Throwing Corn off the Green Bus

By Dana Blankenhorn
February 2, 2011 | 64 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Bookmark

I am a big booster of alternative energy. Harvesting the wind, the Sun, the heat of the Earth, the tides – I'm there and NIMBYs be damned.

But I am increasingly having second thoughts about one type of green energy. Corn-based ethanol. (I would toss in sugar cane, too, but America doesn't grow enough to matter here.)

Corn ethanol was one of the first biofuels to find a market. Pushed by companies like ADM and Cargill, corn ethanol is now an integral ingredient in many blends of gasoline. It is compatible with gasoline and, its advocates say, it burns cleaner.

But corn is a row crop. That means it's planted in long rows. It's dependent on man for its survival. (If we didn't open the husks and spread the seed it would not exist.) Corn also takes nitrogen from the soil. It depletes the land. The way you sustain land for corn is by either spreading fertilizer every year or letting the land “rest” every so often, rotating it with some non-food crop such as soybeans or (better yet) a perennial grass.

Corn is also a food crop. The same process which leads to ethanol leads to corn syrup. Corn is an essential feed for livestock of all kinds. Corn ethanol competes with people and animals for corn.

All this makes corn an easy whipping boy for those who actually oppose renewable energy, like oil industry analyst Bob van der Walk.

“Using food for bio-fuels – especially in Western countries – is counter productive to keeping the price for those staples affordable, but that is exactly what is being encouraged by the proposed federal subsidies,” he writes.

He's right. Support for corn is the Achilles Heel of the alternative fuels industry. And it doesn't have to be that way.

As venture capitalist Vinod Khosla notes, concentrated hydrocholoric acid can break any plant material into its constituent parts, leaving it all available for use. Forest waste can be used to produce ethanol. So can switchgrass. Polyculture, growing several different kinds of plants in the same place, can become an economic source of cellulosic alcohol while reclaiming land row crops are making unusable.

The problem here is that cellulosic alcohol is not yet a proven technology. But that's a technical problem. It should not be a political one.

The political problem here is not with the farmer – not if he has economic alternatives to corn that can supply energy. The political problem here is with the processors, with firms like ADM that have married corn to green politics and don't want to change either business or political strategy. The processors are the financial support for politicians across the farm belt who are willing to stick their neck out for renewable energy. Remove that support and, it seems, their replacements would vote against us. Or they would.

It reminds me of the old “National Lampoon” cover from the 1970s – if you don't buy this magazine we'll kill this dog. The dog in this case is environmental politics, and ADM holds the gun.

It's time for that company to disarm.

Under CEO Patricia Woertz , there have been some indications the company wants to do just that. A former Chevron executive, Woertz talks a good game, but the company's stock has gone nowhere under her leadership and its prospects remain tied to the price of corn.

ADM has used government money for a demonstration cellulosic plant near its headquarters, and has worked with Purdue on research that would use all of a corn plant for energy production. But in this new game it's only one of many contenders. In corn it's king.

Is the best way to accelerate the move to truly renewable ethanol, to cellulosic alcohol, for the rest of the renewables industry to let ADM go?

Bioenergy, Green Power, Other

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

64 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 64

Marvin_Hamon_PE

February 3, 2011

I'm not a big believer in food based fuels. Having to choose between someone eating for a week and someone else driving for a day is not the kind of choice that someone should be making. The folks pushing corn ethanol are the same ones pushing corn syrup sweetener that is so cheap it is put in just about all processed foods that use a sweetener. So we are fat and tied to ethanol fuel, yippy. Of course if the price of corn goes up because it is being diverted to fuel then the cost of corn sweetener goes up and someone will be making big profits.

One thing I find interesting is that it takes something like 0.7 gallon of fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol fuel from corn. Who thinks this is a long term solution?

I would rather run a diesel on biodiesel that can come from a wider variety of sources, even waste products, and takes around 0.3 gallon of fuel to produce 1 gallon of biodiesel.

Comment
2 of 64

Anonymous

February 3, 2011

Marvin writes in comment #1:
"One thing I find interesting is that it takes something like 0.7 gallon of fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol fuel from corn. Who thinks this is a long term solution?"

I'm not a big fan of corn ethanol (on any other food to fuel scheme that will lead to higher food prices), but the energy and carbon balance issues are complex and it is inaccurate to say that it takes 0.7 gallons of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. Here is one paper among many that considers the matter:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

The exact carbon and energy balance numbers remain debatable but something in the ballpark of 1.3 units of energy out per unit of input is typical of more recent estimates (the ANL study cited above gives a value of 1.34). However, most of the energy input (~83% according to the above study) comes from coal or natural gas rather than transportation fuels (much of the energy cost comes from the distilling process and the fertilizers rather than fuel for the farmer's tractors or trucking costs). There is also a substantial energy credit given in the energy output total for the value of co-products such as distillers' dried grain (DDG), which is used as an animal feed. If your primary concern is how well using corn based ethanol reduces global warming the ~30% improvement over just using oil isn't impressive. If your concern is only for the net balance of transportation fuels then ethanol fares much better, albeit at a rather high cost (much of it currently subsidized by the federal government).

Steven

Comment
3 of 64

YankeeTrader

February 4, 2011

I'll bet he meant "non-fuel crop."

Comment
4 of 64

howard-hull-16528

February 4, 2011

It's about time some of you green kooks start to wake up!!

Comment
5 of 64

larry-johnson-56570

February 4, 2011

Rather than refute many of the inaccurate allegations that are repeated by ethanol opponents, I would offer this to the author before she jumps off the "Green Bus". Consider that the renewable fuel with the greatest gains in the marketplace is the one that will attract the greatest opposition. The huge misinformation campaign against ethanol results from the fact that it is actually an economical and environmental threat to more than a century of "Big Oil" dominance.

One example is the "food vs fuel" issue. Yes, we are using 40% of the corn crop for ethanol production but if it were not for the ethanol industry, we would not be producing that much corn. Ever since World War II, American taxpayers have been paying farmers not to produce and for storing corn surpluses. Finally we have a use for that productivity and farmers are responding with enough for both food and energy.

By the way; discussing ethanol as an ADM issue shows the author has not done any reaearch on the subject. That is the hotbutton from the last century.

