AND 
New Study: Using U.S. Farmlands for Biofuel Production will Increase Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Ethanol supply produced from corn grown on U.S. croplands has been increasing and is thought by some as an opportunity to reduce petroleum consumption. Indeed carmakers like GM have been promoting E85 engines, and the U.S. government has been subsidizing farmers to produce corn.
The use of corn ethanol as being net energy positive is controversial with estimates ranging from 1 to 1 – 1 to 1.3 in terms of energy put in to energy gained. Burning ethanol produced from corn has been proposed to have a net decrease on carbon emissions, the theory being that the corn absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows, releasing it as in burns in a 1 to 1 ratio, whereas fossil fuel use produces new atmospheric carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) from sequestered stores.
Today the leading journal Science published an expedited study which calls this second potential benefit into question.
The study by Searchinger et. al. actually looks at the global effect when U.S. farmers use land to produce ethanol. As a a result, farmers in other parts of the world will have to ramp up crop production in order to make up for the net loss from the U.S. They will clear grassland and forests to do so. The study suggests that the net effect of this behavior will be to double greenhouse gas emissions over 30 years. Also if U.,S. farmers use cropland to produce switchgrass for cellulosic ethanol, greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 50%. The authors conclude that if ethanol is produced from waste materials, however, there will be a net reduction in GHG emissions.
The study concludes that U.S. policy should take this potentially deleterious global effect into account before continuing to endorse and subsidize corn production from ethanol.
GM admits to planning for 50% of its cars to be flex-fuel capable by 2012, but also has partnered with waste-ethanol producer Coskata.
Source (Science, subscription req’d)
69 Responses to “New Study: Using U.S. Farmlands for Biofuel Production will Increase Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
February 8th, 2008 at 1:03 am
GM (Lutz) has freely admitted that cellulosic is the way to go. I don’t really think anyone is expecting to wring Ethanol out of corn for 30 years.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 1:28 am
I agree. Sadly, people who know nothing about ethanol regularly associate it with corn and corn only. Hopefully that will pass, and cellulosic ethanol will eventually be widely available.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Shell is working on a process to use the stalk (waste) from the corn, and also straw (waste from wheat), so its not all bad. I agree with Bob Lutz, cellulosic is the way to go.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Grain-based ethanol production* only amounts to a disguised farm subsidy program while it does nothing (in the long term) towards reducing CO2 emissions. Cellulosic ethanol is the only viable alternative …
*Grain-based ethanol production for internal consumption is a different matter altogether!
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 2:18 am
#3 NZ David:
Shell is working on a process to use the stalk (waste) from the corn, and also straw (waste from wheat), so its not all bad. I agree with Bob Lutz, cellulosic is the way to go.
The current trend in “low impact” farming is to leave the chaff and stalks so that they can maintain humus level in the soil. If nothing is left behind, after a few years the humus level plummets, causing major issues with [1] nutrient retention, [2] disruption of microflora and microfauna and [3] massive soil erosion problems (think: dust bowl in the 1930’s).
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 4:05 am
Ethanol hurts the atmosphere and Oil hurts national security. Damed if you do and damned if you don’t! At least with a fuel efficient car (like our Volt) we will buy less of either.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:02 am
NZ David #3 and David L #5.
My wife who has a degree in agronomics confirms what David L #5 says, cellulosic ethanol from waste is perhaps a way to go but you have to think about the nutrients and the environmental effect of chemical manure.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:11 am
David L #5 makes a very good point. Every liquid based fuel seems to have a significant environmental price attached.
I did see a Roadster the other day that could be fueled with carbon neutral biogas the other day though. I was thinking that engine (or a smaller version) would make a great range extender.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/natural-gas-roa.html#more
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 7:32 am
A little off topic but here’s an article from Kiplinger Forcasts that talks about electrics. Most notable is the following statement:
“Sticker prices on the Chevy Volt and Saturn Vue Green Line will be a bit below that of the Prius, which typically sells for $3,000 to $5,000 more than for a comparable gasoline-only powered vehicle, about $18,000.”
Maybe the writer knows something we don’t!
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/Park_It_and_Plug_It_080201.html
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 7:39 am
how about bio-diesel from pond-scum?….No, then the fish could not eat the pond scum…..
How about solar-electric from collectors….No, the collectors would steal sunlight from plants…..
I think the problem is there are too many of us on the planet. Lets start a warp drive blog!!! Time to move, and quickly….
