The USDA just raised its projection for how much corn it expects the ethanol industry to burn through this year by 150 million bushels. It now expects a total of 4.1 billion bushels of corn to be turned into liquid fuel.
That's about double the amount of corn that went to ethanol in 2006 (2.1 billion bushels), and a third again as much as last year (3 billion bushels.)
The USDA now expects the '08 corn harvest to hit 12.3 billion bushels. That means that 33 percent of the U.S. corn harvest will go to car fuel.
The USDA projects that farmers will harvest 79.3 million acres of corn this year. That means 26.4 million acres of prime U.S. farmland are devoted to ethanol -- a land mass roughly equal in size to the state of Tennessee.
How else can we contextualize this diversion of food crops into fuel?
Here's another way. Check out this U.S. Grains Council chart on world corn production. According to the USGC, the United States typically produces more than 40 percent of the world's corn. So by taking a third of our total crop, our ethanol program alone will siphon off about 13 percent of all the corn grown in the world.
The USGC says that China is the globe's second-most-prolific corn producer, typically churning out 5.5 billion bushels. Thus the corn we're devoting to ethanol (4 billion bushels) equals more than 70 percent of total Chinese production.
Brazil is the third-largest producer, with 1.6 billion bushels, and the entire European Union produces about 1.9 billion bushels. That means that our ethanol industry will use more corn than the total production of Brazil and the European Union combined.
Let's think about fertilizer use now. Nitrogen fertilizer is a huge emiter of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 310 times more potent than carbon. Corn, in turn, is a huge user of nitrogen fertilizer. This USDA report [PDF] tells us that in 2005, U.S. farmers used about 12 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer, and that "42 percent of total nitrogen used during the period was attributed to production of corn."
So that tells us that in a typical year, the corn crop takes up about 5.2 million tons of nitrogen. If we use a third of that crop for ethanol, we're using 1.7 million tons of nitrogen. That's actually a low estimate for 2008, because a) farmers devoted more land to corn this year than they did in 2005; and b) the June floods washed away untold amounts of fertilizers, forcing many farmers to reapply.
Anyone out there have any idea of the greenhouse gas implications of 1.7 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer? Please reply in comments.
Note that burning through this titanic amount of corn only offsets a few percentage points of total gasoline use. Also note that under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, ethanol will suck up even more of next year's crop -- and even more for every year after that until 2015.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
Jonas Posted 2:25 am
13 Aug 2008
How much of all the corn produced on the planet, is actually traded internationally, and how much of it is consumed locally?
What is wrong with using energy as energy? Food is energy for our muscles. Ethanol is energy for machines that replace our muscles. What's wrong with using energy?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:41 am
13 Aug 2008
If that use causes starvation, contamination, GHG climate disaster, and war, as with coal, fuel farming, oil, and nuclear power, and alternatives that do not precipitate those ills are available. Such as wind, solar, water, and biogas power and conservation that can replace those problematic energy sources.
That is wrong.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jonas Posted 3:22 am
13 Aug 2008
Can you answer the first too?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:32 am
13 Aug 2008
Is corn shipped from Iowa to California to make ethanol used "locally"? What is the added GHG burden due to the transportation, above and beyond the doubling of GHG from ethanol as a motor fuel substituted for gasoline?
How far is it economical to transport biomass using GHG doubling ethanol to make more ethanol in a cellulosic ethanol plant?
I know farmers can make money with biodigestion right in the backyard. And get free fertilizer. And use biogas in their tractors. happily offsetting GHG all the way to the bank.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jonas Posted 5:19 am
13 Aug 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:19 am
13 Aug 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
damonius Posted 4:56 pm
13 Aug 2008
More interesting (to me at least), what is the comparative environmental damage done by the oil industry, both in production and distribution, of an equivalent amount of fuel? This article doesn't explore this, and without the comparison, how are we to know whether this is a negative thing? Assume oil production has an equivalent or higher environmental impact, and it means we're better off cutting oil production in favor of ethanol production.
Ideally, I would have liked a comparative list to be included to explore oil and ethanol in regards to:
Production impact
Distribution impact
Impact in vehicles for X years
Total environmental impact
In my (very amateur) opinion, based on this article, it's much too soon to jump to any conclusions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:15 pm
13 Aug 2008
Corn won't grow on unfertilized soil. Corn crop land is useless now (without fertilizer) since it has been rendered dead and inert by chemical ag.
Oil is not the only alternative to corn ethanol. Renewable electricity in a plugin hybrid produces no GHG.
Agribizz corn needs ammonia fertilizer, that emits nitrous oxide (a 310 times worse GHG than cO2) with a GHG effect equal to 2/3 of the cO2 that the crop absorbs.
Chemical ag destroys the soil and contaminates ground and surface water. It's deadly to life on this planet.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 12:20 am
14 Aug 2008
The people being hit the hardest by this whole ethanol thing are the CAFO meat producers. We really don't need to be powering our cars with food, but then we really don't need to be feeding food to cows and pigs. In this country, the price of meat might go up...no biggie for me. My primary concern with food prices going up is that Mexicans and Guatemalans (the heart of the corn civilizations) will be forced to leave their homes when they cannot afford to eat.
