ethanol production to the least expensive energy source: lignite coal. By using lignite to fire our plant, we will save $8 million a year compared to plants fueled with natural gas. Red Trail has tied in its energy costs with 10-year, fixed-base-rate contracts to purchase 133,000 tons of North Dakota lignite a year at less than one-fourth the current cost of natural gas. As a result, Red Trail’s energy costs will be 70 percent lower than similar plants that use natural gas.

http://www.redtrailenergyllc.com/index.php/faq/#engine

But hey, i'm sure they didn't plan that one out being there's huge electrical plants nearby in the lignite coal fields also.

As for irrigitaion, most of the corn in the US is raised in the corn belt. Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Missouri and South Dakota

Nebraska's western half is irriigated heavily. Most other places irrigitaion is a supplemental bonus. Meaning you might get 220 bu instead of 180-200 in areas. Not required at all. This is exactly what i'm talking about. What experience do you have with corn?


If you don't get the rain, soils generally aren't very suitable anyway. Timely rains are much more important than quanity. Right now the corn here is tasseling and we're dry. We've had LOTS of moisture this year, but tasseling time is very important. Meanwhile the soybeans are starting to burn up a little bit. NOT A BIG DEAL! Soybeans are made in August, Corn in July. You can pretend you need to pump billions of gallons of water on corn if you need to but like a tomato plant, the time you do it is more imprtant.


I welcome you if you ever make the trip up north to stay at my place so you can learn a thing or two about corn instead of googling something on the interet.



You still cannot grasp my cattle/ethanol comment. Cattle are fed the byproduct, DDG (dried distillers grain) Much more nutritious than corn but needs to be dried for transport or the wet gluten, same thing but wet. This needs to be fed in a timely manner before getting rotten. Hence the feedlots thriving near ethanol plants. Not to mention, the Wet gluten is much, MUCH more nutritious than DDG which is also much more nutrious than corn.


Get it now? Cows eat less corn, more "filler feeds" mixed with the wet byproduct.

Corn demand doesn't rise according to the sum, its a percantage of the ethanol demand.

[boutons_]

"cows eat corn. How much corn do cows eat in the US in one year?"

70+% of US corn serves as animal feed (cows, chickens, turkeys, hogs, etc), and quite a bit of corn and wheat is exported. US consumers eat a small %age of corn/wheat production directly. Corn is also consumed as sugar from corn frutose/sweetner in soft drinks, candy, meats, all kinds of foods with gratuitous sweetner, etc. eg, I think ketchup and BBQ sauce are about 30% - 40% sugar.

[RandomGuy]

As for irrigitaion, most of the corn in the US is raised in the corn belt. Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Missouri and South Dakota

Nebraska's western half is irriigated heavily. Most other places irrigitaion is a supplemental bonus. Meaning you might get 220 bu instead of 180-200 in areas. Not required at all. This is exactly what i'm talking about. What experience do you have with corn?


If you don't get the rain, soils generally aren't very suitable anyway. Timely rains are much more important than quanity. Right now the corn here is tasseling and we're dry. We've had LOTS of moisture this year, but tasseling time is very important. Meanwhile the soybeans are starting to burn up a little bit. NOT A BIG DEAL! Soybeans are made in August, Corn in July. You can pretend you need to pump billions of gallons of water on corn if you need to but like a tomato plant, the time you do it is more imprtant.

I welcome you if you ever make the trip up north to stay at my place so you can learn a thing or two about corn instead of googling something on the interet.

You still cannot grasp my cattle/ethanol comment. Cattle are fed the byproduct, DDG (dried distillers grain) Much more nutritious than corn but needs to be dried for transport or the wet gluten, same thing but wet. This needs to be fed in a timely manner before getting rotten. Hence the feedlots thriving near ethanol plants. Not to mention, the Wet gluten is much, MUCH more nutritious than DDG which is also much more nutrious than corn.

Get it now? Cows eat less corn, more "filler feeds" mixed with the wet byproduct.

Corn demand doesn't rise according to the sum, its a percantage of the ethanol demand.

I don't need to know about what types of soil corn grows best in, and will readily acced that you obviously know more about corn than I do.

The part of the equation you are missing is the economic one. I have pointed out how much land area, irrigated or not, would be required to supplant gasoline usage, even to say, 50%. Put this figure at 150,000 square miles, OF NEW FARMLAND.

Since free market economics dictates that the most economical (profitable) land is now being used for corn, that would mean that this new land would have to be more marginal in terms of production, yes?

So if it is more marginal, would it not be reasonable to assume that this land would be in areas that require some degree of irrigation?

75% of all water usage in the US is for agriculture, generally for irrigation.

Assume that 1/2 of that new 150,000 square miles was in land that would require irrigation, or 75,000 square miles.

By my back of the envelope calculations, that would mean a country that is finding it harder to supply cities with water would suddenly have to increase water usage by 66%, just to replace 50% of our gasoline usage with ethanol.

[RandomGuy]

Again, I am not saying that we shouldn't ramp up ethanol production and use things like corn to do it.

I am saying that it is not economically or physically feasible to replace more than a small percentage of current gasoline usage with ethanol.

Even when energy costs accelerate, as I think they will, ethanol will still not be THE solution, as each new unit of ethanol costs more than the last by an increasing amount.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I am saying that it is not economically or physically feasible to replace more than a small percentage of current gasoline usage with ethanol.


This is absolutely the case. Ethanol is a small part of the solution, but to replace current global fuel usage with ethanol would take the arable (cultivated) land of 3 Earths ie. not going to happen.

