Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The Future of U.S. Ethanol Production: Where Do We Go from Here?

By Jennifer Runyon, Managing Editor
June 19, 2008   |   31 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"It doesn't make sense to me, our alternative is to stay addicted to oil, to stay where we can't produce our own fuel as a country, what we need to do is something like putting a man on the moon or a Manhattan project where we are simply trying to figure out how this country can become energy-independent in the next 15 to 20 years."

-- Wes Bolsen, Chief Marketing Officer and Vice President of Business Development, Coskata
31 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 31
June 19, 2008
Nice story. It's interesting to hear the ethanol industry reacting to its newly tarnished image. IMHO, I'm still not convinced "the facts" about ethanol will ultimately drive market support for it. Mandates, and not price, have been the industry driver. That statement that corn accounts for only a very small percentage of food costs isn't entirely true. Read bestselling book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollen. And most studies are now in agreement that the energy inputs versus energy outputs using corn are not sustainable. The industry should move to other feed stocks and especially into successful cellulosic processes. Meantime, I'm hopeful the electricity sector will begin to play a role in our transportation sector through PHEVs so all the renewable energy technologies can play a part in reducing the transportation sector's need for oil.
Comment
2 of 31
June 20, 2008
High oil prices are the biggest reason for high food prices. Blame the oil cartel. Not the American farmer. They have the right to make a profit . The farmer has been hurting for decades. There is about five cents worth of corn in a box of corn flakes. If you buy a bushel of corn for seven dollars, you can grind it up, make a months supply of tortillas, corn bread, hominy, mush, etc.

Next time you go to the grocery store think about how much real farm produce you are paying for , versus shipping, packaging, wholesaling, retailing etc. Food is cheap, convenience is not. Also , think about how much cheaper it is to be a vegetarian. It takes about eight pounds of grain to produce a pound of flesh. You would also live longer, healthier, and spend less on medical bills. Or just try to cut down on the amount of meat you eat, like healthier food cultures do. While you are at it, get to your best weight.

Do as I say, not as I do.
Comment
3 of 31
June 20, 2008
I have said it before, and I say it again, and I will keep on saying it: Hydrogen manufacture is the way to go:

There is not enough investment to overcome the manufacture and distribution problems which face a Hydrogen future, but surely it is not beyond the scope of our institutions to get to grips with these challenges and SOLVE them, and solve them quickly:

I have never seen so much feet dragging as I see in the USA at the moment: There are huge fortunes to be made for those who are willing to front up to the challenges ahead: They are not insurmountable:

As a nation we have overcome greater demands than this on our nerve and willingness to overcome any threat from any quarter, and believe me we are being threatened by those with vested interests in various sources of energy other than Hydrogen:

Hydrogen is clean and highly efficient, and can bring us all back to an inexpensive travelling nation.

I simply cannot understand why so little investment has gone into hydrogen science and production unless as always we are being led by the nose by those who govern us and feed off corruption
Comment
4 of 31
June 20, 2008
Oh it is so heart warming to think about all that corn that's going to ethanol being instead sent to starving people so they can live lives barely above the starvation level and fulfill their genetic, cultural and gender destiny to raise a family filled with all the joys of raising malnourished children. Let's make sure they everyone can produce all the children they want. Let's demand that the US government mandate that 10% (or MORE) of all food crops be given to starving people around the world. I am sure there are enough smart people on this forum to figure out how such a program could be implemented such that everybody would live happily ever after.
Comment
5 of 31
June 20, 2008
It is quite interesting and frightening, how distracted, misled and misinformed all these experts are !
The motto is :
>>

Neglecting and suppressing this important message is the destruction of the US economy! In other countries already "air-cars" - invented by Monsieur Guy Negre in France - you can drive these most inexpensive and greenest cars f. e. in Spain, Brazil etc. and soon in India ( "Tata" signed just the € 20 million license contract ). These are no villains like ETHANOL, but the best friends of human's health and wealth !
They are sold and operated by satisfied customers and already Jules Verne reported about this clean-air solution.

When are the American allowed, to hear this truth and these facts about renewable energy and use ?

It is apparently ignorance and shows little or no education at all about the plentiful disadvantages of ETHANOL.

