The Mainstream Press is Getting It!
March 29th, 2008
|
| Share |
This morning I went out and happened to glance at the magazine rack where I saw the latest edition of Time Magazine, one of the largest news and general interest periodicals in publication. The cover cut right to the chase when it comes to so called “clean energy” which is really neither clean no economically viable. The cover story is running in the North American and Asian editions of Time Magazine.
The cover story is limited to biofuels and the article’s description states that “Ethanol, the eco-friendly-fuel, is actually a bio-disaster.” This is just another sign in the mainstream media which indicates that the honeymoon is over for biofuels in general and ethanol (the worst of the worst) especially. With increasing community opposition to wind farms, it seems as if the backlash might be finally starting. For the companies and politicians with so much invested in technologies like biofuels there is one thing that threatens them more than anything else: information. When presented with the hard cold facts, the public is unlikely to stand behind these plans and it seems that the facts are getting noticed.
Read the full story while it’s avaliable!
The cover graphic shown was taken directly from the Time Magazine cover website and is linked to the website it was found on. No rights are implied. Because the cover is avaliable as a promotional graphic for the publication and is cited accurately, this is believed to be an example of fair use.
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Good Science, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
March 29th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Well it’s about bloody time… (bad pun intended)
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
The numbers don’t lie. I’m glad more are taking notice. The plain bold facts of the matter are insurmountable to the ethanol groups. When it gets the cover of a big magazine that’s very bad. What’s worse is that it has hit plenty of newspapers and other outlets. This does not bode well. Dirty little secrets that can destroy empires eventually come out and if you don’t believe me on that you can ask Mr. Spitzer about it.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Corn is being diverted from human consumption, kicking off a domino effect of problems tied to food prices. It starts with ethanol produced from corn, which optimists hope will help solve the U.S. reliance on foreign oil, as well as provide a fuel that burns cleaner. “The U.S. is now using more corn for the production of ethanol than the entire [food] crop in Canada”.
And it is going to get bigger. In 2000, world production of ethanol totaled 20 billion litres. In 2007, world production climbed to 60 billion liters. In the month of January 2008 alone, six billion new litres of ethanol were produced in the United States. Scores of ethanol plants are under construction and as a result, it is predicted that the United States will produce 52 billion liters of the fuel in 2008.
When all the plants are running, the United States could produce twice as much corn for ethanol as Canada’s total crop production — wheat, barley, canola, everything. This has huge implications for global food supplies. The amount of corn it takes to produce 75 liters of ethanol -roughly a tank of fuel- is enough corn to feed one person on a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet for a year.
Full article Financial Post
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Of course, corn for ethanol does displace other crops, but corn by itself is a vital staple in the world today. Corn is used for corn oil, corn syrups, corn flour, corn starch. It makes up a very large portion of direct food production and it is by far the most common base for animal feed. Therefore, meat is actually a corn based food.
American corn feeds much of the world. We have the ability to feed everyone in the world due to the bounty of the American plains. (people do not go hungry because there is no food but because of the politics and local issues or logistic reasons). This is a capacity we cannot afford to loose. The importance of the food supply from the plains is vastly more important than the importance of oil from the middle east. If Saudi Arabia dried up, we would manage. There would be big problems, but there are other sources of energy and we would manage. It would be a disaster but not a calamity. If the American plains are compromised, millions will die.
I’m sorry if that sounds dramatic and I am not suggesting that production would even be destroyed in favor of alcohol in one foul swoop, but it shows the importance.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
An Actual Scientist said:
It’s not overly dramatic by any means; it’s a statement of fact. Worse, without heavy inputs from petroleum, corn will very quickly destroy the topsoils it is grown on. It is not a sustainable feedstock for biofuel production.
Nor are any of the other suggested fuel crops simply because the will compete for land. Until the end of the 19th century, all animals used for transportation and power consumed fodder was obtained from dedicated crops. This led to the change from the Roman two-field crop-rotation system to a new three-field system, which was mandated by the increased need for the cultivation of fodder crops (predominantly oats, barley and beans). Keep in mind that this was not to feed slaughter animals; horses and oxen were too valuable to eat as a regular diet item.
The rise of mechanized agriculture released effectively that half of the productive land that had been dedicated to ‘biofuel’ and gave us the ability to feed people on a scale never before realized in human history.
WE cannot go back.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
What has become known as the “Green Revolution” is what changed the world from living hand-to-mouth and worrying each and every season whether we would have plenty or go hungry (or even starve) to the way it is now where we throw away as much food as we eat. I think people have lost touch with the importance of the agriculture system because it’s always there. You can get any food you want at your super market and usually any time of the year.
The worst thing most people experience is a regional problem causes the price of something to go up a little or become slightly less avaliable.
Nobody thinks they could wake up one day and find that food has become the central issue in staying alive.
The system we have does do very very well and it can take being upset by a few regional problems but ethanol is turning it on its head it’s completely changing the way things work.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
This is going to sound like a dumb question at first, but how important is topsoil and soil management? I mean, so what if we loose all the soil? You can grow plants in sand just fine if you pour enough nutrients on them. You can grow plants fine with no medium at all in fluid that has enough fertilizer in it.