Get used to the fact that petrol price will double in the next 3-5 years, and then even more frequently as demand far outstrips supply and the oil becomes more difficult and expensive to extract.

I know you don't want to hear it, no-one does, but the change that really needs to occur is a GLOBAL REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION. Fossil fuels are a piggy bank of energy that we are quickly exhausting, and unless we actually want to confront global economic, environmental and social collapse, we have to act now, every one of us (led by our governments), to change our way of doing things. We need to pay more, consume less, and remember that, despite what economists will tell you, NATURAL RESOURCES ARE NOT INFINITE and TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT SAVE US - it will help, but there are 6 billion of us now and we have to change the way we live.

Of course this won't happen, and the crisis will hit us before we are ready, but that is the way humans do things. The short-term focus of our political systems don't allow our politicians to plan in the long-term, so essentially we're fvcked. Oh well.

BTW, I am studying a Masters in Energy Sustainability to be followed by a PhD. I couldn't live with myself if, knowing what I know, I didn't try to be a part of the solution.

Want to know more about sustainability issues, look up these guys/keywords and follow the links: Eugene Odum, Joseph Tainter, Clive Ponting, the Millenium report, human ecology. That's just some introductory stuff you read when you first start down the sustainability path...

Oh, and this:


Even when energy costs accelerate, as I think they will, ethanol will still not be THE solution, as each new unit of ethanol costs more than the last by an increasing amount.

is called the Law of Diminishing Returns and applies to just about everything we do over the long-term due to the energy costs associated with upkeep of complexity. Noticed that life is getting increasingly more complex and it's harder to just keep your life in order than it ever has been. "Complexity and diminishing returns to investment" (of time in this case). Put that phrase into Google and see what comes out.

Or read this for an intro:

http://anthropik.com/2005/10/thesis-14-complexity-is-subject-to-diminishing-returns/

[Guru of Nothing]

I know you don't want to hear it, no-one does, but the change that really needs to occur is a GLOBAL REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION.

Bingo Matt!

A few times I've gotten up on my high-horse and stated that Urban Spawl is a huge problem (literally). Fortunately, I think this is something that can self-correct via market influence. ... Actually, it will have to.

Personally, I endorse sharp market corrections now to wake people up, and bring out our best creativity.

... And I still live within 3 miles of 95% of the places I go.

[TDMVPDPOY]

corn/wheat extracted = ethanol, spoilage = animal food = animal shit, extracted back into process = ethanol......

[RandomGuy]

Two things to consider:

1) The amount of feedstock (be it corn, sugar cane, sugar beets or wood chips) required to make a (insert unit here) of usable fuel (E100 or gasoline/distillate blendstocks) is not a constant in the long term. Because it takes X bushels of corn to make a gallon of ethanol today, that doesn't mean it can't take .25X bushels of corn to make a gallon of ethanol 10 years from now. Given a free marketplace, effeciency improvements and innovative solutions will work themselves out in the longrun.

2) Ethanol, or any other alternative fuel for that matter, doesn't need to replace all the gasoline we use to make a huge impact on prices. But in the big picture, lower prices may not be ideal because they encourage demand to grow at a faster rate, traditional gasoline production will eventually restricted by declining oil supplies, and ethanol production will reach is practical limit and we are faced with even higher prices.

Yup. I would add that efficiency gains will be offset to some degree by the growth in demand caused by a growing economy.

[RandomGuy]

This is absolutely the case. Ethanol is a small part of the solution, but to replace current global fuel usage with ethanol would take the arable (cultivated) land of 3 Earths ie. not going to happen.

Get used to the fact that petrol price will double in the next 3-5 years, and then even more frequently as demand far outstrips supply and the oil becomes more difficult and expensive to extract.

I know you don't want to hear it, no-one does, but the change that really needs to occur is a GLOBAL REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION. Fossil fuels are a piggy bank of energy that we are quickly exhausting, and unless we actually want to confront global economic, environmental and social collapse, we have to act now, every one of us (led by our governments), to change our way of doing things. We need to pay more, consume less, and remember that, despite what economists will tell you, NATURAL RESOURCES ARE NOT INFINITE and TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT SAVE US - it will help, but there are 6 billion of us now and we have to change the way we live.

Of course this won't happen, and the crisis will hit us before we are ready, but that is the way humans do things. The short-term focus of our political systems don't allow our politicians to plan in the long-term, so essentially we're fvcked. Oh well.

BTW, I am studying a Masters in Energy Sustainability to be followed by a PhD. I couldn't live with myself if, knowing what I know, I didn't try to be a part of the solution.



For the regulars, who have read this from me before, my apologies for saying this again.

For Ruff:

The sun puts out more energy in 2 seconds than humanity has used to this point.

You want sustainable energy? Tap into THAT on a large scale.

The rest of our solar system has three aspects to it that need to be considered.

1) Energy from the sun.
2) Mass. From the asteroid belt to the moon to mars to Jupiter's moons, there is a lot of raw materials sitting around.
3) Space. Not space as in vacuum, but space as in room to do stuff.

Scaled up solar power stations that are hundreds of miles across can produce enough electricity to completely replace every single power plant on the face of our planet, with virtually no ecological footprint.

Here are a couple of intesting places to start reading on what is possible, even with today's off-the-shelf technology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite
http://www.permanent.com
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html
http://www.fact-sheets.com/science-nature/energy/solar_satellites/

The US government has some awareness of this potential as well:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/dynamicpower/doc/adv_sd_tech.html

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/set_myp_2007-2011_proof_1.pdf

This isn't science fiction. This is achievable energy independence, and something I expect to see in my lifetime.

