- #124 of 165
-
Re: show me the DATA [gagrice]
by zarplex2003
-
May 16, 2006 (1:40 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 29, 2004 5:33 am)
1) Being Canadian doesn't give them credibility.
2) U.S. produces about 33% of all the corn in the world. We can just rely on our own resources and not put money into the hands of people in the Middle East. How does that not enhance energy security???
3) Ethanol can continuously be reproduced as long as we have maize. So only if we lose all of our maize will this become an issue. The fact that it's not a renewable energy source is erroneous because we will probably have maize for as long as the U.S. will be in existence.
4) Yes, it’s true, it won’t produce clean air and it causes environmental degradation. Not any different than gasoline!!!
5) Finally, yes, I agree with John. Show me an actual white paper! I can just as easily write up nonsense in my own document and post it to start a following. I want to see all the cited references of environmental damage caused by the use of oil/gasoline as well.
|
- #125 of 165
-
Re: show me the DATA [zarplex2003]
by zarplex2003
-
May 16, 2006 (1:44 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: zarplex2003 (May 16, 2006 1:40 pm)
Sorry, my previous message was in reference to this message:
How much more would you like? Here is what the Canadiens think of Ethanol corporate welfare.
ethanol production does not enhance energy security, is not a renewable energy source, is not an economical fuel, and does not ensure clean air...its production uses land suitable for crop production and causes environmental degradation."
|
- #126 of 165
-
Re: show me the DATA [zarplex2003]
by gagrice
-
May 16, 2006 (4:25 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: zarplex2003 (May 16, 2006 1:40 pm)
Ethanol can continuously be reproduced as long as we have maize.
I don't think anyone is arguing that we cannot raise corn and make ethanol. The problem is the amount of fossil fuel that is used to grow the corn and distill it into ethanol. So it is only renewable until we run out of fossil fuel. If the US is so set on ethanol they need to find a better crop than corn to produce it. So far it is all talk and no production as it pertains to Switchgrass, tree stumps or pollywogs.
Currently Ethanol is just corporate welfare worse than that given to the oil companies. What is so great about that?
|
- #127 of 165
-
Re: show me the DATA [gagrice]
by jeffyscott
-
May 17, 2006 (6:33 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 16, 2006 4:25 pm)
In addition to the fossil fuel used to grow it, it is infeasible to replace all or a significant portion of the oil with corn ethanol because of the amount of land required to grow enough corn to do this.
Even for more efficient crops, the land requirements are huge. One estimate here says:
As for the land required to support significant biofuel production from a dedicated energy crop, switch grass offers a basis for estimation. It grows rapidly, with an expected harvest one or two years after planting. Ignoring crop rotation, an acre under cultivation will produce five to 10 tons of switch grass annually, which in turn provides 50 to 100 gallons of ethanol per ton of biomass. Thus the land requirement needed to displace one million barrels of oil per day (about 10% of U.S. oil imports projected by 2025), is 25 million acres (or 39,000 square miles). This is roughly 3% of the crop, range and pasture land that the Department of Agriculture classifies as available in the U.S.
So, based on this, replacing all imported oil would take 30% of land.
|
- #128 of 165
-
Re: show me the DATA [zarplex2003]
by fireball1
-
May 18, 2006 (5:29 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: zarplex2003 (May 16, 2006 1:40 pm)
The message from the corn and ethanol lobbies that ethanol from corn is "renewable" is an absolute joke. Sure, we can grow as much corn as we want, and the energy equation might be a slight positive, but let's get real here. Corn is sucking the Ogallala Aquifer dry in the Great Plains -- check out all the maps and stats from the U.S. Geological Survey. Agriculture, predominantly the irrigation of corn, accounts for more than 95 percent of all water use in the Midwest. That is anything BUT renewable. Corn ethanol boosters also conveniently forget the amount of fossil fuels needed to (1) fertilize the corn; (2) get the corn to the ethanol plant, and (3) process the ethanol. Indirectly, ethanol gets SIX subsidies from the government -- one for overproducing the corn, one for incentives and tax breaks for building the plants, one at the gas pumps, and three others that go with its fossil fuel consumption. Ethanol backers love to point out the subsidies that go to oil, but they forget that ethanol CONTRIBUTES TO THOSE SUBSIDIES because it also uses oil and natural gas. By the way, keep an eye on the price of natural gas. The higher up it goes, the more ethanol plants will go to coal. And we all know what coal does for our air. In this scenario, making ethanol is a lose-lose proposition. Only when ethanol gets away from the destructive growing of corn will it become viable in the long term. That is apparent to everyone outside the corn lobby, ethanol lobby, Congress and some hare-brained environmentalists.
