Ethanol & The Law of Unintended Consequences

[roo_ster]

IF YOU'VE been watching hte commodity markets, you know that prices of certain food staples, especially maize, have been rising in recent months.  That's because people want to use them for energy, and not to power people or horses.  The push into biofuels is diverting commodities from feedstock to fuelstock.

That is bad news for the developing world, where the poor can ill-afford to pay more for basic staples like grain that are traded in global markets.  The Financial Times reports that the UN now says it can no longer afford to feed the nearly 100 million starving people it helps each year with the currently allocated food budget.

A tragic unforeseen side effect (although presumably one that could be alleviated with a bigger budget.)  But not quite unforeseen:  as one acquaintance pointed out, during a dinner where guests were lauding the potential of renewable biofuels, "If you want to know what happens when people get a good way to convert cellulose into pure energy, just ask Jared Diamond."

Now I'm wondering what the currently invisible downside of massive solar panel installations might be . . . 

At the grocery store, milk is up $0.75 to $1.00 from a couple years back.  We can save the cost of a Sam's Club membership in 20 weeks just by buying milk there and not in the grocey store (~$1 less per gal).

Burning food for fuel is a BAD THING.  Subsidizing it is sand-poundingly stupid policy.

[K Frame]

Of course the skyrocketing price of oil, which is important in every step of the agriculture chain, has nothing to do with the price if milk in Minneapolis or the cost of corn in Cincinnatti...

It's all those bastards who want to gas up on Silver Queen sweet corn...

[Manedwolf]

There's also the fact that a lot of farmers are switching from other crops, including other grains, to corn, because they can maximize their profits due to the subsidies stacked atop the ethanol market demand.

They're expecting milk to be $5 a gallon by fall, I'd heard. Yeah, this is gonna end well...

Why didn't we do what Brazil did, and focus on high-yield sugarcane for ethanol production? It seems to be working well for them.

[roo_ster]

Of course price of oil is a factor.

But the ethanol subsidy, the ethanol oxegenate requirement, and the increased complexity of getting it all to the gas station are much greater drivers than the cost of a barrel of oil.

It would be cheaper, if we eliminated the corn ethanol subsidies and tariffs on Brazilian cane sugar & ethanol, to import our ethanol & cane sugar from Brazil.

[Manedwolf]

I think we'd best be served by developing strong, mutually beneficial energy and trade agreements with Brazil, yes. They're a huge country with lots of resources, they're a democracy, and they're in our east-west hemisphere. China has too much influence over the Pacific Rim, and the EU is developing its own clout. We also need to keep the Chavistas and their ilk from overrunning South America.

I think the United States really, really needs to have a strong stake down in Brazil. And besides...right now, we import energy from nations that are downright hostile in the middle east. Why not import energy from an actually friendly ally with a lot of resources that's also a lot closer?



Places with major international business-center cities of 20 million people make good allies! Sao Paulo alone has 32 malls, with a strong American brand presence from Starbucks to Barnes & Noble to Ralph Lauren. Talk about a growth market opportunity for American business, if we lock in energy agreements as well!

[K Frame]

Because sugarcane doesn't grow in the midwest, I don't believe.

I normally drink soymilk when I drink milk.

[charby]

Because sugarcane doesn't grow in the Midwest, I don't believe.

ding! ding! winner winner chicken dinner, so Pat tell us what Mike just won...

Corn is a horrible source for ethanol, but its a start. Cellulose ethanol will make more economically and environmental sense in the future when the manufacturing process is perfected, Midwest is a great place to grow plants for cellulose ethanol production, so are the forests out east, south and west.

Sugar cane is a perennial crop, but it requires the same inputs are corn to get it to grow like it does, Brazil also has a dirty little secret that ethanol production is heavily subsidized.

Biofuel can be made from animal and human wastes, etc.

With subsidized crops we may not see the price at the pump or grocery store, but we do pay with our taxes.

-Charby

[Moondoggie]

Couldn't we grow sugar cane in LA and FL?

I agree that it's stupid to burn our food.

I also think it's stupid that we haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades.

[Manedwolf]

FL casts a lot of scrutiny on cane growing now because Big Sugar was so sloppy in their disposal of wastewater and the like in the past. They severely damaged the Everglades, it's still being cleaned up.

[K Frame]

"Couldn't we grow sugar cane in LA and FL?"

We already do grow substantial amounts of sugar cane in the gulf states, mainly Florida and Louisiana.

But, guess what...

Sugar cane is food...

"Corn is a horrible source for ethanol, but its a start."

Finally, someone realizes the fricking obvious!

Corn is JUST A START.

There are other methods that don't use food materials that are looking pretty promising.


WHY are American efforts centered on corn right now?

Because the United States produces over HALF of the world's supply of corn, meaning it's available in great abundance.