But if CAFOs struggle in the meantime and people start to think more about what they eat, I think this could be a good thing. The good thing about all of this ethanol BS is that people are starting to think about energy and food.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 4:08 am
14 Aug 2008
With corn now at record prices, the pressure is on to remove/renege on the conservation easements for those lands and plow up those rich (or often marginal) prairie soils to produce more corn! more corn! more corn!
Needless to say, this produces many losers among the many native species who share the great plains with humans, but with the passing of years find a smaller and smaller share of that available as usable habitat.
Finally, I can't leave without reminding people that: the root problem remains global population growth, and the corresponding demand for resources that rises along with the net 1 million new humans we are adding to our overtaxed planet EVERY WEEK.
Permalink
GlobalWarmingInc Posted 7:24 am
15 Aug 2008
Here's another one for you: Your Prius's have a bigger carbon footprint than normal cars. Here's why:
The battery's substance gets mined in Canada, then shipped to Europe to be refined/purified, then shipped to China to be converted into a foam-like substance, then shipped to Japan to be made into the final battery. Sounds GREEN to me.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:27 am
15 Aug 2008
George Bush is the biggest corn ethanol zealot in the land. The biofuel mandates were a rare bipartisan clusterf**k
That Prius carbon footprint urban legend has been dismantled more times than I can count.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Carl Flatow Posted 12:49 am
18 Aug 2008
Has anyone established that David Blume's theses are incorrect?
see: http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/
Blume, an organic farmer and ecologist has published a tome entitled, Alcohol Can Be A Gas. In it he lays out in great detail that it is not necessary to choose between ethanol and food.
I can find no error in his contention that since over 90% of the corn we grow goes to feed animals, and the production of ethanol from corn (feed corn is used) only removes the carbs (which cattle don't digest very well), and all the protein and fat in what is left over leaves you with a better feed.
Blume is the first to tell you that corn is not the ideal crop to make ethanol. The question remains, Is the demonization of ethanol production a legitimate concern or a ploy of the oil companies to which all too many have become a party?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:20 am
18 Aug 2008
Then you must not be looking for one.
Since they are all over the place.
Little short on time, but I'd like to put forward the second to last comment on this thread:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/st ...
For a long winded discussion of just how wrong Blume is, how about this:
http://greyfalcon.net/mythsofbiofuels
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 2:00 am
18 Aug 2008
Then there's this bit about distillers grains, the stuff that's left over after the ethanol process: "the production of ethanol from corn (feed corn is used) only removes the carbs (which cattle don't digest very well), and all the protein and fat in what is left over leaves you with a better feed."
This may well be true with regard to the kind of small-scale, organic, artisanal alcohol production that Blume seems to champion. But it's certainly not true of ethanol production as it is. A while back, I posted -- http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/25/223211/808 -- about all the dodgy industrial chemicals that end up in distillers grains from the highly industrial ethanol process.
The Canadian government actually banned use of industrial distillers grains as feed based on the precautionary principle (an alien concept to U.S. regulators for at least a generation now). I urge ethanol enthusiasts to read that post in its entirety; here's an excerpt, summarizing the Canadian government's concerns:
"Antimicrobial drugs" are "currently used in the fuel ethanol fermentation process in Canada." Weird. I suppose they're used to control the fermentation process. Of the drugs, virginiamycin, streptomycin, ampicillin, and penicillin show up in distillers grains at levels too low to cause trouble, the agency says. But two others, monensin sodium and tylosin tartrate, were "assessed, and not found to be acceptable without further information or restrictions."
Evidently, to get the fermentation process rolling, ethanol producers in Canada -- and, presumably, down here as well -- are using microorganisms and enzymes with "novel traits ... e.g., ethanol-tolerant yeasts, heat- or pH-stable enzymes." Hmm.
Then there are the processing aids, "including anti-foam and boiler chemicals to generate steam," that are used to make ethanol, and which inevitably end up in the distillers grains. The agency has a list of processing aids that can end up in feed without causing harm, but ethanol makers use several that don't make the cut, including chlorine dioxide, EDTA, sodium borohydride, and sodium metabisulfite.
Next come mycotoxins -- toxic forms of fungus that can thrive in corn stocks and concentrate in distillers grains. "Mycotoxins in DG can impair growth and reproductive efficiency in livestock that consume them," the agency writes.
Finally -- whew! -- the agency has found "elevated levels of sulphur and sodium" in distillers grains, which could "cause adverse health effects in livestock if the amounts fed are not managed properly." (Excess sulphur causes neurological damage in cows.)
Then, of course, there's the whole unhappy fact that distillers grains seem to boost the already out-of-control presence of E. coli 0157 in beef cows: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/4/11018/1134/?so ...