|
- #129 of 165
-
Re: show me the DATA [fireball1]
by raychuang00
-
May 18, 2006 (8:34 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: fireball1 (May 18, 2006 5:29 pm)
I think the best solution is to grow "farms" of vertical tanks filled with oil-laden algae that are fed by the exhaust gases from coal-fired or natural gas-fired powerplants. The resulting algae can be processed into biodiesel fuel and heating oil, and the "waste" from the processing can be processed into ethanol itself.
|
- #130 of 165
-
Re: show me the DATA [fireball1]
by gagrice
-
May 19, 2006 (5:19 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: fireball1 (May 18, 2006 5:29 pm)
check out all the maps and stats from the U.S. Geological Survey. Agriculture, predominantly the irrigation of corn, accounts for more than 95 percent of all water use in the Midwest. That is anything BUT renewable.
Welcome to the discussion. Good point on the water. Not only are they doing a lot of irrigating of corn. They are flushing much of the fertilizers into the streams and rivers in the process. I do not see how any credible environmentalist could be in favor of ethanol in its current state of production. If they figure out a process for some less invasive crop like Switchgrass it may change the picture.
|
- #131 of 165
-
Re: show me the DATA [raychuang00]
by gagrice
-
May 19, 2006 (5:20 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: raychuang00 (May 18, 2006 8:34 pm)
Algae to biodiesel may just be the answer. Time will tell.
|
- #132 of 165
-
Re: show me the DATA [gagrice]
by snakeweasel
-
May 19, 2006 (5:54 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 19, 2006 5:20 pm)
Good they can come over and clean out my fish tank, they can run the country for 50 years on what that tank produces 
|
- #133 of 165
-
Re: show me the DATA [gagrice]
by fireball1
-
May 19, 2006 (10:48 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 19, 2006 5:19 pm)
The groundwater problem becomes twofold as the aquifer gets drawn down. Those chemical fertilizers, as you mention, eventually get into the groundwater. Because there is less groundwater, there is less dilution and a higher degree of pollution. I am not certain how long it takes for corn fertilizer to make its way down to the groundwater -- I'm sure it depends on the porous nature of the soil (or sand, in western Nebraska) -- but we are already paying a price. Many small communities in Nebraska (population 10,000 or less) have been forced to seek new wells with clean water several miles outside of town because of the nitrate contamination. That's why some city managers in such communities are outraged by the over-irrigation and overproduction of corn, and the sales job that's going on for corn ethanol. What also is sad is the politicking. Already a Nebraska senator is running TV ads for the fall campaign: He says, "I envision Nebraska corn fields replacing Mideast oil fields." It is amazing how many people buy into that. That's the nature of the political beast -- if you say anything perceived as anti-ethanol or anti-agriculture in the Midwest, even though it may be true, you are committing political suicide. That suits the National Corn Growers, Farm Bureau, etc., just fine, even though they know (deep down inside) that the viability of corn ethanol is questionable at best. If, as I've read in places, corn has only 3-5 more years as the main fuelstuff for ethanol (thanks to farm state lobbies, politicians & subsidies), I am wondering if these dozens of corn ethanol plants can be retrofitted to accept switchgrass or other materials? If not, have we jumped into this too quickly?
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles 