Comment
6 of 64

Ryamcope

February 4, 2011

In 2009, 25% of the corn produced in this country was turned into ethanol. Enough to feed 350 million people for a year. Not my words...." The third major source of demand growth is the use of crops to produce fuel for cars. In the United States, which harvested 416 million tons of grain in 2009, 119 million tons went to ethanol distilleries to produce fuel for cars. That's enough to feed 350 million people for a year." The article was written by Lester R. Brown. President of Earth Policy Institute and author of World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse. Full article at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/10/the_great_food_crisis_of_2011

Though I do not subscribe to this group of environmentalists, the statistic of not being able to feed the millions of people because of this irrational decision for ethanol is astounding. And to add icing on the cake, EPA wants to increase it to 15% versus the current 10%. This further exacerbates the food supply and continues to drive up the cost of corn and ultimately higher fuel prices. None of this leads to independency, but only toward a false shortage created by leaders wanting more....people are rioting due to the current food shortage....what happens when we increase the impact on the corn with E85? Drop ethanol, it was a poor decision when it was made and is even a worse one with the current shortages.

Comment
7 of 64

howard-hull-16528

February 4, 2011

The only reason that methanol has been developed and used at all is the corn belts payoffs to politicians who BLOW billions of our tax dollars on it so that the useless goofballs can get reelected, same goes for wind power, no tax breaks no windmills. And here we are 14.5 Trillion in the hole!! When are we going to WAKE UP and stop this non-sense????

Comment
8 of 64

phil-manke-79191

February 4, 2011

It is obvious that intensive corn growing is not a greening cultural atribute. It may be green in color, but not in purpose if it is intensively farmed. It simply costs too much in fuel and fertilizer and leaves the earth with less topsoil in its wake. It is a net brown fuel, and unsustainable. I agree, we should kick it off the (hydrogen powered?) bus.

Comment
9 of 64

jerry-glenn-175004

February 4, 2011

As a negotiating tool, making fuel from corn is perfect. We have been held at ransom for crude by cartels and we pointed out reality. The worlds food comes from inexpensive energy utilized effectively in modern farms. The world needs the good old USA for food, cops and kindness, but not as fools.

Comment
10 of 64

jeff-lindstrom-162496

February 4, 2011

How close to agriculture are you?
A lot of these responses, and the article seem to me as to be written from a perspective of
"I think I know, what I know, but what I know is limited on that subject. Instead if doing research, I'll spew misinformation anyway."
To me it seems now that everyone is so concerned that corn is being taken away from being used for food. You realize corn has been used for things other than food for years? There are over 4200 uses for corn products.
As a question to the author of this missive, what do you think happens to the spent grain from the ethanol conversion process? They dump it in a pit and bury it? No, it is put right back in the food cycle. It seems cattle and other animals prefer it (distillers grains) over the usual ground feed.
As for someone else being concerned over the cost of corn being driven up. Again I say do your research. The price of corn has been quite low for many years, through inflation, and rising cost of living, and the rising cost of production, The price of corn has always been very low. $1.10 a bu. in 1960 $2.46 a bu. in 1990. $1.90 a bu. in 2000. Granted these are the yearly avg. numbers. but you can quite possibly see why the family farmer is becoming endangered species, only to be replaced with corporate farming.

Before you speak, I urge you to do some actual research from different credible sources other than mother earth news type of outlets. Don't believe everything that you learned in your college classes, from a sometimes biased professor. Seek the truth, and the truth will set you free.

http://www.nebraskacorn.org/main-navigation/corn-production-uses/

http://worldofcorn.com/

http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/pricehistory/PriceHistory.asp

Comment
11 of 64

arturo-velez-136267

February 4, 2011

According to a Rice University study (link below), 1,262 litres of water are needed to produce just one litre of corn ethanol; 1,266 litres of water to produce just one litre with sugarcane, and 4,185 litres of water to produce one litre of soybean biodiesel... but less than ten litres are used in the industrial processing of biofuels. Monsanto's and Cargill's, etc. "technology" packets and seeds require lots of water to grow and produce, mainly for dissolving fertilizers and agrochemicals. Up to 3,000 litres od water are used to produce just on litre of corn ethanol in CHina!!!

We cannot use that much water to produce food, no matter if it is used for biofuels or to feed people. The huge soil contamination problem caused by Monsanto's and Cargill, etc. is terrible. Greener agriculture is desperately needed.

I am developing Agave project, an initiative to produce biofuels from agave. Agave thrives on marginal land, in arid and semiarid land, needs no irrigation (190mm of rain will suffice), nor agroochemicals. According to Dr. Park S. Nobel, one hectare of wild agave, under natural conditions, on marginal, semiarid land, yields 42 tonnes of dry biomass, with 62% cellulose content.

If the USA planted agave on its arid and semiarid marginal land, dry biomass production could be trippled.

Best,
Arturo
agaveproject2@gmail.com

http://cohesion.rice.edu/centersandinst/shellcenter/emplibrary/Water%20Footprint%20of%20Biofuels%20FINAL%20SUBMISSION.pdf

Comment
12 of 64

Anonymous

February 4, 2011

To think that anyone should "be thrown off the green bus" is misguided. While biofuels may be under attack by economic interests that are threatened by it, and have a huge campaign of misinformation against 'corn ethanol'; to start sacrificing our own is just plain stupid. To counter this misinformation is daunting partly because the interrelated factors are so complicated and it is difficult to counter simplified inaccuracies. Comments #2 and #6 seem to understand this. Comment #7 says "In 2009, 25% of the corn produced in this country was turned into ethanol. Enough to feed 350 million people for a year". This is just a neo-colonial attitude. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. We must work to make agriculture in developing countries productive, not sell them our subsidized products and drive them out of business.

The original corn ethanol industry in this country is not perfect but it is not nearly as bad as its critics make it out to be. We should also note that the first real commercial volume cellulosic ethanol is coming from Poet, the largest corn ethanol producer in the world. The first scale algae farms based on ethanol plant waste streams are being installed by a joint venture involving Green Fields Ethanol the fourth largest producer. Their projection is to produce enough algae lipids (oils) to make about 75 Billion gallons of biodiesel by 2015. To make future projections by only looking at the past is stupid. The biofuels industry is very dynamic with many advancements and innovations coming into play. Their success will to a large extent come from the first generation ethanol producers that have the resources and credit and supply channels to make them a reality. Bill Brandon

Comment
13 of 64

JimW

February 4, 2011

To summarize.
Scientific American says peak 2014.
Shell walked away from Algae this week.
Without subsidy many would not be doing ethanol or wind.
We need to look at technologies which can help get us past peak.
Please look at GreenNH3 and help get some investors on board.
To us it is the only sustainable green hope we have.