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I wonder how those Terrestrial-Planet-Finder telescopes are coming along?
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I rarely hear algae talked about when discussing biodiesel. Is it the stepchild or something? It has the greatest potential, uses desert land, sea water and consumes CO2 from power plants. How can it be any better? I have read just about every positive and negative article on the subject and it still seems like the best way to go. I guess people need to wait for the final production data before committing. Fair enough. Algae folks! Please research it, ask questions about, say yes to it.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Algae is VERY promising technology for bio diesel production. I am excited to see where that goes.
Imagine, on another note, that all the grass on freeway medians is switchgrass, and all the yardwaste collected weekly goes to cellulosic ethanol plants. The quantity, and efficiency of this large-scale operation could be amazing….
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
They were talking about all this on the radio this morning saying how the increased demand for bio fuel crops would lead to the expansion of farm land into areas like forests it keep up with the fuel demand. Where the removal of green plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air naturally will cause the green house effect to actually worsen.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
The sales pitch for ethanol in America has never been primarily concern over climate change but a desire for greater energy independence (and pandering to farmers by politicos in the bargain). Long-term research will come up with better options, be they cellulosic ethanol, algal biodiesel, or new fuel fuels produced by designer micro-organisms. None are quite ready yet.
In any case the greatest impact will be had by switching as much as possible off of liquid fuel and onto powering vehicles primarily off the grid – use non-food renewable biomass to generate electricity (along with wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and yes, nuclear, natural gas, and cleaner coal*) and drive off that.
*Cool technology in progress – algal bioreactors attached to coal power plants flues, capturing the CO2 in the algae and using it to produce both biodiesel and to partly to co-fire in the plant itself. http://www.greenfuelonline.com/
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
This study sounds a bit bogus. If you notice, most of their “it will use more fuel/create more carbon” angle is based on clearing of forests in the rest of the world. That’s nuts. Here’s why: The USA produces almost 60% of the worlds corn, and could produce DOUBLE what it does now without breaking a sweat. Go to Kansas, look at the THOUSANDS of square miles of farmland that grow nothing right now, as the demand is not there[pricewise]. If the demand grows, the US can ramp up corn aka ethanol production very easily, and use unused farmland to do so without clearing an acre/hectare in the rest of the world. The USA is the most efficient and producer of corn in the world right now, that’s why it’s the biggest exporter. Don’t underestimate the power of agriculture products to the US bottom line. Family farmers aren’t efficient any more, but big agro business sure as heck is. Also, would you prefer to get your fuel from the middle east, or Kansas? The choice is yours, and think how much you really pay for energy when you factor in the cost of all those carrier battle groups, etc that cruise the persian gulf/sea lanes. If we get our energy from home, we can treat the middle east like we do with Sri Lanka; sad when a ferry overturns and kills 800 people, but don’t really have to pay close attention, as it’s not core to our national interests or economy. Again, this is another one of those gloom and doom studies that is long on conclusions, but short on HARD facts.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Ethanol produced from waste products is indeed worth investing in just like battery research, problem is there is no political gain in it,(midwest economy & ADM kickbacks) so it won’t happen. I heard Bush’s current energy bill mandated corn based ethanol until 2025 pretty much killing investment in any other more efficient generation of ethanol. Government’s knee jerk decision making that locks us in to long term inefficiencies will be a carbon offset to anything good we can do. My message to Congress KISS, give the market some credit and do not invoke policies they discourage the American inventor or ingenuity for political gain. Locking in corn subsidies for close to 2 decades is ludicrous. Congress has gotten too close to the corn shine & is a bit tipsy me thinks! They need a Volt jolt wake up.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Renewable fuels are GREAT as long as we don’t put FOOD in our cars, destroy forests to grow energy crops, or use fossil fuels to grow, gather or collect the renewable ones.
Corn ethanol is the direct result of powerful lobbyists and corrupt, stupid politicians. When government chooses to “control markets”, competition dies and the people lose.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Everything causes something I guess. As many of you know, if I had my way every nickel of R&D and production should go to solar…it seems obvious…at least to me. (As a side note: I think wind/turbine/hydro generation are pretty swell too…so I guess they could have some of that nickel).
It’s odd how threads like this have the ‘moment of truth’ sentences that always say in a ‘kidding tone’ but really are the crux of the matter…so #10 Jim you get the award:
“I think the problem is there are too many of us on the planet.” Oh yeah…there it is.
