Filed under: Ethanol, Green Daily
Economist figures a tank of ethanol = food for a year
Every day, it seems, corn ethanol gets a little less attractive. In fact, if the information in this article from the latest print edition of The Economist catches on, then ethanol advocates are going to have two more easy-to-remember absurditiies to defend: 1.) biofuels will use a third of the maize grown in the U.S. this year and 2.) filling "up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol [uses] enough maize to feed a person for a year."I'm not saying I want to eat corn for a year, but there is a lot of corn in many of the prepared foods sold in America (high fructose corn syrun, corn meal, etc.). Shifting so much of the grain from food to fuel - and the resulting effect on food prices - gave The Economist the idea to title the article "The end of cheap food." Welcome to the era of the ethanol-guzzlers driving to buy $10 boxes of corn flakes?
I recommend checking out the full article for the details, but before you go, let's just wonder out loud what type of ethanol the writer is talking about with that gas tank comment. Is it E85 going into the tank? That's most likely, because that the fuel that is commonly sold as "ethanol" in the U.S., but perhaps the dramatic number requires us to calculate using E100. It's an important distinction, but the general message stands whatever percentage we're talking about.
[Source: Ethanol, thanks to Nick B.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rgseidl 6:10PM (12/10/2007)
The issue isn't the high fructose corn syrup in many processed food products in the US, though less of it would surely help address the obesity epidemic. Rather, the issue is that ethanol producers import cheap corn from third-world countries like Mexico where it is a staple food. Running your SUV on oh-so-green E85 made from corn ethanol really is taking food out of some hungry childrens' mouthes.
In terms of its impact on the world food markets, E85 isn't all that different from E100. Nor would nationwide use of E10 be any better in this particular regard. Biofuels are fundamentally a good idea, but they do have to be produced in a socially and environmentally responsible fashion. There is much talk of cellulosic ethanol but it's not yet available in any significant volume. Much the same discussion applies to FAME (aka biodiesel) vs. BTL.
Indeed, the only biofuel that can be produced cost-effectively and on an industrial scale TODAY from a wide variety of cellulosic feedstocks (except wood) is biogas. After scrubbing out the H2S and CO2 with an amine solution, you obtain methane that can be fed into the existing distribution networks for natural gas - a HUGE plus. The resulting blend can then be used in the transportation sector as CNG stored in composite tanks at e.g. 250bar (3600psi), preferably feeding a boosted direct injection engine. In the not-too-distant future, ANG at 35bar (500 psi) will be feasible. Even so, the associated fuel tank will still be heavy and cost more than the simple seal and filter upgrades required to support E85.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/new_highdensity.html
In the short and medium term, the net consequence is that most of the fairly expensive biomethane will actually end up stoking homes and industrial furnaces plus power plants. However, this helps spread the cost premium over the whole economy. Also note that the overall CO2 mitigation does not depend on how the biomethane is used.
Reply
TX CHL Instructor 6:18PM (12/10/2007)
Corn is really good for rapidly making farm animals morbidly obese. Works on people, too.
I'm no particular fan of corn, having eliminated it from my diet over 8 years ago, with the result of substantial health improvement. I don't consider corn to be food.
I'm also no fan of ethanol for fuel, either. It's a mediocre fuel at best, and corn is a lousy feedstock. The only thing it's got going for it is that it isn't quite as stupid as using hydrogen.
Reply
TG 6:32PM (12/10/2007)
Economists can relax.
E fuels are only a short term answer that give the US, Brazil and others a little wiggle room in case of a sudden shortage of refined petro-fuels.
The wave of battery, compressed air and other energy methods of pushing vehicles is well under way.
A stroke of the pen in congress for higher emission standards will bring oil back down to $50 a barrel where it will compete with E fuels.
Impractical petro and E fuels will all loose out to battery or cell energy and sooner rather than later.
Cattle corn mash, tortillas and gin will be in surplus and cheaper than ever.
Economists may be better employed looking at the honey bee problem.
Eastern orchardists are renting bee colonies via air transport at huge expense to pollinate their fruit crops.
No pollination... no fruit! And most fruits and veggies require pollination.
Farmers in China are pollinating crops and fruit trees by hand using feathers attached to sticks and poles.
With not one, but approximately 19 ailments, killing off bees, scientists can*t design an anti-dote.
Have fun economists. = TG
Reply
Bill Dale 7:35PM (12/10/2007)
I don't know which is worse: if we burn the ethanol, it raises the price of high fructose corn syrup that is killing our kids (and everyone else, fo that matter) with runaway obesity and other diseases, but then it contributes to global warming and lung disease-- studies at Stanford show that ethanol use in fuels is particularly harmful to children's lungs.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418072616.htm
Fuels are not needed to power vehicles anyway. The cheapest, most environmentally benign way to power cars is with electricity from solar panels, and that has suddenly become easier than ever to implement.
