Dept. of Energy Rejects Corn Fuel Future

eldavojohn writes "The United States' Department of Energy is stating that corn based fuel is not the future. From the article, "I'm not going to predict what the price of corn is going to do, but I will tell you the future of biofuels is not based on corn," U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said in an interview. Output of U.S. ethanol, which is mostly made from corn, is expected to jump in 2007 from 5.6 billion gallons per year to 8 billion gpy, as nearly 80 bio-refineries sprout up. In related news, Fidel Castro is blasting the production of corn fuel as a blatant waste of food that would otherwise feed 3 billion people who will die of hunger."

Comments

zombie castro said what?

[User 956]

In related news, Fidel Castro is blasting the production of corn fuel as a blatant waste of food that would otherwise feed 3 billion people who will die of hunger.

He only wants to keep them alive so he can have a fresh supply of warm brains.

Re:zombie castro said what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's made out of people.... PEOPLEeeEeEe

Re:zombie castro said what?

[kenf]

Actually, Castro wants us to use sugar cane to make the ethanol, as they do in Brazil. Guess what is a major crop in Cuba?

Re:zombie castro said what?

[LoRdTAW]

Actually the mash left over from distillation is useful for live stock feed. You could also burn dried mash to produce power and heat. So its not like the leftovers are waste.

Re:zombie castro said what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Refugees?

Re:zombie castro said what?

[vivaoporto]

Bullshit! Read the fucking editorial, it is in spanish, if you can't read get someone to translate it to you. I quote here:

"(...) independientemente de la excelente tecnología brasileña para producir alcohol, en Cuba el empleo de tal tecnología para la producción directa de alcohol a partir del jugo de caña no constituye más que un sueño o un desvarío de los que se ilusionan con esa idea. En nuestro país, las tierras dedicadas a la producción directa de alcohol pueden ser mucho más útiles en la producción de alimentos para el pueblo y en la protección del medio ambiente."

Translates (roughly) as:

Independently of the excellent Brazilian ethanol production technology, in Cuba the use of such technology to direct production of ethanol from the sugar cane is nothing but a dream or a fantasy from the ones who have illusions with this idea. In our country, the soil dedicated to the direct production of ethanol can be much more useful in the food production for the people and for the protection of the environment.

So, stop spreading lies and RTF Editorial.

Re:zombie castro said what?

[sumdumass]

Unless I'm missing something in translated translation, I looks to me that he is saying their soil is better for food and they won't be doing it. Nothing about the GP's stating he wanted sugar cane used so his crops would be worth more.

In case your wondering, taking the majority of the competitions product off the market makes your prices go up. It is the free market thing.

Re:zombie castro said what?

[vivaoporto]

"Unless I'm missing something in translated translation, I looks to me that he is saying their soil is better for food and they won't be doing it."
No, he is saying, although their soil is appropriated for sugar cane (and I add, dutch, spanish and portuguese fought for it in the past exactly because of it), he believes the soil better use is for food, because people is more important that everything else. That's the point of the whole article.

Nothing about the GP's stating he wanted sugar cane used so his crops would be worth more.

GP implied that Fidel's interest on shifting the ethanol production from corn to sugar cane is benefitial to Cuba. Fidel's point is that everything ethanol is bad if land that could be used to produce food is used to produce fuel.

In case your wondering, taking the majority of the competitions product off the market makes your prices go up. It is the free market thing."

Yes. Except that there is no Free Market in Cuba. And that, even if there was, there is this little thing called U.S. mandated worldwide embargo on any Cuban export, so they couldn't benefit from it. Don't they teach those things there on history/geography classes?

Re:zombie castro said what?

[Viper Daimao]

Im not sure I undstand your kneejerk outrage.

Half of all cuba's exports earnings are from sugar. Cuba used to supply 35% of the world's sugar, but now only 10% (though that's still a lot for a little island). The decline is primarily due to the price of sugar dropping 58%. Therefore if sugar was used for ethanol, it's price would increase like corn's price is doing now, and Cuba's sugar exports would approach previous highs.

Which is all to say, there's not really anything wrong with that. Sugar is better at making ethanol than corn by a longshot, and there's nothing wrong with a little national self interest, even from zombie communists :P

Re:zombie castro said what?

[Marcos Eliziario]

There's no such thing as U.S. mandated worldwide embargo. I am from Brazil and had a girlfriend workin for a company which has some factories in Cuba (Souza Cruz Tobacco). You can find Cuban products (not so many of them) in almost every city on Europe (including U.K.), South America and Asia. Also, major european Hotel companies have business in the island. Fidel Castro also receives a lot of oil for free from his ally Hugo Chavez. The embargo applies only to American companies, and it's perfectly just, as american citizens and companies that were expropriated by Fidel's revolution never received compensation for the theft. Don't they teach those things there on history/geography classes?

Re:zombie castro said what?

[brianerst]

Actually, Cuba's economy has been propped up lately by an infusion of petrodollars from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has also been instrumental in raising Castro's profile lately. One of the reasons Chavez has become a powerful force in Latin American politics is that he has an enormous amount of money coming in from oil sales (Venezuela is the main oil power in the region) and is spreading that money around in good old fashioned money diplomacy.

Chavez, therefore, has a vested interest in making sure that the price of oil is not affected by either the promise or reality of alternate fuel sources. He is also pushing against a US/Brazilian alliance to increase Latin American use and production of cane-based ethanol - he does not want to see either country increase their influence in the region. Brazil's Lula da Silva is hardly a US puppet (he's a leftist), but he doesn't hide his dislike of Chavez and has had a fairly good working relationship with Bush. Plus, cane-based ethanol has been an incredible boon to Brazil, vastly reducing Brazil's need for oil. It's also 6-8 times more productive than corn-based ethanol - done correctly, it makes real economic and environmental sense (if used as just one of many ways to move to a post-oil energy economy). Castro's editorial is just a followup on a conversation he and Chavez had on Chavez's talk show, "Alo Presidente". While it was billed as a "spontaneous" discussion, at several points Castro made references to talking points given to him by Chavez.

Castro may be many things, but he's not stupid - Chavez is the best thing that has happened to him in years. If he has to sell-out a declining industry (Cuban sugar cane) in order to do so, he will.

Re:zombie castro said what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, in America we get our Cuba history based solely on the Bay of Pigs fiasco and Cuban Missle crisis. We like our beer cold, our Commies extremist, and our homosexuals FLAMING, to misappropriate a Homer quote.

Re:zombie castro said what?

[SerpentMage]

Chavez is moving from elected to dictatorship! Look at the statements he has made when the constitution requires him to step down. He says he will not step down, but change the constitution. He also now has power to do whatever he wants. BTW one tell tale sign that he is a dictator is his every increasing majority! After all Saddam had something like 98% of the vote, but I doubt anybody would say he was democratically elected!

Holding an election does not necessarily imply democracy... Democracy is the ability to vote and have freedoms without the interference of government. The interference part is definitely not happening with Chavez!

Re:zombie castro said what?

[vivaoporto]

Hey man, seems like we went to the same schools tho, because I'm also a Brazilian :) Anyway, you may want to read the Helms-Burton Act, passed in 1996 by the U.S. congress, and that mandates, among other things:

* International Sanctions against the Castro Government. Economic embargo, any non-US company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the US, which is a much larger market.

IF that is not enough an worldwide embargo, what is?

And I know they teach this on Brazilian schools, so, let's cut the "don't they teach this" thing and move on.

Re:zombie castro said what?

[Ubergrendle]

"The embargo applies only to American companies, and it's perfectly just, as american citizens and companies that were expropriated by Fidel's revolution never received compensation for the theft. Don't they teach those things there on history/geography classes?"

Still waiting for US reparations for the Revolutionary War. My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather's business interests were negatively impacted.

Although in spirit I agree the embargo only applies to American companies and citizens, in practice it hasn't been limited to such.

Most of the world recognises that the Cuban embargo is the result of confused Miami/Florida politics and a saving face gesture for American foreign diplomacy. The US does business with far worse countries and dictatorships than Cuba, and the embargo policy is a colossal failure -- if only because the rest of the world ignores it.

Re:zombie castro said what?

[tbone1]

Fidel's point is that everything ethanol is bad if land that could be used to produce food is used to produce fuel.

Hm, so would land dedicated to timber also be put to better use if it was put to food?

Pardon my cynicism, but this smacks of him setting up a call for central planning and control, which has worked so well in Cuba and Eastern Europe.

Maybe in Cuba there is a need for more food production. However, in the US, we are doing okay. The only Americans starving are Hollywood actresses and people who prefer to use their assets on drugs. We export a lot of food from here, and Americans could stand to cut back on their consumption, according to people in other countries. In fact, since a lot of the central planning (aka USDA subsidies and programs) have been reduced, America's agricultural production has increased.

