Corn based ethanol bad substitute for petroleum says U Wash study

[Jay GW]

The study looked at factors such as the energy needed to produce a renewable fuel source compared with how much energy is produced, the impact on soil fertility and effects on food supply when fuels based on crops such as corn and soybeans are mixed with fossil fuels. Based on those factors, the authors determined that corn-based ethanol is the worst alternative overall.

Policy Recommendations

* Calculate a biofuel's ecological footprint
* Promote only biofuels that can be produced sustainably
* Select highly efficient species for biofuels
* Work to minimize land needed for biofuels
* Encourage reclamation of degraded areas
* Prohibit clearing areas for more cultivation
* Promote use of energy crops that require less fertilizer, pesticide and energy
* Promote native and perennial species
* Prohibit use of invasive species
* Promote crop rotation on cultivated lands
* Encourage soil conservation
* Promote only biofuels that are at least net carbon neutral

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uow-sbm052708.php

[Farmer Joe]

I guess I'll keep my salsa, because it sounds like my corn chips aren't going anywhere...

[sourdough]

Ive noticed that anyone opposed to biofuels has something to gain from selling/ using petrofuels. ;)
biofuels are the cleanest cheapest way to go right now

www.ethanol.org

www.drivingethanol.org

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html

[Toob Socks]

Ive noticed that anyone opposed to biofuels has something to gain from selling/ using petrofuels. ;)
biofuels are the cleanest cheapest way to go right now

www.ethanol.org

www.drivingethanol.org

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html

You mean as opposed to the big commercial farm companies making huge amounts of money selling off food crops for fuel while the price of said crops go through the roof?

[figuer]

You mean as opposed to the big commercial farm companies making huge amounts of money selling off food crops for fuel while the price of said crops go through the roof?So? Plant more food. There is still plenty of unused land in South America, for example.

[bleubird]

Ive noticed that anyone opposed to biofuels has something to gain from selling/ using petrofuels. ;)
biofuels are the cleanest cheapest way to go right now

www.ethanol.org

www.drivingethanol.org

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html

Industrial farming needed to supply even a fraction of what we need would not be cheap or clean.
The only long term solution is conservation and mass transit.
Our easy drive to the burbs is not going to be sustainable much longer.


bleu

[barbos]

I thought case was closed some time ago and corn ethanol was declared worst possible fuel

[SwoleMan]

Ethanol seems to be a dead alternative to petrol. The focus has been shifting to batteries instead.

[spamandham]

The study looked at factors such as the energy needed to produce a renewable fuel source compared with how much energy is produced, the impact on soil fertility and effects on food supply when fuels based on crops such as corn and soybeans are mixed with fossil fuels. Based on those factors, the authors determined that corn-based ethanol is the worst alternative overall.

Policy Recommendations

* Calculate a biofuel's ecological footprint
* Promote only biofuels that can be produced sustainably
* Select highly efficient species for biofuels
* Work to minimize land needed for biofuels
* Encourage reclamation of degraded areas
* Prohibit clearing areas for more cultivation
* Promote use of energy crops that require less fertilizer, pesticide and energy
* Promote native and perennial species
* Prohibit use of invasive species
* Promote crop rotation on cultivated lands
* Encourage soil conservation
* Promote only biofuels that are at least net carbon neutral

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uow-sbm052708.php

I have only one anectodal story to add. My grandfather talks about how there is no longer any water available for his wheat crop (central kansas), which he blaims on the switch from wheat production to corn production for ethanol.

...when the water runs out, so does the corn, and so does the ethanol.

[Farmer Joe]

You mean as opposed to the big commercial farm companies making huge amounts of money selling off food crops for fuel while the price of said crops go through the roof?So? Plant more food. There is still plenty of unused land in South America, for example.

The unused land in South America is generally refered to as "rain forest." You're right though, Brazil cuts down countless acres of rain forest each year for the purpose of growing crops. In fact, they have eclipsed the US in soybean production, for example.

Overall, there's a lot of problems with ethanol. I would go into detail, but the original link pretty much covers it all. The bright side is that the ethanol movement has been a boon for farmers... Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[figuer]

So? Plant more food. There is still plenty of unused land in South America, for example.
The unused land in South America is generally refered to as "rain forest." If the unused land is in Argentina, it is referred to as "pampa" (treeless prairies)... consider that this country has the size of India, but 4% of the population.