Nanosolar recently received the Innovation of the Year Award from Popular Science Magazine, and it is well-deserved. Their new, flexible, thin-film solar panels are not only as efficient as the best silicon cells that are so brittle and time-consuming to manufacture, but Nanosolar's PowerSheet solar panels are only a tenth the price, and can be rolled onto a roof like tar paper quickly and easily, covering an entire roof to produce far more energy than the much smaller, more expensive silicon panels that have been typical before now.
Coupled with appropriate storage batteries, a roof covered with PowerSheet could not only provide all the power the home would need, but could fully charge an EV as well. The best batteries for both the home's energy storage as well as the EV's batteries seems to be Altair's NanoSafe batteries.
Since the NanoSafe battery has an indefinitely long lifespan even in deep discharge applications, and can be discharged very rapidly without damage, it would be the perfect choice for powering EVs unless EEstor or another ultracapacitor manufacturer can do it cheaper.
With lots of small solar generation stations along major interstate routes, and power stored in stationary NanoSafe batteries, EVs could drive anywhere as easily as cars today that are powered with gasoline, but they would be able to do so far cheaper, and with no pollution or greenhouse gases.
Ethanol is NOT an answer: even if we used all farmland in the country to grow ethanol crops, it could not keep all our vehicles running and would still be a terribly pollution source.
Electric vehicles are all we need for quiet, efficient, powerful and clean ground transportation.
Reply
bioburner 7:38PM (12/10/2007)
The corn that is used to make ethenol is FIELD corn not SWEET corn. Field corn is grown exclusively as animal feed and ethanol production. The mash that is left over after the ethenol making process is rich in protein and can still be feed to animals but at a huge reduction in the calorie content. Farmers lose money cause the mash contains fewer calories so the animals put on less weight (less fat)when feed this food.
Reply
GenWaylaid 5:58AM (12/11/2007)
Wait, wait, I have the solution: let's figure out a way to make GASOLINE into FOOD!
A 5000 lb SUV is bigger than anything humans have had to compete with for food since the extinction of the cave bear. I'm sure the spear technology that helped us deal with that challenge can be updated and repurposed for the 21st century. I can just see the hunter-gatherer of 2030, clad in the steel skins of his previous conquests, fighting back a hungry Tahoe at the food pump.
Reply
GenWaylaid 5:58AM (12/11/2007)
Bill,
Good point about using batteries at the EV charging stations. There's no way to pull a "quick charge" off the grid without very expensive high-power lines and transformers. A large battery pack would buffer the supply and even out surges, and it would provide a place to add solar input.
If the batteries in the charging station and the batteries in the vehicle are both designed for quick-charging, then all that remains is to connect them with a very thick cable. If both sides also had smaller ultracapacitor packs in parallel, the charging process could happen even faster.
Ultimately, this is the sort of architecture that would be required to make on-the-road charging of BEVs as convenient as filling a gas tank. Home charging wouldn't require stationary batteries if the local power grid has an energy buyback program, like in California.
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 8:35AM (12/11/2007)
@GenWaylaid:
Ha! That's a great image! It reminds us that all the ways we can not use energy are just as important as how we produce and use energy.
As a side note, does anyone know what kind of hound is good for tracking SUV's? How many bulldogs does it take to catch and bring down one. When you jump in amongst the dogs for the killing blow, where is the best place to strike? I'm thinking a stab at the fuel lines on the soft underbelly! ;)
Reply
Nathan Schock 12:18PM (12/11/2007)
Funny that this post comes out on the same day as a study (not just conjecture like you get from the Economist) that debunks the food vs. fuel argument. Take a look here: http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN1042557020071210?sp=true
The other funny thing is that when I followed the link to the Economist article in your post, I found no less than three ads from Chevron. Coincidence?
Reply
Jeff Heaton 12:08PM (6/28/2009)
Our economy is sinking fast because it is based on an antiquated system of financial exploitation and war. We do not have free markets and we do not have fair competition in the markets. Corporations are money making machines whose sole purpose is to feed off of our socialized infrastructure while destroying the environment. Developing alternative approach’s to making our own energy at home is our greatest hope to reversing this trend.
Right now gasoline cost around $3:00 per gallon at the pump and another $2.50 per gallon in subsidizes to the oil companies. So every time we drive our automobiles we are really spending over $5 a gallon. If we all had to pay over $5 a gallon for gasoline at the pump, things would change very quickly.