Beside this and some other cleanest transportation modes operating with compressed air and electricity the "geothermic clean and renewable supply" the most inexpensive "eco-electricity" is also suppressed in this FREE-COUNTRY, even by the author of this article, who is not responding to these information messages.
Halleluja !

If Indonesia can do it and build "GEO Power Plants", why is the US falling behind ?
On purpose ?

Dr. Gene Schroeder
June 20th, 2008
Comment
6 of 31
June 20, 2008
"…It doesn't make sense to me, our alternative is to stay addicted to oil, to stay where we can't produce our own fuel as a country, what we need to do is something like putting a man on the moon or a Manhattan project where we are simply trying to figure out how this country can become energy-independent in the next 15 to 20 years…"

What doesn't make sense to me is how these guys think that replacing the fuel in that pickup truck or SUV with ethanol is an improvement. It is physically impossible to grow anywhere near enough biomass for America to become even remotely energy independent. Manhattan project? If you want to cut oil use in half, just drive a high mileage car. Trade in your 24-mph Outback for a 48-mpg Prius or 38-mpg Yaris or Jetta TDI. Send the message to Detroit to stop making Hummers. Send the message to your peers that only idiots drive SUVs and poseur pickup trucks. They are only status symbols, repackaged station wagons. Status symbols are fads. Fads change.

"…If ethanol can be produced for a dollar a gallon, and you can get it to the pump for US $2 or $2.50, [and] if gasoline's at US $5.00 a gallon, the consumer will demand that their vehicle is flex fuel and they will demand that their fuel pump carries ethanol…"

First, if 90% of our fuel supply is gasoline and 10% is ethanol that is cheaper than gasoline, then demand for that cheaper fuel will quickly drive its price to be the same as gasoline. Liquid fuels for transport are fungible. The ethanol producer will make money hand over fist while the consumer will pay the same for it as for gasoline. Second, if 90% of our fuel is still gasoline, how does that make us energy independent? Consumers are obviously being sold a bill of goods to line other's pockets.
Comment
7 of 31
June 20, 2008
To my knowledge, nobody has laid all of the blame of rapidly rising food prices entirely on biofuels. The fact that they are one of the five major contributors is more than enough.

"….Because our industry brings some tremendous benefits to this country, from reducing green house gas emissions, increasing domestic fuel supply and revitalizing rural America, those messages haven't changed…."

The above quote is an example of what I'm talking about.

"…reducing green house gas emissions…" The latest science, led by a Nobel Prize laureate for his work on ozone, has found that corn crops can be up to 50% worse for global warming than gasoline from nitrous oxide release. Another study in Science, found that diverting food to gas tanks has sent a price signal to farmers in places like Brazil to clear grassland and forest carbon sinks to plant more crops, thus exacerbating the second leading cause of GHG emissions, deforestation.

"…increasing domestic fuel supply…" Diverting an area the size of Indiana into our gas tanks to increase our oil supply roughly 2% defies all common sense.

"…revitalizing rural America…" There is no overarching reason to "revitalize rural America." American farmers represent less than 0.1 percent of world population. What sense does it make to starve the poor of the world to funnel this welfare to them?
Comment
8 of 31
June 20, 2008
"…the industry is going to have to launch some kind of counter attack… RFA's Dinneen also urged all attendees to write editorials and submit them to their local papers to counteract the negativity …You've got to ignore the others, set your vision, establish what your communications strategy is and stick to it …"

It is propaganda campaign time. Your marching orders: Don't mention the latest science showing corn ethanol producing more GHG than gasoline, distort statistics, and spread conspiracy theories.

Their fact: Corn accounts for only a very small percentage of food costs

The reality: Because a box of Cornflakes literally uses only a handful of corn, raising the cost of that corn has little impact. Americans are so wealthy that they can pay $3.50 for a box that contains only a handful of corn. The rest of the cost of that box is in the packaging and marketing. However, doubling the price of corn for those poor souls who spend over half of their income on it to stay alive is driving them to starvation. The poor of the world purchase dried grain and grind it by hand to make various meals, tortillas etc. If the urban poor of the world (those who survive on less than a dollar a day) who are being driven to starvation by the high price of grains were to join hands at the equator, they would wrap completely around the planet. Mothers are growing anemic because they have to choose between beans for protein, or corn for calories. Those starving mothers don't count because they can't vote against American politicians and their Corn Belt lobbyists.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/1/13505/98081
Comment
9 of 31
June 20, 2008
The "potential" of cellulosic fuels is being used as a smoke screen by corn ethanol proponents to defend their income stream. Environmentalists are understandably wary of cellulosic ethanol, but since none is produced commercially the economic feasibility and environmental impacts are speculative at this point. The debate awaits its arrival.