Comment
14 of 64

jerry-glenn-175004

February 4, 2011

Fortunately the free market decides what to do each year rather than researchers or politicians. Improved seeds and productivity reduce water use and pollution. Global warming may provide higher rainfall. More effective use of water will occur when it's economical and good business for farmers. Researchers will propose strange ideas that usually don't provide adequate ROI (Return on Investment). In this capitalist world, it's ROI and very little about anything else.

Comment
15 of 64

russ-finley-53703

February 4, 2011

Dana said:

"...Corn ethanol was one of the first biofuels to find a market..."

It did not find a market. Its use is federally mandated. Consumers have no choice.

And why has it taken you until 2011 to decide that corn ethanol is a farce? Every major environmental and conservation organization in the world came to that conclusion many years ago.

Marvin

Biodiesel in temperate zones is made almost exclusively from soy and canola, which produce a lot less fuel per acre than corn. Vegetable oil is a highly valued food. There is not enough waste to scale to a meaningful supply so mentioning it is misleading. The biofuel issue boils down to arable land use.

Steven (comment #2)

1/0.7 = 1.43
1.3/1 = 1.3

All modern estimates include the energy credit for distiller's grains.

Corn ethanol is essentially a way to convert a combination of natural gas, coal, and food into a liquid fuel.

Howard (comment #5)

Greens have been fighting corn ethanol for many years now. Corn ethanol has and still is a rare bipartisan debacle. Don't blame the greens.

Jeff Lindstrom (comment #11)

Using corn for fuel dwarfs by many orders of magnitude other non-food uses of corn.

Distiller's grains are included in all of the analysis. About 70% of the corn that enters a refinery is lost to the food chain.

The cost of corn has been driven up by ethanol. The USDA stated from the start that this was one of their goals to improve farm incomes. See the following chart of the price of corn:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lKRd0hKcyhc/TSdPqeQ-k4I/AAAAAAAAAVM/2MfKgNWqDiQ/s1600/corn%2Bprices.JPG

We as tax payers and consumers are not obligated to subsidize small business owners, be they small computer retailers, small book store owners, small logging operations, or small farmers.

Comment
16 of 64

martin-schultz-34905

February 4, 2011

There is no way food crop based fuel makes any sense. Subsidizing it and/or mandating it is purely political correctness. A knee jerk reaction to Al Gore and his global warming nonsense. Absent a massive switch to natural gas as a transportation fuel, prices at the pump everywhere will rise. At some point alternative energy will become competitive for most applications. Trying to force that will result in government picking winners. And we all know how that ends.

Regards, Martin
www.selling-a-business-without-stress.com

Comment
17 of 64

russ-finley-53703

February 4, 2011

Bill Brandon (comment #13)said:

"...While biofuels may be under attack by economic interests that are threatened by it..."

Big oil is patiently waiting in the wings to see if it is profitable. And should if ever prove profitable, they will buy up every profitable refinery out there with their chump change. The blender's credit goes straight to oil companies. They are not being hurt by corn ethanol.

Farmers who are hurt by high feed prices are certainly against corn ethanol, as is any other food provider. Who could blame them?

But the lion's share of criticism comes from environmental and conservation organizations, which are all non-profit--no economic interests at all.

"...We must work to make agriculture in developing countries productive, not sell them our subsidized products and drive them out of business..."

It always amuses me to hear a farmer, who happily took every subsidy in the past even though it hampered the competitiveness of other countries, suddenly say that those countries should now grow their own food now that prices are soaring. If they could grow it cheaper than we provided it, they would already be growing it cheaper. It's a one-two-knockout punch. Crush their ag industry then leave them to starve.

"...Their success [other biofuels] will to a large extent come from the first generation ethanol producers that have the resources and credit and supply channels to make them a reality..."

Corn ethanol has hogged up the entire market and is lobbying for more. Corn ethanol refiners will fight any competitor tooth and nail should it ever arrive. And who is to say ethanol will be the winner in next generation biofuels? Supply channels created by corn ethanol are for ethanol, not biodiesel. You can't use the same pumps, trucks, or pipes.

There is no economically viable second generation fuel and there may never be one.

Comment
18 of 64

christine-roberts-169503

February 4, 2011

P.S. A google search revealed that the author of this article Dana Blankenhorn is a man, not woman, as some of the bloggers above have assummed.

Comment
19 of 64

christine-roberts-169503

February 4, 2011

I have long heard of corn as being a transition crop for ethanol. As the technology for growing, harvesting and transporting corn is already figured out and it is a massive source of cellulose, using corn is a quick way to get ethanol production going. Most gasoline fuels blend in ethanol these days because it helps to reduce pollution.
There is no doubt that better sources of cellulose are out there, but it will take time to figure out how to harvest, transport, and process these more branchy and stick-like plants. Processing these other types of cellulose is a great challenge, compared to the ease of working with truckloads of corn.
For now, I see little advantage to using our corn, which is genetically modified to be high starch and low nutritional content, for the food end use that it is now being directed towards. Do we really need the high fructose corn syrup that has found it's way into most of our industrialized food? Many professional nutritionists have stated that this product is actually detrimental to our health.
Likewise, the practice of feeding this corn to livestock to fatten beef cattle has been called into question. Corn is an un-natural diet for cows, which are born to feed on grass. Force-feeding corn causes herds to become sick, and the animals are "harvested" right before this diet kills them.
If our society were truly rational we would place the greatest value on preserving our fragile eco-system, move away from sweeteners, and embrace a vegetarian diet. We really do not need to eat so much beef, which has also been determined to be detrimental to our health. To simple use less meat and sugars in our diets are steps in the right direction. I support the continued production of ethanol, and look forward to great improvements in this technology.

Comment
20 of 64

Anonymous

February 4, 2011

Christine writes in comment #19:
"P.S. A google search revealed that the author of this article Dana Blankenhorn is a man, not woman, as some of the bloggers above have assummed."

I thought the mustache and beard evident in Dana's picture at the upper right corner of this page were pretty suggestive of this fact, and the fact that the second line of the bio started with the pronoun "He" lent strong support to this conjecture. I'm not sure how much more conclusive a google search would be on this issue. :-)
Steven

Comment
21 of 64

russ-finley-53703

February 4, 2011

Christine, nobody is planning to use the cellulose in corn kernels.

There is no economically viable source of cellulosic ethanol.