[Nbadan]

Cheap corn may not be the answer when American stockpiles run dry...


WASHINGTON - US ethanol manufacturers, foodmakers and livestock feeders are consuming so much corn (maize) that stockpiles could be depleted by 2008, unless plantings expand sharply, analysts said on Friday.

In its first forecast of the fall harvest, the USDepartment of Agriculture estimated on Friday the corn crop at 10.976 billion bushels (278.8 million tonnes), the third-largest crop ever. Corn usage now exceeds production by a small margin.

But in the 2006/07 marketing year, which opens Sept. 1, importers and US industry will consume 839 million bushels or 7 percent more corn than is being grown, according to USDA.

"There's definitely need for more corn," said analyst Mark McMinimy of Stanford Washington Research, especially with the ethanol industry growing "bigger and hungrier" each year.

Planetark (http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37650/story.htm)

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

RG - absolutely. You are preaching to the converted.

Oz has more sun than any country on the planet, and more than enough room to generate the electricity needs of the entire planet many times over in perpetuity, yet solar power isn't even on the agenda due to price and no infrastructure is yet being invested in despite available and vastly improving technologies.

Insanely, our PM went to see GW 2 months ago and came back talking about nuclear power for Australia!? What absolute horseshit! We have massive renewable energy resources in Australia - wind, solar, geothermal and tidal - and yet because we have cheap, abundant coal, the coal power generators aren't made to pay for the cost of their pollution (and control the politicians through donations), renewables are artificially expensive and thus coal remains our primary energy source. It SICKENS me the shortsightedness of our politicians, trapped within a myopic system, and the wilfull ignorance of the opiated masses... :pctoss

[RandomGuy]

Yup. Coal and oil production is subsidised to a much greater extent than people realize.

If you REALLY want free-market economics to work, you have to get rid of the subsidies to these industries. This will make renewables cost effective, especially as time passes and the true cost of these energy sources is tallied up.

[velik_m]

The sun puts out more energy in 2 seconds than humanity has used to this point.

You want sustainable energy? Tap into THAT on a large scale.


why tap into sun? build one at home - nuclear fusion, the lasting solution to all our energy problems.

[RandomGuy]

why tap into sun? build one at home - nuclear fusion, the lasting solution to all our energy problems.

Nuclear fusion may indeed be possible at some future point.

Solar energy is possible today, and offers the side benefit of building up industrial infrastructure in space.

For the billions (trillions?) that one would have to spend to get working fusion reactors, one could build an extensive space-based infrastructure that would have the added benefits of allowing human beings to survive something bad happening to the Earth.

[Duff McCartney]

There is no solution to the worlds oil problems. There are too many politicians, CEO's, etc. making billions of dollars on petroleum for them to just find a solution just like that.

The world is a joke...if it takes less than a month to build a fast food joint on your corner, it shouldn't take 200 years to find cheap, clean energy.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yup. Coal and oil production is subsidised to a much greater extent than people realize.

If you REALLY want free-market economics to work, you have to get rid of the subsidies to these industries. This will make renewables cost effective, especially as time passes and the true cost of these energy sources is tallied up.

RG, I'd be careful the way you phrase that. Oil and coal aren't subsidised in the strictest sense - instead, they are not required to pay for their pollution (a form of subsidy, but not the direct form most people invisage from that word), although oil and gas exploration gains tax credits which is a form of direct subsidy.

The free market will NOT solve this problem because it labels damage to public goods (ie. pollution of atmosphere, water, land, etc) as EXTERNALITIES - that is, "external" to the economy. Of course, this is a misnomer since our economies are entirely reliant on the resources and ecosystem processes generated by a healthy environment. It is the role of govts to regulate and in doing so "internalise" the externalities, make the polluters pay for their pollution. This in turn leads either to polluters reducing their pollution (which generally increases the market price of said commodity) and/or consumers using price signals to switch to other comparable technologies.

eg. coal-fired electricity in Aust. currently comes at about $35-40/MWh because producers do not have to pay for the air pollution, fine particulate pollution and environmental degredation of mine sites. If this were all factored into the cost of the electricity it would be $70-80/MWh. At that price range, renewables suddenly become viable as solar thermal and wind power cost about $70-80/MWh, and with emerging sliver cell technology, solar pv will soon be at or below that price.

Be careful with the terminology you use because the neo-con economists will denounce and rip you to shreds if you can't discuss this stuff at their level. ;)

[boutons_]

The secretly-designed-in-collaboration-with-energycos dickhead national energy plan gave $15B to the super-highly-profitable energycos for "research". No strings or auditing attached, aka a direct subsidy.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Energycos - petroleum company?

Hell, I can't believe anyone gets a grant without auditing!? I work in science policy in Oz, and no grant, whether $10,000 or $100,000,000, is given out without strict auditing procedures.

[velik_m]

Nuclear fusion may indeed be possible at some future point.

Solar energy is possible today, and offers the side benefit of building up industrial infrastructure in space.

For the billions (trillions?) that one would have to spend to get working fusion reactors, one could build an extensive space-based infrastructure that would have the added benefits of allowing human beings to survive something bad happening to the Earth.

and building infrastructure and then transporting that energy down to earth wouldn't cost billions (trillions?)?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Makes far more sense to build solar arrays throughout the deserts of the world, which make up 1/3 of the land area.

I read somewhere that a 50kmx50km solar array in the Australian desert, using current technology, could power the entire world.

Micro-solar/wind power (ie. making individual houses and buildings energy self-sufficient through small solar/wind arrays) also makes massive sense, although you still need base power generation underlying it. We also need the capacity to convert excess electrical capacity into hydrogen, a great way of storing electricity for re-release overnight or when the wind stops.