One big problem is that everyone talks about ethanol as if the feedstock makes no difference. The critique is of corn ethanol. Cellulosic does not exist. The argument is that we must continue to support corn ethanol if we ever want to see something better, which sounds like extortion to me. Corn ethanol is not needed to create any kind of infrastructure. We don't need ethanol gas pumps because we can just blend ethanol into our supply and it only takes a few hundred dollars to produce a flex fuel engine with ethanol resistant rubber tubes and seals. Human nature strongly suggests that corn ethanol refiners will attempt to block entry into the market by competitors.

Verenium is another example of the potential for cellulosic to continue corn ethanol's environmental destruction and food cropland usurpation. They plan to replace sugarcane (a food crop) with energy cane. Food cropland will be usurped for American gas tanks.
Comment
10 of 31
June 20, 2008
The article was interesting, but the fact is that there is a shortage of food in the world, and it is obscene to be using food to make fuel. There are non-food feedstocks that are far more efficient than corn for ethanol and soybeans for diesel. I hope the part on cellulosic ethanol is correct, and I hope that we can start using biomass to cost-effectively produce fuel very soon. However, if we can't, there's enough oil shale in the Mountain West to provide all the petroleum we would need for several hundred years - so we do have options. And good luck on making ICE's more efficient, or replaced.
Comment
11 of 31
June 20, 2008
My company is intent to commercializing its MFSD (MultiFuel Superior Diesel), it will boost reciprocal gas engine efficiency 4-8X, improve the diesels considerably, not however, inversely to the degree of inefficiency in gasoline reciprocals. In the US alone MFSD will save 1 Billion barrels/oil annually with a partial market penetration. Auto makers will hate it because it will have a 2 million mile duty cycle, can be plug replaced in 30 minutes, and would make auto's a commodity, like refrigerators (remember Kelvenator?), now bought at Best Buy Electronics. .MFSD will run on biofuels as well. Thus, a 2 acre "energy garden" will fulfill all the transportation fuel needs of a 2 car family (in a sunny climate). The big paradigm shift will be a MFSD powered nimble 4 seater 150MPG vehicle selling at $5K (USD). And, creating self-sustaining MFSD powered farms, artisanal overseas, and westernized. MFSD GenSets will electrify, or co-generate, as most of the world is still off-grid Biofuel renewable is more viable when MPG increases, and production can be localized. MFSD cars may fill up once every 1,250 miles, trucks, half as frequently. Deprogramming refineries away from volatile gasoline saves efficiency, and less refinery explosions. Bio-oil plants grown in hedges, borders, easements, could be harvested, and converted to fuel in a garage. Efficiency in essence decentralizes production. When you relegate solutions to only well heeled companies. with expensive pHd engineers, you limit solution. If you add extant mechanical renewable power systems such as wind, that energy can be used locally to pyrolosyze stover, waste biomass, or to package locally produced hydrogen in a hydride or compressed gas. Increasing the engine efficiency by 4-8 opens many solution spaces. We are also intent to commercialize $.05/kWh Next Generation Wind Power. Either side of the equation works: Efficency or Renewable copious cheap Production. Both sides win. JRIAM1945@aol.com
Comment
12 of 31
June 20, 2008
I am more concerned that the Oil Bubble as part of the commodities Bubble will cause a crash in prices in the near future.

Speculators have abandoned the dollar in favor of anything not nailed down.

We had better hope that Energy prices don't plummet and stay there for a year or more.

Imagine a world with a 10% to 20% drop in consumer demand, which includes fuels:

Ask Yourself if Your Ethanol plant can survive under a situation with $3.50 to $4 corn and $3 or even $2.50 gasoline?

I submit prices can't climb much higher and the working man survive without his wages going up also. I fear a deep recession will happen because the working man won't have the money in hand to pay more, not without a raise that is not likely with lower labor rates in over half the world.

