Corn Can't Solve Our Problem [Wash. Post]

[Slow Train]

ETHANOL HYPE
Corn Can't Solve Our Problem
By David Tilman and Jason Hill
Sunday, March 25, 2007; Page B01


The world has come full circle. A century ago our first transportation biofuels -- the hay and oats fed to our horses -- were replaced by gasoline. Today, ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans have begun edging out gasoline and diesel.

This has been hailed as an overwhelmingly positive development that will help us reduce the threat of climate change and ease our dependence on foreign oil. In political circles, ethanol is the flavor of the day, and presidential candidates have been cycling through Iowa extolling its benefits. Lost in the ethanol-induced euphoria, however, is the fact that three of our most fundamental needs -- food, energy, and a livable and sustainable environment -- are now in direct conflict. Moreover, our recent analyses of the full costs and benefits of various biofuels, performed at the University of Minnesota, present a markedly different and more nuanced picture than has been heard on the campaign trail.

Corn Can't Solve Our Problem (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301625.html)


xoxoxoxoxox

[Slow Train]

Also see this transcript of an online discusion with one of the authors of the article:

Outlook: The Negligible Benefits of Food-Based Biofuels (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/23/DI2007032301354.html)

[wahoonc]

One word DUH! now when will the politicians stop their kneejerk reactions and realize that this is not the magic pill. That the only thing that is a sure bet is CONSERVATION! and pass laws to back it up. where's the friggin' rant button;)

Aaron:)

[Roody]

Picking up on Aaron's remarks, here's a couple comments about the article from the Washington Post forum (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007032301625). These talk about a role for bikes:



Righ you are, walkerbert. Picking up on your theme, imagine what applying sweat equity and midnight oil to the problem of increased energy use efficiency and reduced use might produce? Might be a good alternative to trying to produce what we currently use. Imagine if everybody also figured out ways to use, perhaps, 50 percent less energy than they do now while also making some of their own. Or plug in your own percentage. Probably a better scenario than what I outlined above with the ethanol acreage numbers.
By billmosby | Mar 25, 2007 6:38:40 AM |


This is a more decent analysis than anything Ive heard from the Bush administration. But look what Paris is doing with bicycles - 20,600 bikes at 1,450 stations -- or about one station every 250 yards across the entire city. It has completely transformed the landscape of Lyon. The program was meant not just to modify the equilibrium between the modes of transportation and reduce air pollution, but also to modify the image of the city and to have a city where humans occupy a larger space. It could change Californias suburban sprawl and smog image -- make it quieter, less polluted, with a nicer atmosphere, a better way of life. A recent study analyzed different trips in the city with a car, bike, taxi and walking, and the bikes were always the fastest. Its faster than the car or metro, its good exercise, and its almost free.
By open | Mar 25, 2007 7:27:43 AM |

Bicycles are one example of the kind of lifestyle change that would make a difference to the energy picture. I use mine whenever I can, but find myself slipping back into car mode if I think I don*t have enough time to bike. In truth, the time savings is usually small to nonexistent for the short trips I*m thinking about. For the population in general, it*s hard to imagine very many people bicycling until fuel gets a lot more expensive. But we can hope, I suppose.
By billmosby | Mar 25, 2007 7:56:38 AM |

[donnamb]

Amen, my brothers...

[Roody]

BTW, Slow Train, that's the best article on energy policy that I've read in a long time. Thanks for sharing it with us! :)

[krazygluon]

Linear thinking like this is exactly the problem that started the "ethanol frenzy" to begin with. People (politicians or otherwise) have to look at things cyclically (pun completely intended)

corn sucks for EtOH production; at least soy's just a mediocre feedstock for Biodiesel.

For biofuels to work you've got to have at least 2 feedstocks that can be crop-rotated to start to take care of the renewability issue, then you've got to feed that into a fuel production scheme with a minimal energy input and have a utilization mechanism (read: engine) that consumes them at maximum efficiency. Burning corn ethanol in a spark ignition ingine is just a bad idea by this route.