[premjan]

Argentina is nearly the size of India, though not sure about its soil - whether it contains enough minerals to grow a lot of food (there is always fertilizer), but apparently agriculture there is taking off very fast.

Apparently the Argentine pampas is prone to flood, which might make it a good place to grow rice, if the flooding is not severe, but leaves standing water in the fields. The latitude however is more conducive to wheat probably.

[MortalWombat]

Ethanol seems to be a dead alternative to petrol. The focus has been shifting to batteries instead.
I tried that, but they got stuck in the gas tank intake. Should have used AAA instead of AA.

[Angra Mainyu]

Argentina is nearly the size of India, though not sure about its soil - whether it contains enough minerals to grow a lot of food (there is always fertilizer), but apparently agriculture there is taking off very fast.

Apparently the Argentine pampas is prone to flood, which might make it a good place to grow rice, if the flooding is not severe, but leaves standing water in the fields. The latitude however is more conducive to wheat probably.

Argentina is a traditional producer of agricultural goods. The pampa isn't good for rice (too cold and probably too dry as well afaik - but I'm no expert), but excellent for wheat, corn, soy, and a lot of other stuff.

[WCH]

Does anyone know if it's possible to cost effectively produce grains via hydroponics, say in areas that can't be farmed?

[premjan]

I remember eating carrots with air gaps inside them in Japan - apparently an artifact of hydroponics. I suppose rice could be grown by hydroponics but it would be expensive in general. Wheat doesn't need much water.

[barbos]

The study looked at factors such as the energy needed to produce a renewable fuel source compared with how much energy is produced, the impact on soil fertility and effects on food supply when fuels based on crops such as corn and soybeans are mixed with fossil fuels. Based on those factors, the authors determined that corn-based ethanol is the worst alternative overall.

Policy Recommendations

* Calculate a biofuel's ecological footprint
* Promote only biofuels that can be produced sustainably
* Select highly efficient species for biofuels
* Work to minimize land needed for biofuels
* Encourage reclamation of degraded areas
* Prohibit clearing areas for more cultivation
* Promote use of energy crops that require less fertilizer, pesticide and energy
* Promote native and perennial species
* Prohibit use of invasive species
* Promote crop rotation on cultivated lands
* Encourage soil conservation
* Promote only biofuels that are at least net carbon neutral

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uow-sbm052708.php

I think some genetically engineered tree with fruits containing something like 90% oil would probably be best solution as far as biofuel concerned.

[premjan]

An avocado has upto 26% fat, whereas olives may be as high as 35% oil.

[barbos]

An avocado has upto 26% fat, whereas olives may be as high as 35% oil.
wiki says avocado is only 10% fat.
Anyway, it should be a tree which can be used as shade and can be grown in Chicago and fruits can be used as fuel directly without much processing.
And exhaust must smell nice.

[premjan]

7-26% depending on the variety, average is about 15%.

[WCH]

I remember eating carrots with air gaps inside them in Japan - apparently an artifact of hydroponics. I suppose rice could be grown by hydroponics but it would be expensive in general. Wheat doesn't need much water.Vegetables and herbs of all sorts are very good to grow via hydroponics. With the right lights and nutrients, hydroponics are vastly superior to soil and lead to a much better product. My question is whether it's applicable to grains as well, given how grains account for the vast majority of our agriculture in North America.

[premjan]

The main problem would be getting a large enough hydroponic tank to grow much wheat or rice. It would be expensive to set up though the yield could be maximized - maybe if they engineered a rice plant that was about 50% rice kernel by weight.

[Friar Bellows]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080503/biofuels_compare.gif

[jayh]

The only long term solution is conservation and mass transit.
Our easy drive to the burbs is not going to be sustainable much longer.


bleu


Those are NOT solutions, only pallitives. 'mass transit' ONLY functions when there are lots of people all going to the same place at the same time (i.e. middle of cities). Other than that it's profoundly inefficient in both energy and human time (commuting through connecting routes is painfully slow)

People underestimate how essential fuels are, not just for 'a drive to the burbs' but for science, for food production, for medicine. Not just the direct use of fuels, but the fact that science and medical advances ride on the back of a strong productive economy... kill that economy and you kill them too.