Is the ethanol industry mature enough to weather a major downturn?

We should hope that enough education goes into helping the consumer understand it is in their long term interest to buy Ethanol and other alternatives to keep other suppliers of energy Honest.

This would require public exposure on a scale not seen to date. We need Rock concerts, movies and other mediums like Talk Radio.

A message of "We won't be fooled again" needs to reverberate throughout the land.
Comment
13 of 31
June 20, 2008
It took the price of gas going over $1.50 / gal to make corn ethanol viable.
It will take gasoline price of over $6.00 / gal to make cellulosic or algae based ethanol viable. But it will happen.

"Necessity is the mother of all invention." I forgot who said that, but it is true.

The thing I like best about ethanol is: There are unlimited feedstock choices.
Gasoline? One feedstock.
Comment
14 of 31
June 20, 2008
There is no smear campaign by the gas and oil industry. The oil industry is investing heavily in biofuels. Refining and transporting liquid fuels is their forte. They will eventually own all biofuel production.

The real critique is coming from all corners, principally from environmental groups who certainly don't get their marching orders from oil and gas secret agents. People who deliberately attempt to spread this ridiculous conspiracy theory have lost all credibility me. We human beings have an amazing capacity to rationalize away any fact, any piece of scientific evidence (from global warming to evolution) in order to support whatever we want to believe. Corn ethanol proponents are behaving exactly as any student of human nature would predict they would behave. Any competing form of energy for transport will have to fight its way past ethanol subsidies.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding." --Upton Sinclair

Poet's plan to use corncobs for cellulosic is an example of what many environmentalists have been fearing. Assuming cellulosic ever becomes economically and environmentally feasible, it will in all likelihood use corn silage instead of switchgrass or waste, which will rob soils of organic matter and livestock producers of feed, requiring more fossil fuel derived fertilizers and all of their attendant environmental ills and more crops to replace the lost feed.

Coskata talks about using a plasma arc to gasify "tires, plastic bottles, diapers" and then recombining those basic gases into fuel, as if this were something new. This plasma arc gasification technique is used all through Germany and Japan in their waste incinerators. Recombining these gases into fuels also isn't new, nor is the claim that these fuels will be economically feasible withing five years, as we have been hearing for decades.

The examination of cellulosic fuels will begin if and when they ever arrive.
Comment
15 of 31
June 21, 2008
In short,
"Food Resource Scarcity"

ALL BioFuels it all comes down to limitations in:
1. Fertilizers (Phosphorous/Potassium, and to a lesser extent Nitrogen)
2. Topsoil / Farmland
3. Fresh water

Just by using those resources we are adding to the scarcity of those resources.

The basic resources by which all food production depends on.

_

Certainly biofuels aren't the primary cause of food resource scarcity.
(The low end argues only 3-10%, high-end 30% of the food price increase.)
However biofuels don't even fuel 1% of the world's transportation yet.

If biofuels are supposed to dramatically alter transportation fuels.
It would be impossible for them not to have a dramatic impact on food resource scarcity.
Comment
16 of 31
June 21, 2008
I have been interested in renewable energy for over 30 years. I remember around 1979 a man named Wes Jackson who runs the Land Institute, which promotes sustainable agriculture, lectured about using ethanol as fuel. Long before corn-based ethanol became a household word, he spoke of how relying on crop-based ethanol was folly. He spoke about how the land would be degraded and soil erosion would increase, as farmers would plant corn year after year and there would be little crop residue to keep the soil healthy. A statement he made I will never forget was if we used all of the corn we grew in one year to make ethanol to fuel cars, the amount of ethanol would last FOUR DAYS!

I am also one of those who believes that using food crops to fuel automobiles is immoral when half the world's populace lives on the brink of starvation. The report concluded that corn is a small portion of food and mentioned countries in Asia. Funny the report did not mention Mexico, where corn tortillas are a huge staple and prices are skyrocketing. Is it any wonder so many Mexicans risk life and limb to cross the U.S. border illegally?

