Posted on 01/26/2007 5:55:38 AM PST by randita
"Corn prices are up, and this is not a welcome development in those parts of the world where corn is a staple (human) food."
You mean parts of the world like Mexico where they've been complaining forever about how we flood the world markets with dirt cheap subsidized corn that sells in their country for less than it costs their farmers to grow it? Corn is really only a major staple in corn producing countries. Our corn has been dirt cheap for a long time in large part because of subsidies that make our corn cheaper and encourage our farmers to overproduce. This has hurt farmers in other corn producing countries and a lot of them have gotten out of the business or switched to other crops. The truth of the matter is though that even as far back as the first half of the last century we had several million more acres of corn growing than we do now and we could still produce a lot more than we currently produce. We'll never come close to satisfying all our fuel needs with ethanol produced from corn, and if we devote too many acres to fuel corn it will eventually displace enough food crops to really put the hurt on us, but we aren't anywhere close to seeing that happen yet. That's not the best argument against ethanol, but it is a good argument against "unsustainable" government mandates.
Why is this incorrect? According to Pimental Cold Heart is correct. According so some other studies at places like Berkley he's not right, but the environazis at Berkeley are more likely to make the experiment fit the desired outcome than Pimental.
I don't disagree with you but I thought I'd give the 'school' solution.
You make a good point -- more CO2 just means more vegetation -- but more vegetation also means more absorption of sunlight by those plants and possibly more warming as a result of greater energy takeup.
Here's why I wrote that ...
I forget the details ... (thermo WAS 30 years ago) but in the following equation, representing the combustion of propane, CH3-CH2-CH3 + 5O2 --> 3CO2 + 4H20 + heat; **IF** I recall correctly, the preponderance of heat comes from the oxidation of the carbon atoms, because you are oxidizing the 3 carbon atoms, but reducing the 3 oxygen molecules (when making the water molecules /i.e., not oxidizing a hydrogen molecule).
As any good FReeper, I am open to correction. It's been a long time since I figgered out calories ...
Well he's not entirely incorrect.
Ya cook the corn to convert the corn starch to sugars. The yeast you add digests the sugars anaerobically to make alcohol, water and CO2.
In large part, corn meal/mash in the bottom of the fermenter IS really good animal feed, with only the starch/sugar part gone.
Once you distill the alcohol off, age it in a nicely charred red oak barrel ... but I digress.
What part are you disagreein' with? Just curious.
I've posted a couple of comments on this thread which one were you referring to?
sorry ... your post #40 re: questioning the food value of corn mash.
But what I mostly objected to was his statement that distillation only took out the sugar, when you have to cook it and ferment it first convert the starch to sugar and then the sugar to ethanol distillation isn't taking out sugar. It's an oversimplification of a complicated process
That old report has been throroughly debunked. Not only that, it does not even come close to present data nor what present research indicates will be obtainable in 3 to 5 years.
By those with an axe to grind. Whose report do you trust?
--By those with an axe to grind. Whose report do you trust?--
See #52. It also shows how your Mr. P has been recycling 1979 data for decades to prove his point.
Interesting. I see a number of sources like national corn growers association, etc. Which I would not trust too much either. What I'd like to see is a pilot plant that runs the whole process from planting, fertilizing, harvesting, distilling, etc. on ethanol from corn with a net energy gain. It all depends on your assumptions.
--Interesting. I see a number of sources like national corn growers association, etc. Which I would not trust too much either. What I'd like to see is a pilot plant that runs the whole process from planting, fertilizing, harvesting, distilling, etc. on ethanol from corn with a net energy gain. It all depends on your assumptions.--
Did you read their criticisms of Mr. P's assumptions?
Who would you expect to counter false low numbers in the corn yield and energy contained in the ethanol, oil companies? You can debate some of his items, but those don't come close to actual data of decades.
LIke I said if the net energy gain is 35% of 67% like some of the conr growers articles claimsed, then it should be easy to produce a demo plant that runs its entire operation on the energy from the ethanol itself. From the planting to the fertilizing, harvesting, fermenting and distilling. I'll remain skeptical until I see that, but if I do I'll convert. I have a lot more faith in Fischer Tropsh synfuel from coal's ability to meet future energy needs than ethanol.
--Obviously not all of them, but those I did read were very scant on hard data.--
http://www.ethanol.org/documents/NetEnergyBalanceofEthanol.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.