While things like solar can help, right now the most credible mid term solutions would be fuels manufactured from currently abundant resources (natural gas, coal) or chemically synthesized using energy from nuclear sources.

[figuer]

The only long term solution is conservation and mass transit.
Our easy drive to the burbs is not going to be sustainable much longer.Those are NOT solutions, only pallitives.I disagree. The creation of suburbia has been a disaster, both economic and cultural. A return to classical urbanism based on concentration of people in a restricted area is indeed a solution.

[spamandham]

I disagree. The creation of suburbia has been a disaster, both economic and cultural. A return to classical urbanism based on concentration of people in a restricted area is indeed a solution.

How much energy would be involved in new construction (including infrastructure) to move the vast majority of suburbanites into city centers? Construction is extremely resource intensive.

The energy problem can be pushed into the future by dramatically increasing vehicle fuel efficiency and encouraging less driving, combined with increasing housing/business energy efficiency. Both of those objectives can be reached by increasing energy costs and letting the market do its work.

This would be extremely unpopular, but a planned and publically announced regular increase in energy taxes, with the money used to directly fund renewable energy plants (solar/wind/etc) would make a big move toward complete renewable energy independence without major economic impacts.

If people know for certain the prices are going up, they will adjust to the new price before it hits, through consumer choices.

[figuer]

How much energy would be involved in new construction (including infrastructure) to move the vast majority of suburbanites into city centers? Construction is extremely resource intensive.The solution is not continuing with the expansion of suburbia, and concentrating new growth in cities.

[budgie]

How much energy would be involved in new construction (including infrastructure) to move the vast majority of suburbanites into city centers? Construction is extremely resource intensive.The solution is not continuing with the expansion of suburbia, and concentrating new growth in cities.

Such as La Perla de San Juan....?

http://vivirlatino.com/i/2007/09/laperla.jpg

(sorry, cheap shot, I know)

Most United Statesians refuse to live in slums.

-jim

[figuer]

Such as La Perla de San Juan....?No, such places should be demolished, and substituted by (at least): http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=326084 (images of the new San Juan).

(sorry, cheap shot, I know)Rather pointless and misrepresentative.

Most United Statesians refuse to live in slums.:huh: So do most Puertoricans....what has classical urbanism to do with slums?

[WCH]

I support the move to Arcologies. My proposed system, however, depends on massive amounts of locally generated electricity... so it's going to need to wait until the technology is ready. Probably that'll involve fusion reactors, so some time after the completion of the ITER project.

[jayh]

A return to classical urbanism based on concentration of people in a restricted area is indeed a solution.

Sounds like freakin' hell.

Humans did not evolve jammed into cities. And certainly restricting our living and job choices to places extremely local to one another is a terrible step backward.

But even that would ONLY reduce human transport fuel needs by a fraction. It does nothing for every other fuel needs, including food production food and material transport, heating and cooling, etc.

[a while ago a local college professor and activist gave a presentation at our humanist group. He advocated so-called centralized communities, but as it turns out, HE lived way out in the woods, both he and his wife had 1 hour commutes. DAISNAID]

[WCH]

A return to classical urbanism based on concentration of people in a restricted area is indeed a solution.

Sounds like freakin' hell.

Humans did not evolve jammed into cities. And certainly restricting our living and job choices to places extremely local to one another is a terrible step backward.Words cannot express how completely I disagree with you.

[Toob Socks]

You mean as opposed to the big commercial farm companies making huge amounts of money selling off food crops for fuel while the price of said crops go through the roof?So? Plant more food. There is still plenty of unused land in South America, for example.

And with even more of our food crop being used for fuel, exactly how is that going to stop the skyrocketing prices of corn and soybeans?

[figuer]

A return to classical urbanism based on concentration of people in a restricted area is indeed a solution.

Sounds like freakin' hell.Do you consider that Paris or Barcelona are freakin'hell?

[figuer]

And with even more of our food crop being used for fuel, exactly how is that going to stop the skyrocketing prices of corn and soybeans?:huh: Because more food would be produced??

[Friar Bellows]

Do you consider that Paris or Barcelona are freakin'hell?

Or almost any European city? Or almost no American city?