[Thor]

What I've read about Brazil is that the air quality there is pretty low due to the ethanol being made & used. That and pretty lax pollution control laws.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461575331_761572256_-1_1/Air_Pollution_in_Cubat%C3%A3o_Brazil.html

I'm thinking that we'll face similar problems down the road, not to mention the fact that ethanol just doesn't perform as well as petroleum products.

[Sindawe]

Here is an idea (and not fully fleshed out since it just occured to me).  Rather than using food crops to generate ethanol, use something that grows fast, is abundant and generally considered a pest.  Like Kudzu and Water hyacinth.  Break down the cellulose via Cellulolysis with microbes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

[Gewehr98]

Yup.

If it ain't George W's fault, it's ethanol's.

Getting somewhat jaded in hearing that, and not just because I'm a farm boy from a farming family. Art even surprises me with his take on the business, because I figure of all people he'd research both sides of the equation.  Maybe not.

Regardless, I wouldn't deny the Mexicans my field corn for their tortillas, if that's what they really want.  My family's angus beef like it, so no reason the beaners have to use higher grade white corn and sweet corn in their tortillas, either.  Of course, if they just stayed home on their side of the Rio Grande and grew their own grain crops, that would be a bonus.

http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/07/grain-prices-not-at-fault-for-food.html

Of course, some even say beer costs are higher due to corn prices:

http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/07/why-beer-prices-are-higher-tale-of-two.html

For those who didn't see it mentioned before here, CORN IS JUST A START to wean us off the Jihadistan petroleum teat.  It isn't the end game, nor will it fuel every vehicle in the country. Since we Americans have been grain alcoholics from the Colonial days, it was a springboard technology, getting the ball rolling sooner rather than later.  And the ball actually started rolling in the 1990's, as far as Big 3 flex-fuel vehicles are concerned, so the surprise to some is somewhat of a delayed effect, IMHO. All the new ethanol plants in my neck of the woods were built with provisions to switch over to cellulosic ethanol production later on. 


Of course, every gallon of gasoline I don't burn in my E-85 S-10 will go to fill up some fat-assed H2 in Hollywood, and that vehicle's owner will print out a carbon credit or two to ease his conscience before moving on, I'm sure...

[K Frame]

Here is an idea (and not fully fleshed out since it just occured to me).  Rather than using food crops to generate ethanol, use something that grows fast, is abundant and generally considered a pest.  Like Kudzu and Water hyacinth.  Break down the cellulose via Cellulolysis with microbes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

That's in the works.

The reason why they're using corn as the starting point is because the cellulose reduction method is still having some major kinks worked out and corn is already cultivated in a manner that makes it cheap and easy to harvest.

[ilbob]

Due to the meddling of government into the free market, the price of corn went so low (under $2 a bushel)that it was cheaper to burn corn as a fuel than to burn coal. I was sort of amazed no one opened up a corn fired power plant.

The reason we can't open our markets to Brazilian ethanol is that the Brazilian government heavily subsidizes ethanol production, much as ours do. What possible reason could they have to subsidze us?

Sugar beets and cane may be a good idea, but there is heavy government meddling in that market too.

[The Rabbi]

But fortunately we have not maxed out our capacity to grow corn.  I'll bet the gov't is still paying farmers somewhere to keep their land out of production.
Maybe this will spur someone to look at ag policy in this country and eliminate all the subsidies, price supports, and other bogus schemes.

[nico]

I'm surprised noone has mentioned hemp.  I've seen a few articles over the last few years that claimed hemp is a much more efficient source for ethanol than corn (something like 4x as much cellulose for a given weight), but because of the war on drugs it's illegal to grow any hemp species (even the ones that can't be used for drugs).

[K Frame]

Just heard on the radio a regional unexpected consequence for the Chesapeake Bay...

Local governments are expecting nearly a half million additional acres to be planted into corn in the Bay watershed area over the next few years, and they are REALLY worried what that is going to do to the Bay's water quality.

[charby]

But fortunately we have not maxed out our capacity to grow corn.  I'll bet the gov't is still paying farmers somewhere to keep their land out of production.
Maybe this will spur someone to look at ag policy in this country and eliminate all the subsidies, price supports, and other bogus schemes.

They pay to keep highly erodible and marginal lands out of production, many of them have recently or are going to recently be able to go back into production. Here in Iowa some have and some haven't.  I think the smart farmers knows what happens when corn prices are skyrocketed, it sky rockets back down and lots of people lose their asses.

Farm land will be cheap again, cheap like it was when the ag crisis happend.

[Manedwolf]

I've seen a few articles over the last few years that claimed hemp is a much more efficient source for ethanol than corn

Most of the articles I've seen seem to be by hemp-as-religion potheads who want fields of hemp to help conceal their little corners of headtrip weed.

NH just defeated a measure that the potheads put forward that would have used state funds to establish a regulatory agency for legalized hemp growing inspection. Not a single farmer was there, just what looked like relics from woodstock.

Hemp is not All That. It is, however, nearly a religion to some hippies.