[Nbadan]

We need to keep supplying cheap affordable oil and that can be done for the foreseeable future through shale-oil, but the trouble is the procedure to extract shale-oil, clean it and refine it, since it is a heavy-grade, is much more harmful to the environment than drilling a normal well of sweet crude, but as you said, these externalities aren't considered when the politicians are writing the nation's energy policy.

I think we need to think of a ways to reduce CO2 levels already in the atmosphere and in the oceans before we go spending all this money on wind and solar energy. Perhaps an engineered organic or mechanical micro-organism that eats CO2 or coverts it to Oxygen, but has a regulated lifespan? Now that would be something.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

dan, we have already invested the money in solar and wind, and the price of both is becoming considerably cheaper as we do. It will drop even further with economies of scale in production if only people were switching to it.

If we can reduce emissions to 1994 levels and keep them there, the CO2 conc will level out at 500ppm (about double the 280ppm "natural" level pre-industrial revolution) by 2050. That's why we need clean renewable technology now - to start retarding our CO2 emissions.

Oh, and BTW, there is a lot of oil shale, but currently there is one 1 shale refinery and none under construction. They take 10-15 yrs to build. So, effectively, shale oil output is at capacity until someone builds another refinery. Shale is not the answer.

Oh, and WHY do we need to keep supplying CHEAP OIL? How about people taking rising oil prices as a signal to change their behaviours and reduce consumption? Keeping oil cheap will just maintain the damaging and dangerous status quo, the last thing the world needs right now (we are already locked into political inertia on this matter, why propogate it???).

[boutons_]

"I can't believe anyone gets a grant without auditing!? "

Please find where dickhead is monitoring the use and results of his $15B gift to the energ co's.

[boutons_]

There's an article in today's Express-News about the depletion of the Ogallala aquifer which supplies north Texas corn farmers as well as those all the up the central corn plain to the Dakotas.

Corn famers are already moving away from corn, not because there's no market for it (although they are guaranteed a market of the federal buying program when prices drop), but because the Ogalalla water table has dropped 40 ft in 50 years, the water pressure has dropped too, and the cost of fuel to farm has risen so much. The inputs to the corn are costing more than the revenue from the corn, even with federal price supports which somehow are considered not to be the demon socialism when the farmers are getting their pockets stuffed with tax dollars. ie, the farmers love government intervention when it gives them $$$ but hate government intervention as "socialism" when it restricts the farmers' abuses.

[RandomGuy]

RG, I'd be careful the way you phrase that. Oil and coal aren't subsidised in the strictest sense - instead, they are not required to pay for their pollution (a form of subsidy, but not the direct form most people invisage from that word), although oil and gas exploration gains tax credits which is a form of direct subsidy.


That was exactly what I meant as when I said subsidized.

If coal and oil companies were really made to pay the true costs of what they produce, instead of essentially stealing from society with pollution, then renewables would be WAY more competitive.

[RandomGuy]

The free market will NOT solve this problem because it labels damage to public goods (ie. pollution of atmosphere, water, land, etc) as EXTERNALITIES - that is, "external" to the economy. Of course, this is a misnomer since our economies are entirely reliant on the resources and ecosystem processes generated by a healthy environment. It is the role of govts to regulate and in doing so "internalise" the externalities, make the polluters pay for their pollution. This in turn leads either to polluters reducing their pollution (which generally increases the market price of said commodity) and/or consumers using price signals to switch to other comparable technologies.

eg. coal-fired electricity in Aust. currently comes at about $35-40/MWh because producers do not have to pay for the air pollution, fine particulate pollution and environmental degredation of mine sites. If this were all factored into the cost of the electricity it would be $70-80/MWh. At that price range, renewables suddenly become viable as solar thermal and wind power cost about $70-80/MWh, and with emerging sliver cell technology, solar pv will soon be at or below that price.

Be careful with the terminology you use because the neo-con economists will denounce and rip you to shreds if you can't discuss this stuff at their level. ;)

As for the rest of it:

I agree whole-heartedly.

I am better at economics and finance than most neo-cons, and that drives them nuts. >:)

[RandomGuy]

and building infrastructure and then transporting that energy down to earth wouldn't cost billions (trillions?)?

Infrastructure=economic base

Transporting that energy to the earth is as simple as setting up an antenna to catch harmless microwave energy.

I am not saying we shouldn't develop fusion at some point. I am saying that given a choice between spending a dollar on research that MAY eventually produce fusion, and spending a dollar on something that WILL increase the survivability of our species, I would rather have the industrial infrastructure first.

[velik_m]

Infrastructure=economic base

Transporting that energy to the earth is as simple as setting up an antenna to catch harmless microwave energy.

I am not saying we shouldn't develop fusion at some point. I am saying that given a choice between spending a dollar on research that MAY eventually produce fusion, and spending a dollar on something that WILL increase the survivability of our species, I would rather have the industrial infrastructure first.

you are talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

it's an interesting concept.

EDIT: also on fusion power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

and ITER: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

[RandomGuy]

you are talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

it's an interesting concept.

Yes indeed. See a few previous posts for other links. NASA is looking into this as well.

There are a LOT of interesting outgrowths to this.

90% of the cost of lifting a pound of matter into orbit is the cost of lifting the fuel for that pound of matter. The apollo moon rocket was so big because it needed a LOT of fuel just to get off the earth.

Imagine a spacecraft that used microwave energy beamed to it from an orbiting satellite to do most of the work of getting something to orbit. You have just brought down the cost of getting into orbit by 90%.