These elusive promises of $1.00-a- gallon cellulosic ethanol remind me of the hydrogen fuel cell hype. These technologies may be practical some day but with global warming and peak oil we just can't wait. A far better bet is to make plug-in hybrids using lithium ion batteries with electricity powered by solar, wind, and bio-methane energy. Then these cars may one day become all electric such as is the Tesla Roadster. And we must also think beyond cars in transportation. We must build a modern high-speed rail network, have a network of bike paths, and make cities bicycle friendly. We must end urban sprawl and make neighborhoods more compact so we depend less on energy. And we can't forget about the other 2/3 of our energy use, industry and heating and cooling houses and buildings.
Comment
17 of 31
June 22, 2008
How will this affect farming and economy in poor countries ?

Why are poor countries so dependent on US corn in the first place ? Are there bad trade policies ?

Won't ethanol companies figure out how to keep the soil healthy and productive ?

Is it physically impossible to grow anywhere near enough biomass for America to become even remotely energy independent?

"Cellulosic does not exist. " ???

Please take a minute to look at kiva.org
Comment
18 of 31
June 23, 2008
The reason corn directly impacts world food prices is in the competition for land. Very little corn is actually eaten by people. Most of the world's corn goes to animals and industrial applications.

High Corn prices directly impact other food crops by competing for land. Farmer are running a business. If corn is at a record high then soy beans/wheat/rice have to offer competitive prices in order to even get planted in the USA.

That's how the rising corn prices are affecting the other crops. The other crops aren't going to get planted if their price doesn't keep up with corn.
Comment
19 of 31
June 24, 2008
I would like to clarify the one aspect of ethanol production that seems to permeate a lot of the comments. Using #2 yellow corn for ethanol production does not remove corn from the food supply. #2 yellow corn is used to feed animals, not humans. The ethanol process extracts the starch from the corn, converts that to sugar and ferments the sugar to alcohol. The remainder of the corn is dried and sold back to the animal feed market. Thus the ethanol plant really only is a value added proposition to corn farmers. The animals don't need the starch so the product they get from the ethanol plant is really superior to straight #2 yellow corn. I will agree that corn ethanol is not the answer to our energy problems but it was never meant to be. It was really designed to replace MTBE, a carcinogenic oxygenate produced by the petroleum industry. The Ethanol improved the emission profile and does not contaminate the ground water if it leaches out.
Comment
20 of 31
June 24, 2008
If one of the largest countries in the world, Brazil, could quit using gasoline in its transportation system immediately after the world oil crises in the 1970's, by its government simply requiring all vehicles to be fuelled 100% by alcohol, why can we not do so? It seems to me that megaoil has brainwashed us and continues to do so, with false statistics about ethanol carefully fed to us through the media. The residue from alcohol fermentation makes excellent cattle feed or fertilizer, so the return to the soil of organic material is not lost. Futhermore the CO2 in the atmosphere is gradually reduced with each crop, since half the CO2 used in photosythesis for plant growth is sequestered in the roots of the plant. This can not be said for burning fossil fuels.
Comment
21 of 31
June 25, 2008
Gentlemen,
If you want to get biomass by the millions of tons
that is not in the present food chain
drift out to the Sargasso Sea.

That sea weed has been sitting there, going round and
round since the Phoenicians.
The southern currents could help take it to Florida's door.
Comment
22 of 31
June 25, 2008
I highly recommend Alcohol Can Be a Gas by David Blume.

The amount of corn grown in the U.S. is determined by the level of lobbying by assorted industries who have their own particular interests in mind.

Growing so much #2 corn is harmful on many count:

1) use of biocides

2) use of fertilizers that can leach to groundwater or rivers and oceans

3) soil massacre, before erosion from fuel-hungry yearly tilling

4) damage to human health from excess consumption of high-glycemic index foods, leading to huge health-care costs

I could go on, but maybe someone else would like to pile on. Brazilians are so smart to grow sugar cane and sorghum, both of which can be harvested on the same roots for years.

