I for one never understood CORN being used. grow something with a higher fruit yeild per acre, and sugar yeild per pound.
On 3/30/07, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Recent negative comments on Vortex on this subject are short-sighted and counter productive, despite the fact that ethanol itself is not a desirable transportation fuel. It is all about infrastructure, 'stepping stones', stop-gap solutions, and the ramping up of domestic farm production with what we have now - in anticipation of what we will have in two to three years time. The Agriculture Department said that US farmers intend to plant 90.5 million acres of corn this summer, the highest level since 1944, when the USA was in effect feeding most of the War-ravaged World. ... and up from 78.3 million acres year-ago levels, which was already high historically - an increase of over 15% year to year. Much of this will go into ethanol/butanol. It is not clear what percentage of that will also employ corn cellulose, which can double the yield per acre planted. In reality, the corn to ethanol process is only viable today because of Federal subsidies and tax breaks. These are the result of political support of farm belt congressional representatives and politically powerful farming organizations and major agricultural corporations. Many observers have noted that when "push comes to shove" in the USA, the farm lobby is more powerful than the oil lobby. In fact a great deal of allow farm land is owned by big-oil. These subsidies are not unlike supports given to oil producers in the past - but still the trend to ethanol would be alarming - except for two extremely bright spots in alternative energy R&D, closely related to corn-to-ethanol which do make excellent sense: Algoil (biodiesel from algae) and cellulose-to-butanol (and cross-over technologies). We are only one to two years away from a major shift to these lab-proven technologies, however, and no further breakthroughs are required - just implementation of what we have (and sorting out of overlapping patent and IP rights) ... Therefore - the most valuable outcome of our current National fascination with the conversion of corn to ethanol is that it, and the infrastructure which is derived from it, may prove to be the direct stepping-stone along the efficient "real path" leading us to a sustainable carbon-neutral energy future, one that will provide us with increased home-based energy supplies and significantly reduce our input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - but *without* ethanol itself, in the longer time-frame. That 'real path' to self sufficiency is - and remains - under the same name: bio-fuel but it is not ethanol per se: it is cellulose-to-butanol -- or as an even better alternative: algoil. These are being produced now in pilot-plants and can take-over the entire infrastructure from ethanol easily. Here is some information which is more authoritative than DoA: the corn growers association: http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2007/march/031507a.asp Highlights: 1) Three billion gallons of new ethanol production capacity will come online in 2007. This is almost as much as total production in 2004. 2) NCGA President McCauley: "The industry is a lot closer to manufacturing ethanol from corn cellulose than many people think. Corn cellulose will become as important to the ethanol industry as corn starch already is." 3) The switch to Butanol. Butanol is a significantly better fuel than ethanol, and in principle (and in labs now) it can be 100% substituted using special fermentation yeasts... although for political expediency butanol is being plugged as 'complementary, not competitive". BP announced that it will invest $500 million into butanol in a partnership with DuPont and UC Berkeley to develop the new technology for butanol. Other oil companies are on-board because butanol is also being made as we speak from petroleum AND from coal. IOW it is the only transportation fuel which makes great economic sense to both the farmer, the oil driller, and the coal miner. With those three lobbies, its ultimate success is all but guaranteed. In most ways, butanol is superior to gasoline, as it is cleaner, safer, and less toxic. It is more expensive than gasoline now - but that is partly a function of low demand, which can change overnight - once the switch is mandated - at the pump. Unlike fuel ethanol, or even the 15% blend - with butanol zero changes to an auto engine are required to sue butanol. With more efficient hybrid autos, and with cellulose-to-butanol from the farm belt and Algoil from lake and offshore aquaculture (and flooded deserts) the USA can become self-sufficient in transportation fuel before the end of the decade. All that is required in political will-power and the active participation of big-oil - instead of active hindrance. We may need to be self-sufficient very soon as a practical matter - if the Hawks in DC and the UK decide to take-out the Iranian oil fields as punishment. That is looking more and more probable as an outcome in that region. If we don't do it, the Brits or the Israelis are fully capable alone. Jones
-- That which yields isn't always weak.