[le brad]

Does anyone know if the corn grown for ethanol is the same corn as the corn we eat? So at least when ethanol reveals itself to be a crapshoot we can at least do something with massive over abundance of corn.

[Roody]

Does anyone know if the corn grown for ethanol is the same corn as the corn we eat? So at least when ethanol reveals itself to be a crapshoot we can at least do something with massive over abundance of corn.
No. The corn we humans eat is called sweet corn, at least around here. The corn used for ETOH is field corn or feed corn. I think it's the same as what our cattle, swine and poultry eat, at least so far. They are already developing special genetically engineered varieties of corn to be used for ETOH production, IIRC.

[Roody]

I have a technical question I hope somebody can answer:

Do they use only the corn seeds or kernels when they make ethanol? It seems that they could put the leaves into the distillery and burn the stalks and cobs to fuel the process.

(Actually it might be more efficient to just burn the corn kernels to generate electricity, rather than making them into ethanol. Then use the electricity to power plug-in cars.)

[wahoonc]

No. The corn we humans eat is called sweet corn, at least around here. The corn used for ETOH is field corn or feed corn. I think it's the same as what our cattle, swine and poultry eat, at least so far. They are already developing special genetically engineered varieties of corn to be used for ETOH production, IIRC.
That is correct, with the other rub being that the land that is being used to grow the ETOH corn is not available for food crop production.

Aaron:)

[LandLuger]

More importantly, what does this knowledge tell you about our elected officials.

[Platy]

If the goal is to maintain car culture for a little while longer at any cost, corn ethanol is the obvious thing to do.

[pedex]

I have a technical question I hope somebody can answer:

Do they use only the corn seeds or kernels when they make ethanol? It seems that they could put the leaves into the distillery and burn the stalks and cobs to fuel the process.

(Actually it might be more efficient to just burn the corn kernels to generate electricity, rather than making them into ethanol. Then use the electricity to power plug-in cars.)

plant material other than the seeds isnt usually used because it requires and extra step to break the lignin to release the starches contained within

in some places like brazil they do make use of the "waste" to run the boilers to distill the ethanol and run the operation, but thats with sugar cane which is about 6 times better than corn as a feedstock

so far cellulosic ethanol is a dead end

[JeffS]

But that isn't the case for sugar-cane ethanol or soybean biodiesel from Brazil's newly cleared lands, including tropical forests and savannas. Clearing land releases immense amounts of greenhouse gases into the air, because much of the material in the plants and soil is broken down into carbon dioxide.

Land clearing/burning has always been my biggest concern with biofuels - other than the fact that it's a half-ass answer to start with.

[jeff-o]

Hahaha, now that the idea of a hydrogen fuel cell in every car has sputtered out, I suppose they had to find a new "baby" to trumpet as the saviour of car culture.

[Artkansas]

One word DUH!That the only thing that is a sure bet is CONSERVATION! and pass laws to back it up. Aaron:)

Nope, conservation won't do it. It will help, but without answering the population problem, conservation will only slow things a bit.

[wahoonc]

Nope, conservation won't do it. It will help, but without answering the population problem, conservation will only slow things a bit.

If we were to mandate and enforce reasonable speed limits, and tax people for driving over a certain number of miles a year, tax the crap out of vehicles that get less than a target mileage, etc, etc we would conserve enough fuel to keep us going while we work out the issues. I have seen somewhere that if all incandescent bulbs were replaced with compact fluorescents we would cut our total electric power consumption by over 1/3. Imagine not having to build new power plants...No one says it will be easy or painless, but doing nothing is going to generate the worst results.

Aaron:)

[Roody]

If we were to mandate and enforce reasonable speed limits, and tax people for driving over a certain number of miles a year, tax the crap out of vehicles that get less than a target mileage, etc, etc we would conserve enough fuel to keep us going while we work out the issues. I have seen somewhere that if all incandescent bulbs were replaced with compact fluorescents we would cut our total electric power consumption by over 1/3. Imagine not having to build new power plants...No one says it will be easy or painless, but doing nothing is going to generate the worst results.