But there is more to it than that. A free market allows people to better respond to demands and needs than central planning ever could. I don't know the latest statistics on these facts, but consider this data on the US from the end of World War II to 1990. In those 55 years, the amount of forest acreage in the United States east of the Mississippi River quadrupled. Yes, quadrupled, and it did this in the most densely populated part of the country during a time of rapid population increase and unprecedented urban sprawl. How? Agriculture became MUCH more efficient through technology and improvements in knowledge and technique. (Example: guano, aka bat crap, is now used on cotton fields because of its high mineral content, so cotton can be grown with less crop rotation.) Also, much of the farmland that became forest was the land that made for lower quality farmland: kind swampy, or poor soil, or on a bit of a slope, etc. Market forces responded to changes in demand, price, soil quality, etc. The system worked, particularly when the government didn't tell farmers what to do (either expressly or through subsidies).

In contrast, in Fidel's Cuba, where they boil stones for soup, there has been tremendous environmental damage to meet the bureaucratic goals of production which are based more on political theory and political wrangling than the needs and desires of the Cuban citizens. You know, the world would be a far, far better place today if that wanker had learned to hit a curve ball.

Re:zombie castro said what?

[RipTides9x]

but consider this data on the US from the end of World War II to 1990. In those 55 years, the amount of forest acreage in the United States east of the Mississippi River quadrupled. Yes, quadrupled, and it did this in the most densely populated part of the country during a time of rapid population increase and unprecedented urban sprawl. How?

One of the other hows is because we spent the years leading up to the Civil War deforesting the entire south-eastern seaboard of the United States. Much of the timber removal along the coastal regions went into shipbuilding since the old countries had pretty much exhausted their supplies of old growth lumber needed for masts. The rest of the southeast was stripped for the raw materials which left the exposed land to be used to build a near agricultural empire at the time. In the years after the Civil War the country moved on into the industrial age and much of the land was left to go back to wood as more people moved away from farming.

As a result there are few areas of old growth forest left in the Eastern US, much of it being in hard to get to and/or preserved areas,one of the biggest being the Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest. The rest is covered in forests of yellow pine which is a quick growing tree that can go from seed to tree in less than 30 years time, which the pulpwood papermill industries had a hand in creating.

Re:zombie castro said what?

[Kelbear]

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

This topic has been around for centuries. One of the most prominent starting points is Thomas Malthus's thought(yours is somewhat similar) and it is also in Wikipedia, but I'll summarize here.

He assumes population grows geometrically, while food supply is linear. Given this premise, at some point those two lines are going to cross, and at that point, there will be just enough food to keep everyone at the minimum amount needed to survive at that level of population and widespread poverty. Too many extra people, they starve to death until you're back at the equilibrium, too few people, and they keep breeding until it raises to the equilibrium.

However, technology was not accounted for(rightfully so, since he was not around to witness the bounty of the industrial revolution make food supply explode). So the "Malthusian" situation will not occur so long as a sufficient level of technological growth is sustained to tweak that linear food supply line upwards to keep ahead of the geometric population growth.

Also, that population growth rate is not fixed.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a wikipedia entry on this topic since I don't recall the name used for this topic. Generally population growth rates and death rates were fairly regular throughout human history, and only in very recent years it changed. Technological spurts like the plow and such caused agricultural booms that allowed for larger population. Eventually the industrial revolution hit Great Britain.

This results in a huge increase in food supply so that the population growth rate and death rate leaped. Eventually the death rate drops, and then the population growth rate drops, and they straighten out once more. This happened repeatedly as the industrial revolution spread across Europe.

Africa for example, may not have had this phenomenon occur yet. Their birth and death rates are very very high. However, in modern countries birth and death rates and slowed nearly to a standstill without crashing into Malthusian poverty. Why?

One of the best explanation is the concept of Human Capital. What is a human worth? If we're living in an agricultural society, children can help me manage the farm and produce more and work less. Children help me live through retirement. However, since I'm poor, I have to produce more children since the children are also dying often. The above population phenomenon hits where technology grants abundance. I'm healthier and I can support a larger family so population spikes. My children are surviving from this abundance so the death rate drops. Since I have children who are surviving, that I have to care for, the population growth drops too.

Now I've got a stable family size and a stable population growth rate. Since the economy is filling with opportunities thanks to the new technology(there's different kinds of technology in economics, in this case, we're talking about the kind that make more jobs than they remove). This expanded economy can allow me to do more than just farm. If I invest in education I can get more money! So I go get a non-agricultural job. Families won't need so many kids with less human-labor needed on farms so the family size decreases. As opportunities for women to get jobs they have less children too(women in the west are now going to college, maybe grad school, and have children later and later in their lives.)

Education is expensive, increasing the human capital of myself costs money, doing the same for my wife and kids, it racks up to a large investment. So I actually have a disincentive for having a large family, since I can't put money into all of them without lowering the investment level in each.

If I have the opportunity, I may not even want to invest in making a child so that they can take care of me in retirement. I can have less children or no children at all and instead put that effort into my own Human Capital and focus o

corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[WindBourne]

They (like sugar cane) all grow in a 2d space. In addition, a log of energy goes into growing corn and sugar. In addition, these crops are basically batched. You may plant and then lose it all in the end.

Instead, ethanol and bio-deasil will come from algae or other microbes. The simple fact is that it allows for a continual stream of fuel as well as feeds on our waste. Finally, the amount of fuel that it uses is a fraction of regular crops.

Have to laugh at what castro is saying. There is plenty of food for the world. The issue is one of distribution. Correct that, and we could cut back on crops.

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[Chief Wongoller]

The European Union continues to subsidize thousands of farmers, allowing them to produce huge amounts of surplus food every year that costs EU taxpayers a fortune. There is no political will to curb this waste as (especially in France) the farmers have too much political clout). So, there is no need to consider planting new crops specifically for fuel. The resources already exist, though greater efficiency may come from changing the crops EU farmers currently grow to ones more suitable for biofuels. Growing crops in the EU for biofuel, therefore, could solve two problems contemporaniously: EU waste converted into much needed fuel. Alternativly we could all scrap our cars and take the bus!

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[Lorkki]

The issue is one of distribution. Correct that, and we could cut back on crops.

Yeah, all we have to do is restructure the global economy so that poorer countries are able to develop, and the problem will most likely solve itself. Why aren't we getting to work already instead of ripping them off?

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Algae essentially grow in 2d too. They only grow in the plane that the sun shines. Once you have an algae soup, only the top few cm get any light. Sunlight only goes a few metres into clear water before its useful properties are reduced.

Sugar is a good way to go. Sugar is very fast growing which is why ethanol in Brazil is pretty cheap: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/17/AR2005061701440.html. There flexi-fuel cars can run on gas (which is at least 25% ethanol) or E100 (100% ethanol).

A massive usage for corn is in fattening cattle. This is a hugely wasteful way to feed people compared to a more direct approach such as eating the corn or soy or whatever, Processing into beef is very wasteful. This would also drive up beef prices which would make McDonalds unhappy with DoE

There is no reason why there should not be a multi-input strategy. Corn can grow where sugar cannot. Algae can grow where corn and sugar can't. It is silly to really argue for one over the other. Rather make a multi-input ethanol industry.

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[krotkruton]

Furthermore, we already use too much corn (not the best choice of words, but I'll explain what I mean). Besides the corn we eat in its regular form, corn syrup and other corn derivatives are used in a large portion of our diets in the US. Also, corn is used as the vast majority of feed (estimated at 92% in 2003) for livestock. Corn is a major part of our entire food infrastructure. We are already in serious danger if a corn famine ever arose, but the effects would compound if we base our fuel on corn as well. Diversification is important for any country, especially with an economy as large as the US. Of course, this might never happen, but we all know it's possible (Ireland). By the way, I live in Illinois in a small town of 4000 people surrounded by corn fields. I'm not saying this because I hate corn, but dependence on a single crop is a thin line to walk.

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[mabhatter654]

exactly, in the US and the EU the govt pays farmers to not grow food to allow their land to recover and pays farmers to enter land management where they grow what makes their land produce best and not necessarily what's selling on the market. Many people don't know large parts of the US have been in drought conditions for 5 years... in my own county the corn only grows at half what it used to due to lack of rain. But we don't go hungry because there's extra grown in spite of what the market may bear.. it's that important that people don't STARVE.

That said, now that farmers might actually have a CASH crop and end the govt subsidies, people don't want to pay fair prices for food... funny how "free market" raiders don't like when another industry can lock up some profits at their expense. It does seem "wasteful" to use the food crop for fuel, but poverty and hunger are not due to lack of food like Casto and others would like to think... we ship more than enough food to the starving nations to feed them, their leaders sell it or burn it instead of helping the people... the GOVTS simply don't care about other people. We grow lots of crops to not use expressly for food that corn can be used for both food and fuel is a good thing! Like how soy can be used for all sorts of things.

Frankly, we need to get more "eco-friendly" all life comes from the Sun... even coal and oil were once vast herds of dinosaurs and lush forests before being buried by massive amounts of earth being flipped over... last I checked we're not making anymore dinosaurs for oil anymore. If we can get slightly less power from a plant without waiting the thousands of years to make oil we should go for it.

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[dbIII]

There is a lot of work going on with ethanol from cellulose. I think that is the answer for consumption in a lot of places instead of some "pork" project to keep a powerful lobby group even happier. I find it bizzare that this group already has enough power that it has Americans getting fat on expensive corn syrup instead of cheaper sugar, but perhaps it's also because I personally don't like the taste. It makes sense for Brazil to make ethanol from sugar cane, but it's a bit more difficult for a colder and drier climate to make it from corn.

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[WhiteWolf666]

Much of this restructuring has to happen in the poorer countries, and they are unwilling to restructure.

Take a look at North Korea, where the government makes the (mis)allocation of resources to military expenditures rather than food supplies. Take a look at Sudan, where the government has no interest in the health of its citizens, or Somalia, where there is no functioning national government.

By and large, the countries which have opened themselves to Western-style Keynesian socialist markets are developing themselves out of food security issues (China, India, and other developing 3rd world states). The other places, where nationwide starvation remains a chronic issue are either the result of natural catastrophe (Bangladesh), or broken governments (North Korea).

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[lordmatthias215]

One thing I've heard brought up by universities down here in Texas and Louisiana is a plant called Energy Cane- similar to normal sugar cane, but much more aggressive and much more energy dense. From what I understand the stalks grow over twice the size of for-food cane, and its relatively easy to grow. I say we take a look at utilizing things like that in some parts, at least down in the Houston area (home of Sysco Sugar) where the sugar industry has been hit hard due to artificial sweeteners. Take whatever land that hasn't been converted to suburb yet an get a pilot program going.

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[Mr. Slippery]

huge amounts of surplus food every year that costs EU taxpayers a fortune. There is no political will to curb this waste as (especially in France) the farmers have too much political clout).

It's not necessarily waste to have more land than you need today under cultivation. Tomorrow there may very well be a drought or blight that reduces production per acre; keeping that extra land cultivated can be a very useful form of insurance, even if the food rots.

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[CandyMan]

> Algae essentially grow in 2d too. They only grow in the plane that the sun shines. Once you have an algae soup, only the top few cm get any light.

There is an engineering solution around that problem. I recommend you check out Solaroof, which is (much more than) a circulation system in which the algae-full water from a tank is pumped and circulated over the roof of a greenhouse. The idea is that the algae don't need permanent sunlight, but can rather be "activated" with short exposures to it, and then sent to the bottom of the pool, where they can continue with their metabolic cycle.

I have met the guy in a pub, and he made perfect sense. This may not be an industry worth setting up in Sweden, Siberia or New England, but I think it would be more than feasible in very sunny, semi-desertic places like you can find in Australia, Southern Spain, Morocco, Israel, Mexico...

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[MtViewGuy]

One company--GreenFuel Technologies--has already demonstrated how to use the exhaust gases from a coal-fired powerplant to "feed" tanks of oil-laden algae that could grow the algae at a tremendous rate.

This system offers a number of obvious advantages:

1. It reduces the pollutant output far below Kyoto Protocol mandates since the algae absorption of the exhaust gases cuts CO2 and NOx emissions way more than 50%.

2. With a couple of hundred acres of tanks fed by the coal powerplant exhaust, we could produce millions of gallons of diesel/heating oil fuel per year from ONE site.

3. The "waste" from the processing of the oil-laden algae could be processed into animal feed, plant fertilizer or even ethanol.

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[Edward Kmett]

The problem is that this isn't a free market.

US corn has a 44.64 cent / bushel average subsidy to start with. Each bushel makes about 2.5 gallons of ethonal which is then subsidized by 51 cents/gallon plus another 10 cents per gallon if you produce less than 60 million gallons.

The latter subsidies distort market conditions and take away corn from feedstocks hurting ranching and other industries.

At the same time we impart a 54 cent/gallon excise tax on sugar ethanol from Brazil. The reason is we have the same excise taxes per gallon as for gasoline. The problem is that ethanol produces about a third less energy per gallon, so the tax burden for its use as a fuel is higher. Brazil has economic leverage in that sugar cane is more efficient than corn when used to produce ethanol and they have a more suitable climate for growing it. It costs them about 50 cents/gallon to produce; we subsidize corn by more than it costs Brazil to produce. That said this picture is a little distorted as Brazil subsidizes their sugar crops and ethanol production.

Its not a matter of people paying fair prices for food, though they aren't if you want to argue from a free market perspective.

The issue is that corn ethanol can only exist because of very large market distortions and just doesn't supply a viable economic alternative fuel source.

If you want ethanol, fine, it is a reasonable goal, but leveraging corn isn't the best way to reach that goal. We can't compete with our corn ethanol on the world stage. All we are doing is playing protectionist sleight of hand games with the underlying economics. It lets politicians talk about how they are helping local farmers and talk big about having a vision for the future about energy self-sufficiency, but its all a shell game.

Now isn't the time to subsidize, it is the time to seriously evaluate if we want to construct an enormous infrastructure for corn ethanol production that doesn't make sound economic sense and that we will be stuck propping up indefinitely.

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[marcosdumay]

"That said this picture is a little distorted as Brazil subsidizes their sugar crops and ethanol production."

We don't. We used to, but stopped doing that by 97. We just don't have enough money, and much better places to put it.

Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go

[wiggles]

if you're rich, you'll typically choose something different.

The reason we have all of these nasty things is exactly as you said in your last paragraph -- we can't economically afford to have the type of life you put on a pedestal. Agribusiness makes food cheaper for you. Cheese with high amounts of oil is cheaper, more versatile, and doesn't spoil as quickly as cheese made from more traditional ingredients. It allows people to eat cheese who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it. You may be able to afford to shop for all your food at Whole Paycheck, but many people can't. And this isn't because the 'rich get richer and the poor get poorer', it's a simple matter of supply constraints. You can only make so much cheese the traditional way, because it's more labor intensive, the ingredients are more expensive, and the process doesn't scale as well. Combine all these factors and you can see that it's just not economically worthwhile for cheese to be made this way anymore without charging a fortune for it, compared to the factory made agribusiness alternative. It's expensive, not because of the greedy greedy farmers who make it, but because of the high cost of production.

Say, for the sake of argument, that we were to outlaw the mass production of cheese. All cheese must now be produced by small farmers with milk from free range, antibiotic free cows. Now, cheese will become a premium product along the lines of wine or caviar, because the high cost of production would raise the price to levels unreachable by the average family making $48,000 per year.

Ok, so let's, again for the sake of argument, apply a massive tax on rich people. Say we tax 100% of income over $500,000 per year, so that the maximum anyone could make would be $500,000 per year. Take that tax money and subsidize the poorer people to raise the average income to $100,000 per year. Not only would you put productivity in the toilet, but the price of premium products like cheese would skyrocket until the same number of people who could afford to purchase them before the tax can afford to purchase them after the tax. The reason for this is simple -- it's not the price of goods that's the problem, it's the amount of effort it takes to produce them, which determines the price of a good.

The type of lifestyle you say we should all be living is simply not feasible any longer for the vast majority of people. The reason we aren't starving like many people in Africa who live according to your economic utopia is because of the efficiencies that agribusiness provides.

I'm more amazed

[gerf]

That three billion people die a year from hunger. HOLY CRAP!

Re:I'm more amazed

[vivaoporto]

It's all funny and ha ha, but cut either the summary is lying or TFA is. Here is the piece that mentions the 3.5 billion number, FTF editorial (in spanish), and he was talking about hunger and thirsty, a much more serious problem in the near future. People like to distort the opposing part statements, but at least have the facts from the original source and judge from yourselves.

Acudo en este caso a una agencia oficial de noticias, fundada en 1945 y generalmente bien informada sobre los problemas económicos y sociales del mundo: la TELAM. Textualmente, dijo:

"Cerca de 2 mil millones de personas habitarán dentro de apenas 18 años en países y regiones donde el agua sea un recuerdo lejano. Dos tercios de la población mundial podrían vivir en lugares donde esa escasez produzca tensiones sociales y económicas de tal magnitud que podrían llevar a los pueblos a guerras por el preciado 'oro azul'.

"Durante los últimos 100 años, el uso del agua ha aumentado a un ritmo más de dos veces superior a la tasa de crecimiento de la población.

"Según las estadísticas del Consejo Mundial del Agua (WWC, por sus siglas en inglés), se estima que para el 2015 el número de habitantes afectados por esta grave situación se eleve a 3 500 millones de personas.

And my (rough) translation:

I'll resort to an official news agency, founded in 1945 and generally well informed about the economic and social problems in the world: the TELAM. Textually, I say:

"About 2 billion people will live, in only 18 years, in countries and regions where water will be a distant memory. Two thirds of the world population may live in places where this scarcity will create social and economic unrest in such magnitude that could lead those people to wars on this precious 'blue gold'".

"From the last 100 years, the use of water has increased in a rate two times superior to the population growth rate.