On Blume's Web site, he purports to "bust the ethanol myths." http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/490 In the process, he repeat some real whoppers -- unwittingly, I assume. For example: "While it is assumed that these exports could feed most of the hungry in the world, the corn is actually sold to wealthy nations to fatten their livestock. Plus, virtually no impoverished nation will accept our corn, even when it is offered as charity, due to its being genetically modified and therefore unfit for human consumption."
That would be a substantial point, if the corn crop existed in a vacuum. But the planting decisions spurred by the corn-ethanol boom ripple well beyond corn. A recent study by a World Bank economist -- discussed in this post http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/31/95925/2107 -- makes those links with regard to food prices. And a recent U of Minn study led by Tim Searchinger -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofue ... -- makes them with regard to environmental devastation.
In general, Blume's embrace of industrial ethanol perplexes me. He writes that the "real ecological nightmare is industrial agriculture." Does he not know that the ethanol boom has sparked an extension and intensification of industrial agriculture? In 2007, in response to corn prices pushed up by the ethanol mandate/subsidies, farmers planted 13 percent more corn than the year before. And to squeeze as much yield as possible out of it, they drenched it with more fertilizers and agrichemicals than ever. I'm sick of hunting down links; if you're interested, search around for what ethanol mania has meant for the Conservation Reserve Program, which tries to keep environmentally sensitive land from going under the plow.
At any rate, Blume seems like one of the last ethanol boosters standing who's not on the industry dole. I'll invite him to air his views on Gristmill.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:17 am
18 Aug 2008
Flatow,
You can find no error?
It takes 56 pounds of corn kernels to produce 2.8 gallons of ethanol, 11.4 pounds of distiller's grain., 3 pounds of Gluten meal, and 1.6 pounds of corn oil. So, 56 - 11.4 -3 -1.6 = 40 pounds of corn lost that cannot feed people (or the domesticated farm animals that produce the protein, eggs and dairy people eat). In other words, about 70 percent of a bushel of corn is lost to the food chain when you use it to make ethanol.
http://www.ethanol.org/distillersgrain.html
http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_3b.html
People have been making "organic" moonshine since the days of the Civil War using the same techniques as Bloome. Packaging this as something new and sustainable is a complete deception.
The answer to your question is, Yes, demonization of biofuels being grown on arable cropland is legitimate. The oil company conspiracy theory is a mark of the intellectually incurious or those who use it to manipulate same.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:35 am
18 Aug 2008
Then it would still be cheaper, build the soil instead of depleting it, and actually offset GHG to use biogas from waste, instead of ethanol.
So get behind biogas from waste instead of liquid fuel from biomass, all you biomass to fuel boosters.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:00 am
18 Aug 2008
Which frankly is even better than tropical sugar cane.
1000 gals/acre maybe. But 7000 gals/acre is just stupid.
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/08/18/new-mexico ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
arvin Posted 10:08 pm
18 Aug 2008
corn won't grow w/ out fertilizer? Are you saying corn planted on unfertilized ground will yield zero??
land used for corn is sterile and inert? Go out to any farm field and you will find worms, insects and decomposing crop residue. These would not exist in a sterile environment.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:24 am
19 Aug 2008
Many farm fields are not completely depleted. I'm talking about the real corporate agrichem farms, where nothing is returned to the soil for decades. The dustbowl land, where only toxic dust is left of the soil.
Cellulosic ethanol interests want to use all the crop waste to make ethanol. Leaving only chemicals to feed crops. Even weeds, which in the past were tilled into the soil, are missing with herbicide resistant GMO crops.
Sure a few poison resistant bugs and worms are left, at least until the rain and aquifer drys up. But with GHG intensive ag and irrigation, rain and ground water are getting scarcer. Unless there's a flood, that washes the crops and chemicals away.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Carl Flatow Posted 6:02 am
19 Aug 2008
In essence, Blume is saying that ethanol, when done right, is sustainable, environmentally friendly and worthwhile. That still sounds reasonable to me.
Sure, lot's of businesses will do it wrong.There's nothing that can't be done wrong - even on a grand scale.
Why don't we talk about doing it right?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:41 am
19 Aug 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 10:02 pm
19 Aug 2008
I decided to follow your link, David A., to the video showing Fridley's talk on the "Myths of Biofuels." I was barely able to get through it. The number of misstatements, incomplete details and his simple outright bias was quite troubling.
It seems Mr. Fridley's heart is in the right place. I don't question his intentions, though I don't know the full story on the man. But this presentation was obviously created to talk the layperson into believing his story. I don't know what his agenda is, but I can't imagine serious people in the cellulosic ethanol sector taking him seriously... not with all the inaccuracies in his presentation.
On my first pass through, I noted 23 statements of his that are either untrue or incomplete. I'm happy to go through each one of them in detail here. And if Mr. Fridley actually monitors this site, I'd go through that process "face to face" with him.
I think the important thing to understand is that when someone like him makes so many misstatements, it really doesn't serve him or the larger effort to find a path to a renewable energy solution, because eventually he'll lose his credibility, as will the supporters of his position.
