Quote :

" Soaring demand for corn to make ethanol could trigger higher U.S. food prices and riots in low-income countries as grain supplies tighten, according to a report released Thursday. Corn is the main ingredient for ethanol, which is mixed with gasoline to make motor fuel. A bushel of corn produces about 2.8 gallons of ethanol. About 20% of Wisconsin’s corn crop is destined for the fuel additive, which is significant, considering that the state didn’t have an ethanol plant six years ago. Across the Midwest, farmers are selling more corn to ethanol plants and are getting some of their highest prices in a decade. In 2008, U.S. ethanol production will consume 139 million metric tons of corn, roughly half the nation’s corn crop, the report notes. If that estimate is even close to being correct, the resulting strain on supplies of the ubiquitous crop could have dire consequences. “What we are beginning to see is the unfolding of an epic competition between 800 million people who own automobiles and want to maintain their mobility, and the 2 billion poorest people in the world, many of whom are spending more than half of their income on food already,” Brown said at a news conference…. …The U.S. corn crop accounts for 70% of world corn exports…."

http://jamnews.wordpress.com/2007/01/05/ethanol-disaster/

This article exaggerates the problem but it is still very real. Already we have seen ultimately futile price controls by the Mexican government on tortillas as corn crops are diverted. But this market distortion is not inevitable. If the U.S. lifted the 100% tariff on imported Ethanol then America could satisfy its Ethanol appetite with Brazilian Ethanol made from sugarcane, which is not only cheaper and can ramp up production faster but also does not drive up the price of staple foods which the world's poor depend on.

1/20/2007 5:13:38 PM

Aren't we heavily subsidizing corn growers as well, which is what leads to the cheap high fructose corn syrup found in all our food that causes us to get fat and unhealthy. Or is that something not related here?

1/20/2007 5:20:04 PM

Not exactly related. The Corn syrup we use is not much cheaper than outside the country. The reason we use it is because Cane Sugar is quota'd and taxed to hell at the border. So, it's cheaper to refine corn into sugar than it is to just import sugar from the caribbean.

Yes, eliminating the tariff on sugarcane would bankrupt the "high fructose corn syrup" industry and reduce corn usage, helping to stabilize corn prices. But that is not any more politically viable than eliminating the Ethanol tariffs.

1/20/2007 5:24:55 PM

this makes me wanna go buy some ears of corn.

1/20/2007 5:43:52 PM

^^ Gotcha, I knew there was some reason that we use the cheap corn syrup.

1/20/2007 5:50:27 PM

sad thing is there is a weed that grows on about the 10th of effort/price of corn we could use to make ethanol but the corn lobby won't have that. I'm a farmer and think great of farmers but honestly this lobby/protectionist crap sux first tobacco and now corn all the same...

1/20/2007 9:04:42 PM

If ethanol catches on we will move away from using corn to produce it

1/20/2007 9:27:46 PM

Quote :

"Looking at market price instead of BTUs, on June 6 wholesale cost for ethanol was around $2.67 per gallon, vs. 2.09 for gasoline. This isn’t counting the cost of the subsidies; even cheating, corn ethanol still isn’t as good as gasoline. And mixing the ethanol in to make gasohol adds further refining costs. So, the ethanol programs force us to pay more per gallon for a diluting fuel additive that gives only 2/3 the miles per gallon. This means more gas station stops, more wasted time and gas. And the ecological effect of each fuel? Oil-based gasoline comes from very small drill holes in deserts, tundra, and sea bottoms. US ethanol is made from corn, grown in large dusty monoculture fields that must be covered with pesticides and herbicides. Ethanol programs subsidize soil destruction, deforestation, habitat destruction, and bunny-killing. All so-called "biofuels" are a step backward ecologically. The US has reforested; 59% of the northeastern US is now forest. The eastern US has more forested acres now than in the mid-1800s. This reforestation is due to our replacement of biofuels with higher-tech oil, gas, and nuclear power. If we allow the market to improve our technology, eventually we would only use "biofuel" for grilling our salmon. Not too many people are in favor of cutting down forests, polluting streams, and exterminating wildlife for money-losing programs that make us all worse off. So why has welfare for corporate moonshiners lasted since 1980? Some say that it is because these programs transfer billions to a few powerful people, while inflicting only a few hundred or perhaps a thousand dollars in damage on each American. Thus the concentrated interest has incentive for rent-seeking campaign contributions, while the burden on the average worker is lost among all the other taxes and government-sponsored cartel and monopoly exactions. According to the Environmental Working Group (a generally pro-ethanol group), corn subsidies alone were at least 41.9 billion from 1995–2004. The EWG points out that US politicians (including Hillary) have only supported expensive subsidized ethanol; overseas ethanol from more-efficient sugar cane production is kept out by tariffs. (So don’t write me that someone in Brazil has a great ethanol production company. I’m sure they do, but you can’t buy from them!)"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker23.html

1/21/2007 2:40:29 AM

two words: cellulosic ethanol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

[Edited on January 21, 2007 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

1/21/2007 11:02:01 AM

this is almost as silly as hydrogen as a replacement for gasoline

1/21/2007 12:34:58 PM

Hopefully people will come to their senses and start making ethanol from sugarcane, which might help America's obesity problem.