No one ever gets into it, because it hits home too hard. Eventually it will be forced upon us to keep it to two kids or less…but thats ‘future us’ so they don’t count. So if you have more than 2 kids, no matter how many ‘Volts’ you buy or solar panels you install, YOU are the problem.
Whats the ‘carbon footprint’ of each extra child? (especially in North America).
Hehe, I love stirring the pot in the morning. (=
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 10:54 am
A perfect example of a typical govt program designed to help solve some problem. Not only did that not happen, but the problem is actually now worse, the taxpayer has paid large subsidies to the corn belt states and then, if that weren’t enough, paid again thru higher prices for anything that eats or is made from either corn or wheat (that’s pretty much everything edible), which in turn has prevented the Fed from dropping interest rates by increasing inflation, which will hurt the economy, etc. Gee, and the program had such good intentions!!
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Neutron Flux, I am no fan of GW Bush but there is enough to complain about without complaining about things that are factually incorrect. The latest energy bill actually mandates a transition to cellulosic ethanol.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/18/business/NA-FIN-US-Ethanol-Beyond-Corn.php
“The U.S. currently produces nearly 7 billion gallons of ethanol, all of it made from corn, thanks in large part to government mandates and subsidies included in the 2005 energy bill. The 2007 bill, which passed the House Tuesday and the Senate last week, mandates 36 billion gallons by 2022, with 21 billion gallons coming from so-called cellulosic ethanol.
There are significant obstacles to meeting this goal, however, not least of which is devising a profitable method of producing cellulosic ethanol.”
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I agree with #6 Keith Rogers. The most effective thing we as private citizens can do right now is buy cars like the Volt and reduce fuel consumption as much as possible. Kind of like voting with our feet.
The problem I see with cellulosic ethanol is how much oil based fuel do you use to run the farm equipment, make the fertilizer (if any), produce the fuel and haul it to market? My understanding is that ethanol cannot be shipped in existing petroleum pipelines, so it all has to be moved by truck or rail. There may be a net gain, but not very much.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:50 am
#22. I agree. Where can I pick up a Volt that I can afford, say under $25K? Oh, OK. Where can buy ANY highway capable (75 mph) electric car for under $25K? Oh, nevermind….
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Yes, but using over-fertilized waste water from our sewage treatment plants to grow large amounts of algae in shallow man-made lakes and harvesting the algae to process into biofuels, could in fact reduce CO2 (via absorption) and eliminate our waste water problem.
However, this is NOT going to happen overnight. Corn is the short-term fix. The above it the permanent solution.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I posted this article a few weeks ago. Its a couple of years old, but still worth a read. Its describes a process of how to turn all kinds of ‘waste’ into liquid fuel. I’m sure it can process switchgrass and corn, just as it does cow poop, chicken feathers, old michelins and Coke bottles. The latest I read was that the company is doing a full scale plant in Germany because that’s where the government subsidies are.
I think by completely exploiting solar, wind, non fossil fuel consuming biofuels, and by pushing efficiencies far beyond where we are now (thats why I am so completely enamored of the Volt) we can find solutions to some of our most vexing problems.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil/
http://www.changingworldtech.com/
Sign the pledge:
http://www.pluginpartners.org/whatYouCanDo/onlinePetition.cfm
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
The climate change argument was never very compelling, but eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, and improving air quality are compelling arguments for PHEVs. The problem is that our legal system is broken, and therefore folks with money can stop the construction of generation facilities, whether nuclear or wind, by using environmental protection arguments. Thus the CAVE people (citizens against virtually everything) keep us in the middle east. it is a crying shame.
Since the Volt may cost closer to 40K than 30k, we should just assume a price of at least $36,000 and stop posts myths.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
This doesn’t mean that we can’t use bio-fuels and still be carbon neutral (or even carbon negative). It just means that we have to think carefully about how and where we produce it. There isn’t much point in producing ethanol, we might as well gasify (pyrolysis) waste and cellulose into bio-methane (scrub out the H2S) which can be sent into the existing NG pipelines for use in transport (as CNG, ANG or my favourite electricity)
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I think the more important point is this:
There’s never going to be a singular dominating energy source like oil ever again. If we’ve learned anything it should be that to much of 1 thing is always going to hurt something. I think if we can generate a federal policy that demands that all of our energy be supplied by at least 5 different sources, with no sole source providing more than 25% of the whole we can stay away from the abuse that 1 main source causes. Not to mention creating energy stability we’ve never seen before.