Aaron:)
I'm with you on this one. Conservation already has worked in that the growth in demand for energy is far less than what was predicted in the 1960s. However, we're now slipping back and demand is starting to grow at a faster pace. We need to get back to the spirit of the late 1970s--especially turn back thermostats and buy lighter cars (or of course NO cars!). Combining old-fashioned conservation with better technology -- more effective insulation, lightweight building materials, etc -- we very well could see negative growth in consumption without too much sacrifice. And that's taking into account projected increases in population.

[Roody]

Nope, conservation won't do it. It will help, but without answering the population problem, conservation will only slow things a bit.
Population is only a temporary problem. The developed world is already into negative population growth, or nearly there. The US would have negative growth if it were not for immigration. Birth rates are declining in many regions of the developing world also. Annual population increments rose rapidly in the first half of the 20th century, but are falling just as rapidly since about the 1960s. The UN predicts (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf) that world population, currently over 6 billion, will stabilize at 10 billion in about 150 years. Most long-term predictions are for a slowly declining number of people in the centuries after the 10 billion mark is reached.

That's still a lot of people, and it remains to be seen if those numbers can be sustained for several generations. Obviously we need to be doing much better in terms of conservation, political stability, income equity and development of new technology.

[le brad]

No. The corn we humans eat is called sweet corn, at least around here. The corn used for ETOH is field corn or feed corn. I think it's the same as what our cattle, swine and poultry eat, at least so far. They are already developing special genetically engineered varieties of corn to be used for ETOH production, IIRC.

Thats what I figured. So eventually 90% of our farmland will be filled with inedible corn, the soil probably poisoned since I'm sure since nobody is eating they really go with the heavy stuff as far as pesticides go.

[Roody]

Thats what I figured. So eventually 90% of our farmland will be filled with inedible corn, the soil probably poisoned since I'm sure since nobody is eating they really go with the heavy stuff as far as pesticides go.
I'm not a farmer, but I don't think they'll go heavier on pesticides or herbicides as the chemicals are very expensive. But intensive industrial agriculture isn't very good for the land, that's for sure.

[Slow Train]

I have a technical question I hope somebody can answer:

Do they use only the corn seeds or kernels when they make ethanol? It seems that they could put the leaves into the distillery and burn the stalks and cobs to fuel the process.

From the transcript of the online interview:

Bethesda, MD: Dr. Tilman, I've enjoyed reading your papers over the years. You mentioned that in Brazil they burn the remainder of the sugar cane plants to power the ethanol stills. Other than the air pollution problems, is there any reason why they couldn't use the cornstalks instead of oil products to distill corn ethanol?

David Tilman: There are two currently unanswered questions about this matter. First, corn stalks add carbon back to the soil. If they are burned, soil carbon levels will fall, harming soil fertility and increasing the levels of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Second, corn stalks form a soil surface mulch that help prevent soil erosion, which is a critical part of sustainable agriculture.

As things stand, I think it unwise to remove the stalks and use them for energy.

[Slow Train]

I have seen somewhere that if all incandescent bulbs were replaced with compact fluorescents we would cut our total electric power consumption by over 1/3. Imagine not having to build new power plants...No one says it will be easy or painless, but doing nothing is going to generate the worst results.

