05 Jun 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfI remember reading that. There's one glaring omission: how are they going to fertilise the corn? Today's fertilisers use large amounts of methane in a process that consumes a heck of a lot of energy. Producing corn in the US currently consumes more energy than it gives out, so if we we'll be exacerbating the problem we're trying to solve unless we can find a better way of producing the corn.
http://tinyurl.com/2dz6et
Interesting read.
05 Jun 07
Originally posted by mrstabbycan you point me in the direction of information about these fertilizers? Are there not alternatives that are not so methane/energy consuming?
I remember reading that. There's one glaring omission: how are they going to fertilise the corn? Today's fertilisers use large amounts of methane in a process that consumes a heck of a lot of energy. Producing corn in the US currently consumes more energy than it gives out, so if we we'll be exacerbating the problem we're trying to solve unless we can find a better way of producing the corn.
You'd think that, if it cost more energy in fertilizers than it created, the business plan would never have got off the ground because you'd be consuming more money than you create...
05 Jun 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakIt has gotten off the ground because it is heavily subsidized.
can you point me in the direction of information about these fertilizers? Are there not alternatives that are not so methane/energy consuming?
You'd think that, if it cost more energy in fertilizers than it created, the business plan would never have got off the ground because you'd be consuming more money than you create...
05 Jun 07
Originally posted by MerkI can understand that the research will be heavily subsidised, but obviously no business will get picked up if it both loses more energy/fuel than it creates and is environmentally destructive...
It has gotten off the ground because it is heavily subsidized.
I would still be interested in information about the energy cost of the fertilizers if anyone has it.
05 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakIt's no the research that's being subsidized. Well, I'm sure it is also, but that's not what's making it profitable. The last time I check, 2-3 years ago, in Minnesota, ethanol was subsidized at about $1.00 a gallon.
I can understand that the research will be heavily subsidised, but obviously no business will get picked up if it both loses more energy/fuel than it creates and is environmentally destructive...
I would still be interested in information about the energy cost of the fertilizers if anyone has it.
05 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakIt depends heavily on the research as NS said, and after a quick search, turns out the consensus is that there is a net energy gain from using fertilisers. I'd read a few to the contrary and hadn't yet made the effort to find a review.
can you point me in the direction of information about these fertilizers? Are there not alternatives that are not so methane/energy consuming?
You'd think that, if it cost more energy in fertilizers than it created, the business plan would never have got off the ground because you'd be consuming more money than you create...
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf
This review concludes that you get 1.37 calories out per calorie in, which considering the amount of natural gas involved is pretty crap, even if they say the gain is significant, it still needs a massive input. The alternatives may simply not produce enough corn, and they are still in development. We are taking a risk in the biotechnology getting off the ground quickly enough (e.g. genetically engineering corn to make it leguminous so it doesn't need the nitrogen fertiliser) before fuel prices rise. Even if it does, the price of those GM crops will be high. I'm not sure how easy it would be for agriculture to stop using fertilisers.
The price of corn is already near tipping point according to this study:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/20/iowa-state-university-u-s-near-tipping-point-in-corn-based-eth/
The business plan is fine, because of agricultural subsidies, and I'd guess that a calorie equivalent of corn can be sold for more than a calorie equivalent of oil. Economically sound, but not energetically.
05 Jun 07
It still doesn't add up that someone would launch a product that:
1) created a net loss if fuel
2) was therefore more environmentally damaging than using the original fuel
There are many reasons why feul might be subsidised. For example, who's going to pay to convert their car to take ethanol when the conversion doesn't then save you any money - so the government subsidises the price to encourage the switch. Or the government sees benefit in propping up the corn industry by subsidising the fuel it can create.
If there is no business or environmental benefit in the fuel why would it be promoted. What are you suggesting their agenda is?
05 Jun 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakI don't mean to suggest that the industries sole reason to exist is to soak up tax dollars. My suggestions is that it doesn't have the promise it was thought to have.
It still doesn't add up that someone would launch a product that:
1) created a net loss if fuel
2) was therefore more environmentally damaging than using the original fuel
There are many reasons why feul might be subsidised. For example, who's going to pay to convert their car to take ethanol when the conversion doesn't then save you any money - so ...[text shortened]... mental benefit in the fuel why would it be promoted. What are you suggesting their agenda is?
05 Jun 07
Originally posted by belgianfreak1) Turns out it doesn't, I corrected that. It doesn't solve the problem of fossil fuel dependence.