25% clean coal plants (coal is never going away were sitting on a lake of it)
15% wind power from off-shore turbines
15% solar energy with mandates for new home construction
15% Nuclear power
15% hydro power from our lakes & rivers
10% from ethanol/bio-diesel
5% petroleum (we still got Texas)
Now i’m not a scientist but that seems pretty obvious solution. When you’re investing do you let it all ride on 1 or 2 stocks, no you diversify inorder to lessen your risks.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
US corn production has risen by an amount larger than the entire volume of corn used by the ethanol industry. The basic premis that other countries have to plant corn to make up for short-falls in US production is 100% fictitious. Indeed, land is being clearcut in other countries for the use of agriculture, and it will continue to occure because those nations have not protected wild lands as has been done in the United States. Often, the agricultural products are being shipped to modern western nations who have the ability to grow it themselves, because it is cheaper. The US imports many food items while American farm-land continues to go fallow. Enormouse citrus groves in Florida dutifully produce fruit each year which is allowed to simply fall to the ground because it is of no value that warrants harvesting. Farms throughout the mid-west remain dorment for decades while our government pays farmers to remain idle, protecting the others from going out of business.
Here is data from The US Department of Energy. It shows that corn production increases have outpaced ethanol conumption of corn — it is a fact. Corn prices are rising because fuel prices are rising — not because of any shortage, and for no other reason. Corn, like many commodities is largly priced based off of fuel cost. The price of iron oar is going way up too — not because of a shortage, but because it cost a lot to move it.
U.S. Total Corn Grain Production & Corn Used for Fuel Ethanol (Million Bushels)
Year Production Used for Ethanol
1986 8,226 290
1987 7,131 279
1988 4,929 287
1989 7,532 321
1990 7,934 349
1991 7,475 398
1992 9,477 426
1993 6,338 458
1994 10,051 533
1995 7,400 396
1996 9,233 429
1997 9,207 481
1998 9,759 526
1999 9,431 566
2000 9,915 628
2001 9,503 706
2002 8,967 996
2003 10,089 1,168
2004 11,807 1,323
2005 11,114 1,603
2006 10,535 2,117
2007 13,074 3,200
My final question concerns Searchinger et. al. and who they are paid by to conduct these emergency studys. Ask yourself who will be harmed by ethanol. 6 billion gallons today is costing the oil industry $18 billion in lost sales. 36 billion gallons by 2020 will cost the oil industry $100+ billion each year in sales.
An open message to my congressman: I want more ethanol. I want it protected.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
In order to read the table above:
Year, followed by corn production, followed by corn consumed to make ethanol.
Sorry, it looked better when I typed it.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
WG, farmers can decide what to plant. High demand for corn leads them to plant more corn and less soybean and other crops. Less soybean supply raises those prices. In point of fact while corn production has increased since 2006, US soy production has decreased by about the same amount. The net result has been an increase in world soy prices by 100% over 14 months. Brazil is the world’s second largest soy producer and there is little doubt that these high soy prices have significantly contributed to deforestation there.
Welcome to the global economy.
Searchinger’s work was funded by a grant from NASA and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. No oil monies.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I want to relay a little story to you all. My brother and I have been discussing energy independence for several years – in fact for over a decade. Among our discussions, we have talked about Ethanol. He lives in Ohio and I live in Florida.
About 3 years ago, a company decided to build an ethanol plant in his home town, a very rural and sparsely populated and economically depressed area of Ohio. They produced a formal proposal for the city to consider and review. It was to be a 60 million gallon per year facility which was expected to create about 1000 jobs in a 30 mile radius. It was a $100 million investment in the community. It would save the small railroad in the city.
The day following the announcement, my brother and every one of the 3000 households in that community began receiving very professional and expensive direct mail pieces from a patriotic sounding group with a California address. The purpose of the campaign was to convince the residents that if they built the plant, it would explode, or pollute the river, or smell up the city, or whatever bad thing you could imagine. He was not getting postcards, he was receiving paperback books, DVD’s, CD’c, Magazines – something different each day. He began to save them in a drawer. By the time the city council approved the plant he figured he had way over $100 worth of direct mail in his possession. Furthermore, the week leading into the approval, the local radio station and every radio station within 25 miles (1 or 2,) was running anti ethanol ads. He received recorded phone calls urging him to voice his displeasure with ethanol.
