Ethanol Again
- From: "JanOrme99@xxxxxxx" <JanOrme99@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:02:13 -0700
In the previous thread "The Real Truth About Ethanol"
Elliot Richmond respectfully wrote on July 28:
<< With no implied endorsement of anything in the article or of
ethanol,
I would just point out that the carbon in corn comes from the
atmosphere. So, advocates assume that it is carbon-neutral. Of course
when you factor in the energy required to process the corn into
ethanol, even if it were energy neutral it would not be carbon
neutral. In order for ethanol to be close to carbon neutral, it would
have to require no energy to produce other than the energy stored in
the corn. >>
And then I answered:
Not trying to be a smart ass here, Elliot. But that sure
is a twisted spin. I mean, what didn't at some point
come from the atmosphere? Bear turds? Coal?
Any fossil fuel? Cow farts?
And then Elliot mentioned on July 29:
<<The difference is the time interval involved. The carbon in the
corn
was extracted from the atmosphere last year and will be returned this
year or thereabouts. The carbon in fossil fuels was extracted and
stored millions of years ago over periods of millions of years. >>
Yeah, Okay, that all goes without saying. But if we want to be REAL
conservationists, what does all this mean when we get down to the
bottom line of what will happen if we use CORN as fuel.
Here is a guest commentary for this morning that addresses some of
that.
It's by Donald F. Anthrop, Professor Emeritus in the Department of
Environmental Studies at San Jose State University.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_6550244?nclick_check=1
GUEST COMMENTARY
Ethanol no panacea for rising energy demands
By Donald F. Anthrop
Article Launched: 08/05/2007 03:00:52 AM PDT
Many politicians at both the federal and state levels are being pushed
by environmentalists to embrace the biofuels craze. As with most
stories that are built upon myths, this one is going to have an
unhappy ending.
The energy bill currently pending in Congress would mandate the
production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol per year by the year 2022.
Production of this ethanol would consume 137 percent of the present
U.S. corn crop.
Indeed, production of this volume of ethanol would require almost one-
third of U.S. cropland used for crop production be devoted to corn
solely for ethanol production. These people need a reality check.
Current ethanol production averages about 6 billion gallons per year,
and this has caused corn prices to rise 58 percent in the past year.
Furthermore, the effect on grain prices has not been limited to corn.
Both wheat and soybean prices have risen sharply as farmers shift land
to corn production.
It is worth noting that approximately 14 percent of the U.S. corn crop
is irrigated and that this irrigated acreage consumes almost 18
million acre-feet per year of water -- much of which is overdrafted
from the Ogallala aquifer in the Great Plains.
To put this water requirement in some perspective, the average annual
flow of the Colorado River at Lee's Ferry is only about 14 million
acre-feet per year. Moreover, much of this corn acreage in the Great
Plains is easily erodable land, and numerous studies have
conclusively
demonstrated that row crops, such as corn, result in much higher
erosion rates than cereal grains or forage crops.
The potential for expanding corn acreage is limited, and the potential
for expanding corn acreage without causing significant environmental
damage is even more limited.
Much of the expansion of corn acreage thus far has come at the expense
of soybean acreage, and this has pushed up the prices of both soybeans
and soybean meal.
The latter is used as a protein supplement in animal feeds.
Furthermore, soybeans fix soil nitrogen and are usually grown in
rotation with corn to reduce nitrogen fertilizer requirements.
Shifting cropland from soybeans to corn means more nitrogen fertilizer
will be needed for crop production.
Nitrogen fertilizer is made from natural gas. It was only a few years
ago that the environmentalists were complaining that modern
agriculture relied on monoculture and synthetic fertilizers to boost
yields. Apparently these are bad if the crops are grown for food but
benign if the crops are grown for fuel.
Perhaps the two most popular myths are corn ethanol are that 1) it is
a renewable energy source, and 2) its use as a motor fuel
substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions when compared to
gasoline.
A.E. Farrell and colleagues of the Energy Resources Group at UC
Berkeley recently published the results of a study to determine the
net energy balance of fuel ethanol. In the course of that work, which
concluded that the net energy balance is positive, the authors found
that the renewable (solar) content of corn ethanol was only 5-26
percent. The balance of the energy input is primarily natural gas and
coal.
Let's assume the average is 16 percent. Both Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger's administration and the Legislature have been
promoting flex-fuel vehicles designed to run on E85 -- a mixture
consisting of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. California's
gasoline consumption in 2004 (the last year for which we have data)
was 376 million barrels. If all the vehicles in California operated on
E85, the ethanol required would consume 70 percent of the entire U.S.
corn crop, but only 13.6 percent of the energy in the fuel would be
renewable.
Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions would only be reduced by 13
percent. This hardly qualifies as an economically or environmentally
beneficial undertaking.
The new report issued by the California Department of Finance clearly
shows that the real problem is immigration-driven population growth.
Even if per-capita gasoline consumption were to remain constant (which
is unlikely) the 22 million new residents in California projected for
the year 2050 would increase gasoline consumption by 62 percent.
Ethanol is not going to solve this problem, and it is time for the
politicians and environmentalists to stop pretending it will.
Anthrop is professor emeritus in the Department of Environmental
Studies at San Jose State University. He is a resident of Berkeley.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Eric Orme
"Corn as fuel ain't the answer!"
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ethanol Again
- From: Mike Dobony
- Re: Ethanol Again
- From: Pepperoni
- Re: Ethanol Again
- Prev by Date: Re: fulltime with family
- Next by Date: Re: Stopping advice?
- Previous by thread: OT: How To Think Like A Republican
- Next by thread: Re: Ethanol Again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
