A: The cropland area of several states 13

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   sunflower Posted 7:58 am
   02 Aug 2007

   14.6 billion [million] acres -- 472 gallons/acre?

   Permalink

2. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 8:21 am
   02 Aug 2007

   CoolU.S. farmers planted 92.9 million acres of corn in 2007, exceeding last year's corn area by 19 percent and surpassing the USDA's earlier projection (in March) by 3 percent. To put that number into perspective, it is equal to the total arable (cropland) area of four of the nation's leading farm states: Iowa, Illinois, North Dakota and Oklahoma.
   Thats a nifty statistic :P

   Permalink

3. 

   Tod Posted 10:47 am
   02 Aug 2007

   Pure follyLester Brown (founder Earth Policy Institue and Worldwatch Institute <which post-Brown has gone to crap>) has been warning the world of the ethanol folly for over a decade.
   Wish everyone in the world would pick up a copy of Plan B 2.0. . .we'd have a rebellion in no time. And that is exactly what it is going to take. To think that we'll hit 80% reductions by 2030 without a genuine insurrection is delusional.

   Permalink

4. 

   gs77 Posted 2:26 pm
   02 Aug 2007

   millions, billions... same diff.There's a typo.  I think you mean to say 14.6 MILLION, not billion, acres of corn will be converted into ethanol this year.  Otherwise, that would be quite a footprint indeed...
   This in no way diminishes your point, of course.  In fact, I think there's a better metric to demonstrate this point: show us a map of the U.S., overlaid with a square representing the land area that it would require to grow enough corn to displace half of our oil consumption with ethanol.  That image alone will convince anyone of how absurd corn ethanol is.

   Permalink

5. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 2:29 pm
   02 Aug 2007

   Whoops!Thanks, sunflower. That should be 14.6 million acres, of course. It is now corrected.

   Permalink

6. 

   justlou Posted 9:30 pm
   02 Aug 2007

   Question of Displacement vs. Reduction of Gas UsedThere is some debate on whether this use of ethanol is actually decreasing the use of gasoline since the use of gasoline seems to still be rising despite any "displacement" by ethanol.  So, what are we accomplishing?  For all the effort -- a lot of pissing into the wind.  From a base of delusions what else can we expect but delusion built on delusion, or: fools will get fooled again.
   For more discussion of the arguments about displacement vs. reduction see the R-Squared Energy Blog:  http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/

   Permalink

7. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 11:36 pm
   02 Aug 2007

   I have to disagreeJustlou, as much as I'd like to agree with you and Robert Rapier, data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) do suggest that the rate of increase in consumption of finished motor gasoline has slowed in recent years -- as would be expected, given rising prices at the pump. (See red line in chart below.) Consumption IS still rising but at a slower rate.
   Moreover, because the EIA's definition of "finished motor gasoline" includes all ethanol blended gasoline (e.g. E10, E85), and ethanol consumption is increasing, less and less of the increase is of gasoline.
   http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/7954/_geneva.iisd.ca_rsteenblik__My_Pictures_Pet_consumption_EIA_image.gif
   As seen in the accompanying chart, if one adjusts for ethanol production (consumption would have been slightly higher, because of net imports), which has risen from 0.1 MBBD in January 2000 to 0.4 MBPD in May 2007, consumption of gasoline has been more or less flat since 2003 (black line in chart).
   Of course, the fact that ethanol may have helped to halt the increase in gasoline consumption in the United States still begs the question of at what cost. Also, it would be interesting to know how much diesel fuel (for farm machinery), natural gas and coal was used to produce that ethanol. Unfortunately, I cannot provide that answer at the moment.

   Permalink

8. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 12:34 am
   03 Aug 2007

   The latest studyfrom MIT found that corn ethanol is probably using as much energy as it is producing. It was a sophisticated probability study that looked at the odds of each input. What are the odds of the yield, of coal or natural gas being used for the fermenting fuel etc. The most likely scenario found was that corn ethanol used as much energy as it produces.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

9. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 1:07 am
   03 Aug 2007

   No doubt, BioDThe net energy balance of corn ethanol is poor.
   But on the specific question of whether or not ethanol is displacing gasoline, it may well be, since most of the energy inputs to corn and corn-ethanol production take the form of other petroleum products (namely diesel), natural gas, electricity and coal (whether directly or in generating the electricity used in the plants.)

   Permalink

10. 

    justlou Posted 3:05 am
    03 Aug 2007

    RonI don't think there should be any disagreement, since I did write that ethanol has not decreased gasoline usage.  If we are still using the same or if the rate of increase has slowed, the actual number of barrels used has not decreased.  We can use some Bushian logic and say that without ethanol we would be using more gasoline, but with overall economic and population growth projections, even if we max out ethanol production, there will be little reduction in the trend line in gasoline consumption.
    So again, there seems to be a very big cost for a questionable benefit.  

    Permalink

11. 

    Ron Steenblik Posted 3:25 am
    03 Aug 2007

    JustlouI don't think we disagree, fundamentally. If there is a big ramp up in ethanol use, we may actually see gasoline consumption dip down ... marginally. But, as you say, at "a very big cost for a questionable benefit".

    Permalink

12. 

    justlou Posted 3:56 am
    03 Aug 2007

    RonWhile I seem to have your attention this thought came to me this morning:
    
    The conversion of wild lands to ethanol production fields in Brazil will have, biologically and ecologically, immensely more impact on the entire planet than would our drilling for oil in ANWR.  Although what is happening in Brazil is outside the US, our own energy policies and a lot of US capital are heavily weighing on what is happening in Brazil.  So, why not the chorus of outrage among environmentalists about this as there was and continues to be about ANWR?  I don't want to discount the potential threat to ANWR, but the stakes in Brazil appear to be much, much greater.
    Any comments about this?  
    I tried to put this question to David for him to try to get some feedback at Yearly Kos.  

    Permalink

13. 

    Biodiversivist Posted 4:13 am
    03 Aug 2007

    Good point, justlouHopefully Dave will pick up on that.
    
    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink