http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon103007.gif

It's unlikely that will happen, ethanol made from corn is old news.

The research now is concentrating on using the inedible portion of corn and other plants to produce ethanol. Cellulose is found in abundance in plants and will probably result in the price of food actually descreasing, as farmers increase the amount of crop they grow in order to produce more for fuel production.

Wow, cars are the devil. :rolleyes:

I must admit to being partial to biodiesel, at least then everyone has had use of the corn before it gets made into fuel.

It's unlikely that will happen, ethanol made from corn is old news.

The research now is concentrating on using the inedible portion of corn and other plants to produce ethanol. Cellulose is found in abundance in plants and will probably result in the price of food actually descreasing, as farmers increase the amount of crop they grow in order to produce more for fuel production.
I don't know much about this process, but I have some questions/concerns. Maybe you (or anybody) could address these.

Where are they actually making this celluosic ethanol? My understanding is that it isn't feasible at this time. I believe they're having trouble with finding enzymes that will convert the cellulose to sugars that can be fermented.
Don't some farmers currently rely on inedible parts of the corn to enrich the soil for next year's crop (no-till planting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_till))? It seems that food prices might be higher if they have to use more fertilizer, which is quite expensive, to replace the corn stalks. Most fertilizer is produced from natural gas and the manufacturing process releases carbon. We could be getting into the situation where you're using more fossil fuel to grow the corn than you're saving by converting to ethanol. Also, some people say that leaving the corn stalks in the ground actually sequesters some carbon, while burning corn stalks as ethanol would release that carbon into the atmosphere.
And don't they also feed some of the inedible parts of corn (silage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silage)) to cattle and hogs? It's possible that meat prices will be higher if they have to feed animals something more expensive than corn silage. So we're possibly getting back to the problem of more expensive food that we're trying to get away from by using the corn stalks in the first place.

I find some of the press hydrogen gets amusing to a certain degree, never mind how hard it would be to mass produce, store, and distribute the hydrogen, just imagine someone driving their "hindenburg" and it gets rearended in rush hour traffic... and people thought Pintos were bad.

Strangely enough I read about this Saturday while waiting in a baber chair for my turn to toss two bits into the can. Here is what I can recall to the best of my ability, granted I could be wrong about the exact numbers of things and wot-not, but it's the best I can do. I can't just open a new browser and search this stuff out (one of the downfalls of using a text-terminal computer).

Where are they actually making this celluosic ethanol? My understanding is that it isn't feasible at this time. I believe they're having trouble with finding enzymes that will convert the cellulose to sugars that can be fermented.

I have read that in China there is at least one large company on a full time basis producing this ethanol in the quantity of 1,500,000 gallons per year.


Don't some farmers currently rely on inedible parts of the corn to enrich the soil for next year's crop (no-till planting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_till))? It seems that food prices might be higher if they have to use more fertilizer, which is quite expensive, to replace the corn stalks. Most fertilizer is produced from natural gas and the manufacturing process releases carbon. We could be getting into the situation where you're using more fossil fuel to grow the corn than you're saving by converting to ethanol. Also, some people say that leaving the corn stalks in the ground actually sequesters some carbon, while burning corn stalks as ethanol would release that carbon into the atmosphere.

Your assumptions are spot on. But my mind tends to lead me to believe that if/when this type of fuel is mass produced for our motoring consumption that unused land will be used and private and public companies will be the ones setting up the "work camp". We do have ALOT of unused land here in the US that would be prime for growing certain grasses and canes that would be ideal for making this fuel. Of course that is just my opinion, I can't see why the government and corporate enteties would cut into the food supply for such a thing.
but you are correct about no-till planting.


And don't they also feed some of the inedible parts of corn (silage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silage)) to cattle and hogs? It's possible that meat prices will be higher if they have to feed animals something more expensive than corn silage. So we're possibly getting back to the problem of more expensive food that we're trying to get away from by using the corn stalks in the first place.
This is why I feel that certain *other* plants will be utilized. I know several types of moss and grass were mentioned in the article I read, I just can not recall any of them.

OK, after spitting all that out in my reply to Roody I was able to actually look up information to either verify or disprove what I tried to recall.
The company in China is part of a Canadian company called SunOpta Inc. but is owned and operated by the Chinese CRAC (Chinese resources alcahol Corporation). How the hell a canadian company child is owned by a chinese company is beyond me at this time, but that's what I just read, anyhow. Their goal is to produce 1.7 million gallons of ethano fuel using the process per year by the end of this year. I know I read that they had produced 1.5 million, so it looks like they might hit their mark.
From what I just read it looks as though they are using switchgrass and woodchips as well as corn droppings (sorry, couldn't help myself there) as their main form of lignocellulose.
Also, something turned up on Wikipedia but I haven't had time to read it yet, I'm still interested in SunOptra and plan on reading more about them after I submit this message. Of course after doing that I'll probably find out that I completely took everything I just read out of context and my above statement will become pur jibberish and incorrect...oh woe is me for posting it too hastely. ;)

OK, after spitting all that out in my reply to Roody I was able to actually look up information to either verify or disprove what I tried to recall.
The company in China is part of a Canadian company called SunOpta Inc. but is owned and operated by the Chinese CRAC (Chinese resources alcahol Corporation). How the hell a canadian company child is owned by a chinese company is beyond me at this time, but that's what I just read, anyhow. Their goal is to produce 1.7 million gallons of ethano fuel using the process per year by the end of this year. I know I read that they had produced 1.5 million, so it looks like they might hit their mark.
From what I just read it looks as though they are using switchgrass and woodchips as well as corn droppings (sorry, couldn't help myself there) as their main form of lignocellulose.
Also, something turned up on Wikipedia but I haven't had time to read it yet, I'm still interested in SunOptra and plan on reading more about them after I submit this message. Of course after doing that I'll probably find out that I completely took everything I just read out of context and my above statement will become pur jibberish and incorrect...oh woe is me for posting it too hastely. ;)

It makes a lot more sense to me to make ethanol from something other than corn, even the inedible parts, but that's what spaceman spiff had mentioned. Of course Bush talked about switchgrass a few years ago, and I saw one article about a company trying to convert algae to ethanol. I am concerned that agriculture is possibly the biggest source of pollution and GHGs in the world already (or possibly second to power generation), and also by far the biggest consumer of dwindling supplies of fresh water. If we are going to switch to celluosic ethanol, we need to address these issues, or they'll turn around and bite us in the butt for sure. What we can do right now is concentrate on conservation and efficiency (Ahem....carfree) while continuing to search for a magic power source that probably doesn't even exist.

It makes a lot more sense to me to make ethanol from something other than corn, even the inedible parts, but that's what spaceman spiff had mentioned. Of course Bush talked about switchgrass a few years ago, and I saw one article about a company trying to convert algae to ethanol. I am concerned that agriculture is possibly the biggest source of pollution and GHGs in the world already (or possibly second to power generation), and also by far the biggest consumer of dwindling supplies of fresh water. If we are going to switch to celluosic ethanol, we need to address these issues, or they'll turn around and bite us in the butt for sure. What we can do right now is concentrate on conservation and efficiency (Ahem....carfree) while continuing to search for a magic power source that probably doesn't even exist.
*nod*

But one problem still remains. No matter what crop is grown for ethanol fuel, the land used to grow it is land that could be used to grow food crops. When we already have problems with hunger and malnutrition in parts of the world. This is no longer an issue affecting just a few countries. It must now be seen as a global issue. Until we begin to address this, it is unethical to use farmland to grow crops which will only be used to fuel our machines.

But one problem still remains. No matter what crop is grown for ethanol fuel, the land used to grow it is land that could be used to grow food crops. When we already have problems with hunger and malnutrition in parts of the world. This is no longer an issue affecting just a few countries. It must now be seen as a global issue. Until we begin to address this, it is unethical to use farmland to grow crops which will only be used to fuel our machines.

