Why Grain based ethanol sucks....

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/16/biofuels.alternativeenergy

This is not an argument against alt energy or biofuel on the whole. But the article does touch on what is wrong with grain based ethanol production and the devastating effect it is having on food supplies.

"The consequences of the RTFO have been much trumpeted on these pages. It says enough that one car tank of bio petrol needs as much grain as it takes to feed an African for a year, or that a reported one-third of American grain production is now subsidised for conversion into biofuel."

One friggin tank... the grain used to produce one friggin tank of gas could feed a person for a year.

"If I have changed my mind, I am not sure the same applies to many greens. I have rarely encountered so much fanaticism and blind faith. Did those demanding fuel subsidies not realise that palm oil would wipe out rainforests and that ethanol from corn would use as much carbon as it saved? Did those pleading for wind farms really think they could ever substitute for nuclear power; or those wanting eco-towns not realise they would just add to car emissions? Did they not understand that, once the tap of public money is turned on, lobbyists will ensure it is never turned off - however harmful? "

The two in bold are certainly worth thinking about. We have to stop the use of grain for biofuels.
 
It's amazing the power Iowa has for such a small state, we're they the first primary back in farm aid day's or did they just learned Lobbyist on steroids routine recently.
 
Iowa has corn, most in the country.
Iowa has the first primary.
Iowa got ethonal subsidies and madates for billions of gallons used passed.
 
Topspin said:
Iowa has corn, most in the country.
Iowa has the first primary.
Iowa got ethonal subsidies and madates for billions of gallons used passed.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the politicans won't listen to discussion about ceasing production of grain based ethanol because of Iowa's electoral power?
 
Topspin said:
bingo
Click to expand...

So if people begin to realize that others are going without food, just so we can use an inefficient energy source that does more harm to the environment than good.... that the politicians won't listen? Because they are afraid of losing 7 electoral votes?
 
Topspin said:
ahh your talking billions of dollars.
They knew what taking demand of corn way up would do.
Click to expand...

I understand that most residents of DC lack spines, but this would be beyond extreme to be listening to the biofuel and farm lobbyists while food riots are going on. Food riots that could be prevented if we stop using 15-30% of our grain on inefficient fuel. (Not sure what the exact percentage is. This article says a third, Sec. Agg says 15%.... so who to trust... a politician or a journalist?... you decide)
 
1. be carefull how much you trust a journalist who may have an agenda
2. food riots aren't new and they aren't happening here
3. we produce 5 BILLION gallons of ethanol a yr, ahh it works ok
3. that HUGE number is not even 2% of gasoline consumed, oil is way more serious a strategic issue than most are willing to admit.
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/16/biofuels.alternativeenergy

This is not an argument against alt energy or biofuel on the whole. But the article does touch on what is wrong with grain based ethanol production and the devastating effect it is having on food supplies.

"The consequences of the RTFO have been much trumpeted on these pages. It says enough that one car tank of bio petrol needs as much grain as it takes to feed an African for a year, or that a reported one-third of American grain production is now subsidised for conversion into biofuel."

One friggin tank... the grain used to produce one friggin tank of gas could feed a person for a year.

"If I have changed my mind, I am not sure the same applies to many greens. I have rarely encountered so much fanaticism and blind faith. Did those demanding fuel subsidies not realise that palm oil would wipe out rainforests and that ethanol from corn would use as much carbon as it saved? Did those pleading for wind farms really think they could ever substitute for nuclear power; or those wanting eco-towns not realise they would just add to car emissions? Did they not understand that, once the tap of public money is turned on, lobbyists will ensure it is never turned off - however harmful? "

The two in bold are certainly worth thinking about. We have to stop the use of grain for biofuels.
Click to expand...
The problems with grain derived ethanol are many, but using food grains is definitely one of them. As well as using a significant amount of food to make a car go, grain derived ethanol has a low yield per acre, so we'll need amazing amounts of food producing land to even make a dent in oil use.

There are much better sources for ethanol. Switch grass, for instance, is not a food crop, but additionally has a much higher yield per acre, and can be grown on land that is not good land for food crops.

As to the first of the bolded statements, there is some misinformation there.

