Hansen tells us that "CO2 induced global warming will cause the west to run out of water."

The devised solution is to use much of the west's water to grow corn for ethanol production, destroying the environment, increasing CO2 levels and draining the reservoirs dry.

The thesis becomes - "Global warming hysteria will cause the west to run out of water."

Long on rhetoric, short on facts.

Amazing how some environmentalist can not be happy with what ever we do for energy.

Inflation? Try a devalued dollar. Until the Fed cleans up the mess it created with easy money and restores the value of the dollar, expect high prices for commidity driven products.

I had engineering professors complaining about the ineffeciency and unworkability of the process in the mid 90s. No one listened apparently. It has always seemed to me that the whole thing was driven by politics in the corn belt. What politician, after all, when asked his opinion on corn based ethanol by an Iowa farmer at a town hall meeting would have the nerve to tell the truth and say "I'm sorry, but ethanol is a false promise. Next question".

Huge AG companies have taken advantage of tax breaks and done what they were asked to do, and now small towns across the nation will have to reabsorb the jobs that have vanished. Oh well. Live and learn...... or not.

Absent from the discussion is Nuclear power. We have the ability to produce (along with large amounts of safe clean energy) more fuel than is consumed. No CO2, No NOx, No sulfur emissions, No mercury emissions, No particulate emissions. I'm at a loss and always have been. Instead we let ourselves be dragged from the ideology of a hippie commune and convinced that economies of scale can make an eccentric country lifestyle practical for an industrial economy.

Sorry Moonbeam, it ain't happening. We have to have energy (lots of it) AND food.

All the best

Aaron

Grain-based ethanol is not just a failure, it's a complete disaster. We're using food to create fuel for our vehicles. Meanwhile, the poor people in the world can't afford to buy food and the USA is reportedly having to import wheat and rice.

It's time to stop paying farmers to not grow food and it's time to stop subsidizing ethanol in this country. We need to back away from ethanol until we can economically produce it without diminishing our food supply. Cellulosic ethanol may be an answer. Biofuels can also be produced from algae.

There's one big reason this country has blindly jumped into ethanol -- farmers vote. Iowa is a big corn state and has the first presidential caucus.

It's an appealing idea to produce fuel locally instead of importing from hostile foreign countries. It's too bad that reality had to get in the way. There is no net savings of oil and there is no decrease in toxic emissions. Land use changes are actually contributing to climate change. Let's stop the madness ASAP and say goodbye to ethanol for now.

PT Barnum would have loved what government AND industry have perpetrated on the ever gullible American public.

This will turn out to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever. It will soon be listed on the popular urban legend debunking web site Snopes.com, right next to other ridiculous ideas such as this:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/acetone.asp

Good grief, will we ever learn!

Good luck.

Welcome to the world of spin. What they are talking about is the use of CORN for ethanol production. There are many other products that can be used without a negative impact on our food supply. But then those products don't have a lobby. You need the free market approach.
BTW- Mark I posted an example of the free market approach to solving environmental issues without laws on that thread.

I believe it is too early to tell if biofuels are a complete failure...but wasn`t biofuels suppose to be one of the solutions to save our planet from those awful fossil fuels? Also there is very little coal used to produce ethanol. As I understand it over 95% of ethanol plants use natural gas as their fuel source.

Brett, to answer your question, "Is Ethanol a Failure?": Yes, as are all overreactions that are poorly planned and executed, same as the Kyoto Protocol and the ban on DDT in the 70s.

I'ts Almost unbelievable. We resist the idiotic Kyoto accord because the Congress can see what a tragic mistake it would be - Kudos! Now we have the likes of Lester Brown from the Washington Post (reply: lester is not from the wash. post) none the less saying, ... " Now , in the spirit of progress , let us learn the appropriate lessons from this setback , and let us act quickly to mitigate the damage and set a new course that holds greater promise for meeting the challenges ahead. " Well "thank you" to Lester for informing us of the obvious, but what exactly is he refering to by the phrase " appropriate lessons " ? What Lessons is it we are suppose to learn ? Lessons like ... STOP MESSING WITH TRYING TO ENGINEER THE DAMNED ENVIRONMENT WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL WE ARE DOING ??? Or ... Face the fact that we don't have any suitable substitute right now that has high enough ENERGY DENSITIES to replace fossil fuels any time within the next 50 years [except possibly atomic fission for electric power ] ? Or ... We have more important things to worry about than using AGW as a Cloak to impose Communistic type wealth redistribution programs on the wealthy nations of the world ? Or how about ... There is no way to " QUICKLY MITIGATE THE DAMAGE " once it has occured , and because of that , we shuold not be so quick to jump off the cliff on this stupid theory called AGW with regards to GW abatement programs ? Are those the lessons he's talking about ? Or is he just saying to the Party Faithful , " Well , that didn't help our AGW Cause to much . In fact it made us look pretty Dumb , SO LET'S GO FIND SOMETHING ELSE STUPID TO DO !!! "