On top of that you need to add in the cost of the 850 military bases we have scattered
around the globe who’s primarily purpose is to protect the profits of transnational
corporations. To be fair also need to add in the cost of cleaning up global warming and
other types of ground and air pollution from using gasoline. And finally we need to figure in the cost of the war in Iraq. That makes the real cost of taking your kids to soccer another $10.00 per gallon paid for from subsidized deficit spending that our kids and grandkids will have to pay back with interest, pay back in inflation and in some cases pay back with their lives. I am the curator of the Crosses of Lafayette Afghanistan and Iraq War Memorial so I meet many veterans and Gold Star Parents who have lost their friends and family in our endless war for oil.
This is how corporations manipulate our laws and legal system to privatize their profits and socialize their losses. Corporations have no soul but they are afforded the same legal rights as individuals who just happen to live forever.
Remember all of those futuristic science fiction movies about machines that
take over the world and destroy mankind. Well guess what, we are there. Clearly the alternative is for all of us to invest in sustainable infrastructure. An
investment in sustainable infrastructure means an investment that pays us
back over and over and over.
Applying the principals of permaculture to agriculture, energy and the economy is our only hope for creating a sustainable infrastructure.
Take the example of sewage. We all have it, nobody likes it, so what do we do with it? It turns out that cattails love sewage. In fact cattails love sewage so much that
when you run sewage through a field of cattails, the end result is clean
water.
Not only that but cattails can produce 7,500 gals of ethanol fuel per acre.
It would only take 1.5% of our marginal farm land to produce enough ethanol
to power all of our transportation needs in the United States.
If we all installed flex fuel devises in our automobiles and started using
ethanol instead of gasoline, air pollution would be reduced by 98%. Our car
engines would last three times longer so we would not have to go into debt
buying a hybrid from a foreign country. CO2 emissions would be cut in half. And for every pound of co2 that goes into the atmosphere from using ethanol ( liquid solar energy ) 2 ½ times that much co2 is sequestered by the roots and stalks of plants that are recycled into organic compost and top soil. Another vital resource corporations are quickly depleting.
The hang up is that the department of energy estimates that switching to ethanol would create 26 million new jobs that can not be exported overseas. That means no obscene profits for the CEOs of transnational corporations. War profiteers don’t like that because there are no terrorist who are going to attack fields of cattails fertilized with
sewage.
Another potential source of ethanol fuel is kelp. Off the California coast
line we could grow enough kelp to power 1/3rd of the cars, trucks and
bus’s in the entire United States. I also doubt terrorist would want to invade our coastlines full of kelp.
Many areas of the ocean no longer support fish and plant life due to the high level of nitrogen in the run off from factory farms. Kelp or kombu can grow up to 18” per day when fertilized with waste nitrogen. This approach would restore the oceans and bring them back to life by increasing the level of oxygen in the water..
We need to use the science of permaculture to terra form the earth in a way that restores the natural environment, produce local renewable energy and feed the world. This will also have the effect of redistributing the wealth by creating jobs for the maximum number of average folks. Otherwise we will become a prison planet where democracy is a thing of the past. The first step is to stop buying $500 billion dollars of oil from dictators in the Middle East and South America who hate us.
Several weeks ago the governor of California was in a press conference advocating for a new gismo called the E100 Micro-fuelers as one of many solutions to our states energy problems. The E100 makes it possible for socially concerned citizens to make their own ethanol at home for around $1 a gallon assuming they can purchase industrial grade sugar for 3 cents a pound or use waste wine and beer.
What Arnold forgot to mention that it is against the law to buy and install a flex fuel converter in California because back in the 80s when lots of people started using natural gas in automobiles some of the flex fuel devices did not work very well. So the gas lobbies made it illegal to install flex fuel devices in California even though they are presently being installed all over the United States.
The California EPA says it will take a long time for them to change the rules about flex fuel devices. Meaning they don’t give a damn because cleaning up the environment is not their main gig.
I am involved in a 7 billion dollar law suit against the EPA because they will not let our company recycle the minerals out of the acid mine drainage that is flowing coming out of the aquifers of Iron Mountain Mines near Redding California.
Many of the minerals that can be recycled on Iron Mountain are being imported from China. Many of the minerals could be used to make solar panels and advanced electric car batteries. Many of the minerals could be used as a catalyst to convert cellulosic materials such as lawn clippings, waste paper and wood chips into ethanol.
Instead of recycling the minerals the EPA has hired AIG to turn the acid mine drainage into high density sludge that they plan to store behind a huge dam at the top of Iron Mountain for the next 3000 years! Another Tennessee style EPA disaster in the making.
The only way we are going to stop big money corporations from owning our legislators and destroying our jobs and environment is to make an end run around their evil plans to dominate us all. Switching to ethanol is the best way I can think of to create a positive change on all levels. It is something we can all participate in and for a very little investment compared to the alternatives.
Jeff Heaton of Lafayette California.
Reply