It still doesn't add up that someone would launch a product that:
1) created a net loss if fuel
2) was therefore more environmentally damaging than using the original fuel
There are many reasons why feul might be subsidised. For example, who's going to pay to convert their car to take ethanol when the conversion doesn't then save you any money - so ...[text shortened]... mental benefit in the fuel why would it be promoted. What are you suggesting their agenda is?
2) It sounds environmentally good to a lot of people, but it turns out to make a lot more business sense than environmental. Instead of burning fossil fuels we turn everywhere into cornfields, which take up less CO2 and more water than, say, forestland.
The government pumped lots of money into producing corn due to pressure from cocacola/pepsico so that it could buy corn at a cheaper price. I'd wager that there is a business motive.
05 Jun 07
Originally posted by mrstabbycheers - I appreciate you hunting that out.
It depends heavily on the research as NS said, and after a quick search, turns out the consensus is that there is a net energy gain from using fertilisers. I'd read a few to the contrary and hadn't yet made the effort to find a review.
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf
This review concludes that you get 1.37 calories out per calorie in, ...[text shortened]... sold for more than a calorie equivalent of oil. Economically sound, but not energetically.
So, in brief, there is (depending on the report you believe) a 37% increase in the fuel got out compared to the fuel put in? Depending on work involved in the process, isn't a 37% increase pretty good?
This of course won't help when methane runs out, but I thought methane was in pretty good supply (just no use for fueling cars). And won't it help slow the rate at which it runs out?
05 Jun 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakIt is a way of using the energy in methane more efficiently, but in the process of converting it to ethanol we're going to do the environment a lot of damage.
cheers - I appreciate you hunting that out.
So, in brief, there is (depending on the report you believe) a 37% increase in the fuel got out compared to the fuel put in? Depending on work involved in the process, isn't a 37% increase pretty good?
This of course won't help when methane runs out, but I thought methane was in pretty good supply (just no use for fueling cars). And won't it help slow the rate at which it runs out?
05 Jun 07
Originally posted by mrstabbysorry of it seems like I'm ignoring you - each time I've answered your post you've posted again before I've finished, meaning that I've not been responding to the latest information you've provided. Hopefully I've caught up now.
It is a way of using the energy in methane more efficiently, but in the process of converting it to ethanol we're going to do the environment a lot of damage.
I can see how biofuels might be a good economic plan in a pseudo-environmental wrapper - it's always a good idea to look beneath the surface of claims like this and I'm glad you've pointed the potential flaws out to me.
So, is growing extra corn a bad thing?
Would the land really have been forest before hand? On face value it would seems likely that any viable land is already agricultural?
Would Western corn be used more in the West, reducing food dumping and it's harmful economic effects on the 3rd world?
05 Jun 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakNah, tis ok, realised that after I posted, you're up to date 😉
sorry of it seems like I'm ignoring you - each time I've answered your post you've posted again before I've finished, meaning that I've not been responding to the latest information you've provided. Hopefully I've caught up now.
I can see how biofuels might be a good economic plan in a pseudo-environmental wrapper - it's always a good idea to look be ...[text shortened]... the West, reducing food dumping and it's harmful economic effects on the 3rd world?
I used forestland as an example of more fertile land that would be replaced by farmland. Taking over less fertile land than that required for corn would take a very much time and effort, and so fertile land is generally taken over by agriculture. There is viable land left, but it may be soaking up more CO2 than a corn field would.
There would be an emphasis on producing more inedible corn (which must be processed before consumption, usually into corn syrup), though I wouldn't know whether or not edible corn would be replaced by the inedible variety. Agriculture would certainly be more skewed towards fuel rather than food, and this may result in less food dumping, so I guess some good may come out of this for the 3rd world. Kinda suicidal for the first world on the other hand.
06 Jun 07
The US seems to be obsessed with avoiding electric cars. There seems to be something about electric cars that scares the hell out of American business. I see article after article in top science magazines talking about the coming 'Hydrogen economy' and hydrogen fuel cells and biofuels etc etc and a little note at the end pointing out that an electric car is a better idea and that switching to biofuels and hydrogen is not the best route.
As for corn based biofuels, I saw an article once that said that prairie grass was a much more effective way of producing biofuels though the method for extracting ethanol from it had not yet been perfected.
Apparently prarie grass needs less fertilizer and is better than corn for the land and the environment in a number of ways.
The reason why Corn based biofuels are cheap is massive farm subsidies which means that even if there is a net loss of energy its still works out profitably though it is effectively just soaking up tax dollars to keep farmers at work using up energy.