People can take various positions on these issues, but those positions really need to be backed up by facts. And when the facts aren't clear, this needs to be said right up front. When a statement is made that is an opinion, this also needs to be made clear.
It's a shame Mr. Fridley has some kind of personal agenda that seems to have gotten in the way of his ability to help steer the cellulosic ethanol sector toward sustainability, because I think he could help accomplish this if he stuck to facts. Instead, he is promoting his own myth and confusing many with a story that is simply full of untruths.
Richard
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:34 pm
19 Aug 2008
It is displacing the greenwashing vision of clean green GMO agrichem biofuels, endlessly recycling carbon in a wonderfool delusion. Allowing the vroom of gas guzzlers to zoom forever on into the future with no consequences for spaceship earth and it's web of life.
The resolution? A symbiotic future with human needs fullfilled by real renewable GHG free electrons humming along without disrupting the biosphere.
Mechanical energy turned into electrical, then into chemical energy in batteries, then back into mechanical energy that drives locomotion or heat energy, all without interupting the cycle of carbon and water and organic chemicals that form the pallate of life itself.
It's going to be rough to retrieve the greenwashing corporate delusion now, although most politicians and media are still trying.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:00 pm
19 Aug 2008
There seems to be a recent article about your carbon cycle complaints.
(A portion of) corn stover could be used for cellulosic ethanol, without worrying about ground carbon levels. The researchers are the same guys who have earlier published that carbon-replacement poses the most important constraint for cellulosic ethanol, more so than water.
Apparently, this constraint is not too strong enough. It means that cellulosic ethanol will have a part to play in the future (maybe not a big part, but still a decent part).
These are the official figures : Corn stover could supply as much as 25% of the biofuel crop needed by 2030.
You can contact Dr Wally Wilhelm for further illumination.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:09 pm
19 Aug 2008
I hear your vision and actually fully support the part of it concerning the future for transportation. So there's no argument there. Let's move to electrical ASAP. But you're deluding yourself and others by not accepting the realities we confront in getting from here to there.
Do you actually believe we will dramatically reduce our need for liquid fuels over the next 20 years? Read my words, John... I said "dramatically" reduce. Yes, I hope that this need will get reduced soon, but it will take at least 20 years to make major (i.e. 40%+) reductions. What are you proposing we do in the meantime? Keep burning oil, when we could potentially replace it with carbon neutral cellulosic ethanol from sustainable sources?
And what do you propose we do to reduce the current level of GHG's? Dr. Hansen... someone with a great deal more credibility than you and your friends... suggests we look at a dramatic increase in the use of biomass to remove GHG's and provide power at the same time. What's your proposal to reduce existing CO2 levels, and how do you intend to fund it?
Get real, John.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:31 pm
19 Aug 2008
That's doable in an economically reviving fashion. We have enough oil to last in that scenario.
And if the US would lead the effort, we would have the economic power and worldwide respect to get others to join in.
Corporate power absolute, virtually owning our government, has squandered that economic power and worldwide respect that the WW2 generation acheived. All for the sake of the next quarter's short term bottomline profit.
Instead politicians are pandering to corporate attempts to keep on guzzling gas, from oil and biomass. To get just one more quarter of stock bolstering bottomline performance. Catch that last tuna, drain that last well, cut that last tree. Get it before the other guy does, be a winner!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:43 pm
19 Aug 2008
Of course, you provided no specifics on how to accomplish a major reduction in oil use over 20 years... just your usual fluff. Sorry to be so hard on you, but your reply is just a fairy tale. Of course, I fully support what you would LIKE to see happen. I'd like that too. But some of us are trying to deal with realities... trying to deal with the huge mess we're in and will likely remain in for quite some time.
If you have a step by step approach that you believe can, AND WILL, be implemented within 20 years to reduce oil usage by at least 40%, please spell it out. Then we can comment on the reality of that happening.
If you don't have this, then I suggest you support other approaches than can address this concern. We need to employ every possible sustainable method there is to reduce oil demand.
Wishing it will happen is not acceptable. And just saying, "reduce it by 5% a year" is just silly. Tell us the specifics of your plan.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:52 pm
19 Aug 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/18/181049/080/#co ...
Start with the cheap stuff...then move to the more expensive stuff. Reviving the economy, the dollar, and the manufacturing and tax base all the way.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 12:07 am
20 Aug 2008
This is your plan:
"Oil demand reduction is easy at first. Tire inflation, tuneups, car pooling, existing mass transit, switching home heating away from oil, using more freight rail to save diesel fuel used in long haul trucks, people retiring older gas guzzlers and switching to more efficient cars, those sorts of changes would be enough to power steady demand reduction for a few years."
You believe this will actually take place and reduce oil demand by at least 40% within 20 years? I won't even ask for documentation on how this adds up to the 40%+ reduction. I'll just ask for evidence that this... or anything remotely like it... WILL happen. I know you want it to, but you can't really expect the rest of us to base our lives on your hopes, can you? Show me the evidence it WILL happen.