He and I did some kitchen math and figured that the group had spent over $3 million dollars trying to get the plant disapproved. Now, who would do such a thing when there were over a hundred plants being proposed though out the country at the time? Many of those plants were turned away by the communities and not approved, but the plant in my brothers home town opened it’s doors a couple of weeks ago.
This summer, every field in that county was planted B to the W with corn. My brother said that he had never seen so much corn in his life and he didn’t even realize that some of these fields were even farms. This plant will inject about $30 million each year into a depressed farming community that needs jobs. I don’t agree at all with the science or logic in the above article. The article goes against the best data yet available produced by governments throughout the world, and universities that include Harvard, MIT and Berkley who have made claims supporting ethanol. IF ethanol causes a rise in CO2, it wont as the technology improves. These plants are getting better all the time in every manor conceivable. They are being located closer to the feedstock. They are closer to the fuel user and the feed user. They are in some cases turning by products into bio-diesel and mild forms of cell ethanol. They have learned to squeeze additional ethanol out of a bushel of corn. They are finding new plant feedstock’s and marching toward cellulostic ethanol. They are preparing to build pipelines which will change the equation by an order of magnitude. They are beginning to locate cattle farms near the ethanol plants and visa versa, to minimize transportation of the feedstock and provide cow poop to fuel the plant (removing methane from the environment by burning it and then scrubbing it.) Yes, these plants do have scrubbers.
How much corn can America produce? Maybe 3 times what we currently produce without adding any farmland, but that’s all a moot point because five years from now, the farmers will be planting ever increasing ratios of switchgrass and corn. 36 billion gallons is not a high end challenge for this industry – it can get there. But we all need to know the truth, and I’m fearful that these deep pockets that are funding this misinformation are getting more and more people to listen.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Firstly, You will not have a choice about ethanol soon, eg.
USA crude oil field production (thousands of barrels).
1947 = 1,856,987
1970 = 3,517,450 Peak.
1980 = 3,146,365
1990 = 2,684,687
2000 = 2,130,707
2004 = 1,983,302
2005 = 1,890,106
2006 = 1,862,259
source: US Energy and Information as quoted by (Energy & Capital).
Team, your production rate is just about the same as 1947!
I strongly suggest, the rest of world production is very close to the top of the curve. I can tell you now who will win if it’s a choice between US motorists and african forests. I agree Algae is one the answers.
I note the following article from todays paper, which discusses this subject in depth for airlines. It also explains where my footrest went!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10491477
On a sad note, (and completly off topic) I read a white paper yesterday on how EV’s are to be taxed. In NZ diesel pays a seperate distance based tax (road user charges) for the Volt with a petrol we will have to pay the RUC’s and the petrol tax (after the first 40 miles). In other words we will be paying (nearly) twice! I sure hope the european version comes out with the diesel range extender! (GM I hope you are reading this)
http://www.transport.govt.nz/electric-vehicles-2/
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Ethanol from corn is one the worst possible alternatives as a bio-fuel. Not only does it inflate food costs dramatically, it rips open the processing of it with the massive energy supply required to make the stuff.
The creation of this substance is no help to the global warming problem but an added liability.
I can only conclude it’s that part of our society that loves subsidies, major profit increases and other means to convince the public of its “benefits”. GM needs to rethink this so-called source of alternative energy and seek other alternatives.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I think most of you must be young. There is a lot more history here
than meets the eye. I am retired I have been a farmer and
college professor for a long time. Much of this work was done back
in the 70s. I built a hybrid electric car very much like the Volt. Enough pressure was put on the university to close down the research project. We did a BIG research project feeding distillers
grains to ponds of fresh water shrimp. The project was sucess but
I doubt many people remember it. Last we even did a project converting corn stalks into ethanol. We made a 300% increase
In the yield. The state would not publish the results because they
said it was just to much of a jump. Six months later Oak Ridge Labs published a paper confirming our results. Then they got it
printed. You would not believe all the bumps in the road.
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Arch,
I would love for you to go into details about some of you experiences, it might help us in disecting whats real, and what’s propoganda.
I think i speak for everyone here when i say, anyone who built a hybrid electric car IN THE 70’s. Is a welcomed addition to our community, and would love to hear your opinion on a range of topics.
Please consider!