You can't make cellulosic ethanol in a corn ethanol refinery.

A vegetarian diet that includes eggs and dairy is little different from a diet that includes meat. It takes about the same amount of resources to make eggs, milk, and cheese, which are also animal products.

Eating fewer animal products is one thing. Switching between them makes little difference.

You support corn ethanol because you think it will reduce the amount of high fructose corn syrup? If it drives the price up above sugar then sugar will be substituted. The sweeteners in our foods will remain. Only the source and price of it will change.

Comment
22 of 64

Anonymous

February 4, 2011

YankeeTrader
I'll bet he meant "non-fuel crop."

Then, that would be a big surprise to arturo and russ, and to the major biodiesel producers who buy soybean oil as their starting ingredient.

Comment
23 of 64

jeff-lindstrom-162496

February 4, 2011

#16 Russ-

Though I agree and partially agree with most of your points made. I cannot with good reason say that because of the ethanol mandate, the price of corn has inflated. Yes, the ethanol market has been influenced by processors paying a premium to the producer for #1 corn. Ethanol cannot be used as the only factor for the rise on the corn price.
One has to look at the weather in the corn producing states as one of the contributing factors. The upper Midwest was suffering through a drought in a production area without primary irrigation other than lake effect rains. since that time period there has been allot of pivot irrigation systems being installed.
The economic climate is another factor. We had been going through a finical uptick before the housing crash when (according to your graph) the price started dropping at the price of $4.06 pr bu. Grain price recovery on your graph in 09 also coincides with the Govt. firing up it's printing press causing inflation. it is only natural that commodity prices are going to rise across the board. Look at the historical price of cotton.
Inter modal fuel surcharges and transportation costs during this time frame could also be a contributing factor as well. making shipping to their regular markets unprofitable, thus causing the market to inflate.
I worked in this sector for many years. There are a lot of contributing factors.

#14 Jim -

Have you worked with NH3 aka Anhydrous Ammonia? Yes It might be a viable fuel source, it is also corrosive, hazardous, and not for the public. You obviously haven't accidentally inhaled it's vapor. One of he final process in making meth uses NH3. NH3 is a reaction between water and acid. Where dose the acid come from?
Many of these "green technologies" are not quite ready for profitable public consumption. The technology is not there yet. Granted Ethanol may not be "ideal" but 1 bbl. of it replaces 1.2 bbl of petrol.
"...under my plan energy prices will necessarily rise" - Pres Obama

Comment
24 of 64

Anonymous

February 4, 2011

Russ (comment #18) - I am disappointed. I thought you could at least nail me on my mistaken figure of 75 BILLION gallons of biodiesel. It should have been 75 million. You need to pay closer attention to other things also like the massive investments by Shell- Cosan JV and Total-Amyris in Brazil. This is hardly "Big oil... patiently waiting in the wings to see if it is profitable."

I never said that it was Big Oil that felt threatened, although I think they are mildly displeased with the possibility of ED95 replacing diesel or extensive distribution of E85 which would allow for ethanol optimized vehicles. BP is actively promoting biobutanol which will allow them to use C5 and C6 carbons
and still meet RVP standards. This will initially be done by converting corn ethanol facilities which they hope to buy in a distressed market.

You seem to think I am a farmer which I am not, but I may know more about agribusiness than you. The corn farmer isn't being hurt right now, cattle producers and dairymen are adapting to using DDG's as a superior feed as are some poultry producers like Tysons. See http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/nutritionist-to-discuss-use-of-ddgs-in-poultry-rations-id4766.html It really is the hog producers that seem to be complaining and that is a highly concentrated industry. They seem to want to go back to the days of corn prices below cost of production that damaged developing countries farmers. I certainly don't think we should "leave them to starve" but we won't solve their problems by sending our grain.

You say "There is no economically viable second generation fuel and there may never be one." Do your research - they are here now, but without an expanded market it is nearly impossible to get financing. We are mandated to use 85% gasoline. This is hardly a free and open market. You say "who is to say ethanol will be the winner in next generation biofuels?" How about 57% thermal efficiency over 26% for gasoline. It's politics. BB

Comment
25 of 64

david-larson-57667

February 5, 2011

Sure, corn is a poor feedstock for ethanol. Everyone knows it, but people like our current president want to get elected. The corn lobby exists because states like Illinois and Ohio have a lot of political clout, and corn has a lot of political votes swinging on it, since before E85.

We need 2nd gen fuels, and there are companies working hard on it, none of whom have come out saying ADM needs to quit.

So what exactly, then, is the point? Your article's content seems to point to another motive. It reads like Ethyl Corp. propaganda, the main goal of which was to remove alcohol from the playing field entirely.

The food v fuel argument is antique bunk. Hunger is caused by poverty, and sometimes, stubborn idiocy. Hungry people can not afford to buy food, and can not grow their own [or will not, in the case of the stubborn idiots]. If nobody pays for the tons of petroleum to get US corn to hungry people, they can't eat it.

Poor ADM, with their tiny and weak political effect and tiny bit of profit from ethanol, always being the whipping boy, while we ignore the fact that gasoline, if it were a new product today, facing the stringent regulations of any developing product, could not even exist.

Gasoline beat ethanol in the market through high alcohol taxes, prohibition, and the machinations that gave us TETRA ETHYL LEAD [insert skull and crossbones here]. Look up the history, the business and political dealings that made TEL possible, before you come back and cry about corn ethanol.

It is fascinating to watch "greens" get fooled into turning on each other rather than working for change. Going after a soft target like ADM, not the API, is shooting ourselves in the foot and never seeing who started the war in the first place.

After the smoke clears, "Biodiesel" becomes a nice word that means "diesel", just as "Flex Fuel" means "Gasoline", and "Electric" means coal. It really is starting to look like 1980 again.

Comment
26 of 64

david-larson-57667

February 5, 2011

Ethanol was motor fuel when Gasoline was sold in grocery stores as a stain remover. Yes, ethanol had a market. High taxes, then prohibition, then politics, skewed the "Free Market" way out to left field.

"X gallons of water used to make...." That water, like the nutrients in corn, is not destroyed. In some cases, [improving every day] the water comes out of the process cleaner than it went in. Compare this to the fouling of water caused by fracturing rock for natural gas wells, or steam extraction of tar from "oil sands".

As usual, no one wants to look at the other side of the coin.

Comment
27 of 64

david-larson-57667

February 5, 2011

Exactly how much of anybody's diet depends on corn? Any real idea, or just what you've been told?

"Food for fuel"? Exchanging wheat fields and grazing land for bitumen strip mines is a vast improvement?

Is there any research out there, or just 40-year old lies from DuPont and Standard's illegitimate child, Ethyl Corp?

Comment
28 of 64

russ-finley-53703

February 5, 2011

Jeff said:

"...I cannot with good reason say that because of the ethanol mandate, the price of corn has inflated..."

Look at my graph again:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lKRd0hKcyhc/TSdPqeQ-k4I/AAAAAAAAAVM/2MfKgNWqDiQ/s1600/corn%2Bprices.JPG

You are saying that a sudden diversion of 30% of a corn crop into fuel should not cause a sudden price increase in corn prices? We have record production and record prices! The price started to climb in perfect sync with mandated ethanol use. The average annual price for the last four years is twice as high--100% higher--double the average for the decade preceding the 2005-2007 mandate legislation, all a coincidence.

BB said:

"...I think they [oil] are mildly displeased with the possibility of ED95 replacing diesel or extensive distribution of E85 which would allow for ethanol optimized vehicles..."

Mildly displeased? We can't grow enough corn to make a dent, there are no second gen fuels that are marketable (and they would buy them up if they were profitable) as they will buy up any profitable operation that may happen along. Liquid fuels are their business model. They don't care what it is made out of as long as they can make money on it.

"...You seem to think I am a farmer which I am not, but I may know more about agribusiness than you..."

What you do for a living is irrelevant as is any claim to superior knowledge of a given business. Your argument is all you got in a comment field.

"...The corn farmer isn't being hurt right now,..."

With corn selling for $6 a bushel I would hope they are not hurting.

"...cattle producers and dairymen are adapting to using DDG's as a superior feed..."

The DDG byproduct has always been there. It has always been used as a feed supplement. Cattle producers are not suddenly realizing that. The price of corn is up because about 70% of its food value is lost when passed through a refinery. The cattle herds have shrunk to 1958 levels because of low profit margins in a high demand market!

Comment
29 of 64

nick-tastad-41902

February 5, 2011

Dana, babe, where have you been? This article is so redundant, it's virtually irrelevant. It is the equivalent of an article posing as an insightful observation piece describing the fact that water feels wet. With few exceptions, most observant intelligent people already know water feels wet.

A more salacious and possibly more entertaining/heartbreaking way to write the article is as follows: Caution was thrown to the wind as confused environmentalists hijacked the energy debate. They then fell into the hands of agribusinesses that had a few extra unsold bushels of corn to move each year. Then, idiot LA and LRs working up on Capitol Hill (who were the friends/associates of or perhaps confused environmentalists themselves) began telling their congressmen/senators that the US needed to fund the ethanol industry in order to "save" America. The agribusinesses seized the moment and came in under the cloak of a white knight pimp, who promised to protect a (prostitute-like) America hopelessly addicted to oil from the vagaries of our existing evil tyrannical oil-supplying black knight pimps. The reality is, the white knights are also as dependant on the black knights themselves (IE it takes close to parity levels of energy to grow and process corn ethanol) that the only thing the US has managed to achieve is enslavement to second (totally unnecessary) weakling pimp, squandering billions (with a B) on an unsustainable untenable path to energy independence and we've warped the natural market incentives such that a heavy toll has been placed on people who struggle with finding even more money to buy bread for their tables. It's a lesson not learned by Harvard and Yale grads who run this country, which any observant person could have picked up in the red-light district for about 20 bucks, maybe a bit less

Comment
30 of 64

jerry-glenn-175004

February 5, 2011

Be brief! Your windy blogs are weak! Your solutions are ill thought out! Think!

Comment
31 of 64

jerry-glenn-175004

February 5, 2011

Encourage farming and transportation to switch to natural gas = half the CO2 of crude energy and 100 years domestic supply and it's half the cost!!!

CH4 vs (CH2)n = half the CO2

Comment
32 of 64

russ-finley-53703

February 5, 2011

BB said:

"...They seem to want to go back to the days of corn prices below cost of production..."

Any business that produces any product at a loss should be allowed to fail. If that means the end of small farms, that's life. I don't see farmers lobbying to supplement small timber companies that want to sell lumber below cost of production just because the market can't absorb what they can produce. When lumber demand returns, it will be supplied.

Livestock producers have been hurt by government policy to shuttle money to the larger farm lobby at their expense.

"...that damaged developing countries farmers..."

Let me repeat what I said earlier about that:

It always amuses me to hear a farmer, who happily took every subsidy in the past even though it hampered the competitiveness of other countries, suddenly say that those countries should now grow their own food now that prices are soaring. If they could grow it cheaper than we provided it, they would already be growing it cheaper. It's a one-two-knockout punch. Crush their ag industry then leave them to starve.

"...I certainly don't think we should "leave them to starve" but we won't solve their problems by sending our grain..."

Certainly, doubling the price of grain does not help them solve their most important problem--avoiding malnutrition.

"...You say "There is no economically viable second generation fuel and there may never be one." Do your research - they are here now..."

No they aren't. Go educate yourself:

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/01/27/vinod-khosla-and-the-gasificationfermentation-debate/

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/01/12/range-fuels-out-of-money/

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/12/01/cellulosic-ethanol-reality-begins-to-set-in/

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2009/03/10/the-prospects-for-algal-biodiesel-dim/

Comment
33 of 64

russ-finley-53703

February 5, 2011

Nick said:

"...A more salacious and possibly more entertaining/heartbreaking way to write the article is as follows: Caution was thrown to the wind as confused environmentalists hijacked the energy debate..."

The major environmental and conservation organizations have been against corn ethanol since its inception. Ironically, "confused environmentalists" are often blamed but in reality they are the only group you can't pin this on.

Comment
34 of 64

russ-finley-53703

February 5, 2011

BB said:

"...We are mandated to use 85% gasoline..."

Ah, no, we are mandated to use ethanol. Calling gasoline use a mandate is nonsensical as well as disingenuous. We use oil and coal for energy because it is so cheap. They win in the free market competition for consumer dollars. Coal defeated oil to produce electricity losing some market to natural gas, and oil wins in the competition for transportation. There is no mandate for any of these fuels.

What we need to do is burn less carbon, not replace oil and coal with fuels grown on our arable croplands.

"...This is hardly a free and open market..."