But more importantly, why would you want to dismiss the possibility that a significant part of the solution could come from sustainable cellulosic ethanol? Again, if it's not sustainable, I don't support it either. But there's a lot of evidence that this could be done sustainably. So why not do it?
Also, you have not addressed the second part of my initial comment about reducing current CO2 levels. Nothing in your solution does that, yet Hansen says we need to. Please provide your solution to this AND the means to get it funded.
Richard
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:11 am
20 Aug 2008
Then why do you get hysteric when you hear about alternatives ? No offence, the technologies you have mentioned are great, but why are you clogging your eyes to the rest of the world ? There is no greenwashing here. Nobody is going to steal the thunder from your poster boy technologies.
What we want is a clear and fact-based discussion of technologies. Prejudice should give way to real facts when the matter concerned is of the utmost importance - such as reducing the oil grip on nation's economy or the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Please try to keep an open mind. Most of the people who are here (RDMiller included) are here because they care for the environment.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:28 am
20 Aug 2008
That's all fine and good but compared to a level XX vegan, one who will not eat anything that casts a shadow, your consumption of meat, particularly beef, still puts you very low on the food purity pyramid ;)
In essence, Blume is saying that ethanol, when done right, is sustainable, environmentally friendly and worthwhile.
We would have to clearly define the terms sustainable, environmentally friendly, and worthwhile before continuing.
If by sustainable, we mean making ethanol without fossil fuel inputs, then Blume's ethanol is not sustainable. He can only claim to use less fossil fuel input than other farmers, but if his yield is proportionally lower, he has gained nothing. He would have to do more than just claim this. He would have to get a reputable third party to verify it.
If, by environmentally friendly, we mean that his crops promote biodiversity and provide habitat for wildlife, then Blume's ethanol is not environmentally friendly. He can only claim that his methods are less environmentally destructive. A field of corn is, out of necessity, about as biologically diverse as a mall parking lot. You just can't let a lot of grasshoppers share that land. Again, if his yields are proportionally lower, he has gained nothing (if it takes more land to produce the same amount of ethanol).
If, by worthwhile, we mean that the lives of human beings all across the planet will be enhanced by using arable cropland to make fuel for American cars, well, I seriously doubt it. The growing food crisis strongly suggests otherwise as does the accelerated rates of destruction of the Amazon and Cerrado. Certainly the poor people filling their bellies with mud cakes might disagree.
Sure, lot's of businesses will do it wrong. There's nothing that can't be done wrong - even on a grand scale.
The terms "will do it wrong" and "that can't" insinuate that some business "might" do it wrong in the future. In reality, 99% are doing it wrong as I type. Doing it wrong is the present status quo, not some future potential.
Why don't we talk about doing it right?
That's exactly what we are doing. You have to start by defining what it means to do it wrong. Converting a third of our corn crop into fuel to increase our liquid fuel supply less than 3% might just be doing it wrong. Using arable crop land to make fuel wouldn't be a problem if it didn't raise food prices and cause other farmers to go out and put even more land under the plow to make up for the food lost to our gas tanks, which is exactly what putting crop based fuel into our tanks is doing. The second leading cause of GW is land use change.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:13 am
20 Aug 2008
Figure 3 shows US corn ethanol has twice the environmental impact of diesel.
This study was done before the studies in Science, The Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, and the Journal of Conservation Biology (all published this year) all showed crop based biofuels are all worse for global warming than fossil fuels because of nitrous oxide release and or destruction of carbon sinks by farmers around the world as they turn grasslands and forests into mono crops in response to the price signals caused by putting food into our gas tanks.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:46 am
20 Aug 2008
Your inability to resist ad hominem attacks on individuals critical of biofuels by insinuating they all have "agendas" is instructive. Last time I pointed out this propensity of yours I believe I had counted your use of the word "agenda" thirty something times. Because there is no doubt that you have multiple "agendas," one has to wonder why you think that by calling the kettle black you are somehow enhancing your (the pot's) position?
Your apparent inability to remain civil also tends to fill your shoes with holes ... "Vision of delusion ...Get real ... just your usual fluff ... your reply is just a fairy tale..."
"I noted 23 statements of his that are either untrue or incomplete. I'm happy to go through each one of them in detail here"
Riiiight. I'd be happy to go through all twenty-three of your statements "face to face" with you once you happily provide them. But I think it unlikely you are going to do that. The excuse you'll use is also fairly predictable.
"Do you actually believe we will dramatically reduce our need for liquid fuels over the next 20 years?"
Do you actually believe we will dramatically increase our liquid fuel supply over the next 20 years? Read my words, Miller... I said "dramatically" increase.
What are you proposing we do in the meantime [to reduce oil use]?
Hmm, how about this: use less oil. 90% of all pickup trucks and SUVs are being driven simply because it is hip to own one in a given status circle, not because they are actually needed to haul stuff or go off-road. Consumers are already rapidly changing their purchase preferences. Attempting to replace the fossil fuel in Suburbans with biofuels is disingenuous. Europe manages to get by on a fraction of what we use, which is all the proof needed that we can and will reduce use ...dramatically.