"According with the World Water Council (WWC), it is estimated that in the year 2015 the number of people affected by this serious situation will increase to 3 500 billion people

I would like to know

[rolfwind]

How come aren't there any diesel hybrids available? They should provide even more mpg than a prius.

While I'm thinking about it, why aren't the car engines run like the train engines, with the diesel motor running at a more or less constant rate refueling the batteries that run the electric motors that actually turn the wheels - the diesel engine could be much smaller than normal because it won't have to peak to provide power - just a nice steady constant - wouldn't even have to be a normal 4 stroke engine - it could be a stirling engine that is highly efficient but has problems speeding up - though Ford managed to get it's 0-60 speed down to 17 seconds while experimenting with alternate engines during the 70s oil crisis - making it's marriage to this application ideal.

Any thoughts on this? I admit I don't have much knowledge in this area and probably missed something very basic that is wrong with the idea.

Re:I would like to know

[josecanuc]

You just described the kind of hybrid that the auto makers are selling.

I believe the grandparent poster meant direct, electric-only wheel power, not the "dual-forces on one driveshaft" approach current hybrids use.

Diesel-electric locomotives have no direct mechanical linkage from the hydrocarbon-fueled engine to the wheels on the track. This is exactly the kind of car I am waiting for. I'm a EE, so I like the idea of electricity as the main transport of energy in a car. And the hydrocarbon engine plus generator could be replaced in the future by better technology. So IF someone made an inexpensive, reliable fuel cell, it could take the place of the engine.

Re:I would like to know

[russotto]

Diesel-electric serial hybrids scale UP very well, but so far they don't scale DOWN to automobile size all that well. To make a serial hybrid, you need an engine big enough to produce enough power to run the car, and an electric motor big enough to produce enough power to run the car.

Re:I would like to know

[0100010001010011]

Because the diesel/electric motors in trains aren't done for efficiency reasons, they're done because of space constraints.

First, trains don't have batteries. It's just:
engine->genset->electric motor.

Diesel engines (especially large ones) work within a very narrow power band. For on highway trucks it's around 1000 - 2000 RPM. This is great when pulling a heavy load, but it means that you're gearing has to be set up accordingly. This is why 18-wheelers have 13 speed gear boxes.

With the amount of torque that trains need to get up to speed the gear box would need to be as long, if not longer, than the train itself. You'd need a 10000:1 (made up number) gear ratio to get the train moving, but that ratio would only be good for 1000-2000 RPM, so you'd have to shift to 9999:1, etc.

The genset -> electric motor works great because the electric motor has a near infinite 'gear ratio' and provides peak torque from 0 RPM.

However there are losses, you'll never get better than a drive where the engine is connected directly to the wheels, this is why some automatic transmissions allow you to lock up the torque converter.

Diesel hybrids are coming, but the gains over a traditional diesel engine aren't as great as over a gasoline engine.

Re:I would like to know

[WhiteWolf666]

I've read about a Mini Cooper design that used a hybrid motor. It was an excellent design, with a gasoline generator powering 4 electrical motors which were located in each wheel hub.

Here's the link: http://www.leftlanenews.com/hybrid-mini-offers-640 -hp-0-60-in-45-seconds.html

640 hp, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, 160 hp per wheel-motor, and a 3 prong plug-in-the-wall adapter for charging the batteries up.

Cool, huh?

Re:I would like to know

[John Courtland]

I've posted this before, but for a very long time I've wanted to take an inline 6-cyl diesel, turbo it, and jam in into a regular RWD vehicle like a Supra. Then I'd replace the transmission with a large alternator, and have motors all the wheels, or if I can't make the fronts work, just the rears. I'd have to write some custom software to keep the engine running at an efficient speed for the alternator and electrical load, instead of trying to meet perceived fuel flow for mass air, throttle position and exhaust richness. Alternators can achieve 94% efficiency, with some hitting 98% (but that's in a lab, I'm sure it's not that good in reality), and turbo diesels are the most efficient HC engines that I'm aware of at that scale. I wonder if anyone has ever tried this.

Re:I would like to know

[Firethorn]

With the amount of torque that trains need to get up to speed the gear box would need to be as long, if not longer, than the train itself. You'd need a 10000:1 (made up number) gear ratio to get the train moving, but that ratio would only be good for 1000-2000 RPM, so you'd have to shift to 9999:1, etc.

More to the point; the transmission required would be complex, and the torques involved would kill even an incredibly heavy one very quickly.

As you note; even a gear transmission such as what's in a manual transmission costs power.

Electric generators/motors scale well; at the size involved for a train, I can see 98-99% efficiency. So I'd imagine that something around 96% of the power gets to the train's wheels; actually better than most transmissions.

Re:I would like to know

[0100010001010011]

Since this is slashdot and everyone wants reasonable numbers, here we go.

First off. Gear ratios are normally specified as 2.3, 2.4. These are meaning 2.3:1. 2.3 revolutions of the engine per revolution of the tire. 1:10000 is backwards.

Find: Gear ratios required to move 200 car train to 100 mph.

Assumptions:
Gear ratio specified is final engine:wheels gear ratio. I'm not going to deal with separate gear rations, final drives and rear end ratios.
Train wheels are 18" in diameter.
Trains are pulling the same freight that goes over the road in those big boxes that move in between.
Gear ratios from a truck 'scale' well to large size. Meaning if 1 semi needs X:1 ratio to move 1 car. Y*X:1 ratio is needed to move Y cars. This is just to get the same amount of torque multiplication.
50% overlap in powerbands. On manual transmissions redline in 1st gear doesn't match up to idle in 2nd. There is a bit of overlap, allowing you to drive for speed, pulling, economy, etc.
Our manual transmission on highway truck for pulling 1 'car' will be a Cat C13. With 1550 ft-lbs. Our manual transmission locomotive will be running a Caterpillar C3516C
Since I can't find a torque curve for the 3516. We will use HP=Torque (ft-lb)*RPM/5252.
Diesel torque curves are flat for their operating range, 1000-1800 RPM.
Eaton 13 speed manual transmission, first gear 19.7:1. Eaton rear end ration of 2:1.
Calculations:
HP ~= 500 @ 1000 RPM. Therefore torque is around 2626 ft-lbs for the C3517.

Torque required to get 1 car moving is 19.7*2*1550 ft-lbs=61070 ft-lbs
Torque required to get 200 cars moving is 200*61070 ft-lbs=1.2E7 ft-lbs
If the engine puts on 2626 ft-lbs, the first gear ratio will need to be: 200*61070/2626= 4651:1.


18" wheels * Pi = 56.5 in / rotation.
Speed in First gear at 1400 RPM = Speed in Second Gear at 1000 RPM.
etc
This will allow the 50% overlap for operating in torque bands.


So you're in 1st gear. You're turning 1000 RPM (you finally got your massive clutch pack to sync up). You are going a blistering:
56.5 in / rotation * 1000 rotations / minute * 1/4651.1 * 1 foot / (12 inches) * 1 mile / (5280 feet) * (60 minutes) / (1 hour)=0.012 MPH


By time you're upto 1400 RPM you're now cranking out 0.016 MPH.


So you need to find your 2nd gear ratio
56.5 in / rotation * 1000 rotations / minute * 1/X* 1 foot / (12 inches) * 1 mile / (5280 feet) * (60 minutes) / (1 hour)=0.016 MPH.
Solve for X.
Second gear ratio is 3320:1.
Etc. I set up a spreadsheet to calculate all the gears (With much help from my TI-89 to get numbers). I published it through google docs here: "Manual Transmission Locomotive".

So you were correct, my hyberbole numbers were completely off. However I think it illustrated the point. A gear ratio of 4600:1 means one gear is going to have 4600 teeth for every tooth another gear has. In addition you're going to need 28 gears to cruise at 1000 RPM and 100 MPH. Not to mention the size of shafts and gear sizes needed to transmit 1.2E7 ft-lbs. On-highway trucks already have multiple clutch packs to get that amount of torque in a small overall diameter. (If you're patient, I could find my machine design books and I could calculate the number of clutch packs given an overall radius 1 ft/clutch. Heck I could run the numbers required to get the gear sizes to transmit the torques)

Plus you bring up tons of feasability issues. Braking would be quite difficult. Most locomotives use EMF braking. They turn all their electric motors into generators and dump all that energy to a grid. I suppose you could install a compression brake and make the engineer downshift thr

Re:I would like to know

[sjwaste]

As the owner of a Supra, I'm aware of some pretty redneck projects like sticking a 350 under the hood, but nothing to the effect of what you're describing. I'd really like to see it done, though, I think it might be a good idea and the car's a good candidate for it.

I would suggest staying with the stock engine to start, though. In the 3rd gen, you're getting 250 ft-lbs of torque stock out of a 3L I6, and quite a bit more with basic modifications. It'd be a lot easier to keep that than trying to shoehorn in a diesel, at least to start. You could drop out the transmission and try the alternator idea, there's a lot of room under there. But I think the suspension would make the hub motors a difficult idea. Not impossible since there's a lot of space in there, but you'd essentially need to fab new hubs that can fit a motor and still mount to the upper/lower A-arms.

