It's mind-boggling that people with real power are talking quite seriously about harvesting even that "waste" and turning it into fuel for our cars. What, if and when cellulosic ethanol finally comes online, will become of that rich, black soil -- one of the greatest stores of soil fertility on earth? Should we really burn through the Midwest's topsoil to keep our cars on the road?

According to a press release announcing a new paper by Jesse Ausubel of The Rockefeller University, "Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal...Humans must spare land for nature. Every auto would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares."

Ausubel argues that renewables -- hydro, biomass, wind, solar -- are not good for the environment because they do not benefit from economies of scale. In fact, he says, "Renewables may be renewable but they are not green. If we want to minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy is the best option."

His argument stems from the fact that to produce more energy from renewable sources, more land is needed. Renewables are, in other words, low density energy producers. "Nuclear energy", Ausubel says, "is green." He argues that,"Considered in watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors."

That's because the uranium atom is so dense. In terms of energy density, in a head-to-head comparison between nuclear and the renewables mentioned above, nuclear is, according to Ausubel, the undisputed winner.

So, on the plus side, nuclear power has unparalleled energy density and a lack of CO2 emissions from the plant. However, when you look at the lingering issue of spent fuel and the problems faced by Tokyo Electric after the recent earthquake, it is clear, as we say in Lights Out, "the [nuclear] industry is still one major accident away from another trip to oblivion."

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html

While I was writing on the Ausubel article, others were already busy posting elsewhere...it appears that his thesis is generating a, shall we say, healthy debate here:

Fatally flawed attack on renewables by Jesse Ausubel

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html

We don't till, we sheetmulch.  This was some years ago, back when we were first figuring out what we were doing.  We built beds from compost and we overapplied blood meal (a very high nitrogen source which, unlike most organic but like most artificial fertilizers, is water soluable and thus highly available).  The result was that we burned down a 9" layer of compost to a 3" layer in a couple of months.  I'm attributing it to the fertilizer because I've built similar beds since, with much more modest fertilizer applications, and not had the same effect.  But it could be some other factor -- we're not running a controlled experiment here.

There's also alot of talk in organic circles about how destructive chemical N2 is to the soil, particularly the organic matter content.  But like Tom, I haven't been to Iowa (at all, in my case), so I haven't seen it first-hand.  Thus my question.

nd the corn/soy rotation mimics the composition of native grasses and legumes that were important components of the tall grass prairie.

Incidentally, this is a poor imitation at best.  The tall grass prairie had a high proportion of perennials, which tend to build soil rather than depleting it.  That's why The Land Institute is trying to develop cultivars of perennial grasses.

Tom, your comments on the vigor of the corn crop you witnessed reminded me of an interesting article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune (web edition) a couple of days ago. Here is the key message:

The prospect of an abundant harvest in the key corn states of Illinois and Iowa has given critical momentum to the $300 billion farm bill headed for the House floor Thursday, under threat of a possible veto by President Bush.

The proposed legislation closely follows the blueprint of the last five-year farm bill in 2002, providing generous subsidies popular with farmers and another big commitment to ethanol fuel. Critics who consider the measure a waste of tax dollars and a barrier to trade agreements might have gotten more traction if farmers such as [Peotone, Illinois corn farmer Jim] Robbins had failed to deliver.

A miserable crop and soaring corn prices would have changed the debate over the bill, making it tougher to fend off reform and retain so much of the oft-criticized 2002 provisions, farm experts said. Robbins is toasting the good fortune: "There probably would have been less money available," he said. "But we're not going to have a problem with supply this year."

Schadenfreude (or its opposite) is never appropriate when the price of food is at stake, but clearly the corn-ethanol industry has had luck on its side this year ... and has succeeded in dodging another bullet.