And just saying, "reduce it by 5% a year" is just silly. Tell us the specifics of your plan.
Silly Americans drove 5% fewer miles in June than they did last year just because of the price of gas. The price of gas isn't going down on average, unless the government manages to flood the market with even more heavily subsidized biofuels (thus keeping consumption high). Simply swapping our Outback for a higher mileage five-person, four-door hatchback, bought us about 20 years worth of 5% reductions.
We need to employ every possible sustainable method there is to reduce oil demand
So, counting these sustainable methods on my one hand I get, a) using less oil (via higher mileage cars etc, etc,) and b)...ah, I'm out. Sustainable, economically viable cellulosic ethanol, like pebble bed breeder reactors and carbon sequestration is an unproven hypothesis.
It's a shame Mr. Fridley has some kind of personal agenda that seems to have gotten in the way of his ability to help steer the cellulosic ethanol sector toward sustainability
I don't know what scientific method you adhere to, but skepticism and critique is the backbone of the one I use. Hypothesis are a dime a dozen. Proving one is the hard part. Cellulosic ethanol as an environmentally sustainable economically affordable fuel is a hypothesis. I think the important thing to understand is that when someone like him you makes so many misstatements, it really doesn't serve him you or the larger effort to find a path to a renewable energy solution, because eventually he'll you'll lose his your credibility, as will the supporters of his your position.
Dr. Hansen... someone with a great deal more credibility than you and your friends... suggests we look at a dramatic increase in the use of biomass to remove GHG's and provide power at the same time. What's your proposal to reduce existing CO2 levels, and how do you intend to fund it?
Hansen thinks the oil problem will soon solve itself because we are going to run out of it. His concern is coal, which has nothing to do with this thread which started off about corn ethanol mandates, diverged to cellulosic and now you are trying to expand it to include burning wood waste as part of cogen processes for heat and electricity. And speaking of credibility, who are you to be questioning Fridley's?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:10 am
20 Aug 2008
If I thought for one minute it would be worth engaging in this conversation with you, I would. But I don't take you seriously... and I suspect few professionals do. Based on your last post to me, you seem incapable of having a respectful dialogue.
While you continue to scream from the sidelines, the reality of cellulosic ethanol continues to grow with each passing day. Some of us need to actually do the work and solve the problems you speak of. Now if we could only harness the hot air you seem to generate so profusely...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:05 pm
22 Aug 2008
I don't take you seriously... and I suspect few professionals do.
Well, at least we have that much in common ...rimshot!
Based on your last post to me, you seem incapable of having a respectful dialog.
...says the pot to the kettle:
"Vision of delusion ... Get real ...just your usual fluff ... your reply is just a fairy tale...has and agenda ...just silly ...I think the important thing to understand is that when someone like him you makes so many misstatements, it really doesn't serve him you or the larger effort to find a path to a renewable energy solution, because eventually he'll you'll lose his your credibility, as will the supporters of his your position ...someone with a great deal more credibility than you and your friends."
This should look familiar because it isn't the first time I've collected your bullying comments in one place to highlight them. Let's just add to this already impressive collection, your witty parting shot:
Now if we could only harness the hot air you seem to generate so profusely ...
As I've said many times before, I'll remain agnostic on the subject of cellulosic ethanol until its real world ramifications and costs become known, assuming it ever escapes the experimental stage.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 10:50 pm
22 Aug 2008
It's rather comical watching how you deal with the fact that something you don't support (cellulosic ethanol) continues to get the funding and political support it needs to succeed. It just seems to eat away at you. But rather than discuss specifics and debate fairly, you attack the messenger.
I was having a discussion with John... specifically with John. It was inappropriate for you to step in and take statements out of context. But as I said, it seems to be your way to attack the messenger, rather than speak to facts.
Your little game of revising my words so they point to me is once again your way to avoiding specifics and the actual content of what I say.
Once you learn the difference between "intentions" and "personal agenda", we might be able to have a civil discussion.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:39 am
23 Aug 2008
I don't always comment on your remarks, specifically when I agree with them, which I often do. I finally chose to comment here for two reasons.
As I have stated twice before now, two of your posts (the first titled "A vision of delusion" and ending with the admonishment to "get real") dealt with John's apparently incredulous contention that there is no imminent need for biofuels. When asked for a game plan he pointed out (politely I might add) that a mere 5% reduction per year in oil use would result in a significant total reduction over the next decade.
I supported his contention by pointing out how reasonable that goal is, giving some real world examples of how it could be done, anchoring that argument with the fact that my family has already done it. People are throwing the keys to their SUVs on their roofs. Although it is a universally held opinion among biofuel enthusiasts, I see little evidence supporting the contention that we must rapidly and aggressively supplement liquid fuel supplies with biofuels. America has gotten itself between a rock and a hard place. The least evil at this point is to throw the keys, rather than try to fill that tank with a biofuel.