Assuming the stock engine, would replacing the driveline with motors at the hubs be a net gain over normal driveline losses? I'm nearly certain you'd come out ahead with a diesel engine.

Re:I would like to know

[John Courtland]

Assuming the stock engine, would replacing the driveline with motors at the hubs be a net gain over normal driveline losses? I'm nearly certain you'd come out ahead with a diesel engine.

Well, you lose quite a bit of power from transmission to driveshaft to differential to axles. I know, as an extreme example, the Ford AOD takes something near or over 20% of the engine's output to drive. Differentials eat a few %, and the rotational masses involved are not very light, and take a nontrivial amount of power to accelerate.

With an electronic/electric system, you'd have easier acceleration, because the only rotational masses would be the axles and tires, and there would be no gears to drive or fluid to cause parasitic losses. You can also regain power by using regenerative brakes, which helps overall system efficiency, where no such thing exists in a purely mechanical vehicle (I'm aware that some hybrids use regenerative braking systems). Also, you have a computer system to keep the engine at it's torque peak, thereby keeping it at or near its most efficient speed at all times. Intake runners can be easily tuned to accommodate a desired target RPM, and the computer can control air intake charge volume and fuel flow like is currently done with CVT vehicles.

Also, with so much electrical power on tap, a lot of accessories that are currently belt-driven could become electrically powered, like the AC system. I *believe* the parasitic loss of the AC pulley on the engine (especially at full throttle, even with the clutch disengaged) is greater than what an electric AC unit would be. Also, with an electric AC, there are less moving parts, and therefore a simpler system, which tends to be more efficient.

All that said, it would require a largeish battery system, and those are neither light nor energy-efficient to manufacture. I don't have a solution for that, honestly. I can only hope battery technology ramps up in the near future; storing electrical charge for later use without having to rely on mechanics would be a huge boost for both efficiency and longevity. I still believe it would be more efficient in the long run, though.

three billion?

[Surt]

http://www.starvation.net/

Even if you buy their generous estimate of 35K deaths/day, that's over 200 years to reach 3 billion deaths.

Re:three billion?

[Maxmin]

Even more surprising than the absurd 3-billion-deaths number, is how people are more than happy to harp on it, than to focus on the fact that many people do indeed die of starvation.

Re:three billion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that's 35k children under the age of 5 per day that die from malnutrition and preventable diseases combined.

Troll

[313373_bot]

The only thing more pathetic than being a living fossil from the cold war is making puerile jokes about one. Are you afraid from him?

Sugar Cane fuel is the current answer

[vivaoporto]

Sugar cane ethanol is the viable alternative, if you are going to use biomass based fuel. Brazil is doing it since the seventies, it already works on most cars that use gas with little to no modification (Fiat, GM and other auto companies already produces them in quantities there) and it is almost a closed cycle, using barely to no fossil fuel on its production. This (warning, PDF) is a good summary on the benefits of sugar cane ethanol, of course we can wait for hydrogen or whatever is the technology of the future, just like we are waiting since the seventies, but if you want something that already works, sugar cane ethanol is the way to go.

Do you know that the only reason that makes U.S. not to get more ethanol from Brazil is protectionism via subsides and import quotas? Fidel got it right on this one, in order to protect the few (and rich) local corn farmers (not to mention the oil barons), U.S. impedes cheap sugar and ethanol to reach the U.S., artificially increasing the demand of corn for ethanol production, driving corn prices up and, this way, making things harder for poor people on U.S. itself and, indirectly, on Mexico too (thanks Nafta). Check this article and see, it is past the point of speculation and conspiracy theories.

Law of unintended consequences in action here. It could be different. Unfortunately, I'm not a citizen of U.S., so, I'm not part of the democratic process there. But a lot of you are, and only you could make the difference. You can wait for the Tesla electric car all your lives (maybe it will fly too, if you wait time enough) while complaining about dependence on fossil fuels and financing wars on it, or you can make the difference now and take a stand on it.

Re:Sugar Cane fuel is the current answer

[Red Flayer]

There are several smaller producers out there who use cane sugar. Jones Soda is switching over.

Here's the froogle results for cane sugar sodas.

They are available if you look.

Re:Sugar Cane fuel is the current answer

[TubeSteak]

Do you know that the only reason that makes U.S. not to get more ethanol from Brazil is protectionism via subsides and import quotas? Fidel got it right on this one, in order to protect the few (and rich) local corn farmers (not to mention the oil barons), U.S. impedes cheap sugar and ethanol to reach the U.S., artificially increasing the demand of corn for ethanol production, driving corn prices up and, this way, making things harder for poor people on U.S. itself and, indirectly, on Mexico too (thanks Nafta).

You misspelled "sugar industry"

The sugar lobby is the reason that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is the main ingredient in [too many products to list]. The sugar industry lobbied for all those import quotas & tariffs to keep the domestic price high. HFCS is cheaper and in greater supply than beet or cane sugar, which is why it is so widely used

Re:Sugar Cane fuel is the current answer

[dbIII]

I find it bizzare that you are using expensive corn syrup in your carbonated drinks at all instead of cheaper sugar - but that's protectionism for you.

On a better note there is commericial cellulose based ethanol production going on in the USA - it's just still at a small scale apparently. That's the answer to corn ethanol - use the stalks and leaves instead of the kernels.

wonderful

[qw0ntum]

Great. At least someone realizes that corn isn't the answer. The answer is hemp, which among other industrial uses is great for biofuel production.

Before you say it, no, we don't need to think of the children. Industrial hemp contains less than 0.3% THC, as opposed to the 20%-30% that is found in unfertilized female plants that are grown for drug use. But God forbid anyone grow hemp: we all know what evils marijuana can cause.

Re:wonderful

[Aokubidaikon]

How about we genetically modify corn to product THC? That would solve all of our problems.

Why not?

[Runefox]

I mean, when you eat corn, it's pretty much in one end and out the other, anyway, right? Just make everyone in America eat a cob of corn every day, and let the sewage treatment plants separate the fuel from the... Well, you know.

Re:Ethanol's real name - FARM SUBSIDY

[jcr]

a sop to farmers and farm state congressmen.

No, it's much more about massive corporate welfare for ADM (price fixer to the world.)

-jcr

Oh shit, what now?

[fm6]

The news here is not that corn is a bad way to make ethanol. Everybody who isn't in the pocket of agribusiness knows that. The news here is that a true blue bushie (or should I say true red bushie? how did Republicans become red?) has reached this conclusion. Which is going to upset a lot of people. Which means they're up to something. What? Is Bush going to invade Iowa?

Its about time

[AP2k]

...we wake up from this corn ethanol farce. Corn ethanol hasnt gotten close to breaking even and isnt expected to do so. Meanwhile viable alternatives like sweet and brown potatoes which can yeild just as much ethanol as sugar cane per volume are given the blind eye. Potatoes grow easilly, have few enemies, and require next to no fertilizers.

I would really like to see automakers push more diesel engines in America. Bioiesel production per energy breaks even with nearly every method. It also has greater energy than gasoline per volume, unlike ethanol which has about 2/3's as much as gasoline.

Ultimately the defining factor of energy infrastructure is the technology itself and demand for innovation of that technology. Today, automakers are focused on riding out low compression engines to the very end instead of focusing on more efficient and powerful diesel technology. But as already pointed out, it was never about energy independance, but rather kickbacks to the agriculture business. So we will not see soon a Manhattan project for more efficient engines, nor will we see the same fervor put into biodiesel prduction that we currently have for the ethanol pipe dream.

Thanks Congress. You are awesome.

Re:Its about time

[jfengel]

I'm all for figuring out that corn isn't a miracle for anything except winning votes in Iowa, but where did you get the idea that potatoes require "next to no fertilizers"? I grow potatoes and you have to fertilize the bejeezus out of the things or you end up with cute little micro-potatoes.

More data:

http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/1000/1619.html

Potatoes are still better than corn; for all I know you're right that they're the most efficient. But I just wanted to point out that fertilizers are still going to be necessary.

Re:Its about time

[evilviper]

Corn ethanol hasnt gotten close to breaking even and isnt expected to do so.

The latter is not true. It should more than break even.

Bioiesel production per energy breaks even with nearly every method.

That's not remotely true. There are numerous crops for which it is not a net gain to make into biodiesel.

It also has greater energy than gasoline per volume, unlike ethanol which has about 2/3's as much as gasoline.

Theoretical energy content hardly matters at all, since there is no 100% conversion method. In gasoline engines, ethanol does NOT result in a 1/3rd drop in fuel efficiency. As an additive, the drop is much lower, and in high concentrations, the higher octane means compression ratios can be increased without adverse effects, giving better fuel-mileage than pure gasoline, not worse.