Words cannot express how completely I disagree with you.

Welcome to the suburban mentality. The only thing you should express is disgust. It is a lower level of civilisation. Cities are where everything happens, where creativity and innovation thrives. Suburbs are cultural wastelands, where potentially bright minds rot away.

By making cities smaller and denser, without those vast suburban deserts, you make "the woods" closer and more reachable; particularly if you design them in a "humans-first" manner, with "fingers" of countryside accessible to everyone in the city with a bicycle (see Copenhagen, for example). In the largest cities this may not be possible, but then you have fast trains leading out to surrounding forests, and large parkland areas inside the city (see Paris, for example).

By the way, this is not some complicated process requiring out-of-control government spending and planning at every level. Civil engineers and urban planners are not known for their creativity. For the most part, you design a city on the largest scale (and details), and let the smaller scales (and details) take care of themselves. And you put people above cars, not below them.

[Friar Bellows]

Read this (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HOL20070630&articleId=6188) for a different (i.e. non-American) perspective on biofuels.

[jayh]

Sounds like freakin' hell.Do you consider that Paris or Barcelona are freakin'hell?

1) they are still cities. Nice to visit but I wouldn't want to live there

2) They are cream of the crop, and do successfully keep their character because of all the outlying country around them.

3) there still is the problem that this lifestyle forces you to choose work near your home... very limiting.

4) there is nothing that matches having your own LAND. My grandaughter's swing sets and play house, my dog's run, and what is essentially my family's private space... you simply don't have this in the city world.

BTW how do you city dwellers go food shopping. In some places (i.e. NYC) you can't even put a bag on an empty seat next to you without getting a citiation. I bring home maybe 10-15 bags... lasts a few weeks. Do you go shopping every day or two? Seems like lots of wasted time.

[figuer]

Do you go shopping every day or two? Seems like lots of wasted time.Spending four hours a day on highways seems like a lot of wasted time.

[premjan]

If the grocery store is nearby, you can go daily. The big hassle in the US is suburban grocery stores are relatively far away.

[figuer]

If the grocery store is nearby, you can go daily. The big hassle in the US is suburban grocery stores are relatively far away.When I lived in the city center, I had all the services needed within walking distance. It provided good exercise.

[premjan]

I prefer that - I wouldn't mind living in the city despite the crowds and lack of space. It tends to be more expensive though.

[WCH]

there still is the problem that this lifestyle forces you to choose work near your home... very limiting.Here's the thing... "near" has a whole different meaning in the city. I'm near everything. There's nowhere I could possibly want to work that wouldn't be near my home, so this is a nonissue. As an added point... you can always find a new place to live near wherever you end up working. Unlike in the barren wastes that are suburbia, that new place you live will probably also be swarmed with amenities and entertainment options within walking distance.

As for how I handle shopping... there are four large chain grocery stores within a five minute walk from my house, and a half dozen small independent places (like variety stores that also carry limited produce). We've got a cart that we can take with us, fits enough groceries to last the two of us a week easily. Sometimes I'll grab an item or two on the way home, and if there's something we specifically need, the proximity means it's easy to run out and grab it. The fact that there's one in every direction is nice, too, as it doesn't even matter where I'm coming home from, I'll still pass a grocery store on the way in.

and... wtf... you get enough groceries at a time to last "a few weeks"??? Do you ever eat anything fresh, or is that just frozen/canned goods or something? Christ, I wouldn't want to eat at your house.

[barbos]

Shopping is usually require driving once a week. It is driving to work what consumes most of the gasoline. And most of the people live withing 20 miles from work it seems. So all we need is plugin hybrids which can go 40 miles on electricity.

And living in the city does not necessary means short distance to the work.

[figuer]

And living in the city does not necessary means short distance to the work.But there are trains and buses...

[barbos]

And living in the city does not necessary means short distance to the work.But there are trains and buses...

Buses/trains are make sense when distance is relatively long, on shorter distances car will be cheaper. And before $4/gal buses were more expensive than cars on pretty much any distances.

[WCH]

Bike is cheaper than anything ($500 for a decent bike, average $100 maintenance/parts replacement per year, replace every five years* = $200/year, or $16.67 per month for unlimited travel), and much faster than bus/train in the city. Car is marginally faster than bike, except during rush hour when bike is way faster than car. And rush hour is obviously when the most people are driving... and thus the most people would benefit from biking. Good for exercise, too.