First, ethanol and other bio fuels have never been touted as reducing carbon emissions. But they are carbon neutral, meaning the fuel source removes CO2 from the atmosphere to grow, then the derived fuels release CO2 into the air when burned. That is the way with the natural plant cycle even if it was not burned as a fuel.

Second, palm oil biodiesel is not threat to rain forests because the manufacture of palm oil from which biodiesel is derived does not destroy the tree. It uses the fruit of the tree.

The use of subsidies is a dangerous step if not planned carefully in advance. I would suggest subsidies be used for very specific steps in the process of encouraging the manufacture of renewable energy sources. Focus on steps which are not ongoing. For instance, subsidize the cost of building an ethanol manufacturing plant, but do not subsidize the actual manufacturing process. Subsidize switching oil and coal burning electrical plant to renewable fuels, but do not subsidize the fuels themselves. If subsidies were limited to one-time processes, those subsidies would automatically go away when the switching process is done.
 
Topspin said:
1. be carefull how much you trust a journalist who may have an agenda
2. food riots aren't new and they aren't happening here
3. we produce 5 BILLION gallons of ethanol a yr, ahh it works ok
3. that HUGE number is not even 2% of gasoline consumed, oil is way more serious a strategic issue than most are willing to admit.
Click to expand...

1) Given that I have been saying the same damn thing about grain based ethanol, I kinda agree with the journalist on the majority of points. I do think he is high on the percentage of US grain being used, but I am not sure.

2) I do not care that they are not happening here or whether or not they are new. If we have the capability to stop them from occuring we should do so. Especially if it means we also cut off the use of an inefficient energy source. One that takes more energy to produce than it itself produces. Not to mention the points about deforestation and people friggin starving.

3) Yes, we produce a lot... now go back to his point on how much grain it takes to fill a tank. Assume the average tank is 20 gallons. That means you are filling approximately 250 million tanks per year based on US production alone. If it does indeed take the same amount of grain to fill one tank as feed one person for a year.... then that is 250 million people that could be fed with that same amount of grain. A much better use for the grain.

4) No question, we have to reduce dependency on oil. But using an inefficient replacement as a "solution" (no matter what the percent) is idiotic at best.
 
Good Luck said:
The problems with grain derived ethanol are many, but using food grains is definitely one of them. As well as using a significant amount of food to make a car go, grain derived ethanol has a low yield per acre, so we'll need amazing amounts of food producing land to even make a dent in oil use.

There are much better sources for ethanol. Switch grass, for instance, is not a food crop, but additionally has a much higher yield per acre, and can be grown on land that is not good land for food crops.

As to the first of the bolded statements, there is some misinformation there.

First, ethanol and other bio fuels have never been touted as reducing carbon emissions. But they are carbon neutral, meaning the fuel source removes CO2 from the atmosphere to grow, then the derived fuels release CO2 into the air when burned. That is the way with the natural plant cycle even if it was not burned as a fuel.

Second, palm oil biodiesel is not threat to rain forests because the manufacture of palm oil from which biodiesel is derived does not destroy the tree. It uses the fruit of the tree.

The use of subsidies is a dangerous step if not planned carefully in advance. I would suggest subsidies be used for very specific steps in the process of encouraging the manufacture of renewable energy sources. Focus on steps which are not ongoing. For instance, subsidize the cost of building an ethanol manufacturing plant, but do not subsidize the actual manufacturing process. Subsidize switching oil and coal burning electrical plant to renewable fuels, but do not subsidize the fuels themselves. If subsidies were limited to one-time processes, those subsidies would automatically go away when the switching process is done.
Click to expand...

I agree... while cellulosic based ethanol production is more difficult than grain based, it is the better option of the two. Though cellulosic still burns more energy to produce it than it in turn puts out.

As the article mentions... subsidies tend to be dangerous, because once in place... lobbyists tend to line the pockets of politicians to make sure they never go away. Perfect example.... the oil industry pushing hard to keep their subsidies. They got them while we kept oil artificially low druing the 70's-90's and now that oil is high, they still lobby (a.k.a. BRIBE) the politicians to keep them.
 
I think your comical freak with the takes more energy to produce joke.
5 BILLION gallons produced by people 10x smarter than both of us.
Obviously gasoline is better, but ethonal by many methods is economically and strategically critical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top