Aaron:)

I think there is a proposal in the Maryland legislature to end the sale of incandescent bulbs. If it comes about I can just see the cars coming back from North Carolina loaded with cigarettes and, now, light bulbs

[kevink159]

Just 2 points. The light bulb thing is an urban legend. It may be possible to cut residential use by 1/3 (I am not sure if I believe that even) but commercial and industrial use far more power than residential and when they are factored in light bulbs are VERY small potatoes. The corn humans eat is sweet corn, but the corn that is made into corn meal, corn flower, corn oil, pretty much anything except whole kernal corn, is all field corn. The total amout of sweet corn eaten by humans is roughly 5% of total corn production in the U.S., before the ethanhol boom. The price paid to farmers for field corn is up about 50% in 2 years. It is an absolute fact that in 1 or 2 more years (after all the ethanhol plants under construction are on line) that the US will be starving off poorer countries so we can produce fuel.

[randya]

If the goal is to maintain car culture for a little while longer at any cost, corn ethanol is the obvious thing to do.
Actually sugar cane works a lot better than corn but the end result is the same, it's no more sustainable than fossil fuels.

[lyeinyoureye]

Actually sugar cane works a lot better than corn but the end result is the same, it's no more sustainable than fossil fuels.

Depends on the scale and agricultural techniques imo. Course, nothing is actually sustainable. Protons are supposed to decay in a scant 10^72 years. ;)

[Tom Stormcrowe]

I'm not actually sure there is a true "sustainable" fuel source. We will always grow to the capacity of our resources, energy included and beyond. It's the nature of all life as it rises to dominance. PLace any animal in an environment of plenty and a lack of predators and overpopulation invariable results. The only difference between man and other animals is that we have the intellectual capacity to recognize this and arrive at a solution short of a Malthusian type, if we pull our heads out of the sand and look at the situation in a rational manner.

I'm not advocating technology=bad and back to nature=good, either! I do advocate use of technology as an ongoing stopgap, but remember also that eventually we'll stumble. This is part of a natural cycle also, IMHO. The only real alternative is to maintain a scale of usage that will allow us to continue a comfortable existence without consuming our children's share.

[Roody]

. . . . The price paid to farmers for field corn is up about 50% in 2 years. . . .
Bingo! That's what it's all about. Higher prices for corn farmers, ADM, DuPont, Dow and Monsanto. There is no other sensible reason to turn corn into ethanol.

Now the dairy, meat and poultry concerns are up in arms about the high prices they're paying for livestock feed. Not to mention the poor tortilla eaters in Mexico.

[Platy]

Bingo! That's what it's all about. Higher prices for corn farmers, ADM, DuPont, Dow and Monsanto. There is no other sensible reason to turn corn into ethanol.
Hmm. Hypothetically, if the government knew for a fact that, say, Saudi Arabia was looking at a drop in oil production on the order of a couple of million barrels per day due to, oh I don't know, water breakthrough in the North Ghawar fields, it would make perfect sense to try to plug a gap of that size with a crash program for corn ethanol. Or it could be a foreseeable and imminent oil production shortfall by another producer such as maybe Mexico.

[Roody]

Hmm. Hypothetically, if the government knew for a fact that, say, Saudi Arabia was looking at a drop in oil production on the order of a couple of million barrels per day due to, oh I don't know, water breakthrough in the North Ghawar fields, it would make perfect sense to try to plug a gap of that size with a crash program for corn ethanol. Or it could be a foreseeable and imminent oil production shortfall by another producer such as maybe Mexico.
The "government" in this case is probably just a handful of lobbyists in Washington and the state capitols, shills for agriculture and the chemical industry. I don't think that we have anything approaching a comprehensive energy policy that plans for contingencies like the ones you mentioned.

[Artkansas]

Or it could be a foreseeable and imminent oil production shortfall by another producer such as maybe Mexico.


Or revenge for the immigration problem. Already tortilla prices have gone through the roof in Mexico because of ethanol production.

[LandLuger]

Or revenge for the immigration problem. Already tortilla prices have gone through the roof in Mexico because of ethanol production.

What revenge? Illegal immigration plays an important part in the government's plan of an elite ruling class on top of worldwide serfdom.

[le brad]

What revenge? Illegal immigration plays an important part in the government's plan of an elite ruling class on top of worldwide serfdom.

exactly. If we don't have illegal immigrants who else are we going to pay disgusting wages to do backbreaking labor?