Your last two posts contain no insights (or facts) on the debate topic. They're rear guard face saving actions, with you throwing insults and stink bombs as you attempt to extricate yourself from the field of debate. You've even pulled the victim card, transforming from aggressor into an innocent messenger being unfairly attacked:
But rather than discuss specifics and debate fairly, you attack the messenger ... it seems to be your way to attack the messenger, rather than speak to facts.
It's rather comical watching how you deal with the fact that something you don't support (cellulosic ethanol) continues to get the funding and political support it needs to succeed. It just seems to eat away at you.
Just for variety sake, I'll cut and paste your own words this time:
"... if it's not sustainable, I don't support it" Inversely, if it is found to be sustainable, I will support it. Feel free to pretend I didn't say that again, so that I can just cut and paste the same response again.
It's rather comical watching how you deal with the fact that something you don't support (cellulosic ethanol) continues to get the funding and political support it needs to succeed. It just seems to eat away at you.
Care to explain the logic behind your assertion? Why would a potentially sustainable alternative to today's environmental and humanitarian disasters "eat away" at me? When I say I'm agnostic, I mean it. That doesn't mean I'm not also skeptical. Who in their right mind wouldn't be? What strikes me as comical is how you and your ilk have all seamlessly transitioned from devout supporters of all things biofuel to pinning your last hopes on a big lab experiment. If this doesn't pan out you guys will have to find yet another magical pony to ride.
I was having a discussion with John... specifically with John. It was inappropriate for you to step in and take statements out of context.
I don't much care who you were talking to. If you think you can dictate who can and cannot participate in a given topic of discussion, think again. The Gristmill is a public forum for debate and the exchange of information on environmental issues. If you want a private conversation use your email. It was totally appropriate of me to step in, and none of your statements were taken out of context. It isn't even physically possible to do that considering that the full texts of your comments are on the same web page as the quotes. Anyone is free to scroll up to see them embedded in the original post.
Your little game of revising my words so they point to me is once again your way to avoiding specifics and the actual content of what I say.
All I revised was the tense. Those are your words slurs. I just turned them around on you to give you a taste of your own medicine, which apparently you didn't like the taste of. "...I think the important thing to understand is that when someone like him you makes so many misstatements, it really doesn't serve him you or the larger effort to find a path to a renewable energy solution, because eventually he'll you'll lose his your credibility, as will the supporters of his your position.
In addition to admonishing you for denigrating other posters, I have also addressed your contention (that we need to rapidly develop cellulosic ethanol) in every post so far, including this one.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 12:45 pm
23 Aug 2008
I find nothing of value in your post. Wasted words only.
If you want to debate specific items I have raised about cellulosic ethanol, sustainable forestry or wood energy, please do so. Other than that, I really have no interest in conversing with you. I find it a waste of time.
You labeled me a "devout supporter of all things biofuel". Go read your post if you need to. On far too many occasions, I have specifically said I am not this. I could not have made it any clearer that I have no particular interest in any biofuel other than cellulosic ethanol, and even with that, I only support it if it is done sustainably. But again, you have misstated my position and twisted my words. Why would I want to spend any time debating with someone who consistently misstates what I say. I can't think of a good reason. You are not to be trusted.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:33 pm
23 Aug 2008
I'd sum up your latest parting shot as yet another ad hominen, but you're right. I'm not to be trusted as this link will attest.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:40 pm
23 Aug 2008
Why do we live with war? Because it's become customary to burn stuff to get our energy (fission isn't exactly combustion, but it is consumption, it's actually worse because of the bio-hazard and proliferation).
Because combustion uses up the substance burned, that substance becomes short on the supply side. Then the wars start to gain control over that supply.
But plenty of energy is everywhere free for the capture. Why not switch to that sort of energy? only one reason. That would interrupt the war.
War has become an end in itself. As in the oft quoted Orwell phrase, "These wars are not meant to be won, they are meant to be continuous."
And the corralary, "Only through constant war can peace be maintained."
War is used by the status quo to maintain its existence. Its just that simple.
A renewable electron economy doesn't need war, so it must be impossible. That's how the argument really works.
Face it, burning biomass as coal or oil or ethanol or biodiesel or directly or consuming nuclear fuel with fission has the same drawback. It will always support war over the substances consumed, and it will always encourage more and more consumption. Las Vegas is the ultimate symbol of this notion, it exists solely to worship and encourage unlimited consumption.
A renewable electron based energy economy fulfills human needs with less and less consumption as efficiency increases. Renewable energy used to recycle substances that are used to fulfill human needs. The impetus for war neutralized.
Don't fool yourself, logging equipment hauling trees to a fuel plant is part of that endless war. So is cellulose extracted from the soil fertility maintaining carbon cycle.
No more endless war. Stop the combustion.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 12:46 am
24 Aug 2008
Why do you persist... again and again... to make statements that you call "factual" when, in actuality, they have no basis in fact or are simply personal opinions? We've been through this over and over, yet you continue with the same misstatements.