We grow plenty of food to feed everybody in the world, and many more besides. Unfortunately, many people are too poor to afford food. That's a political and economic problem, not an agricultural problem. It's a greed thing, not a food thing.

My concern is that using agricultural land to grow fuel will only reinforce the political and economic problem we already have. If the time comes when we have to choose between providing enough food for everyone or having an ethanol fuel source, the overweight people in the affluent West won't be asked to make the sacrifices.

My concern is that using agricultural land to grow fuel will only reinforce the political and economic problem we already have. If the time comes when we have to choose between providing enough food for everyone or having an ethanol fuel source, the overweight people in the affluent West won't be asked to make the sacrifices.

Of course. And there might be localized food shortages even though there probably won't be global shortages. Some economists thought diversion of American corn to ethanol production contributed to higher prices for corn in Mexico, resulting in hardship for some poor Mexicans.

The little guy in the cartoon could always offer to pay more for the food.

One claim that's been thrown on the table in Finnish biodiesel discussions is, there's currently no certificate for sustainable production. Meaning that as Western countries get all excited about biodiesel, rain forests are cut down to provide more farmland to meet the demand. Anyone know if this is really the case (no applicable certificates available)?

--J

The little guy in the cartoon could always offer to pay more for the food.


:o:o:o:o

Who would have thought the point of the cartoon would be so hard to understand?

I understand that if he offers to pay more he eats. And if he doesn't then he starves.

The premise behind the cartoon is that he (the little guy) is somehow entitled to the food, and the big guy is somehow stealing it. The only food that he is entitiled to is food he has grown or bought himself. The big guy doesn't expect the food for free, he expects to pay for it at the pump. If the little guy can't pay, then he shouldn't eat.

I understand that if he offers to pay more he eats. And if he doesn't then he starves.

The premise behind the cartoon is that he (the little guy) is somehow entitled to the food, and the big guy is somehow stealing it. The only food that he is entitiled to is food he has grown or bought himself. The big guy doesn't expect the food for free, he expects to pay for it at the pump. If the little guy can't pay, then he shouldn't eat.

You might want to rephrase this. You make it sound like you think it's OK for some little kid to starve to death so that rich people can continue to drive SUVs. I'm sure that isn't what you mean, but it's what your post sounds like. :)

You might want to rephrase this. You make it sound like you think it's OK for some little kid to starve to death so that rich people can continue to drive SUVs. I'm sure that isn't what you mean, but it's what your post sounds like. :)
Let's not be coy. That's exactly what maddyfish said. I understand where he's coming from and I'm familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of his position. It's a position that many people implicitly support. We have to respect maddyfish for having the integrity to say what he really thinks, instead of doubletalking and waffling around.

The little guy in the cartoon could always offer to pay more for the food.


You assume that the little guy did not already pay for the food. Seems like the suit acknowledges that the corn belongs to the little guy, but is liberating it from him on the basis that he 'the suit', deserves it more.

Nah, the opinion of the free-market diehards is that whoever is willing to pay the most for food should get it, not that a rich guy should get food without being willing to pay the most cash for it.

The free market position here is "the person willing to pay the most should get the item for any use, even if the poor person doesn't have enough money to buy the item to eat it".

The reasoning behind that position is probably 1)that government is incapable of effectively keeping the poor person fed via policy decisions or 2)that government should not keep the poor person fed via policy decision, because the poor person's poverty is his own fault.

In my opinion, reason #1 is entirely wrong. I'd consider reason#2 to be mostly wrong, but the arguments/evidence for and against it are pretty complex.


You assume that the little guy did not already pay for the food. Seems like the suit acknowledges that the corn belongs to the little guy, but is liberating it from him on the basis that he 'the suit', deserves it more.

Powerful.

I find some of the press hydrogen gets amusing to a certain degree, never mind how hard it would be to mass produce, store, and distribute the hydrogen, just imagine someone driving their "hindenburg" and it gets rearended in rush hour traffic... and people thought Pintos were bad.