[TurdFerguson2]

exactly. If we don't have illegal immigrants who else are we going to pay disgusting wages to do backbreaking labor?

Americans? When the economy collapses because of the reliance on oil.

[Slow Train]

Farmers to Plant Most Amount of Corn Since ’44

By ANDREW MARTIN
Published: March 31, 2007

American farmers are planning to plant more corn this year than anytime since World War II, as farmers rush to cash in on high prices bolstered by the demand for ethanol.

The Department of Agriculture released a report today on prospective plantings that estimated U.S. farmers will plant 90.5 million acres of corn, a 15 percent increase over last year and the most since 1944.

Farmers to Plant Most Amount of Corn Since ’44 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/business/31corn.web.html?ref=business)


And so it begins, food for fuel ...

[krazygluon]

Nothing is probably sustainable for a planet of 7+billion people living in suburbs driving everywhere.
But I HIGHLY doubt that we'll have a problem achieving sustainability if we get population growth in line, let the baby boom generations die off and switch to a diverse mix of alt energy...oh and the world fleet will have to drop by at least 50% which can be acheived through socially engineering the car out of the equation in most people's lives.

It can be done, we can survive...but the bulk of US don't want to do the necessary steps or live in the future that will be created because we enjoy all the fun toys we have now. Then again there was a saying: "as a child I did childish things but as a man..." the western world has to grow up.

[Roody]

Make your house as energy efficient as possible.
If you can, generate some or all your own electricity.
Use human bowered transportation more. Walk and especially--ride your bike!

[WishYouWasMe]

Bingo! That's what it's all about. Higher prices for corn farmers, ADM, DuPont, Dow and Monsanto. There is no other sensible reason to turn corn into ethanol.

Now the dairy, meat and poultry concerns are up in arms about the high prices they're paying for livestock feed. Not to mention the poor tortilla eaters in Mexico.

But animals dont eat GRAIN for food. They have to feed the animals antibiotics and hormones just so they can digest and grow from that stuff. Plus majority of US corn is GE and in Mexico US corn is growing all over the place uncontrollably. Biotech farming is dumb and shouldnt be done...its just a way for tech companies to make more money...just like margarine and veggie oil(waste from the cotton/rapeseed industries)

Does anyone here know that ALL canola oil contains a carcinogen called Eucric Acid or something like that? You cant even eat rapeseeds because they contain HIGH amounts of this...canola is made from GE rapeseed with only 5-10% eucric acid content.

[JeffS]

Correct spelling is Erucic acid - in case anyone wanted to research. I thought it was just a "suspected" carcinogen, although it's had known health issues since at least the 70's.

By now, you would think people would realize that all these artificial "healthy" foods are nothing but an attempt to separate you from your money.

[ChipSeal]

"(Actually it might be more efficient to just burn the corn kernels to generate electricity, rather than making them into ethanol. Then use the electricity to power plug-in cars.)"

Perhaps we should build nuclear power plants, and switch to plug in cars. Next to no carbon emissions.

[ChipSeal]

"The Department of Agriculture released a report today on prospective plantings that estimated U.S. farmers will plant 90.5 million acres of corn, a 15 percent increase over last year and the most since 1944"

I predict that the prices of soybeans, rapeseed, sorghum, canola, sunflower, safflower, and all other oil seeds go up this year!

[Mos6502]

Truth is you can make ethanol from just about anything. Corn is far from ideal, it's slow to grow and it relatively expensive. You can make ethanol from weeds, which will grow much faster and with little water, and practically no care whatsoever. The more sugary the better (Brazil uses sugar cane, which would be ideal if everybody had the climate Brazil does) and there are weeds which contain lots of sugars. I have a book somewhere from the 70's that is all about the production of ethanol - it explains many alternatives to corn.
The only reason we're hung up on corn is because of the farmers and the politcians seeking their votes.

Nobody considers the long term prospects.