Is there any reason why lack of good soil cannot be solved by enough artificial fertilizers?
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Dave G said:
Topsoil is many things. Topsoil is the great integrator. It has been called the “placenta of life on Earth,” and the “balance wheel of the ecosystem.” Topsoils must grow. Mineral weathering and the accumulation of stable humus takes very long periods of time-thousands of years. We might think of humus as recent, but dating studies reveal that humus molecules are often tens of thousands of years old. Only tiny portion of the organic matter reaching the soil persists and becomes stable humus. Countless generations of plants must contribute to make a dark topsoil.
Topsoil is a living tissue, looking like an organism turned inside out. It has a skeleton-the mineral fraction of soil that holds it together and provides surfaces to hang things on. Topsoil has living respiring matter, teeming matrices of living things of all sizes, living everywhere, thickly interacting. As these billions of creatures breathe, the whole soil breathes.
Topsoil has free enzymes that catalyze organic reactions. Humus is everywhere too, a rich web of old, super-complex organic molecules that collected in ways that they can’t be eaten by soil creatures or enzymes. Humus and clay surfaces function like master organs and membranes; filtering, sorting, harboring, metering, nourishing, and holding the blood of the topsoil: water.
While it can be nourished and fortified with chemical input, it cannot be replaced once gone. The problem with other matrices is that they are expensive and need a lot of labor ok for specialty applications, but not for wide scale use.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Dave G: My guess is that this would be prohibitively expensive. In addition, petroleum is the feedstock for much of the fertilizer that’s used, and thus fertilizing things will release eeeeeeevil carbon and cause us all to perish in hellfire & damnation.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Dave G said:
Strictly speaking, no, you don’t “need” topsoil to grow anything. What you are mentioning reminds me of the old adage “You can make a brick fly supersonic if you put a big enough engine on it.”
Good topsoil is basically going to make things work well without having to micromanage everything. It maintains equilibrium, it retains water but not too much water in any one place. Good topsoil basically maintains a state of dynamic equilibrium. Things die in it and things reproduce and it all tends to be balanced and stable.
When you grow something you will take nutrients from it and the point of fertilizer is to replace them or put nutrients that the soil lacked to begin with.
Could you grow crops in sand? Sure, you could grow them in gravel if you tried hard enough and supplemented every nutrient needed. What this amounts to is constant need to provide each and every nutrient and condition. You can’t just fertalize it every now and then. Soil would retain it and allow the plant to absorbe it. But since you have nothing you need constant drip irrigation, sensors to tell you how much water to add. Constant management actively of each and every variable like Ph and what you add to the water.
If you want an analogy, I have a friend who has diabetes. He needs to constantly test his blood sugar, watch very carefully what he eats, give insulin injections. He needs to manage it to the point of eating a few M&M’s when it’s a bit low and then checking it later and finding he should postpone dinner by a bit. I don’t have diabetes so I don’t need to worry. I just eat what I want and my body keeps my bloodsugar where it should be naturally.
That’s kinda like hydroponics: active management of every variable artificially.
You can do it and it works really well for situations where you need precice controls of everything, but it’s not practical to use that kind of method on a large scale.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Excellent analogy!
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
What is it about farm-state representatives!? Why are they are so efficient that they can get any type of subsidies for their farmers, no matter how inane?
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Frederick Davies said:
It is for a lot of reasons. For one thing there is a tradition of supporting agriculture and a lot of old legislation that’s still around. Secondly, the necessity of good agricultural establishment is recognized. Third, lots of states have a farm-driven economy. That means lots of senators and electoral college votes. Fourth, a lot of people are involved in farming even indirectly selling everything from tractors to fertilizer to transportation services. And fifth and probably most importantly money. Agriculture is big business.
Don’t get me wrong on one thing thought: Even if some subsidies are totally overblown farmers are and the industry definitely worth keeping productive and effecient.
On ethanol I don’t agree. Ethanol transforms the farmer from a hero to a villain. From the worker who provides us all with food to someone who produces an energy crop which is unnecessary, economically harmful and bad for the environment!
If you’re a farmer and you just grow corn for ethanol, then I take all my admiration back because you’re doing us no favor!
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I have always wondered why they call the stuff ethanol. That’s the proper name (or ethyl alcohol) but in common usage it’s just “alcohol” or even “grain alcohol” but most people don’t hear the word ethanol and immediately think corn liquor, which is what it is.
I mean from a simple common language type of use if you say “We’re growing corn and making alcohol out of it to power cars it sounds a lot less high tech and innovative than “we’re turning the corn into ethanol.”
What brings this up is that I had made a joke to someone about driving and drinking the same stuff and they didn’t seem to get it. It dawned on me that most people probably don’t even know what it is in reality.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
It is not a secret that ethanol is just corn liquor and it’s mentioned right out plenty of times but I think you are probably right that a lot of people probably don’t know because so many just gloss over things especially any kind of science. I’m sure many just never noticed and think ethanol is just some kind of good stuff that makes air clean and is made out of sunshine and magic and rainbows.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Topsoil is not just important to growing crops. We have so much land dedicated to agriculture that bad soil management can lead to dust storms and sedimentation of water supplies. Good top soil is a buffer that stabilizes things and also retains both water and fertilizer or nutrients.