Huh. You can say that again. A government forces its citizen's to buy a fuel regardless of cost after making them subsidize the oil companies for blending it.

"...You say "who is to say ethanol will be the winner in next generation biofuels?" How about 57% thermal efficiency over 26% for gasoline. It's politics..."

Corn ethanol only exists because of politics. And you lost me there on your thermal efficiency thing. A turbo charged diesel is vastly more efficient than a flex fuel car burning ethanol.

Comment
35 of 64

jerry-glenn-175004

February 5, 2011

Personally I wouldn't bitch too much about ethanol in gasoline. This was a SUPER way of reducing some nasty environmental pollutants like lead and MTBE antiknock additives. At the same time it created some fabulous awareness that food is an important USA export and dramatically weakened OPEC's monopoly priced manipulation and exploitation of the civilized world.

Comment
36 of 64

russ-finley-53703

February 5, 2011

Jerry,

Using relatively small amounts of ethanol as an additive was not controversial. You don't need very much to do that. Using it as a fuel substitute is where things went wrong. What evidence can you quote that it has dramatically weakened OPEC's influence (it does not have a monopoly)?

Comment
37 of 64

Anonymous

February 5, 2011

David (comments #26 - #28)- generally good posts although we could discuss the fine points. FYI Standard Oil had nothing to do with Ethyl Corp, but were delighted that TEL could make their poor fuel usable. Charles Kettering came up with tetra-ethyl lead additive as vice-president of research at GM. (He was an ethanol proponent which makes the whole history all the more interesting.) The Ethyl Corp was a JV between GM and Dupont.

Other posts here are just plain weird. "Our energy policy is too important to be based on hype, and we have to make sure that credibility has been earned before allowing someone to unduly influence the spending of tax dollars." If credibility for a technology has been earned, who needs tax dollars? There is a great attrition rate from lab to pilot to demonstration and finally to commercial viability. I don't know what the attrition rate is but we should expect most tax payer supported technologies to fail. Do you know how many failures there were in putting a man on the moon?

Finally Russ- you don't add much the the dialogue here. You admit that you don't know what I mean then give your 'facts' anyway. Here is what I mean. Conventional gasoline engine thermal efficiency is about 28% (E85 running in a so called flex-fuel vehicle optimized for gasoline is a bit more. Because of the lower energy density of ethanol, milage will drop but all energy ratios, GHG's emissions are based on BTU's not volumes.) Turbo charged diesel is about 44% efficient, admittedly better than gasoline optimized engines. Riccardo's spark ignition flex fuel engine optimized to run on ethanol is about 57% efficient but can still run on gasoline. Low end torque is suitable for light duty trucks like F250. Lightly modified diesel compression ignition engines run on ED95 (95% ethanol and 5% diesel additive) are about 44% efficient, equally efficient comparable to other diesels with good low end torque suitable for trucks with 7 liter or bigger engines.

Comment
38 of 64

jerry-glenn-175004

February 5, 2011

Russ, The point about OPEC's oil export and USA's food export is subtle to the level we usually don't discern it. Here, with $45,000 GDPPP basic food needs are negligible at about 10% of budget depending....There, third world with less than $3000 GDPPP for 80% of the people basic food needs often run 65% of budget. A tiny impact on food price has a huge effect, note present Arab discontent. The fall of the Berlin Wall had similar subtle free market capitalist issues behind it. OPEC's monopoly has been lessened by this and our 100 year supply of natural gas and new oil production and hybrids and food shortages.

Comment
39 of 64

russ-finley-53703

February 5, 2011

I think I get your point now, Jerry.

Bill Brandon said:

"...Finally Russ- you don't add much the the dialogue here..."

Riiiiight.

"...Riccardo's spark ignition flex fuel engine optimized to run on ethanol is about 57% efficient but can still run on gasoline..."

Riiiiight. Rod Beazley, Ricardo's VP of spark-ignited engines

"...boasts that 'our ethanol-boosted concept engine achieves thermal efficiency in the low 40 percent range.'..."

And that is coming from the mouth of the guy who is paid to hype this "concept" engine.

Comment
40 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 6, 2011

------" And that is coming from the mouth of the guy who is paid to hype this "concept" engine."-----

Then don't take his word for it.

Watch the Indy 500 this Memorial Day.

All Indy League Racing Circuit cars run on 100% ethanol.

And they have run on alcohol based fuels for over 45 years.

Comment
41 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 6, 2011

Jul 9, 2010 ... ADM's total ethanol production capacity will reach 1.8 billion gallons per year once a second corn dry mill in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, ...

Out of total national production of 13.1 billion gallons---that makes ADM's share of the ethanol market 13.7%. No where even near monopoly proportion.

Comment
42 of 64

russ-finley-53703

February 6, 2011

Hey Fred,

I remember watching the wreck that burned a couple of Indy 500 drivers to death. That was the year they switched to methanol because it is much easier to extinguish. They made that switch for safety reasons.

A few years ago they switched from methanol to ethanol and it wasn't for safety reasons. Ethanol is even harder to extinguish than gasoline.

Watch them put out an ethanol fire in the video found below:

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/05/ladies-and-gentlemen-start-your-engines.html

Did you account for the lower mileage obtained when you calculated your 13.7%?

Comment
43 of 64

christine-roberts-169503

February 6, 2011

Hi Russ,

You seem to know a lot about bio-fuels. I must confess that my study on this topic is spotty. I looked at the process in some depth when The Andersons opened a corn to ethanol plant north of Dayton Ohio a few years ago. I have also looked at corn to bio-diesel. My interest has led me to meeting several scientists and inventors who work with these bio-fuels. I know that none of these fuels contain nearly the power of fossil fuels, and that this disparity will probably always be the case. It just makes sense to me that millions of years of compression resulting in fossil fuels cannot compare to one season of growing. On the other hand, I also know that for many reasons, (our environmental collapse being the greatest of all challenges) that we need alternative liquid fuels to run the millions of cars that are currently on the road.

New cars are a different story. I favor much lighter, smaller, fuel-efficient cars, possibly with electric motors, (the batteries for these cars pose yet another challenge) It is frustrating that strict fuel mileage standards for auto manufacturing were not put in place 30 years ago. I think it is criminal that these standards are still lagging behind the times.

I realize that producing bio fuels require energy inputs that are hard to justify if using fossil fuels. People are working on burning bio-mass (corn) for these inputs.