Having industrial infrastructure already in orbit would reduce even further the amount of stuff you would need to get into orbit in the first place, providing economies of scale.

[sickdsm]

There's an article in today's Express-News about the depletion of the Ogallala aquifer which supplies north Texas corn farmers as well as those all the up the central corn plain to the Dakotas.

Corn famers are already moving away from corn, not because there's no market for it (although they are guaranteed a market of the federal buying program when prices drop), but because the Ogalalla water table has dropped 40 ft in 50 years, the water pressure has dropped too, and the cost of fuel to farm has risen so much. The inputs to the corn are costing more than the revenue from the corn, even with federal price supports which somehow are considered not to be the demon socialism when the farmers are getting their pockets stuffed with tax dollars. ie, the farmers love government intervention when it gives them $$$ but hate government intervention as "socialism" when it restricts the farmers' abuses.


Corn acres were down 5% this year by march estimates. I wouldn't say that's moving away from corn when the year before it was up 1%, before that, up 4%. Where are you getting that corn inputs cost more than the return? That's pure bullshit. Take the subsidies away and most good operators are still making a profit. Don't believe me? Alot of land put into CRP loses its basis and yields and will not be elgible for govt. payments. Why is that land being farmed with not payments besides LDP's (what was referred to as federal supports in your post) available?

BTW: CRP payments are factored into the farm bills and liberals usually assume that that money is just more subsidies when in reality the govt does it for enviromentalists. Not only that but to accept subsidies you have to abide by all sorts of standards, which involve maintaining wetlands, no new ditching, no taking down of trees, no tillage on highly erodible land.......

Its yet another way of the govt. forcing its enviromental standards on the people, yet we have the same liberals bitching about the use of GMO's and Roundup, one of the safest chemicals there is.


You don't think for a minute i would take a hands off approach and if it meant you starving or developing weak bones bc of high milk prices I wouldn't? You bitch because you can. The govt. does not want a free farm market or they would have done so. If its so lucrative, your welcome to join us. After all, farming is considered one of the most dangeous, stressfull, risky jobs there is.

As for the whole Ogallala aquifer thing, anyone who has to depend on irrigation for raising corn isn't in prime corn country. Maybe those half-assed ranchers that try to be farmers in Texas need to but the majority of the corn-belt does NOT irrigate, save for western nebraska. Get that out of your head already. Corn yields are improving at a rate of 2-2.5% EVERY YEAR due to genetics. Last years corn was the 2nd best on record yet it was the 15th driest on record. This year's corn crop is expected to be better, even though it is another drought. Texas and the rest of the country that wants to be cornfarmers isn't a model to look at. That's why you import corn and can't raise it even with your vast reserves.



Lastly, try talking to a fucking corn farmer before you make half assed assumptions about loving the govt subsidies. Most hardworking farmers hate them along with the bankrupcty proceedings because it gives most of the poor farmers an way to compete. If you know the ins and outs of the ASCS system, it doesn't matter how poor you farm.

Take a look at number 33 in the top '04 receipients in SoDak last year. He's the head of the ASCS department. You don't think that's shady?

http://ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=46000&progcode=total&page=1&yr=2004

[RandomGuy]

[a long post on corn]



Water issues (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48165) will limit the amount of water available for irrigating corn in marginal areas. THAT will be the utimate barrier to corn production, even more than the land itself.

As I keep saying corn ethanol will be a SMALL part of our energy solution, but given the energy that has to be used in getting each new unit of water for each new unit of plant-based ethanol will provide a point at which it costs more energy to produce a new unit of ethanol than you get out of it.

That point WILL be FAR shy of even coming close to meeting our energy needs even with great strides in crop output or production efficiency.

[RandomGuy]

[another post on corn]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1151379&postcount=19

Just in case you missed it.

[RandomGuy]

Once again, I am NOT arguing against ethanol. I think that free-market forces will mean that ethanol will be part of our energy solution at some level.

I just think that certain constraints will limit that to a minor portion of our energy mix.

[exstatic]

My HEB is selling E85 today at $2.40.

:smokin

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

RG, I figured you understood the economics, but if you use that word "subsidised" without explaining it, most people will assume you mean that the govt gives money to petroleum companies directly. Just pointing out that you need to be really clear with people about this stuff or they'll wilfully misinterpret what you are saying, that's all.

[sickdsm]

Water issues (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48165) will limit the amount of water available for irrigating corn in marginal areas. THAT will be the utimate barrier to corn production, even more than the land itself.

As I keep saying corn ethanol will be a SMALL part of our energy solution, but given the energy that has to be used in getting each new unit of water for each new unit of plant-based ethanol will provide a point at which it costs more energy to produce a new unit of ethanol than you get out of it.

That point WILL be FAR shy of even coming close to meeting our energy needs even with great strides in crop output or production efficiency.



When i'm quoting someone one else, chances are i'm responding to them in particular and don't need a smart assed comment from you, OK?


But no, genetics is the number one barrior even though its being torn through at an alarming rate.


You can water individual stalks of corn in your garden all you want but if you use the technologies, varieties, and methods of 20, 10, and even 5 years ago you will get slighty better yields than 20, 10 or even 5 years ago.


On one had you admit that you don't know much about corn production than make yourself look stupid when in the same thread you say that irrigation will be the ultimate barrior to corn production when time and time again i've refuted that.


NO ONE IS SAYING THAT ITS AN END ALL, END IT NOW SOLUTION!!!!!


How many times must i tell you that? You basically argue with yourself. Had there not been so many people like sniding about ethanol in the '70's, we could very well be the modern day Brazil. Had this kick in the ass been done 15 years ago, we wouldn't be affected by mideast problems so much.