[roo_ster]

Brazil subsidizes ethanol production?  Out-freaking-standing!  Blow away our tariffs and let Brazilian taxpayers lower the cost of ethanol to US consumers?  I want some of that.

Couldn't we grow sugar cane in LA and FL?

I agree that it's stupid to burn our food.

I also think it's stupid that we haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades.

We do grow sugar cane in FL.  It is not economically viable without VERY restrictive limits on sugar imports.  Here's the deal:
1. Restriction on the amount of sugar imported into the US to support Everglades sugar growers
2. Sugar growers drain portions of the 'glades for their fields and pump water in & out to suit their needs
3. Runoff drags fertilizers & such into the glades, spurring the growth of crap-vegetation that cokes out other plants & animals
4. The result of 3 & 4 is a reduction in size of the glades and some parts that remain end up fouled

Al Gore proposed multi-billion dollar efforts to fix the glades.  What a maroon.  What he needed to do was lift the restrictions on imported sugar and the sugar growers would go outta business and their operations would sink back into the glades with disuse.

Which leads me to the next bit...

Corn is JUST A START.

Corn is not a start, it is a subsidy-pit.  Ethanol as a fuel from corn sugar or cane sugar grown in the USA is a good screwing to the US taxpayer & consumer.  If it is a start, I insist that I first be kissed and that the corn-growers use "protection" and a tub of (non-petroleum!) K-Y before I get corn-holed.

If ethanol from cellulose is such a wonderful thing, wait until that is on-line. Then get together with the hemp-heads and grow wacky tobaccy to burn in pipes and IC engines.  Then, everyone will be happy. 

---------

This year I went down to south Texas, again.  I though I had teleported to Latin-American Iowa, since the highways were all bordered with corn, rather than the usual cotton fields.  Yep, marginal lands being put into production to milk the taxpayer--er--I mean, "Decrease our dependance on foreign oil."

[roo_ster]

Just came across this:

The More Things Change, the More...   [Victor Davis Hanson]

Some of the figures on prime farm acreage diverted to corn/ethanol production are quite staggering, and range up to one of every four acres planted to corn, maybe as much as 30 million acres quite soon.

An ironic note: The agricultural revolution that changed America was not entirely a result of efficient machines, chemicals, and new crop species. Much of it was due to the end of devoting millions of acres to pasturage and feed stuffs for millions of horses. My grandfather told me that when he was small half our farm was used to feed the horses that pulled the cultivators for the vineyard and orchard. But apparently here we go again-planting land for transportation. And we should expect everything from ice cream to beef to rise in price as a result.

07/17 08:28 AM

[AJ Dual]

Put me in jfruser's camp.

Corn Ethanol is a net energy sink, even if the industry could get simple 1:1 parity with a gallon of gas to a gallon of Ethanol (still, why bother?) the corrosive and hydroscopic nature of Ethanol also means the energy cost of storage and transport is higher too, and it's got a lower efficiency in IC engines on top of it. And the economic damage the Ethanol subsidy is doing can't be ignored.

And creating third world and Mexican food instability is REALLY going to improve the illegal immigration situation&

Although food-Ethanol might actually have the intended effect of reducing dependence on imported oil, just not in the way it was planned. Putting a second stress on the inflation index from the food sector to go along with the energy sector might just push us into a depression where all commodity consumption is drastically reduced.

Gee, maybe that depression will also fix the world metal markets and "fix" the "ammo problem" too! Oh, wait, SHTF will have happened by then, so we won't at least have cheap ammo for looters, I guess.

And yes, I do agree that the energy sector is causing the food sector price to rise, along with everything else. But "fixing it" by making the food sector even higher as it gets tasked towards the energy sector does not seem to me like the solution.

WAIT A MINUTE!

We won't be able to afford food, and we won't be able to afford to drive& Hmmm&

OH& MY& GOD&

WE'VE JUST UNCOVERED THE SOLUTION TO AMERICA'S "OBESITY EPIDEMIC"

HALLELUJAH!

Thank God we just didn't let every commodity "float" and let the market come up with it's own solutions. America would have all been dead from Diabetes and heart attacks within a decade!

[AmbulanceDriver]

Now, it's been 20 years or so since my family moved up from Brazil, but I don't remember the ethanol being subsidized.  At least I know our family's distillery didn't get any subsidies.  In fact, we had problems with saboteurs and government "agents" because of two things.

1) Dad was obsessive about quality control.  We had our own analytical lab on site, and the plant was turning out fuel that was 5%+ better than what everyone else was.  99.85% pure Ethanol was the baseline that Dad required.  Usually we were in the 99.95% pure range.  His competitors hated that.  Mostly because he wouldn't water down his fuel and sold it for the same price as what they did, they ended up losing a lot of business. 

2)  Dad didn't bribe gov't officials to get "preferential" treatment. 

[Monkeyleg]

AJ, I think Mark Belling said it best: any country that would use its food to fuel its cars has lost its marbles.