Today, automakers are focused on riding out low compression engines to the very end instead of focusing on more efficient and powerful diesel technology.

The US has practically outlawed diesel cars over the past decade with strict emission controls, and high sulfur fuel. You can't really blame the auto companies.

So we will not see soon a Manhattan project for more efficient engines, nor will we see the same fervor put into biodiesel prduction that we currently have for the ethanol pipe dream.

Ethanol is only a stop-gap measure to begin with. Biodiesel would require everyone buying new diesel cars, then building up biodiesel infrastructure, only for slightly better biodiesel fuel to become the stop-gap measure, before emission-free vehicles come about.

Corn is Inefficient

[hedgemage]

It takes more energy to grow and process the corn into biofuel than you would get from using the biofuel produced. The only reason why corn has been considered is because lobbying concerns have been pushing for it to increase the bottom line of big agri-businesses like ADM. The US already has massive corporate welfare programs for the 'poor farmers' of corporate agri-business and I'm surprised that the DoE has taken this stance.

Correct

[jeevesbond]

Ethanol is not the way forward, the BBC has an interesting article on this, some excerpts:

The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year

Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species.

Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol

Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year.

So it seems the right decisions are being made here. I'm quite suprised as I thought lobby groups were already springing up around so-called 'green fuels', I've seen some suspicious adverts for ethanol fuels on Canadian TV recently.

How many calories can we grow?

[G4from128k]

Think about the total amount of food grown and the land used to grow food. The average person eats about 2000-2500 kCal per day in food. The average person consumes about 36,000 kCal per day worth of oil (just oil, not including coal, nat gas, etc.).

Is the Earth big enough to provide 15-20 times the current food production level of biofuel-grade plant material? And if we plant more energy crops won't we be planting less food crops?

The US will be fine, but any one who eats food grown on land that could be used to grow an energy crop will see higher food prices.

Re:Ethanol's real name - BULLSHIT!!!!

[mangu]

We already use all the arable land on this planet to feed ourselves and the beef we eat

I see, so *everybody* who is born from now on will starve to death, right? Because we have absolutely no arable land left to feed anyone...

Re:Surprisingly...

[jlarocco]

Funny thing about that. See, starving poor people don't usually have much money. And the only reason this corn is even being grown is because energy companies are willing to pay record high prices for it. If the starving poor people were willing to do that, they wouldn't be starving poor people.

Yes, it's harsh, but that's the way it works.

Welcome to Presidential politics

[jfengel]

It's called "Iowa". Eliminate the Iowa caucuses as the "first in the nation" that every Presidential candidate must suck up to (and convince his party to suck up to) and you'll never hear about corn-based ethanol ever again.

Re:Cuba a potential major sugar producer

[nuzak]

> But ethanol is such a poor fuel compared to biodiesel I am amazed it gets the attention it does.

Why on earth would a multi-billion dollar corporate welfare payout to ADM surprise or amaze you? You don't think it actually has anything to do with whether ethanol is any good or not, do you?

Re:Cuba a potential major sugar producer

[iminplaya]

But ethanol is such a poor fuel compared to biodiesel I am amazed it gets the attention it does.

There's no technical reason for it. It is pure politics and the media exploiting(mocking) the anger with the petroleum companies. And it's putting more rainforests at risk. I don't what it does to the soil. I'm sure it will make Monsanto rich. As long as we continue using our present day jalopies, biodiesel is the one true fuel for rapid oxidation. And for the best bang for the buck(best yield per acre), algae is the way to go(about half way down the page). Heck you can grow the stuff in(on) the ocean. No need to use up valuable real estate, but in case you want to anyway, "More recent studies using a species of algae with up to 50% oil content have concluded that only 28,000 km or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes. Furthermore, otherwise unused desert land (which receives high solar radiation) could be most effective for growing the algae, and the algae could utilize farm waste and excess CO2 from factories to help speed the growth of the algae."

Re:No, half the world is not starving.

[iminplaya]

Not everywhere is like the land of the plenty were the supermarkets are stocked with food.

Yeah, well it would be if everybody would stop shooting at each other for a second.

A Modest Proposal...

[Kadin2048]

Obviously, we just need some way of bypassing the middle man in all this, and converting poor people directly into fuel!

Re:The last horse crosses the finish line.

[thorkyl]

flame me if you will....

You may joke about the "demonstrations" all you like.
me -->

89 F-350 super crew
7.3 liter
B-100 for the last 20,000 miles
Get 15% more HP
Get 20% more torque
Petro Diesel is currently $2.71 per gallon where I live
I can buy B-100 for $2.50
I make it for $1.21 per gallon
I use no fossil fuels in its production.
I use only the oil itself to render the oil (oil feed heater)

All it takes is the gumption to do it and the willingness to tell big oil where to shove it.

As for the crop on my farm, they are not for sale to the government as subsidies.
Nor do I sell to anyone that is not local.

So no whining about the lack of food, grow your own and stop buying from big business

Re:Trade water for petroleum?

[iminplaya]

Pump it in from the ocean. Or, as I said in the original, grow it in the ocean. Also, we now know that transportation of fresh water(or anything else) no longer really has any technical issues. Inadequate distribution of all our resources is strictly economic and/or political in nature.

Subsidies stink

[Dan Stephans II]

The corn based ethanol craze is founded in subsidies, not practicality. I grew up on a farm in southeastern Minnesota and came to loathe subsidies, PIC setaside acres, furloughs, etc. All kinds of ways to make money to do nothing that didn't benefit the family farm (which ours was) but ultimately lined the pockets of corporate farmers with lobby interests.

When I went to college (in Morris, Minnesota) there was an ethanol plant in town and I researched ethanol production just to provide some context to the awful smell (think rotting sileage) that hit my apartment complex when the wind was right. Even back in 1990 there was little justification to use ethanol because of the high energy use for production, the increased end-unit costs because of the need to blend at the POS (because ethanol absorbs water it needs to be mixed into the blend near the end delivery point) and the other implications for vehicles (reduced power/volume, injection issues, etc). The investment that the government has made has been misplaced. It purely subsidizes this waste instead of promoting the development of more efficient production/end product. The plant in Morris is still producing the exact same product in the exact same way, the only difference is now (16 years later) they are making money hand over fist.

Finally, corn requires a tremendous amount of water to grow. When we grew corn we didn't irrigate but big corporate farms cannot resist. The Oglalla aquifer is draining, which is a big deal. Irrigation for crops of all sorts are the primary culprit but the impact is larger -- most of the 'breadbasket' of the US is dependent in many ways on the viability of the Oglalla aquifer.

I am stunned and pleased that the DOE has stepped up and stated what should be the obvious. I hope that people following the stories realize that subsidies without measurable and definable goals have no place in our "free trade" economy (tongue in cheek there).

Re:No, half the world is not starving.

[h2_plus_O]

I don't think jobs are the problem, but the supply of food.

Actually, famine nowadays is rarely a function of food supply alone. per Wiki:

Modern famines have often occurred in nations that, as a whole, were not initially suffering a shortage of food. The largest famine ever (proportional to the affected population) was the Irish Potato Famine, which began in 1845 and occurred as food was being shipped from Ireland to England because the English could afford to pay higher prices. The largest famine ever (in absolute terms) was the Chinese famine of 1959-60 that occurred as a result of the Great Leap Forward. In a similar manner, the 1973 famine in Ethiopia was concentrated in the Wollo region, although food was being shipped out of Wollo to the capital city of Addis Ababa where it could command higher prices. In contrast, at the same time that the citizens of the dictatorships of Ethiopia and Sudan had massive famines in the late-1970s and early-1980s, the democracies of Botswana and Zimbabwe avoided them, despite having worse drops in national food production.

According to Nobel-peace prize winning economist Amartya Sen quoted here, there is without exception a political component involved that allows the food shortage to progress beyond food insecurity:

I have discussed elsewhere the remarkable fact that, in the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press. We cannot find exceptions to this rule, no matter where we look: the recent famines of Ethiopia, Somalia, or other dictatorial regimes; famines in the Soviet Union in the 1930s; China's 1958-61 famine with the failure of the Great Leap Forward; or earlier still, the famines in Ireland or India under alien rule. China, although it was in many ways doing much better economically than India, still managed (unlike India) to have a famine, indeed the largest recorded famine in world history: Nearly 30 million people died in the famine of 1958-61, while faulty governmental policies remained uncorrected for three full years.

ethanol from sugar cane

[neomagi]

Actually making ethanol from sugar cane is more than 6x more efficient than corn. it actually has a huge net gain in fuel. the factories in Brazil do an amazing job of creating power both to power the plants that make the ethanol as well as for the general public.

several of the sugar plantations in the states are considering this as well, since it is so much more effective.

Re:ethanol from sugar cane

[bytesex]

What if it turns out that it's more efficient to produce ethanol from, oh, let's say hemp......or certain other highly over-valued weeds....

Do you have _any_ idea of how ethanol production works, and why we're not all drinking distillates from hemp ? If you do - nice troll - otherwise, let me start an explanation: it's about S.U.G.A.R.