the ethanol infomercial, like AGW theory needs to be flushed before any more damage is done...just another fine example of a green disguised money wasting plan to save 1) Poor old farmers (like Midland Archer Daniels and their enormous corporate welfare check) 2) National security 3) the world from imminent meltdown with a "clean" (what a joke) burning fuel...i guess someone needs to generate a co2-friendly-green-colored computer hologram showing how hard it is to soar like an American eagle, when the airways are clogged with a bunch of money-pilfering buzzards....how much taxpayer money and worldwide pain will it take to get thru to the butt kissing politicians and U.nited N.incompoops, before they realize how they have been duped into yet another "world saving plan"....have a nice day, bros...

Lester appears to be having difficulty figuring out what to be hysterical about.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Why Lester Brown strongly supports biofuels

Two days ago, colleague of ours attended a lecture by Lester Brown, founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute.

http://biopact.com/2008/02/why-lester-brown-strongly-supports.html

Thanks for adding publicity to this issue. I've always thought corn ethanol was a crock for its net energy loss. Now with the food crisis, I intend to avoid buying ethanol-added gasoline (for the once-monthly fill-up).

The authors don't mention switchgrass, though. Any thoughts on that from the crowd? It has higher energy output and grows well in the American plains. Do some of the same dangers apply?

Better yet, ditch your car.

As a product... no.
As a policy... Absolutely.
Just another stupid knee jerk reaction with unintended consequences due to not enough research.

Here is a better solution:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

Yes, a failure, reasons in the story.

Who said we HAVE to use coal to produce ethannol?
CO2 and water are hazardous byproducts?
Who said we HAVE to use corn to make ethanol? What about Hemp?
Who said you HAVE to deforest to grow corn?
Why can't we grow both dfood and fuel?

People, you are are playing into the hands of big oil, and making an argument that it is ecologically and economically more sound to pump oil out of the ground and burn it than to grow crops. Your argument makes no sense.

Corn Based ethanol is a mistake unless they use the waste - the stalk or cellulosic part of the plant. Of course it takes a lot of energy to extract fuel from that part of the corn too.

We have a biofuel plant near where I live that uses waste oil to make biodiesel. Problem is, that none of it is sold here. It is shipped to Europe. There was a story in the newspaper about the plant receiving tax credits so that they would build it here, and now they are shipping the finished biodiesel to Europe. Makes sense to me. NOT!

It is a huge conundrum. Do we build more nuclear power plants to provide the energy needed to create alternative fuels? Which in turn creates hazardous waste. Or do we use food for fuel? Any alternative has it's drawbacks.

Hydrogen seems like a good alternative - except it takes a whole lot of energy to make hydrogen.

I would love a cleaner, cheaper alternative fuel, but think that, whatever it is, it won't replace gasoline in my lifetime.

That is a big reason why I believe that we need to live more conservatively and as energy efficiently as possible. Within reason of course and (before anyone jumps down my throat), without disrupting the economy or forcing anyone to live "amish".

Here's another better alternative, assuming they can produce it economically: Gasoline created by genetically engineer bacteria.

The bacteria produce gasoline, not ethanol. It can be transported by pipeline. The process needs to be able to work with cellulose and other biomass waste products in order to be practical.

Thermodepolymerization is another process that may become practical in the future.

There's a plant in southwest Missouri that converts the waste from nearby turkey processing plants into oil. One big problem is the smell (who would build this in town?) and another is the expense. This process should get another look with the current price of oil being so high.

daniel Clifford:

Who said we HAVE to use coal to produce ethannol?
CO2 and water are hazardous byproducts?
Who said we HAVE to use corn to make ethanol? What about Hemp?
Who said you HAVE to deforest to grow corn?
Why can't we grow both dfood and fuel?

People, you are are playing into the hands of big oil, and making an argument that it is ecologically and economically more sound to pump oil out of the ground and burn it than to grow crops. Your argument makes no sense.
========================
Sorry Daniel. We don't have practical ways to make ethanol from hemp or other plants that aren't hight in sugar -- yet. The article and this discussion are about the way things are now, not the way things may become after some future technological breakthroughs.

As long as we're using corn, there's not enough farmland to produce all the food we need and biofuels. We need other sources, but we are really limited right now.

And you should see which big companies (ADM) are behind the ethanol craze. It's not just big oil that spend a lot of money lobbying Congress and influencing public opinion.