*You don't need to actually replace your bike every five years, but given the rate of bike theft, that's probably about how often you're going to end up replacing it. Also note that while a decent bike (such as mine) is in the $500 range, you can get one for as cheap as $50 (or for $20 from one of aforementioned bike thiefs), or a couple thousand if you want to be able to lift it with one finger.

[figuer]

But there are trains and buses...Buses/trains are make sense when distance is relatively long, on shorter distances car will be cheaper. And before $4/gal buses were more expensive than cars on pretty much any distances.You are forgetting that public busses are used by MANY PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME. It is cheaper for 20 persons to use a single bus than for 20 people to use 20 cars. And this not only refers to gas, but to the cost of the car, parking etc.

[WCH]

Buses/trains are make sense when distance is relatively long, on shorter distances car will be cheaper. And before $4/gal buses were more expensive than cars on pretty much any distances.You are forgetting that public busses are used by MANY PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME. It is cheaper for 20 persons to use a single bus than for 20 people to use 20 cars. And this not only refers to gas, but to the cost of the car, parking etc.Parking's the clincher... downtown parking rates are generally outrageous. $2 for a bus ticket doesn't seem that steep when you realise parking on campus would've cost $10, not even including gas, price of vehicle, maintenance, and having to buy all those atheist bumper stickers.

[premjan]

I think barbos is probably referring to the ticket price, which is charged per person in a bus/train whereas if you own a car, you pay for transporting as many people as will fit or will travel, at once.

[figuer]

I think barbos is probably referring to the ticket price, which is charged per person in a bus/train whereas if you own a car, you pay for transporting as many people as will fit or will travel, at once.I don't think so... plus cars seldom carry all family members at the same time, and if it is a car pool payment is still an issue, and taxis can only transport a limited amount of passengers.

[jayh]

Bike is cheaper than anything ($500 for a decent bike, average $100 maintenance/parts replacement per year, replace every ...

great when you're young and healthy and on your own. Not good with children, an aging parent, it winter, etc.

[jayh]

If the grocery store is nearby, you can go daily. The big hassle in the US is suburban grocery stores are relatively far away.

Probably a dozen major markets within 10 minutes ride.

[jayh]

..You are forgetting that public busses are used by MANY PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME. It is cheaper for 20 persons to use a single bus than for 20 people to use 20 cars. And this not only refers to gas, but to the cost of the car, parking etc.

no, I'm not forgetting that is EXACTLY my point. These conveyences are ONLY viable when there are lots of people going to the same place at the same time. Without the herd, there is no benefit. I'd rather stay away from the herd.

Parking is ridiculous in the city, which is where the trains and busses work. Everywhere else it's pretty much free. And at home I have 2 driveways and a garage.

[jayh]

Do you go shopping every day or two? Seems like lots of wasted time.Spending four hours a day on highways seems like a lot of wasted time.

Actually i t's a lot less than that (about 2 hr total) and I have privacy. to actually take mass transport to my job, there would be a connection, I'd have to go to a mjor hub and from that hub out to the job, because there are certainly very few people going that particular route. I used to be in a van pool, I had to leave much earlier and get home much later. I do sometimes share rides with a co-worker when schedules permit.

The limiting of employment to a short circle around your home, or to your own city is not desirable. Living in an apartment where your wall is your neighbor's wall is not desirable, where you have no real private space, no place to plant a garden or enjoy the shade of your own trees is not desirable. Living that crowded into a small area with so many others is not desirable.

Why would I want to live like that? Obviously some people do, but being jammed together in apartments, where only the wealthy have any private yard space, where you travel in mass transit is bustling against lots of other (sometimes very unpleasant) strangers (can you have a private personal conversation with your spouse on the subway the way you do in a car?). My dog comes with me in my car... try that in mass transit (hell you can't even chew gum). And prices for most everything is so high.

[figuer]

no, I'm not forgetting that is EXACTLY my point. These conveyences are ONLY viable when there are lots of people going to the same place at the same time. Without the herd, there is no benefit. I'd rather stay away from the herd.A lot of individuals going to nearby places is not a herd.