In response to the question of cellulose, I may be mistaken about the use of cellulose in corn, but it is a little confusing. This from another google search:
"Twelve billion gallons of the present ethanol production comes from corn, 6.5 million gallons derives from cellulosic sources other than corn,"

I was not suggesting that using corn for fuel was going to result in less sugar in our food. I thought I was saying sort-of the opposite; that corn syrup was an expendable commodity that people did not need.

Comment
44 of 64

christine-roberts-169503

February 6, 2011

In response to your comments about the impact of diet on energy issues, I raise a few suburban chickens, and I am certain that the eggs they produce have a much smaller carbon footprint than an equal amount of beef protein. Even on a commercial basis, the Union of Concerned Scientist have the figures to show that beef cattle are much worse than chickens in the efficient conversion of resources to protein.

Thanks for reading my post, and thank you for your comments.

Comment
45 of 64

DanaBlankenhorn

February 7, 2011

russ-finley-53703 -- There is a lot happening in the area of cellulosic ethanol, both in terms of more efficient production technologies and in terms of what it can be made from. My piece on Vinod Khosla's speech discussed some of this. Have you read it, and the material behind its links? Here's a link to get you started http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/01/vinod-khosla-does-the-biomass-math

Comment
46 of 64

DanaBlankenhorn

February 7, 2011

christine-roberts-169503 -- You're absolutely right about the chickens. They are a very efficient converter of biomass into usable protein. Beef is a very inefficient method. But if you take beef off the grasslands, you still need to grow something there or the owners of that land go under. Once cellulosic processes reach an economic stage (which isn't too far away) they might provide an alternative.

Comment
47 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 7, 2011

Russ---notice the large billows of black smoke---that is a petroleum fire. Alcohols are water soluble---they do not require foam retardants to put out a fire. Ethanol is an alcohol.

If they are using E85---it is still 15% petroleum requiring a retardant.

Still, a very impressive display---240 seconds to extinguish a fire with 884 gallons of fuel. Now, how long and how much water/foam would be required to extinguish a petroleum fire?

GIMAEX manufactures fire retardant foam and delivery systems.

This video is a sales promotion for Gimaex fire systems---not a comparison of ethanol to petroleum fires. With pure ethanol, there is no need for foam.

Comment
48 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 7, 2011

Dana---if you were to stop making ethanol from corn, you'd need something to replace the protein from the DDG, protein that is feed to cattle, chickens and most other animals---and is also a base ingredient for many human foods.

If you are going to use soy protein(which the DDG replaces) it will cost you twice as much and you'd have to plant three times the amount of acreage with beans that you do with corn---corn yields are roughly three times that of soy.

And you won't have any ethanol.

Comment
49 of 64

John-Bronson

February 7, 2011

The whole food vs. fuel argument is absurd. If there were no ethanol market, the same quantities of corn and sugar cane would simply not be grown. Are farmers supposed to just give away their products for free? And what about all the money being spent on enhanced oil recovery, and offshore oil rigs? Couldn't that money be used to grow food for the world's starving people? Why should we be spending money for oil rigs, so that we can drive our Hummers, while the rest of the world is starving?

Comment
50 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 8, 2011

-----"We shouldn't use ethanol because making ethanol from corn takes away food that could feed hungry people."------

So, how much food does using oil contribute to feed hungry people? Is one single person being fed from the production of oil? In fact, quite the opposite. Pour oil into the Gulf of Mexico. What do you get? Fouled marshes and shorelines----the breeding grounds for most of the marine wildlife. Dead oyster beds, and closed fishing areas. Highly toxic dispersants sprayed everywhere.

The only thing that using oil contributes to feeding hungry people is when it is used to make plastic sporks for Taco Bell.

To everyone and anyone saying we should not use ethanol because people will starve----name one edible product made from crude oil.

Dump 200 million gallons+++ of corn mash left over from ethanol making into the Gulf of Mexico---and you will have such an explosion of critters from far and wide coming to feed---you'd be able to walk across the top of the sea and not even get your feet wet.

Comment
51 of 64

upali-wickramasinghe-75129

February 8, 2011

There are two points.Corn is not the best feed stock, it causes too many problems.It is too costly. It survive on subsidies. It denies us of our water.Ruins our environment.

Who determined that dehydrated ethanol should be used when studies indicate that hydrous ethanol can do equally well.
E85 is madness +++ e100 ( hydrous ethanol will do as well and at lower prices at the pump

Produce corn for food only, Do not be carried away by cargill and ADM and now Poet.

Comment
52 of 64

howard-hull-16528

February 8, 2011

fred-linn comment 51---

What planet are you from? Corn can directly feed someone, oil on the other hand only makes the tractor plow, the combine harvest, and the fertilizer fertilize, the truck move the goods......................name one edible product that oil did not in someway help get on your table???

Comment
53 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 8, 2011

You can run tractors, combines and trucks on biofuels.

You don't need oil to make fertilizer. Nature has been doing it for millions upon millions of years. And natural fertilizers do not kill the beneficial bacteria in the soil.

Any edible product you care to name can be produced without any need for oil. It has been done for over 8,000 years----and it is still being done today.

So, name one edible product made from crude oil.

Comment
54 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 8, 2011

Well, maybe Gulf Shrimp with BP Sauce.

Comment
55 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 8, 2011

------" Produce corn for food only, Do not be carried away by cargill and ADM and now Poet."-------

And how do you plan to replace the millions of tons of protein that go into the food production system after the ethanol is produced?

I think you'll get very tired of a diet of nothing but corn very quickly----if you don't come down with a bad case of pellegra first.

Comment
56 of 64

howard-hull-16528

February 8, 2011

fred old boy, there is no way we can produce enough to run all the equipment and feed all the people of the world with all natural products, will never happen, unless a few billion of us die off.

This corn you so want to use for fuel would not produce 1/3 the amount per acre if it were not for todays fertilizers. And if we use OX to pull the plows there will not be 1/10 the acreage planted.

Most of you greens are living in a liberal fueled dreamland.

Comment
57 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 8, 2011

Biofuels can do anything that petroleum does--better.

Plants don't care what the fertilizer is made from. In fact, natural fertilizer is better. Liquid ammonia is highly poisonous. It kills the natural nematodes, bacteria, and mycocellyum in the soil. It is like heroin to an addict---the more you use, the more you need. Because you are killing off the soil's ability to replenish itself. The petroleum companies are selling agricultural narcotics and calling it fertilizer. Extremely bad for the soil, but good for the petroleum business.