Biofuels aren't ready for primetime. Maybe they will be in 5 or 10 years, or maybe they'll be like nuclear fusion and the necessary technological breakthroughs will just never quit happen.

I too am confused as to why you would bother with ethanol in the USA. In the UK, down South (Labour) are forcing us to use biofuel in our diesel and here in Scotland the other lunatic lefties (SNP) are forcing wind farms on every island community they can get away with.

Both North and South of the border in the UK both parties ignore the facts that biofuels and wind farms are incredibly inneficient and detrimental to our environment. For political reasons politicians are too scared over here to consider a real commitment to nuclear when not far away in france it has been such a success.

For over 30 years, we have all sat on our collective butts and done nothing about this problem except whine. Now we're seeing the results of not controlling our own supplies and depending on others. We need more oil refineries but nobody wants one in their backyard. The oil companies don't want to build them, either. And no drilling allowed anywhere, thank you. Then we all go out and buy SUV's that suck up the gas then complain when the price goes up. Nobody wants to allow coal power plants but that's our number one remaining resource. Nuclear power has been blacklisted for no good reason and is probably the answer to a lot of our power problems but we have to get going. And thank you Congress and Mr. President for rushing through another bad piece of legislation disguised as an energy bill that has done nothing for the energy crisis but has driven up the price of every commodity on the planet with corn recently hitting $6 a bushel. Unheard of price. But it's not their fault if you ask any of the prima donna's in Washington. They're so busy trying to cater to the environmentalists, that they'll do anything for them. We are certainly going down a losing path. And I am sick of hearing "green" stories. Please, knock it off and stop shoving this expensive crap down our throats.

I'm with JP:

Biofuels aren't all bad but Ethanol by any means will always be an unmitigated economic, enviornmental and human disaster.

This will be seen to be beyond dispute within Gary B.'s lifetime. Heck, make that five years.

The problem with people that MAKE energy policy is that they have no concept of PHYSICS. Corn-based ethanol is a failure because it takes more energy than it yields. Biofuels as a concept are lousy because there will always be an environmental trade off somehow or somewhere. More importantly, the internal combustion engine (ICE) is so damn inefficient, we waste an overwhelming amount of energy turning liquid fuel into forward motion. Throw biofuels into the mix and you'll quickly see that most ENERGY from sunlight (and fossil fuels inputs) is never turned into forward vehicular motion. Even with the much promised switch grass (which doesnt scale commercially). Anyway you look at its a waste.

Solution: Ditch the ICE altogether for electric traction. Use battery-electric vehicles (which turn 90% of electricity into motion) for most distances under 100-150 miles and a small ICE engine to boost charges for greater lengths. THe technology is there right NOW. Work on technology such as SUPER CAPACITORS (go google it) to make recharging as quick as today's fill-ups. We still have a number of good ways to make electricity, none of which involve burning our food to make fuel.

Ethanol is for drinking, not driving. ;-)

Every time I read these articles and look closer, each blog has a different agenda and are using the Scam of CO2 as the reason THEIR agenda is what we need. This has nothing to do with AGW. In this case Mr. Brown wants “the leading countries to collectively mobilize to stabilize population, restrict the use of grain to produce automotive fuel, stabilize climate, stabilize water tables and aquifers, protect cropland, and conserve soils. Stabilizing population is not simply a matter of providing reproductive health care and family planning services. It requires a worldwide effort to eradicate poverty. Eliminating water shortages depends on a global attempt to raise water productivity similar to the effort launched a half-century ago to raise land productivity, an initiative that has nearly tripled the world grain yield per hectare.”
He neglects to say the leading countries (at least in the West) are basically stable (if you can stop immigration.). It is the 3rd world countries that have the problem. Sure the problems can be solved but those very countries we would be helping would be screaming “imperialistic interference and genocide.” None of these countries want outside interference with their culture and to make it work we would be changing their culture. It would be a lose, lose situation for the west and generate more resentment from these “oppressed nations” who want but whose governments think expensive cars, villas and other trappings of the west for their personal use is more important than educating their people.
Lester Brown wants a world government to mandate how things should be divided. Many have tried without success. The Germans (1939-45) almost got it but the indigenous locals and other countries intervened. The same would happen if tried again. So unless Mr. Brown is ready to put on a brown shirt, a mustache and be willing to kill billions, it is not going to happen. What that man really needs is a reality check.

Ranger Chris
Switchgrass can work but it has no lobby so Iowa corn famers win and we lose. We should be using the grass not to make ethanol but directly to heat our homes, factories and businesses. What we save on that we will have enough oil left to run our vehicles without guilt.
Never happen. Follow the money.

"Since the 2000 election cycle, (Archer Daniels Midland Company) ADM has given more than $3 million in political contributions: $1.2 million