Jon
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Don, #31:
Yeah, the report I heard yesterday reported on deforestation in Indonesia to plant palm oil plantations to provide biodiesel to Europe.
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Jon
I will speak to any topic you want to talk about. Just cut me a little
slack. I had a stroke last year and things are not as easy as they
used to be. Now what do you want to talk about?
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
#32 Wise Golden:
The day following the announcement, my brother and every one of the 3000 households in that community began receiving very professional and expensive direct mail pieces from a patriotic sounding group with a California address. The purpose of the campaign was to convince the residents that if they built the plant, it would explode, or pollute the river, or smell up the city, or whatever bad thing you could imagine. …
Do you think that “big oil” could have been behind the campaign? Every dollar spent on alternative fuels like ethanol is a dollar less spent on oil!
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I read something or saw it on TV years ago concerning the cost of food vs. the cost of the raw materials to make it. It went something like this… If the price of wheat doubled, the price of a loaf of bread would go up 9 cents. I think some of the concern about ethanols effect on food prices may be overblown. There may be price increases but I think there may be some tendency in the supply chain to increase the price of a raw material and blame it on ethanol. Does anyone know the actual cost of the corn in a box of corn flakes?
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Check this website. It’s long, but parts of it are further references.
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/2007/0202.html
More importantly, check other countries that move down this corn-ethanol road and re-prioritized alternate fuel sources.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“Does anyone know the actual cost of the corn in a box of corn flakes?”
I can not give you a cost today but a few years ago it was about 36 cents. Take a look at the ADM process for making ethanol. The main
reason they started was to get rid of all the corn starch they had
stacked around their plant. The EPA was about to close them down.
Look back at those days. Corn starch was going for about 26 cents
a box. Packing was costing them a lot of that but it was the best way
they had to get rid of it. They grind the small end of the corn off.
That gives them all the oil and protein in the corn. The larger end is
nothing but starch. Some of the larger end can be turned into corn
sweetners. They still get everything from the corn that they had a market for. The ethanol allowed them to pay an extra $1 per bushel
for corn and still make a bigger profit. None of the oil or protein was
lost.
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
GM was proud of their Pontiac Soolstice, look at here:
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2005/08/about_that_sols.html
But since I moved from Central Pennsylvania to San Francisco area, I have only seen it ONCE, I am not kidding here, I was outside Safeway 20 min ago, I counted the cars, of Sedan, 75% are Japanese, 15% Korean or German, and 10% American. Of the SUVs, smaller one dominated by Honda and Toyota, big ones, 70% are American, of trucks, 60% are American. Overall, 70% market are dominated by Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda and Subaru, only 15%-20% are American overall.
Wake up, Bob Lutz (or Loze, dare I say so) and Jon Laukner (Looklow。。。） Save this country’s auto industry by making things relevant to the customers. Even in Orlando, FL, there are 50% Japanese vehicles overall.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
CPI is going to deliver third battery pack to GM this week.
http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/02/volt_battery_efforts_roll_ahea.html
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
My understanding of the “energy in vs energy out” for corn is at best 1 to 1.3. With Switchgrass it’s 1 to 7, because it grows without need for fertilizer or extra irrigation. It packs TONS of cellulosic mass per acre. I’m not a big fan of growing food stocks and then burning them in our cars, but switchgrass and algae are quite another matter. If that new company that can pull cellulosic ethanol from almost anything that now goes into a landfill lives up to it’s promise (and GM has invested pretty heavily in that compnay) we’ll pretty much have the ethanol part of the equation covered.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Tagamet
If all you look at is corn in and the fuel out you are right. The problem is that there is a whole lot of stuff left over. What farmers
want is the protein for feed stocks. NONE of that is touched. Not
to mention the fact that the yeast used to ferment the corn adds
another 2% to the protein content. If all you look at is corn to
alcohol the equation will never work. If you look at what a farmer
wants for a feed stock there is NOTHING lost. It even gains 2%.
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Arch,
I understand what you’re saying about the farmer’s gain, and that’s great. But in terms of getting off of foreign oil, being able to feed cattle, isn’t going to run our vehicles or displace oil. So although farmers are well known for being able to use every last bit of everything for SOMETHING, we’re mostly just concerned with the part that gets us off oil. Can the “leftovers” from switchgrass be used as a feedstock? If it could we’d have 7 times the energy out and still have something of value left for the farmer?
