Ethanol Math.

[sickdsm]

Water issues 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. 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.

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.

[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. 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.

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 la ude 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:



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