[RandomGuy]

Makes far more sense to build solar arrays throughout the deserts of the world, which make up 1/3 of the land area.

I read somewhere that a 50kmx50km solar array in the Australian desert, using current technology, could power the entire world.

Micro-solar/wind power (ie. making individual houses and buildings energy self-sufficient through small solar/wind arrays) also makes massive sense, although you still need base power generation underlying it. We also need the capacity to convert excess electrical capacity into hydrogen, a great way of storing electricity for re-release overnight or when the wind stops.

It depends on the TYPE of solar energy. There is photovoltaic, that produces electricity directly from sunlight, and reflective arrays that focus sunlight onto a heating chamber that produces steam to run turbines.

I have done some back-of-the-envelope calculations for replacing US electrical consumption and I got something a bit shy of 200 miles square for photovoltaics, IF you stick them in space.

There are drawbacks to putting solar in deserts.

1)Sand.

Sandstorms abrade and dust would cover both reflective arrays and photovoltaics.

2) Transmission loss.

People don't live in deserts, they live far from them.Getting power to where it is used, would cause a LOT of loss, barring a very-high temperature superconductor. (very high temp=normal earth temperatures)

Factors that would favor any space-based solar array over terrestrial solar:

No day/night cycle.

24 hours of direct sunlight, versus earth-based solar with at least 1/2 of the time not producing power.

Flexibility.

All you need to get power is an antenna that can be built anywhere. You can adjust power output to need and growth very easily.

I would add a bit of interesting background info:

Hydrogen economy=massive need for platinum

That would be a BIG bottleneck to storing energy using hydrogen.

Platinum is used as a catalyst in a lot of reactions. The catalytic converter in your car has platinum in it, making that portion of recycled cars fairly valuable.

[RandomGuy]

When i'm quoting someone one else, chances are i'm responding to them in particular and don't need a smart assed comment from you, OK?


But no, genetics is the number one barrior even though its being torn through at an alarming rate.


You can water individual stalks of corn in your garden all you want but if you use the technologies, varieties, and methods of 20, 10, and even 5 years ago you will get slighty better yields than 20, 10 or even 5 years ago.


On one had you admit that you don't know much about corn production than make yourself look stupid when in the same thread you say that irrigation will be the ultimate barrior to corn production when time and time again i've refuted that.


NO ONE IS SAYING THAT ITS AN END ALL, END IT NOW SOLUTION!!!!!


How many times must i tell you that? You basically argue with yourself. Had there not been so many people like sniding about ethanol in the '70's, we could very well be the modern day Brazil. Had this kick in the ass been done 15 years ago, we wouldn't be affected by mideast problems so much.

I wasn't being a smart ass, and if my post looked that way, my apologies.
I was simply asking you to address something that I don't think you have so far.

If I am "stupid" then educate me.

What is the annual amount of rainfall needed to grow one acre of modern corn without irrigation? Assuming the rainfall is timed perfectly, and assuming the soil is suitible with minimal fertilizer.

Assuming the rain isn't timed perfectly, then how much water is needed to grow an acre of corn?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I think the 50x50km was photovoltaics. BTW, if you are interested in pv technology, look up "sliver cell" and Andrew Blakers - he and his team at the ANU (my uni) have developed a pv cell that cuts the volume of silicon used by 75%, and the cost of cells by about 50%.

There is also a lot of research being done on solar thermal arrays in Oz by our national science body, the CSIRO.

Gotta run.

Will contiune this next week. :)

[sickdsm]

I wasn't being a smart ass, and if my post looked that way, my apologies.
I was simply asking you to address something that I don't think you have so far.

If I am "stupid" then educate me.

What is the annual amount of rainfall needed to grow one acre of modern corn without irrigation? Assuming the rainfall is timed perfectly, and assuming the soil is suitible with minimal fertilizer.

Assuming the rain isn't timed perfectly, then how much water is needed to grow an acre of corn?


I can't tell you that. I can tell you that its roughly 16 inches for 100 bushels. I've heard 20 for an average corn crop. Soil type matters. Colorado was the only state i've found a chart for and it varied from 20 inches in Colorado Springs to 26 in Burlington. As for suitable soil with minimal fertilizer, poor ground requires less fert than quality ground.

[RandomGuy]

I can't tell you that. I can tell you that its roughly 16 inches for 100 bushels. I've heard 20 for an average corn crop. Soil type matters. Colorado was the only state i've found a chart for and it varied from 20 inches in Colorado Springs to 26 in Burlington. As for suitable soil with minimal fertilizer, poor ground requires less fert than quality ground.


How many bushels per acre in good soil?

How many bushels per acre in poor soil?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Is the US having dry land salinity problems yet?

For those who don't know, dry land salinity occurs in marginal agricultural areas that are irrigated for too long/too intensively using fertilizers, which causes the water table to slowly rise over time, and rise in salt concentration. When the salty water has risen to the root level it kills the plants and dries on the surface killing everything and basically turning the land into desert.

Australia has a big dry land salinity problem. We brought European farming methods here and applied them to a totally different climate/biogeography. It worked for a while, as most things do, but over time it's become abundantly clear that those traditional methods damaged the land and waterways terribly.

A lot of change in ag practices is occuring, but there is so much money and political capital tied up in agriculture that damage is still being done.

[Ya Vez]

Envision 50 million democrats on the great socialist public transit system.... energy problems solved....

[sickdsm]

How many bushels per acre in good soil?

How many bushels per acre in poor soil?

Roughly 160 is the nat. average i believe. Probably the average here locally.


