When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Obama links to Ethanol
Not enough land to grow ethanol for fuel
Cato Feb 26, 2007
Ethanol will not lead to energy independence. If all the corn produced in America in 2005 were dedicated to ethanol production (and only 14.3 percent of it was), U.S. gasoline consumption would have dropped by only 12 percent. For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline in this country, we would need to appropriate all U.S. cropland, turn it over to ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes the practical limit for domestic ethanol production is about 700,000 barrels per day -- in 2030.
Ethanol will not lead to energy independence. If all the corn produced in America in 2005 were dedicated to ethanol production (and only 14.3 percent of it was), U.S. gasoline consumption would have dropped by only 12 percent. For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline in this country, we would need to appropriate all U.S. cropland, turn it over to ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes the practical limit for domestic ethanol production is about 700,000 barrels per day -- in 2030.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Nestle Chairman: Biofuels are "ethically indefensible"
Nestle Chairman: Biofuels are "ethically indefensible"
Wall Street Journal June 13, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121336637192571721.html
Excerpts include:
The biofuel craze, egged on by global warming activists, has helped fuel a huge agricultural crisis.
If there's one certainty, it is this: The production of biofuels has stimulated a massive, and destructive, reorientation of the world's agriculture markets. The U.S. Department of Energy calculates that every 10,000 liters of water produces as little as five liters of ethanol, or one to two liters of biodiesel. Biofuels are economical nonsense, ecologically useless and ethically indefensible.
The world's agriculture and water crisis is only going to get worse. As China and India grow, their populations are demanding more and wider varieties of food stuffs, and competition for arable land is intensifying. Food prices are rising, in large part because agriculture suppliers can barely keep up with today's demand
So what is the world doing? Reorienting land away from food production and toward plants cultivated for energy needs. This could be the single most destructive set of policy mistakes made in a generation. From time immemorial, mankind has struggled to produce enough food.
So why introduce a new competitor for this scarce resource? The blame falls squarely on global warming advocates.
Wall Street Journal June 13, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121336637192571721.html
Excerpts include:
The biofuel craze, egged on by global warming activists, has helped fuel a huge agricultural crisis.
If there's one certainty, it is this: The production of biofuels has stimulated a massive, and destructive, reorientation of the world's agriculture markets. The U.S. Department of Energy calculates that every 10,000 liters of water produces as little as five liters of ethanol, or one to two liters of biodiesel. Biofuels are economical nonsense, ecologically useless and ethically indefensible.
The world's agriculture and water crisis is only going to get worse. As China and India grow, their populations are demanding more and wider varieties of food stuffs, and competition for arable land is intensifying. Food prices are rising, in large part because agriculture suppliers can barely keep up with today's demand
So what is the world doing? Reorienting land away from food production and toward plants cultivated for energy needs. This could be the single most destructive set of policy mistakes made in a generation. From time immemorial, mankind has struggled to produce enough food.
So why introduce a new competitor for this scarce resource? The blame falls squarely on global warming advocates.
Crop Production Data - Wheat
Interesting data from USDA
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Baseline/crops.htm
I find the USDA wheat projections confusing. They indicate increased output ("Projected 2008 production, at 2,432 million bushels, is up 365 million bushels from 2007"), but the details for June 12 state:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/WHS/WHS-06-12-2008.pdf
The National Agricultural Statistics Service’s (NASS) Crop Production reported that
winter wheat heading progress as of June 1 was behind normal due primarily to below normal
temperatures throughout the spring growing season.
NASS Crop Progress reported that as of June 8, 98 percent of the spring wheat had
emerged, slightly better than the 5-year average. Sixty-three percent of the spring wheat
crop was rated good to excellent and only 4 percent reported as poor to very poor. A year
ago at this date, 81 percent of the spring wheat crop was rated good to excellent and 5
percent poor to very poor.
They also note:
In Canada a cold spring delayed planting and dryness persisted in some areas,
trimming yield prospects.
Argentina’s 2008/09
production prospects were reduced 0.5 million tons to 14.5 million tons due to dry
conditions during planting.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Baseline/crops.htm
I find the USDA wheat projections confusing. They indicate increased output ("Projected 2008 production, at 2,432 million bushels, is up 365 million bushels from 2007"), but the details for June 12 state:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/WHS/WHS-06-12-2008.pdf
The National Agricultural Statistics Service’s (NASS) Crop Production reported that
winter wheat heading progress as of June 1 was behind normal due primarily to below normal
temperatures throughout the spring growing season.
NASS Crop Progress reported that as of June 8, 98 percent of the spring wheat had
emerged, slightly better than the 5-year average. Sixty-three percent of the spring wheat
crop was rated good to excellent and only 4 percent reported as poor to very poor. A year
ago at this date, 81 percent of the spring wheat crop was rated good to excellent and 5
percent poor to very poor.
They also note:
In Canada a cold spring delayed planting and dryness persisted in some areas,
trimming yield prospects.
Argentina’s 2008/09
production prospects were reduced 0.5 million tons to 14.5 million tons due to dry
conditions during planting.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Ethanol Fuel From Corn Faulted As "Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning"
We had some insights years back
Science Daily 2001
"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published in September, 2001 in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .
o An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels
o The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented.
o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."
"Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water.
Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices,
Science Daily 2001
"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published in September, 2001 in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .
o An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels
o The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented.
o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."
"Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water.
Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices,
o The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.
o If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.
Energy Balance on Ethanol
Interesting article from Science Daily July 2005
Some excerpts include:
Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornelland Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley,
Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, . "These strategies are not sustainable."
"The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production (little going to farmers) when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming,"
They considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.
Some excerpts include:
Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornelland Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley,
Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, . "These strategies are not sustainable."
"The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production (little going to farmers) when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming,"
They considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
* corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
* wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
* soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
* sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)