IEEE is critical of subsidizing corn for ethanol production:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4832

Quote :

"NICK TREDENNICK: It is ridiculous to make ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane. The craziness comes from government interference in the market in the form of sugar subsidies and tariffs, reflecting politics and special interests."

[Edited on January 21, 2007 at 1:36 PM. Reason : ?]

1/21/2007 1:27:55 PM

If we start buying sugar cane ethanol, then it will come out that the US/US companies are subsidizing the destruction of thousands of acres of rainforest.

And if we stick with plain ol' gasoline, then we aren't breaking our dependency on mid-east oil.

1/21/2007 2:00:43 PM

Well, it's thousands of acres of rainforest or tens of thousands of acres of midwest. Cost benefit analysis:

Ethanol for sugarcane:
Jobs, wealth, and prosperity for poor South Americans eager to fill America's need for energy
tens of thousands of acres of America's mid-west saved for natural habitat
Cheaper fuel at the gas-pump

Ethanol from corn:
Jobs, wealth, and prosperity for some American Corporations
thousands of acres of rainforest saved for natural habitat (ploughed under anyway since many South Americans remain poor and need to eat)
Starving Mexicans (and others) since corn is now too expensive to eat
Expensive fuel at the gas-pump

Gasoline from Oil:
Even higher world oil prices, OPEC rakes in the money
thousands of acres of rainforest saved for natural habitat (ploughed under anyway since many South Americans remain poor and need to eat)
tens of thousands of acres of American midwest saved for natural habitat
Expensive fuel at the gas-pump

If I forgot anything let me know.

1/21/2007 4:29:39 PM

Doesn't sweetgrass offer a much more substantial Ethanol yield than corn?

(It is not often used because people don't want to drink a sweetgrass liquor but we are not looking to drink it, we are looking to burn it.)

1/21/2007 5:00:50 PM

switchgrass?

from wikipedia:

Quote :

"Switchgrass has the potential to produce the biomass required for production of up to 100 gallons (400 liters) of ethanol per metric ton.[4] This gives Switchgrass the potential to produce 1000 gallons of ethanol per acre, compared to 665 gallons for sugarcane and 400 gallons for corn.[5] The viability of Switchgrass as a biofuel is contentious, University of California, Berkeley professor Tad Patzek claims that Switchgrass has a negative ethanol fuel energy balance, requiring 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.[6] David Bransby, professor of energy crops at Auburn University, has found that for every unit of energy input, Switchgrass yields four units out.[7] In a 2007 lecture Professor Richard Muller, also of the University of California, Berkley, noted that it is the conversion of Switchgrass biomass into ethanol which introduces significant inefficiencies. He also noted that The Helios Project at Laurence Berkeley Laboratory is actively trying to engineer metabolic pathways in bacteria to more efficiently convert cellulose to ethanol."

So it produces more ethanol, but for now at least, less energy.

[Edited on January 21, 2007 at 5:04 PM. Reason : ?]

1/21/2007 5:02:08 PM

Quote :

"If I forgot anything let me know."

yes, cellulosic ethanol
i mentioned it twice

1/21/2007 5:04:37 PM

Quote :

"switchgrass?"

Quite possibly.

[Edited on January 21, 2007 at 5:06 PM. Reason : sorry about that ]

1/21/2007 5:05:24 PM

From what I understand, switchgrass can be grown on marginal land that is not good for growing most crops for consumption and switchgrass actually is a carbon negative plant, meaning that it sequesters more carbon in the soil then is released from the burning of the ethanol derived from it. It is not a silver bullet by any means, but it should help keep the price of corn low and might even be a significant catalyst to areas in need of economic development.

1/21/2007 5:31:03 PM

eh, this is bullshit.

It's a disaster when we subsidize farmers, but it's also a disaster when we don't sell our grain dirt cheap?

Make up your minds, you poor, stupid 3rd world people.

1/21/2007 6:17:09 PM

i watched a show in ethanol and i thought the ethanol was derived from the waste parts of the corn plant.