Re:ethanol from sugar cane

[indifferent children]

What if it turns out that it's more efficient to produce ethanol from, oh, let's say hemp

Ethanol requires sugar. Hemp produces seed-oil that is very good for biodiesel, but not for ethanol.

Re:No, half the world is not starving.

[Archangel Michael]

You mean Detroit and DC don't have food on the shelves?

DOE is Correct

[cephal0p0d]

Future of biofuels, both diesel and gas replacements, is in random biomass conversion.
Future conversion processes will most likely involve bioengineered bacteria and similar processes to create biofuel from any biomass available, from foodstock leftovers to waste products to... corpses.

Sugary and cellulosic biomass is best for eth.

- Switchgrass

- Sawdust

- Beets, etc

Oily biomass is best for biodiesel.

- Vegetable oils, such as soy, hemp, rapeseed, etc. whether pre-or post consumer (these still leave the seed itself as feedstock after oils are extracted.)

- Tallow/animal fats

- Algae

Ton of Reference materials halfway down this page:

http://squidb0i.livejournal.com/profile

As for corpses:

http://squidb0i.livejournal.com/114822.html

Cellulosic ethanol is the way to go.

[Stickerboy]

Cellulosic ethanol is a proven technology, the only issue now is ramping it up to industrial scale. Iogen and SunOpta (both Canadian biotech companies) have already built pilot plants, and are selecting sites to build industrial scale plants (In Iogen's case, they're contemplating offers from the US, Canada, and European countries to host the plant, which would produce 50 million+ gallons of ethanol a year.)

The great thing about sugarcane and cellulosic ethanol production is they don't require outside power to run, unlike corn ethanol plants. They take a byproduct of the production process and use it for fuel.

Cellulosic Ethanol From Municipal Solid Waste

[Mr. Stinky]

BluefireEthanol has the technology to viably convert cellulosic green waste into ethanol. Lots of green waste ends up at the dump already, these guys will convert it in a cost effective way. Ethanol is not just used as a fuel additive, it can also be used to make plastics and other materials. BlueFire's technology approach is unique because the inputs do not need to be sorted in advance like some biological processes which use specific enzymes for specific inputs. From their website:

BlueFire Ethanol, Inc. is established to deploy the commercially ready, patented, and proven Arkenol Technology Process for the profitable conversion of cellulosic ("Green Waste") waste materials to ethanol, a viable alternative to gasoline. BlueFire's use of the Arkenol Process Technology positions it as the only cellulose-to-ethanol company worldwide with demonstrated production of ethanol from urban trash (post-sorted MSW), rice and wheat straws, wood waste and other agricultural residues. If there was already a plant in New Orleans (and it survived the hurricane) they could have made tons of ethanol from all of the waste debris that resulted from Katrina. Talk about making lemonade out of lemons!

Re:Surprisingly...

[grammar fascist]

Where are my mod points when I need them?

There's no food supply problem. It's all a distribution problem. Castro most likely knows this, but that "starving people" card is awfully effective.

Re:Cuba a potential major sugar producer

[tylernt]

But ethanol is such a poor fuel compared to biodiesel I am amazed it gets the attention it does.

There's no technical reason for it.

Ah, but there *is* a technical reason. Crappy American passenger car diesels from the 70's gas crunch were unreliable, slow, noisy, and dirty. Americans have never really lost that image of small diesels, notwithstanding the slick and highly refined modern diesels made by VW and Mercedes today.

We can only hope that the new ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel) now required in the US will usher in a boom of popularity for diesel passenger cars now that emissions are less of an issue. The diesel Jeep Liberty is a step in the right direction -- we might even dream of someday buying an American passenger car with a diesel engine in it... I'm not holding my breath, though.

Who cares - my gas comes from petroleum

[NotQuiteReal]

Seriously - there seems to be plenty of oil still. Maybe even more than was once thought. (Google "north pole oil" for details).

The unstated point of the whole question of "alternative" fuels probably has something to do with "global warming" (which probably IS happening) and the underlying assumption that we human critters have a gnat's-ass of influence on said warming (which we do - have a gnat's-ass worth of input, i.e. not much.) Google "The Great Global Warming Swindle" for some interesting links.

You can choose a "side", but think about it a bit first.

Re:Who cares - my gas comes from petroleum

[LarsWestergren]

You can choose a "side", but think about it a bit first.

That is indeed good advice. You should know that there has come some rebuttals to "The Great Global Warming Swindle", and at least one person who participated has since come out with a public letter where he explains that he is the one who feels swindled by the makers.

"As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. "

It is also interested to note how the makers react when a couple of noted scientists try to engage him in debate.

Re:Lot of misinformation here

[mac84]

I agree with everything you say in the first three paragraphs but your conclusion is where it all falls down. the bottom line is our government is lining up to put mass fortunes into "cultivating" the ethanol industry for a very small 1.3 to 1 return. It doesn't make economic sense. And to waste any more limited financial (especially public money) or intellectual capital on ethanol is wrong. Rather than an earmarked subsidy for ethanol, why not a level playing field subsidy for all alternative energy technologies that show potential to reduce oil imports, or greenhouse gasses or whatever the problem is that we're really trying to solve. Better yet, just tax oil at a higher rate and let the free market find the most efficient alternatives. My guess is that 90% of that solution would be greater conservation.

Re:Ethanol's real name - BULLSHIT!!!!

[JonathanR]

What the GP is saying is that we are fast approaching or have exceeded the sustainable population limits of the planet. You are being deliberately obtuse in suggesting that everyone born from now on will starve to death. There is, however, a growing population base that lives in regions subject to famine. These are the people who will face starvation. The only reason the west has the ability to avoid these conditions is because it also has the political and economic clout enabling imports to cover any shortages. So third world populations are doing the starving for us.

The reality is that the affluent western lifestyle is unsustainable 90+th percentile standard of living, which cannot be shared at current population levels. This will become particularly obvious when the increasing energy demands of the emerging middle class from China, India et. al. begin to approach supply limits.

It is unlikely that fossil fuels alone will sustain the next 50 years of projected growth in energy demand, and just as unlikely that adding the (agriculture based, fossil fuel subisidsed) biofuels industry to this will help much either. Something will have to give and unfortuately, in the short term, it will probably be the remaining forrested land area that will be sacrificed. In the long term, expect to see some starvation in the western world too, particularly during extreme drought conditions, as the capacity of normally arable land is adversely limited.

Perhaps you don't recall what was the Dust Bowl of the 1930's? Be assured that we will see something like it again at some point. Imagine the economic devastation when both food and fuel is dependent on agriculture.

No, they really don't. It's kind of sad.

[Valdrax]

No. That's comes after World War II. I wish I was being sarcastic. We spend way too much time talking about the Civil War to leave room for discussing any of those icky parts of history where America might've done something controversial like the Bay of Pigs invasion or the Vietnam War. (At least, that was my experience growing up in a former Confederate state.)

We're just lucky to get a very small warning about McCarthyism and some coverage of the Civil Rights movement. All US history south of our borders post-Spanish-American War is pretty much not taught in high school -- especially anything critical of our actions during the Cold War. Too much of what is going on today can't be understood if your knowledge of world events pretty much ends at WW2. Why the US's enemies are enemies and why many of our allies who don't share our values at all are allies is pretty much a mystery to the vast majority of the electorate.

It gets me depressed about the future every time I think about it.

Re:No, half the world is not starving.

[vandan]

It's not the supply of food that's the problem. It's the distribution that's letting people starve. There's plenty of supply.

Re:No, they really don't. It's kind of sad.

[jawtheshark]

Never complain about history classes. Not only is said that "history is written by the victors", but it is heavily culturally based. I'm not talking about propaganda, just about the focus that you get in school. Now, I have read much more about American history on slashdot than I had at school. I, however, got fed the whole creation of the European Union with all its boring treaties and whatnot. Americans probably get that as a summary "The EU was created in as the ECSC in 1951 and evolved (or Intelligently Designed) from there on". My contemporary history consisted mainly of EU blah-blah, and at least I understand my part of the world thanks to it.

Overlaps are probably in history are the things that happened a real long time ago: pre-historic times, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans. The sole exception would be World War II, which still differs from content. Europeans get the mantra "look how, horrible, horrible, horrible, it was... let's never do that again", Americans get the mantra "Evil Hilter! We, heroes, had to get over there to save the World".

Geography is the same: we got to learn the name of every country of the world and their capital, plus the internal structure of our own country", you do the same (I hope)... The internal structure is just different ;-) I expect a Frenchman to know about his Departements, a German to know about his Bunderlander and an American to know about his states. I don't know them, because I'm neither. So don't ask me what the capital of Utah is. I don't know... If you're an American, you should though.