Thanks,
God Bless,
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
“Can the “leftovers” from switchgrass be used as a feedstock? If it could we’d have 7 times the energy out and still have something of value left for the farmer?”
Tagamet
I am sorry but I retired long brfore this switchgrass issue came up.
IMHO I doubt it. IMHO there is not enough protein there to be of any
value. JMHO
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
#41 hc1124
If you follow the link at the bottom it leads to an even more interesting article, which pretty much explains why you will need every source of biofuel you can get. At least until pure BEV’s can take over.
http://www.oildepletion.blogspot.com/
I predict that within 10 years every car company will adopt GM’s E-Flex structure, produce BEV’s, or go out of business.
Noel.
You are right. The price of Palm Oil has increased a lot in recent years, so bye bye forests. Biodiesel made from this source is no good at all.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Arch
If it’s so good for the farmer, why does it need to be subsidised? With the price of oil why does the production of corn biofuel not compete on its own?
Regards
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
“If it’s so good for the farmer, why does it need to be subsidised?”
Well if you ask me we can compete today. At $2.00 a bushel
corn we could not. You tell me I get $2.00 for it and ADM turns
it into $10.00 a bushel of product. They make more on it than
I do. I grew it I put up with all the risk of drought and flood. Once
they had it I bet mice were their biggest risk. Did not mean to get so rough.
Take Care
Atch
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
34 “Ethanol from corn is one the worst possible alternatives as a bio-fuel. Not only does it inflate food costs dramatically, it rips open the processing of it with the massive energy supply required to make the stuff.”
Wise Golden says:
This is what I mean by false information — what you are saying is not supported by the preponderance of data. If it is, prove it. Site your source.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
47, “Arch,
I understand what you’re saying about the farmer’s gain, and that’s great. But in terms of getting off of foreign oil, being able to feed cattle, isn’t going to run our vehicles or displace oil. So although farmers are well known for being able to use every last bit of everything for SOMETHING, we’re mostly just concerned with the part that gets us off oil. Can the “leftovers” from switchgrass be used as a feedstock? If it could we’d have 7 times the energy out and still have something of value left for the farmer?
Thanks,
God Bless,”
Yes, switchblade is the current goal. Corn provides a “bridge technology” to get us there. Switchgrass will evolve, but it’s entirely possible that a better crop will be developed in the meantime. My point is that without a substainable ethanol industry, you can not have the developments that will come from that industry. I can’t count on government to get this done for us.
Arch is wise — he’s seen it happen. I’ve seen a bit too. I think this will all work out favorably, but we need the industry to be allowed to develop.
God bless you too.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Ethanol is certainly not the “best” biofuel and all of the players are looking at others. Butanol, a higher alcohol that can be produced from starch or cellulosic material, compared to ethanol has over 30 percent higher energy content per mole, it can be burned at a higher air to fuel ratio and it will work in higher compression IC engines (thus increased efficiency). Shell and BP are looking seriously at bio-butanol. There are some free-lance guys in Ohio trying to do this as well – their URL is:
http://www.butanol.com
Also see the following indicating that butanol is not the only potential biofuel from cellulosic material – other higher chain alcohols offer even more promise. This is currently a very hot area of research and it is clear that ethanol is probably just the first step along the way.
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-engineering-researchers-develop-42502.aspx
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
39, “Do you think that “big oil” could have been behind the campaign? Every dollar spent on alternative fuels like ethanol is a dollar less spent on oil!”
Wise:
I don’t know who else has the money to spread false information. I hear the same false info from so many sources — I know it’s coordinated. Big oil may be OPEC — not necessarily the American Oil companies.
It’s simple math as far as I’m concerned. 36 billion gallons of ethanol displaces $100 billion in oil per year. Actually much more because 36 billion gallons of ethanol is going to crash the price of a brl of oil to about $40. That will result in a loss to the oil industry of, roughly, $1 trillion word wide, each year.
I think they (big oil) have a dog in this race.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Biofuel is BS. If you already have biomass to distill for some reason, and you can do it easily, fine. But in the end, it’s solar power. Plants use sunlight to grow. A big crop of corn to be used for ethanol is basically a big, inefficient solar field that cuts into our food supply.
Our power companies should be investing in solar panels or solar dishes. Or they should give us CONSUMERS a way to invest in them. I would gladly pay double my electric bill if that meant it comes from solar. But nobody is giving me that option.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Tagamet
It seems Plastic is another use for the plastic.