And any diesel tractor can run on either petroleum or biodiesel with no modification----other than a gradual break in period to remove deposits left behind by petroleum diesel slowly to prevent filter and injector clogging. The very first diesel engine that Rudolf Diesel built in 1893 ran on peanut oil. A diesel tractor running on B100 biodiesel is exactly the same in the natural carbon energy exchange cycle as plowing with oxen, mules or horses. The carbon energy exchange cycle is the same cycle that has sustained life on earth for millions upon millions of years.

Howard old boy---you need to get out of your lazy-boy and learn a little something about how farming and nature work if you are going to pontificate to the world how things are.

----" Most of you greens are living in a liberal fueled dreamland."------

Well, as Kermit said, "It isn't easy being green." After enough years in your lazy-boy, filling your face with corn doodles----you may be needing some replumbing in your ticker. Give me a call, I can run the heart-lung pump while the surgeons stop your heart to work on it. Just a little something I learned in dreamland. If it can be dreamed, it can be built.(check my bio)

Comment
58 of 64

Anonymous

February 8, 2011

John Bronson writes in comment #50:
"The whole food vs. fuel argument is absurd. If there were no ethanol market, the same quantities of corn and sugar cane would simply not be grown."

Farmers usually don't earn as much when they choose not to grow something--in most places they earn nothing but even in places with unusual agricultural policies that try to suppress production you typically don't get as much as when you actually produce a crop that is in demand. If there was no ethanol market, there would be more corn for food, or farmers would grow wheat or soybeans, etc. Using food for fuel clearly has an impact on food prices, the precise degree of price perturbations at current levels of ethanol production is difficult to accurately estimate, but the effect will only get larger as ethanol demand increases. If we converted 100% of the US corn crop to ethanol we would only be able to cover a modest portion of our demand for transportation fuels but the effect on meat prices would be dramatic. In certain parts of the world many of the poorest people spend most of their income on food and price changes that would have only a modest effect on US consumers would push these people to the point of starvation. For these people, the food vs. fuel debate isn't a trivial academic discussion.
Steven

Comment
59 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 9, 2011

Research Shows Federal Oil Leasing and Royalty Income a Raw Deal for Taxpayers
Oil industry controls huge swaths of public land at world's cheapest prices
By Elizabeth McGowan

http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20100518/research-shows-federal-oil-leasing-and-royalty-income-raw-deal-taxpayers

Comment
60 of 64

John-Bronson

February 10, 2011

Steven,

The ethanol process only uses the starch of the corn. What's leftover from the process is called "distiller's grains" which is a high protein animal feed. The animal feed is sold to the meat and poultry industries. Ethanol was blamed for high food prices in 2008. Subsequent studies have shown that ethanol had little impact on food prices. From mid 2008 to 2009 corn prices went down whilst ethanol production increased. The latest round of food inflation has wheat with the highest price increases. Wheat is not used for ethanol. I suspect the increase in oil prices is what has cuased the increase in food prices. Also, the US now produces 12 billion gallons of ethanol per year, which is 10% of US gasoline consumption. And although Brazil only produces half as much ethanol with sugar cane as the US does with corn, it provides an even greater percentage of their fuel supply. Ethanol also provides some poor countries with an new opportunity for a cash crop.

Comment
61 of 64

Anonymous

February 11, 2011

John (regarding comment #61):
DDG is only a minority component of the ethanol energy balance and only useful as an animal feed, most of the food value is transformed to fuel. There are lots of studies concerning the recent causes of high food prices (not all noteworthy) and a variety of conclusions. Certainly rising energy prices and an increase in the demand for meat played a key role, but the new market for food as a fuel source isn't negligible even at current levels and this market is continuing to grow. If the corn to ethanol market was less profitable then some farmers would grow wheat or soybeans, etc. instead. Markets are inherently coupled and an increased demand for fuel--especially when spurred on by high subsidies--will inevitably lead to higher food prices. As for new "cash crops" for developing countries, these also have a long history of influencing food markets--the competition between opium and pomegranates in Afghanistan would be one obvious example. We need to carefully consider the influence of energy crops on food prices.
Steven

Comment
62 of 64

fred-linn-151968

February 12, 2011

-------" John (regarding comment #61):
DDG is only a minority component of the ethanol energy balance and only useful as an animal feed, most of the food value is transformed to fuel."--------

Steven---a bushel of corn weighs 56 lbs. Each bushel of corn produces 3 gallons of ethanol, and 34 lbs. of DDG. Dent corn(of field corn) contains 2-4% protein, after fermentation and the ethanol removed, the DDG contains 25-30% protein----comparable to soy meal that it replaces as animal feed, the same purpose for which the corn was raised in the first place. This makes for leaner more healthful meat and dairy products. And the DDG is also a highly concentrated source for water soluble vitamins and minerals---it is a commercial source for the manufacture of vitamin and mineral supplements.

Not only that, it is not the end of the fuel cycle for the corn. After the DDG has been fed to the animals---if you collect up what comes out the other end, and digest it anaerobically, you get methane in large amounts. Also a very good fuel.

So, from corn you can get ethanol, high quality high protein animal feed, methane---and you have compost fertilizer left over than can be recycled back to the fields.

Comment
63 of 64

Anonymous

February 13, 2011

Fred writes: "Steven---a bushel of corn weighs 56 lbs. Each bushel of corn produces 3 gallons of ethanol, and 34 lbs. of DDG."

I'd say 2.8 gallons of ethanol and 17 lbs of DDG is closer to the truth; Fred is off by a full factor of 2 on the amount of DDG.

DDG isn't a good replacement for corn when raising poultry.

The fact that only part of the food content of the corn is converted to transportation fuels does not change the overall picture--turning food into fuel puts pressure on the food markets leading to raising prices. This happens not just for corn but for meat and any other crop that farmers transition away from to increase cultivation of corn. Not all the recent sharp rise in food prices is due to the food-to-fuel market, but the competition of food with transportation fuels is going to increasingly become an issue.
Steven

Comment
64 of 64

Anonymous

February 25, 2011

So while there are riots in the streets around the world because food prices are going up sharply -- because of the use of corn as a fuel -- the "green fanatics" are dancing in the streets because bad old oil is taking a hit.

Simplicity breeds stupidity.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Dana Blankenhorn

Add to my network

About: Dana Blankenhorn has covered business and technology since 1978. He covered the Houston oil boom of the 1970s, began making his living online in 1985, and launc... more »