1/21/2007 10:30:03 PM

Quote :

"Ethanol for sugarcane: Jobs, wealth, and prosperity for poor South Americans eager to fill America's need for energy tens of thousands of acres of America's mid-west saved for natural habitat Cheaper fuel at the gas-pump Ethanol from corn: Jobs, wealth, and prosperity for some American Corporations thousands of acres of rainforest saved for natural habitat (ploughed under anyway since many South Americans remain poor and need to eat) Starving Mexicans (and others) since corn is now too expensive to eat Expensive fuel at the gas-pump Gasoline from Oil: Even higher world oil prices, OPEC rakes in the money thousands of acres of rainforest saved for natural habitat (ploughed under anyway since many South Americans remain poor and need to eat) tens of thousands of acres of American midwest saved for natural habitat Expensive fuel at the gas-pump If I forgot anything let me know."

All of those scenarios suck equally, IMO. I personally would pay the increase prices to keep the rainforest, even if it's only a decreased deforestation rate.

1/21/2007 11:49:42 PM

how about biomass, wood, or any plant material

does anyone ever even click links?

1/21/2007 11:58:41 PM

^^ There is a cost in everything we do. But it sounds like you would ban Ethanol and go with straight gasoline to save both the rainforest and the midwest, right?

Revised benefit list:
Ethanol from sugarcane:
Jobs, wealth, and prosperity for poor South Americans eager to fill America's need for energy
tens of thousands of acres of America's mid-west saved for natural habitat
A few American corporations go Bankrupt
Cheaper fuel at the gas-pump
Reduced World Hunger since corn is now cheap enough to eat

Ethanol from corn:
wealth and prosperity for some American Corporations
thousands of acres of rainforest saved for natural habitat (ploughed under anyway since many South Americans remain poor and need to eat)


Gasoline from Oil:
Even higher world oil prices, wealth and prosperity for OPEC
thousands of acres of rainforest saved for natural habitat (ploughed under anyway since many South Americans remain poor and need to eat)
tens of thousands of acres of American midwest saved for natural habitat
Reduced World Hunger since corn is now cheap enough to eat


[Edited on January 22, 2007 at 8:35 AM. Reason : revised list]

1/22/2007 8:31:09 AM

youre still forgetting one

1/22/2007 8:58:06 AM

then why don't you kindly enlighten us...

1/22/2007 9:09:51 AM

ive already even posted a link

1/22/2007 9:21:15 AM

then why don't you kindly enlighten us...

1/22/2007 10:10:47 AM

ive already even posted a link

[Edited on January 22, 2007 at 10:46 AM. Reason : and someone mentioned one kind]

1/22/2007 10:43:17 AM

^ There is only so much compatible biomass waste to go around. Plus, it has been subsidized as much as any other Ethanol but production is still relatively small... Why?

1/22/2007 10:50:46 AM

http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm

Quote :

"Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks including agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. Cellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, with smaller amounts of proteins, lipids (fats, waxes and oils) and ash. Roughly, two-thirds of the dry mass of cellulosic materials are present as cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin makes up the bulk of the remaining dry mass. ... "The key to producing enough ethanol is switchgrass," says Greene. Switchgrass shows great potential for improving yields, offers environmental benefits and can be grown in diverse areas across the country. Current average yields are five dry tons per acre. Crop experts have concluded standard breeding techniques, applied progressively and consistently, could more than double the yield of switchgrass. Yield improvements predicted by the report of 12.4 dry tons per acre are in keeping with results from breeding programs with crops such as corn and other grasses. The innovations discussed have a net effect of reducing the total land required to grow switchgrass to an estimated 114 million acres. Sufficient switchgrass could be grown on this acreage to produce 165 billion gallons of ethanol by 2050, which is equivalent to 108 billion gallons of gasoline. The next logical question is how do we integrate switchgrass production into our agricultural systems. The answer lies with the ability to produce animal protein from switchgrass. "If we have cost-effective agricultural policy, farmers will rethink what they plant," says Lynch "For example, we are using 70 million acres to grow soybeans for animal feed. You can grow more animal feed protein per acre with switchgrass. If there were a demand for biomass feedstocks to produce ethanol and other biofuels, farmers would be able to increase their profits by growing one crop producing two high value products." ... Given sufficient investment in research, development, demonstration and deployment, the report projects biorefineries producing cellulosic ethanol at a cost leaving the plant between $.59-$.91 per gallon by 2015. The price range is dependent upon plant scale and efficiency factors. At these prices, biofuels would be competitive with the wholesale price of gasoline. ... "

1/22/2007 10:58:43 AM