Because it is ridiculous made up bullshit

[Sycraft-fu]

And because the problem with starvation isn't one of not being able to grow enough food, it is one of politics. The nations with massive amounts of starvation are basically all ones with really screwed up governments. Take Zimbabwe. It used to be called "The bread basket of Africa," and was a large net exporter of food. However now due to Mugwabe's extreme mismanagement and tyrannical policies, they are a net importer of food and have starving people.

We have the technology and the resources to grow plenty of food. The problem is getting it to those that need it. It isn't like you just drop it in a mailbox and send it off, there are real issues to contend with. The opening scene in Blackhawk Down? An accurate portrayal of the kind of thing that really happens.

If you've got a solution to that, let's here it. If not then please back off of the self-righteous BS ok? The problems of the world are quite not easy to fix.

Real answer - drastically reduce car/plane use

[shomon2]

The real answer to the "future of bio fuels" is not to use as much as we use now. There is no magic thing that will make the problem of resource depletion go away. The stark truth is we've used more than we had in the first place and now we're basically fucked if we go on this way. You can shift the problem about at a huge cost to all, or radically change lifestyles.

I don't mean go and buy a goat though: I mean we need to reorganise cities and suburbs so that people stay in their local area to get as much as possible of what they need(shops, work, socialising etc). This will mean much less car use. And in the states, they could get as efficient as Europe had to in the 70s and get used to higher fuel prices as has happened in Europe too, and that would already reduce the amount needed.

I think for now the only biofuel that's actually "5-star green" is the recycling of biomass, plant waste etc to produce very limited transport - like EU nordic countries for example. Latest issue of "The Ecologist" has an in-depth section on the US's bio fuel plans and it's current and potential effects, and proposing bio-gas as the only acceptable solution that's viable now (yes microbes may be viable one day - let's see that research money). I think sweden has a bus service running on this.

Re:No, they really don't. It's kind of sad.

[Proofof. Chaos]

Actually, I (American) never learned about the EU in high school or college history/geography at all. I never even heard of it until several years later. Also, most Americans could guess the capital of Utah because it is the only city in Utah they ever heard of (Salt Lake City), but I bet most couldn't tell you the capital of Washington. In fact, I bet most recent high school graduates in California couldn't tell you what the capital of California is.
I know, typical comment about how uneducated we Americans are, followed by typical comment about how, no matter how dumb we are, Californians are even dumber than the rest of us.

Locos do it for a different reason

[Viol8]

Diesel electric locos exist simply because of the difficulty of building a mechanical transmission for them. The contortions the driveshafts and gearing would have to make from engine to wheels would be horrendous, not to mention the sort of gearbox required would have to be so robust that the expense wouldn't be worth it. This is why electric and hydraulic transmission is used on locos , not for fuel efficiency reasons. In fact you lose quite a bit of efficiency converting from rotary to electric then back to rotary power again. Hydraulic transmissions are a bit more efficient I believe but if they spring a leak you're screwed plus they're not suitable for high speeds.

Castro is right

[Simon Brooke]

How to make yourself unpopular on a US based system...

However, seriously, between 1845 and 1849 Ireland had successive years of record harvests, and in each year exported huge amounts of grain. What's famous about those years? Yes, that's the Great Famine. People worked all day producing wheat which they couldn't afford to buy, so it was exported and they starved. There was no shortage of food in Ireland during the famine; there was a shortage of food ordinary Irish people could afford to buy. Similarly, in the Ethiopian famine of the mid 1980s which led to the formation of Live Aid, Ethiopia - so plagued with drought that it could not feed its people - was exporting so many water melons to Europe that it could afford to buy helicopter gunships with the proceeds. Again, people starved not because there was no food, but because they could not afford the food that was plentiful.

The world's agricultural system is at full stretch at present producing enough food for (most of) the world's population. But our machines consume far more calories than we do ourselves. So if we switch our machines from consuming fossil fuels to consuming bio-fuels, then all the worlds agricultural land put together is not enough.

One of the inevitable consequences of capitalism is that it distributes scarce goods inequitably. In a drought, the poor go thirsty while the rich water their golf courses. In a famine, the poor starve while the rich put biodiesel into their SUVs. This flies in the face of every system of ethics we know, and yet it is the inevitable consequence of capitalism. Ghandi said 'the earth produces enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed'. Personally, I think he was an optimist; but nevertheless, one person's biodiesel is - inevitably - another person's hunger.

Biofuels

[argStyopa]

Biofuels only 'work' as a concept if you're one that is reflexively opposed to fossil fuels in the first place.

We already have serious issues of deforestation in the Amazon due to agriculture - does anyone think that will DECREASE if the value of sugar cane is increased by world demand for biofuel?

Further, in the US we already have problems with overtillage, exhaustion of the soil, loss of topsoil, and excessive pesticide use. Again, does anyone think that the widespread use of biofuel will help any of those situations? Particularly (regarding pesticides) when the corn isn't going to be consumed by anyone, so there is no food-quality issue to restrict the severity and frequency of pesticide use?

No, I'm thinking at some point we're going to look back and see biofuel (from grown crops) as a stupid, dead-end choice that wasted a lot of time & money.

Lula Article on Washington Post

[Extremus]

Today, the Washington Post is featuring a article from President Lula addressing this issue. Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/03/29/AR2007032902019.html?hpid=opinionsbo x1

The myth of ethanol as fuel.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethanol, burned to produce an equal amount of energy to a specific amount of octane is going to produce an equal amount of carbon dioxide. The whole motivation to use ethanol as fuel is completely misguided. (Or a not so clever ploy.)

Heats of combustion of Ethanol vs n-Octane from my 1989 CRC Handbook (in kilogram calories per gram molecular weight):
Ethanol: 326.68 (~327 kcal/mol ~= 1367 kJ/mol)
n-Octane: 1302.7 (~1303 kcal/mol ~= 5450 kJ/mol)

Complete combustion reactions:
Ethanol: C2H5OH + 3 O2 = 2 CO2 + 3 H2O (-1367 kJ/mol)
Octane: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 = 18 H2O + 16 CO2 (-5450 kJ/mol) ...equalised by mols of CO2:
Ethanol: 8 C2H5OH + 24 O2 = 24 H2O + 16 CO2 (-10.9 MJ)
Octane: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 = 18 H2O + 16 CO2 (-10.9 MJ)

So, you can see that to produce equal amounts of energy by combustion of either fuel, one must produce equal amounts of carbon dioxide.

In fact, ethanol from corn will produce more carbon dioxide overall, as the carbon dioxide produced by fermentation of corn to produce ethanol will more than offset the benefits of its relatively clean combustion.

Burning ethanol does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is a convenient way for the petrochemical industry to prolong its inevitable death. A number of petro stations in Canada have been selling gasoline with up to 15% by volume ethanol for decades now (Sunoco in particular).

Granted, gasoline is of course not pure n-Octane, and contains lots of other crap. Its mostly the toluenes and related aromatics that give gasoline its smell, pure octanes have very little aroma, slightly minty if anything.

Combustion of gasoline is less likely to be complete, so burning ethanol is going to be cleaner in terms of emissions and will produce fewer toxic byproducts of combustion, but will do NOTHING WHATSOEVER to help global warming. I find it amusing how easily the public and businesses are fooled.

Now, what does make some sense to me is to produce biodiesel from rapeseed (canola) or hempseed (marijuana), in terms of ease of production and sustainability, but again, burning these fuels for energy is not going to help global warming, the same amount of CO2 will be produced.

The answer obviously is CANDU nuclear reactors and electric/flywheel vehicles, but this would destroy the profits of many powerful corporations, and so will not happen under democratic capitalism. The market indices must never decrease, regardless of the cost, even if that cost is the future of humanity. We are on a path to self destruction and violent revolution is the only way out, but I fear that will never happen.

The price of corn has nothing to do with it, feeding the poor has nothing to do with it, its all about protecting the financial interests of those in control. The future of man be damned.

Sleep well.

BioFuels helps the War against Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

There are farmers that would rather plow under their healthy crops than sell it unprofitably.
There are farmers that would rather grow illegal crops for drug production than sell current unprofitable food researves to be given to countries (that make NO efforts on population control or social resposibility).
Farmers in starving countries are going bankrupt from the free food given to the country so future food supply in that country is greatly harmed.
More free food to starving countries that have no population control simply equals more starving babies and children... a never ending story of starvation and poverty for both farmers and poverty stricken countries.

BioFuels helps the War against Drugs and fighting poverty world-wide.

Why do we fight nature?

[Epi-man]

In related news, Fidel Castro is blasting the production of corn fuel as a blatant waste of food that would otherwise feed 3 billion people who will die of hunger.

I am sorry for being so cold and callous as I enjoy my luxurious life in the US, but why do we fight so hard to have more people living in areas where they apparently shouldn't be living per Mother Nature? I get so frustrated when people talk about the food supply problems and the water supply problems and how are we going to solve all these problems when perhaps, maybe, just maybe it is time to consider that the planet has enough human beings on it and adding to the population isn't the best move? Reminds me of the Matrix and Agent Smith's analysis of the human species as the only one that doesn't live within its bounds.