Running with a tank of hydrogen wouldn't be any more explodable than running with propane or natural gas.Flammable is flammable,just depends on how you store it in the vehicle.It's just a stygma people have about hydrogen due to the Hindenburg disaster.Hydrogen is more than doable.IMHO.

Let's not be coy. That's exactly what maddyfish said. I understand where he's coming from and I'm familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of his position. It's a position that many people implicitly support. We have to respect maddyfish for having the integrity to say what he really thinks, instead of doubletalking and waffling around.

I really doubt that maddyfish meant that it's OK for children to starve for any reason. That kind of thinking is just beyond the pale. Nobody who felt that way would dare to say it out loud. Only the greediest criminal would want an innocent child to starve. But he wouldn't brag about it.

the hindenburg burned cuz it was covered in jet fuel....had nothing to do with the hydrogen...anyway

found this a few yrs ago but nobody has ever heard of it......dont need corn or weeds....just garbage....we have plenty of that

http://www.brienergy.com/index.html

I don't know much about this process, but I have some questions/concerns. Maybe you (or anybody) could address these.


Don't some farmers currently rely on inedible parts of the corn to enrich the soil for next year's crop (no-till planting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_till))? It seems that food prices might be higher if they have to use more fertilizer, which is quite expensive, to replace the corn stalks. Most fertilizer is produced from natural gas and the manufacturing process releases carbon. We could be getting into the situation where you're using more fossil fuel to grow the corn than you're saving by converting to ethanol. Also, some people say that leaving the corn stalks in the ground actually sequesters some carbon, while burning corn stalks as ethanol would release that carbon into the atmosphere.

Generally, the stalks are plowed back in as the soil it tilled for next season. Since it certainly does serve to build up the soil... at least a little... we should be concerned about what would happen if the stalks were suddenly marketable.

My observation in seeing how much land is tilled each year is that nitrogen ferlizers are a remarkable thing, but the soil will have to deplete itself after some time. As well, there's the issue of pollution of rivers from nitrogen run-off. I assume this would only get worse if the corn stalks could be turned into ethanol.

A mysterious circumstance makes me wonder if any of this will ever come to pass. Currently the price of ethanol is not doing so well and a large number of ethanol investors are wondering what's going on. Very odd when you consider the demand for gasoline.

I really doubt that maddyfish meant that it's OK for children to starve for any reason. That kind of thinking is just beyond the pale. Nobody who felt that way would dare to say it out loud. Only the greediest criminal would want an innocent child to starve. But he wouldn't brag about it.
People can rationalize that it's not their fault children might be more hungry simply because they buy ethanol. There is a dilution of responsibility in the food-to-fuel question.

I think there's something a bit wrong with valuing human beings strictly according to economics. But when there aren't enough resources to satisfy all human needs, that's one reasonable way to allocate them.

Personally, I'd rather see conservation play a bigger role in the food/fuel discussion. The question is, how do you weigh an inconvenience to the wealthiest against a catastrophe to the poorest? Is that even a question that can be answered with economics and mathematics, or is it strictly a question of ethics and morality? Could it be possible that many people feel there's no role for ethics and morality in public policy making?

People can rationalize that it's not their fault children might be more hungry simply because they buy ethanol. There is a dilution of responsibility in the food-to-fuel question.

I think there's something a bit wrong with valuing human beings strictly according to economics. But when there aren't enough resources to satisfy all human needs, that's one reasonable way to allocate them.

Personally, I'd rather see conservation play a bigger role in the food/fuel discussion. The question is, how do you weigh an inconvenience to the wealthiest against a catastrophe to the poorest? Is that even a question that can be answered with economics and mathematics, or is it strictly a question of ethics and morality? Could it be possible that many people feel there's no role for ethics and morality in public policy making?