You get into states like southern MN, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois that's a whole different ballgame, those guys have some bigtime yield potential.


Soil is just a part of it. Corn stops growing above 86 degrees. North of here, towards Fargo, Grand Forks is some of the best soils in the WORLD, but they can't grow corn worth a damn because the soils too cold.



More corn acres with old tech. is not the answer. A few years ago, Monsanto? developed a variety aimed at Africa that grew 90 bushel's an acre, no irrigation..........In the South Dakota BADLANDS.

[boutons_]

"which causes the water table to slowly rise over time,'

Two aquifers in TX, the Edwards and the Ogallala, suffer from be pumped out so much that they have lowered water tables and lower pressure, rather than higher water tables. In the recent articles I've read on them, increased salinity wasn't mentioned.

The infestation of Salt Cedar in the Rio Grande Valles and points west also causes drop in water table as these invaders are extremely thirsty and salt hardy, so as the lowered water table turns brackish, the salt cedar can carry on, while native plants needing sweet water die off.

One of the early botanical war tactics in ancient times was for invading armies to pour salt on the fields of the invaded.

[RandomGuy]

Roughly 160 is the nat. average i believe. Probably the average here locally.


You get into states like southern MN, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois that's a whole different ballgame, those guys have some bigtime yield potential.


Soil is just a part of it. Corn stops growing above 86 degrees. North of here, towards Fargo, Grand Forks is some of the best soils in the WORLD, but they can't grow corn worth a damn because the soils too cold.



More corn acres with old tech. is not the answer. A few years ago, Monsanto? developed a variety aimed at Africa that grew 90 bushel's an acre, no irrigation..........In the South Dakota BADLANDS.

Once again you mention a couple of things that will limit the ability of corn to provide even a fraction of what we need in terms of energy.

I don't think you would dispute that it would take at least a good 100,000 new square miles of crop land to replace even a 1/3 of just our gasoline usage with corn-ethanol.

Take a look at a map of the US and look at how much land actually gets the 16+ annual inches of rainfall mentioned in your earlier post. Then figure how much of the US actually is warm enough for corn. Then figure how much of what is left has good soil.

You are right that new types of crops will enable more land to be used. But will the yeilds in a cold place with poor soil be as great as the land that is there now?

The answer is obviously no. You can make some new varieties of plant but those plants are still limited by... (surprise!) physics. The most efficient plant in the world isn't going to be able to grow much in the artic, as the available energy is very low.

Low temperatures, lack of water (even for non-irrigated corn), and poor soil will all reduce yeilds and drive up costs for each new gallon of ethanol produced from corn, even if you have some more hardy varieties. Poor soil can be alleviated by fertilizer, but that fertilizer will require (surprise!) energy to make, and that will be reflected again in higher costs for each new gallon of ethanol.

Energy will get more expensive and that will enable more land to be economically used for ethanol production, but other forms of energy will be competing for each new dollar spent on energy, and there will be a limit on how much corn can economically be grown to meet our energy needs.

Once again, I DO think ethanol will be an increasing part of the energy solution for the US, but cold hard economics and simple physics will relegate it to a very minor proportion (albeit pretty large in actual dollar terms) of our overall energy needs.

As a corn farmer, you will do well in the coming decades, as energy prices rise, so will the economic viability of ethanol based on the corn you produce. :bling Heh, I will be investing some of my retirement savings on it, so you can know I'm not just talking out my ass, and am willing to put my own money where my mouth is. :lol

I simply will say that we need to spend money on a LOT of options to be able to meet our energy needs, not the least of which will be simple increases in the efficiency of our energy use.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

And you know that prime absurdity in debating all of this? The elephant in the room no-one wants to discuss? We are simply using too much of everything! We need to address both the supply AND DEMAND side of things and bring them into a sustainable equilibrium! However, no-one will even fathom that because Joe Everyman isn't willing to make any level of sacrifices whatsoever to facilitate a richer future for those who come after us (ie. the thought of addressing the demand issue is political suicide).

Every night I go to bed astounded at the absurdity of the denial games played by my species. :depressed

[sickdsm]

Once again you mention a couple of things that will limit the ability of corn to provide even a fraction of what we need in terms of energy.

I don't think you would dispute that it would take at least a good 100,000 new square miles of crop land to replace even a 1/3 of just our gasoline usage with corn-ethanol.

Take a look at a map of the US and look at how much land actually gets the 16+ annual inches of rainfall mentioned in your earlier post. Then figure how much of the US actually is warm enough for corn. Then figure how much of what is left has good soil.

You are right that new types of crops will enable more land to be used. But will the yeilds in a cold place with poor soil be as great as the land that is there now?

The answer is obviously no. You can make some new varieties of plant but those plants are still limited by... (surprise!) physics. The most efficient plant in the world isn't going to be able to grow much in the artic, as the available energy is very low.

Low temperatures, lack of water (even for non-irrigated corn), and poor soil will all reduce yeilds and drive up costs for each new gallon of ethanol produced from corn, even if you have some more hardy varieties. Poor soil can be alleviated by fertilizer, but that fertilizer will require (surprise!) energy to make, and that will be reflected again in higher costs for each new gallon of ethanol.

Energy will get more expensive and that will enable more land to be economically used for ethanol production, but other forms of energy will be competing for each new dollar spent on energy, and there will be a limit on how much corn can economically be grown to meet our energy needs.

Once again, I DO think ethanol will be an increasing part of the energy solution for the US, but cold hard economics and simple physics will relegate it to a very minor proportion (albeit pretty large in actual dollar terms) of our overall energy needs.