You can't lump biomass in with coal and oil and attempt to make a generalized statement. It's simply silly and no one can take it seriously. Biomass grows back, continuously. Biomass IS solar energy. It is the perfect solar energy storage vehicle. This isn't rocket science, John.
Coal and oil don't grow back. I know this is elementary, but you don't seem to appreciate the huge difference between renewable plants and non-renewable fossil fuels. Come on, John. I know you are smarter than this.
Then you say, "logging equipment is part of a war". Why? Because it's a machine? You mean like the vast number of machines required to create the components for solar and wind units? What's your point here, John?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:14 am
24 Aug 2008
Harvestings trees selectively for lumber and building materials and using the byproducts to build soil, that would be different.
Or using machines to produce renewable energy equipment, that is different too.
Consuming resources with combustion perpetuates war on the living planet. It creates a profit motive to encourage more and more consumption.
A renewable electron based energy economy encourages efficiency, the bottomline is quality of life, fulfilling humans needs, rather than pure consumption for profit. Consumption for the sake of ever more consumption. Profit based on more and more consumption.
This war that is meant to be continuous. Use up one planet, eventually move on to others.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 2:10 am
24 Aug 2008
I know you don't understand this, even though I've explained it several times.
Forests throughout the U.S. need to be thinned, particularly of low-grade and over-crowded trees. These are not our original, native forests. These are forests that have been high-graded again and again, and now have too much lower-grade wood. A lot of this wood is best suited for energy. That's just the way it is. By removing it carefully, the health and productivity of the forest will increase. It's no different than a garden. It works exactly the same way, except that most of the trees are left after a harvest, and new trees regrow on their own without the need for fertilizer.
Here in Vermont... just one example of many states... we import over $1 billion worth of energy every year just for heating purposes. This is money that goes out of the state, and often out of the country. By using just a portion of the annual regrowth of biomass, we could displace ALL of that fossil fuel energy, save Vermonters at least a half billion dollars per year, create thousands of local, rural jobs, and displace all the greenhouse gases that would otherwise be released indefinitely by burning oil, natural gas or coal.
Yes, in years to come, there will be other options to produce heat for homes and businesses here. And when there are, we'll need to look at those. But that's quite a few years down the road.
Of course, they'll still be a need to displace the oil used to make the plastics, chemicals and other oil-based goods that Vermonters use. I'd prefer to see those come from sustainably harvested biomass.
Landowners need to realize an income from their forest land, otherwise it gets converted into some other less desirable, income-generating product. The best way to maintain this land as forests is to keep it producing various wood-based products. Energy (or ethanol to plastic) is the key for the foreseeable future. There is no other viable alternative anyone has come up with. This is a fact, John, that you need to come to terms with.
Trees are renewable electrons. What don't you get about this?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:41 am
24 Aug 2008
Commercial uses ought to be a byproduct of healthy, natural, fire resistant forests, managed to resist human caused climate disaster and the drought, pests, and so forth that come with that. Forests should not be managed the other way around, with commercial considerations taking the leading role.
You propose GMO monocrop tree farms for fuel production too though. Have you abandoned that stance? Or do you persist in defending tree farms as a way to "save" natural forests?
To restore degraded cropland with forest we ought not advocate tree farming, instead we should use natural forest or field restoration.
My presentations are part factual and a lot from the perspective of what is right and wrong for planet earth and it's inhabitants. these are value judgements, that's true. But in many respects that is even more important than looking at facts.
You persist in comparing the mass in tons of biomass grown to that harvested as a factual argument for your point of view. This gets nowhere near the real value of natural forests.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 3:37 am
24 Aug 2008
What I persist in doing is balancing the needs of humanity for various forest products (including energy and recreational uses) with the needs of forests to remain biodiverse and capable of producing healthy soils and water.... as well as the pressures on landowners to offset taxes so that forests are not converted into less desirable uses. This is a complex balancing act. For those who pay too much attention to any one of these pieces, the balancing act collapses.
I didn't create these pieces. I just know they are real and must be dealt with. This is far from a perfect world we live in, but we have to deal with what we have... and move towards what we ideally want.
If I was the kind of person focused on biomass production, I would not have been a founder of the Forest Stewardship Council. This argument of yours has no historical fact behind it. My work has been dedicated to sustainable forestry adhering to the strictest principles we can employ while still balancing the other real factors effecting forests today.
As far as energy plantations go, I am of the belief it is possible to establish vast areas of new, highly productive, forests which fully address biodiversity, soil and water quality issues, and are geared to producing biomass to offset the use of oil and coal. If this poses any significant genetic problems, I can't support it. If it requires intensive use of fertilizer or water, I can't support it. If the creation of it releases more GHG's than can be re-absorbed within 10-20 years, I can't support it. If the entire energy balance of the system is not significantly positive, I can't support it.
That said, I believe it can... and should be... done.
Permalink