Almost any economist will tell you that it's in the interest of the upper class to ensure that the poor have at least a subsistence income and a rational expectation that they can improve their lives. Anything less will inevitably lead to social instability. Any historian can document many instances where social inequality and instability have resulted in revolution, war, terrorism, epidemics and other "inconveniences" to the wealthy.

Almost any economist will tell you that it's in the interest of the upper class to ensure that the poor have at least a subsistence income and a rational expectation that they can improve their lives. Anything less will inevitably lead to social instability. Any historian can document many instances where social inequality and instability have resulted in revolution, war, terrorism, epidemics and other "inconveniences" to the wealthy.
Okay, I understand the concept that it's in the self interest of the wealthy to make sure the poor can get by in at least a subsistence fashion. How well does this idea fit with the position taken by people who agree with maddyfish?

Okay, I understand the concept that it's in the self interest of the wealthy to make sure the poor can get by in at least a subsistence fashion. How well does this idea fit with the position taken by people who agree with maddyfish?

Well, I still don't think maddyfish really meant what he seemed to say. But if somebody did agree with those words....they know nothing about economics (or morality) beyond what Rush Limbaugh can teach them. And that's basically nothing at all.

Ignorance is no excuse for cruelty, but sometimes it's the only explanation that I can live with.

Sugar cane has more energy per unit than corn. The sugar cane growers are doing a poor job of promoting their crops for energy production.

On the other hand, cane sugar is much better for the human body than high fructose corn syrup. Therefore I would prefer corn be used for fuel than sugar cane.

Almost any economist will tell you that it's in the interest of the upper class to ensure that the poor have at least a subsistence income and a rational expectation that they can improve their lives. Anything less will inevitably lead to social instability. Any historian can document many instances where social inequality and instability have resulted in revolution, war, terrorism, epidemics and other "inconveniences" to the wealthy.

So you feel that it's society's responsibility to maintain a population which has settled on unsustainable land, serving only to magnify the problem with each successive generation?

Of course noone is going to stand up and say that this one child should starve. Would that same person agree though to maintaining or even increasing the population of a community who has chosen to settle on land that cannot feed them?

It's much too complex to discuss completely here, but I believe that bringing a child into the world that you cannot feed is irresponsible.

......but I believe that bringing a child into the world that you cannot feed is irresponsible.

Maybe we should be thinking longer term.... a well fed child may still strain the global ecosystem. Should poor people be sterilized? If you are car-free for
environmental reasons maybe being child free would be logically consistent. I
stopped at one but maybe I shouldn't have had any? She's well fed. Won't
having a population made up of older people be as much of an economic disruption as running out of oil? Or maybe we should kill people when they reach 50? That would be consistent with the rampant age discrimination in the workplace anyway. It would solve the social security problems too.

Here's a link to a discussion of the population issue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7078857.stm

What's more important, the free market or the survival of out fellow human beings. I think out moral compass is severely ffd up.

So you feel that it's society's responsibility to maintain a population which has settled on unsustainable land, serving only to magnify the problem with each successive generation?

Of course noone is going to stand up and say that this one child should starve. Would that same person agree though to maintaining or even increasing the population of a community who has chosen to settle on land that cannot feed them?

It's much too complex to discuss completely here, but I believe that bringing a child into the world that you cannot feed is irresponsible.

Do you honestly believe that somebody would choose to live on unsustainable land?

I guess they saw two plots of land and they talked it over and decided, "Let's not take that fertile field. Let's pick the one that's all covered by rocks and doesn't have any water. That way we can be miserable and watch our children starve. What fun!" :rolleyes:

Most people in this world do not have the ability to make a lot of cool choices like you and I do.

Well, I still don't think maddyfish really meant what he seemed to say.
Of course not. Maddyfish didn't mean what he clearly wrote and repeated. He really meant whatever you want him to mean; Yeah, that is the ticket. JeffS too. He didn't mean what he wrote either, but rather what you think any clear headed car free person should believe; like you.

They should figure out how to make fuel alcohol out of Kudzu. Georgia and the Carolinas would become the new Saudi Arabia.