As a corn farmer, you will do well in the coming decades, as energy prices rise, so will the economic viability of ethanol based on the corn you produce. :bling Heh, I will be investing some of my retirement savings on it, so you can know I'm not just talking out my ass, and am willing to put my own money where my mouth is. :lol

I simply will say that we need to spend money on a LOT of options to be able to meet our energy needs, not the least of which will be simple increases in the efficiency of our energy use.



Most of what you post i think is BS just for the fact that you seem to have the mindset that it needs to completely replace and do it right now. Is it the answer fifty years from now? I hope not. It WILL be the answer to ease gas prices, claim economic freedom, and also relieve the govt subsidies---your taxes.


All you preach about can be shortened to one word. Genetics. More has been done with all crops in the last 15 years than all in agriculture previously. I do believe i will live to see the day when 400 bushel corn is the equivilant of our 200 bushel goal's today. A few days ago we chopped for silage corn that at one part of the field was over the tractor cab, probably 15 ft. tall. Can you imagine the ramifications not if but WHEN they modify corn to grow to a maximum of five feet tall? Fertilizer's, fuel, water, increased corn population, etc... are all results of that, not to mention the ethanol process is becoming more efficent all of the time.

[sickdsm]

FWIW: I may be a corn farmer but i'm not all what i preach.


I buy the cheapest at the pump, even if it means no ethanol.


;)

[RandomGuy]

Most of what you post i think is BS just for the fact that you seem to have the mindset that it needs to completely replace and do it right now. Is it the answer fifty years from now? I hope not. It WILL be the answer to ease gas prices, claim economic freedom, and also relieve the govt subsidies---your taxes.


All you preach about can be shortened to one word. Genetics. More has been done with all crops in the last 15 years than all in agriculture previously. I do believe i will live to see the day when 400 bushel corn is the equivilant of our 200 bushel goal's today. A few days ago we chopped for silage corn that at one part of the field was over the tractor cab, probably 15 ft. tall. Can you imagine the ramifications not if but WHEN they modify corn to grow to a maximum of five feet tall? Fertilizer's, fuel, water, increased corn population, etc... are all results of that, not to mention the ethanol process is becoming more efficent all of the time.


Find one place where I say that gasoline will/should be fully replaced by ethanol.

All the genetics in the world will still mean that corn ethanol will not be more than a small fraction of our future energy solution.

[velik_m]

i think using plants for energy might not be smart anyway - plants get their energy from sun, there's no need for a middle man.

[RandomGuy]

Bump.

'cause we're talkin about it again.

[Wild Cobra]

A few points:

The equator goes through Brazil, and we sit at a higher latitude than they do. This reduced the solar energy by a significant amount, thus reducing the rate of plant growth. I think we would be lucky to get 80% of the growth rate. With the way much of the spectrum scatters, I'll bet we would get less than 70%.

I didn't see a calculation on additional water needed which is critical.

The energy from ethanol is not just a little less, but only about 60% of gasoline.

I think it's impotent to consider irrigation sources and volumes for when nature doesn't follow normal patterns.

I think it's important to consider the energy it takes for distillation.

I think it's important to consider how much energy and fossil fuels go into making the fertilizers used.

Random, I notice you simple math does not calculate the final energy output compared to all the energy put in. Remember here, all we are seeing with ethanol production for energy gained is from the sun, and it is less efficient than using direct solar technologies like solar cells and using the sun's heat. If my memory holds, we are capable at best to produce 55 gallons net energy equivalent of gasoline per acre.

As for the energy from gasoline vs. ethanol:

Regular gasoline has 34.8 mega-joules per liter of energy. Pure ethanol has 23.5. That is only 67.5% the energy of gasoline. Premium gasoline has 39.5. The percentage from premium is decreased to 59.6%.

[RandomGuy]

Random, I notice you simple math does not calculate the final energy output compared to all the energy put in. Remember here, all we are seeing with ethanol production for energy gained is from the sun, and it is less efficient than using direct solar technologies like solar cells and using the sun's heat. If my memory holds, we are capable at best to produce 55 gallons net energy equivalent of gasoline per acre.

As for the energy from gasoline vs. ethanol:

Regular gasoline has 34.8 mega-joules per liter of energy. Pure ethanol has 23.5. That is only 67.5% the energy of gasoline. Premium gasoline has 39.5. The percentage from premium is decreased to 59.6%.

You are correct. I did not factor in the amount of energy put into it first.

The primary goal of the calculation was to see how tenable it was to get a large percentage of our transportation energy needs from corn, with no other considerations.

It isn't. One doesn't have to take much more into consideration than simply pointing out, under the BEST conditions and using the MOST unrealistically favorable assumptions, corn-ethanol is not going to solve our problem.

[The Reckoning]

apparently hemp is a good source for ethanol

[RandomGuy]

apparently hemp is a good source for ethanol

Hemp is a pretty darn useful plant in a lot of regards.

[Wild Cobra]

You are correct. I did not factor in the amount of energy put into it first.

The primary goal of the calculation was to see how tenable it was to get a large percentage of our transportation energy needs from corn, with no other considerations.

It isn't. One doesn't have to take much more into consideration than simply pointing out, under the BEST conditions and using the MOST unrealistically favorable assumptions, corn-ethanol is not going to solve our problem.

At least a topic we agree on. I could see using making ethanol from waste that isn't otherwise used, or from fallow crops that are in low demand. Not as a primary crop.

Here is a more professional pic you may prefer for your Avatar:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/3/8/a38c32f3f00f593c1dc17692bc224c0f.png

It’s from wiki, where I found the one in my sig.