[LandLuger]

Perhaps we should build nuclear power plants, and switch to plug in cars. Next to no carbon emissions.

That's how the frogs do it, anyway.

[Mos6502]

Here's but one example of a plant far better suited to alcohol production than corn:

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q287/berangberang/image0-1-4.jpg

From The Alcohol Fuel Book by R.C. Seratt.

It's really sad that the public is getting fed all this garbage about alcohol - it'll cost too much to make, it takes too much energry, it'll take away from food supplies, etc. etc.

Their are other plants too, sugar beats for instance which can also be used in place of corn. (Sugar beats of course not be planted in the same place year after year though)

[Roody]

It's really sad that the public is getting fed all this garbage about alcohol - it'll cost too much to make, it takes too much energry, it'll take away from food supplies, etc. etc.

Their are other plants too, sugar beats for instance which can also be used in place of corn. (Sugar beats of course not be planted in the same place year after year though)
Are you sure it's all "garbage"? As the linked article pointed out, any crop grown for ETOH requires land. To grow lots more crops, we need to clear lots more land. Three big problems with that:

Clearing land releases carbon dioxide and methane (both greenhouse gases) from the soils and from the cleared vegetation. This negates tthe benefits of ethanol production for at least 25 years, according to the article. The only way around this problem is to use land that's already cleared, but then you're back to reducing food crops.
You have to use land for ETOH crops that are currently servving other purposes, including food crops, recreation and wilderness preservation.
By eliminating natural vegetation, you're contributing to habitat loss and extinction of non-human species.In short, I'm thinking that ETOH production is anything but sustainable, and arguments against it are anything but "garbage."

[wahoonc]

I will second the Jerusalem artichoke that crap will grow any where, so we plant the interstate medians, shoulders and interchanges with it:D

Aaron:)

[Roody]

I will second the Jerusalem artichoke that crap will grow any where, so we plant the interstate medians, shoulders and interchanges with it:D

Aaron:)
And don't forget a few square blocks in Highland Park! :)

Seriously, I can see ETOH, grown in already cleared land that isn't being used to grow food, as one small piece of the solution. The hard part is being sensible about it, to avoid using it to make the overall problems worse. Fuel shortage is one piece of the problem of living successfully on the Earth; we mustn't forget about the big picture.

[Mos6502]

Are you sure it's all "garbage"? As the linked article pointed out, any crop grown for ETOH requires land. To grow lots more crops, we need to clear lots more land. Three big problems with that:

Clearing land releases carbon dioxide and methane (both greenhouse gases) from the soils and from the cleared vegetation. This negates tthe benefits of ethanol production for at least 25 years, according to the article. The only way around this problem is to use land that's already cleared, but then you're back to reducing food crops.
You have to use land for ETOH crops that are currently servving other purposes, including food crops, recreation and wilderness preservation.
By eliminating natural vegetation, you're contributing to habitat loss and extinction of non-human species.In short, I'm thinking that ETOH production is anything but sustainable, and arguments against it are anything but "garbage."

See, but I was pointing out that with some plants it is possible to get twice as much alcohol per acre than it is with corn. This of course means that you can produce the same ammount of fuel with half as much land, so switching from corn to the jerusalem artichoke could in effect actually free up land instead of take more of it up. So yeah I still consider it garbage info.

[Roody]

See, but I was pointing out that with some plants it is possible to get twice as much alcohol per acre than it is with corn. This of course means that you can produce the same ammount of fuel with half as much land, so switching from corn to the jerusalem artichoke could in effect actually free up land instead of take more of it up. So yeah I still consider it garbage info.
Gotcha. Obviously corn is just short-sighted BS from politicians who need the agricultural vote and the campaign contributions from the agri-chemical corporations.

Still, regardless of crop source, ETOH is not going to be a major player in solving energy or global warming problems, for the many reasons listed in this thread and especially in the OP-linked article. Not now, not ever, IMO.