The company is also developing enhanced switchgrass, and sugarcane crops to co-produce bio-based and biodegradable plastic within the leaves and stems of these crops to more economically meet energy and bioplastic needs globally.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/metabolix-to-de.html#more
Arch
So the subsidy goes to the farmer? Why is the farmer only getting $2.00 per bushel if corn has gone up in price so much? Seems just a tad unfair. I value your insight to this topic.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Tom
I looked into installing PV panels to collect some of that free energy, but if you think corn is inefficient, try PV! To generate half of the electric power I use, it would cost 4 times the cost of our HOUSE. That’s not an option. Maybe when the collectors get their efficiencies above the single digit %’s….. I’ll bet corn’s efficieny is significantly higher (but I don’t think food stocks should be used for fuel.
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
54NZDavid
Yes, I’d read that article about plastics and bio fuels. These are really remarkable times we live in!
Arch,
I too value a first hand voive from agriculture. I live in (very) rural Penna and if it’s not forest, it’s farm. My understanding of PART of the ethanol issue was a 52 cents per gallon tarrif on imported ethanol, which then props up the price of the domestic ethanol. I seriously doubt that the farmer sees any of that, other than possibly by supporting the fiscal feasability of domestic ethanol???
(Quote)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
56, “Biofuel is BS. If you already have biomass to distill for some reason, and you can do it easily, fine. But in the end, it’s solar power. Plants use sunlight to grow. A big crop of corn to be used for ethanol is basically a big, inefficient solar field that cuts into our food supply.
Our power companies should be investing in solar panels or solar dishes. Or they should give us CONSUMERS a way to invest in them. I would gladly pay double my electric bill if that meant it comes from solar. But nobody is giving me that option.
”
Wise reply:
Okay — I forgot about solar cars. You’re right, we should just start buying solar cars. By the way, please start sending me the equivilent of your current electris bill.
Seriously…plants are far more productive solar collectors than solar collectors, maybe by a factor of 10.
(Quote)
February 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Tagamet,
There are more ways to generate solar power than PV panels:
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/solar_overview.htm
Also, PV panels are on the cusp of becoming much cheaper:
http://nanosolar.com/
(Quote)
February 9th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Tom,
The solar concentrator site admits that it’s not ready for home, small scale use and the PV technology has been “on the cusp” for 20 years. I DO have the option of buying electricity generated from clean *sources* which is something, I guess. My talk of putting up a wind turbine waas not received by smiles for my neighbors (even here in a small rural town). My best hope of saving energy is in transportation
(Quote)
February 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Tom said:
“Biofuel is BS.”
Not really, in the transportation arena there will be a need for liquid fuels for some time to come. Biofuels will serve the very valuable purpose of filling the gap between the petroleum-based system we are stuck with presently and the all electric future. I would, as I am sure would you, rather have the IC backups on electric vehicles running on a renewable fuel than oil.
“Our power companies should be investing in solar panels or solar dishes.”
They are. With the advent of cheap thin-film solar panels, commercial multi-megawatt installations are happening.
http://www.nanosolar.com/pr11.htm
“Or they should give us CONSUMERS a way to invest in them. I would gladly pay double my electric bill if that meant it comes from solar. But nobody is giving me that option.”
FYI, many electricity suppliers give consumers the option of buying “green” power – ie, power generated from wind, hyro or solar. This is, obviously, dependent upon whether they are tied into a source of green power. There is always a premium for this green power – anything from 20 to 40 percent. The customer can nominate the percentage of green power he/she receives. My power company gives me the option of buying wind power – it costs 30 percent more.
(Quote)
February 9th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Tagamet:
If the power companies install the dishes and panels at their locations then you don’t have to install them at your home.
(Quote)
February 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
JoeJoe, #43:
Amen brother. Preach on!
(Quote)
February 9th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
59 Tag
The only thing the farmer sees is the price he is paid for the corn.
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
February 9th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
The ethanol market is expanding quite fast in the states it would seem.
Not so good for the small farmer though.
http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1418/
(Quote)
February 12th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
You have to question the quality of this report and its designers if they have written and published it with statements such as this:
“The study concludes that US Policy should take this potentially deleterious global effect into account before continuing to endorse and subsidize corn production from ethanol.”
Exactly how many ears can you get out of a gallon??
(Quote)
February 12th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Just a guess, but might that not be a typo, where “from” should read “for”
(Quote)