Soil is not consumed by agriculture. Some component is depleted you can replace that and use the soil over and over as long as you manage it right. Soil is lost to erosion or drying out and blowing away. If you loose all the topsoil, there are ways of dealing with it and replacing or reconditioning what you have. It is neither easy nor cheap nor fast though.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
The whole agriculture thing is not the whole of it. It’s not like ethanol is just bad for farming. it’s useless for everything. It is just useless. It’s not good for economics or for the environment or for infrastructure or national security. it’s just horrible and wasteful.
All i can see is maybe switchgrass to ethanol would be decent in return but its still just a marginal thing. ethanol from switchgrass is not as wasteful like corn is. it still can only put a small amount of oil reduction. we are not there though with the technology so i won’t hold my breath
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Evil Henchman said:
I’m not sure of that – it’s doing a rather good job in the single malt I’m enjoying at this moment…
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2008 at 12:05 am
I am going to try this informally on my own just because I’m now curious. Maybe everyone else can too. Why don’t we all just ask our friends and family who are not especially interested in energy or chemistry or science what ethanol is. If they say it’s a biofuel or something try to ask what the history or whatever.
I want to find out if the average joe on the street honestly knows that we’re talking about the same stuff as Everclear. The stam stuff that makes fat chicks hot. The same stuff that is known as “corn liquor” or “grain alcohol” or “200 proof” or “moonshine”
I’d think most people would know but I’m not sure.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Yes you’re right that ethanol has it’s uses. For example, you can get some of it and mix it with water and kool-aid mix to produce “jungle juice” this can be done in a (new clean) trash can or even better you can mix the ethyl alcohol and the kool aid and the water in a kiddy pool and then you get some hot chicks to go in the pool and maybe jump in yourself and…. well, you know I really don’t know after that becasue it’s all a blur but once you make the jungle juice things happen.
I take it back. Ethanol is great.
(come to think of it I don’t remember if they were actually hot or not, but by the end of the night they always seem to be)
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2008 at 1:54 am
ummm…. yeah. College.
But back on track, I think this is pretty clear evidence that the honeymoon is over. Wind is getting crap and biofuel. More and more it seems. PV solar seemed to die quietly because of the goddamned expense but it’s still here. The new kid is solar thermal which seems to be just as expensive and even less effecient.
The “green energy” scam could only keep this up so long.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Actually I want to pose a question about ethanol: if I understand Brazil has actually been able to pull off the ethanol thing and get most of their energy domestically without relying on much oil import. They do it with sugar cane because sugar is the most potent feedstock for ethanol production.
Why can’t the US do that? Don’t we have the ability to grow sugar cane? I keep hearing that it needs a hot climate but I’d be surprised if you couldn’t grow it in a lot of the southern US. Florida is practically tropical and Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana are not all that much less hot.
Couldn’t a lot of sugar be grown there?
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2008 at 12:41 am
That is an interesting question. I’m pretty sure sugar cane will grow in much of Florida and I know they grow it in Hawii. It seems like you could probably grow it in a lot of the south and maybe California too. Also Puerto Rico perhaps. It might just be that they don’t have a big farm industry there. Corn we already are growing and have been for a long time.
I don’t know though but Georgia gets into the triple digits in the summer sometimes and it’s muggy and pretty warm in winter too. It’s almost tropical Maybe not enough land? I doubt that though. Those are big states and even if not in all of them, if you add it all up it seems like it would be enough to grow enough sugar to make a difference.
Quote Comment
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
DV82XL said:
Actually, you can slash that number in about 10-20 as most of that corn was used for meat production.
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2010 at 3:20 am
Biff Henderson said:
I don’t know why it has declined, but the Gulf Coast traditionally had quite a substantial sugar industry. I remember cane trucks on the highway at my grandparents’ house south of Baton Rouge, La. And a suburb of Houston is named Sugar Land for being home to Imperial Sugar, although the plant is now defunct. Perhaps the demand has taken a dump as a result of the rise of corn syrup as a sweetener.
Anyway, Brazil has the advantage of being able to support two growing seasons every year, doubling the annual yield per acre. I’ve never heard a conclusion to the question of whether the demand for Brazilian ethanol will apply significant pressure to convert rain forest to farm land.
As an aside, an engineer I worked with had written a paper as an undergrad that got published some time in the 90’s, I think, which explored the potential of converting waste bananas (bananas rejected for sale) to ethanol. The numbers sounded impressive at the time, but then I was younger and didn’t know the value of a watt.
Actually, before posting I searched for the paper and found it here:
http://www.net-lanna.info/biotechnology/Abstract/22000525.pdf
His numbers –
Worldwide production of bananas in 1990 = 45.8 billion kg
Percentage of production wasted = 25% – 50%
Ethanol yield per kg = .09 L/kg green bananas
Back-of-the-envelope potential ethanol production = 1 – 2 billion L.
So, not a huge amount, but not bad for making use of an existing concentrated agricultural waste. No idea on the energy input.
Quote Comment