Brazil for a while was less corrupt than the U.S. in my opinion. But some of our big corporations are working over-time to bring their corruption level up to ours.
Comment
23 of 31
June 25, 2008
Its all about education and marketing. If you want to get the attention of people in this country struggling to make it from day to day you have to slap them upside the hear repeatedly (in a manor of speaking). The "opposition" knows this and is using exactly that process for their own best interests. Time to fight back.

http://www.cleangreenproductions.com
http://www.agreenamerica.org
Comment
24 of 31
June 25, 2008
Jim,

"….Very little corn is actually eaten by people. Most of the world's corn goes to animals and industrial applications…"

With the exception of a minute amount of corn on the cob, virtually all grain is processed into something more palatable. It may be ground and made into tortillas or corn meal or any number of other products or it may be processed by domestic animals into meat, eggs or dairy. Most corn ends up in human stomachs in one form or another. The rest goes into our gas tanks.
Comment
25 of 31
June 25, 2008
Mike

Brazil is presently energy independent (and it took decades to get there after 1970) because along with cane ethanol, which produces 8 times more per acre than corn, they also have oil production and because fuel consumption in Brazil is 4.2 barrels per person per year. In the U.S., oil consumption is 27 barrels per person. A Brazilian uses 1/6th of the oil of an American. If Americans used that little fuel we would be energy independent also. See
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/06/lessons-from-brazil.html

The idea that the oil companies are brainwashing us by feeding false statistics to the media is a goofy conspiracy theory being fed to us by corn ethanol proponents. Don't be sucked in. The criticism of corn ethanol comes from well-informed environmental groups and peer reviewed science.

70% of a corn kernel used for ethanol is lost to the human food chain:

It takes 56 pounds of corn kernels to produce 2.8 gallons of ethanol, 11.4 pounds of distiller's grain., 3 pounds of Glutan meal, and 1.6 pounds of corn oil. So, 56 - 11.4 -3 -1.6 = 40 pounds of corn lost that cannot feed people (or the cows that people eat). In other words, about 70 percent of a bushel of corn is lost to the food chain when you use it to make ethanol.

Little if any carbon is sequestered in the roots of corn because they have a small root system which gets plowed up every year. The latest peer reviewed science has shown that corn ethanol produced as much or more green house gas than gasoline for two main reasons, nitrous oxide release from the soils and the destruction of forest and grassland carbon sinks as farmers in other countries clear land to capitalize on the price signals caused by putting corn into gas tanks. These studies were done by world class scientists and international teams in peer reviewed science journals, one of whom won a Nobel Prize, not by hacks being paid off by shadowy oil company agents.
Comment
26 of 31
June 25, 2008
Every year I watch as my neighbors rake and bag thousands of pounds of leaves and debris. That is your free feedstock going to landfills and pushed back into the woods. If the towns and cities started collecting this feedstock could someone make use of it? Or are we a country to busy to see the forest for the trees?
Comment
27 of 31
June 25, 2008
As Mike LoCasio stated, the starch in separated from the protein in the process of making ethanol from corn. Only the starch is converted to ethanol, the protein remains as a feedstock. Working for a german company we did a energy analysis for the most advanced processs - using double efficiency for distillation and so on - already in 1983. The result was - taking into account the use of the separated protein as a feedstock - that the fossil energy input is 100 % compard to about 130 % of energy in the ethanol that you get. You are using mid-western coal to fuel the boiler to create steam for distillation and other processes and you get ethanol. I used to say that ethanol plants are basically coal liquefaction plants. Our calculation was published in "Krupp Technische Mitteilungen" at Essen, Germany, in 1983. I wonder if anybody of the readers could cite articles about energy efficiency of today's processes?
Comment
28 of 31
June 26, 2008
Ethanol made from a waste feed stock would be great. However, I find it completely immoral to be using corn, sugar and other grains as a feed stock to fuel our cars. A tankful of gas could feed a starving person for a year! I was at one time playing with turning almond hulls, a waste product of almonds, into ethanol back in the 80's. It was not cost effective then, but it would have much more favorable numbers now.
Comment
29 of 31
June 26, 2008
The first flex-fuel cars were the Model A and Model T fords. They had a level next to the steering wheel to adjust the engine's carboration, depending on whether gasoline or alcohol were used.
Comment
30 of 31
June 26, 2008
Ethanol need not be made from existing food stocks, and its silly to think that it would be. Ethanol is made from sugar. Anything with sugar is a good feed stock. Actually corn isn't a great feed stock. Sugarcane, tropical fruits, prickly pear, mesquite, and most importantly, food waste, algea, seaweed, jerusalem artichokes - all can be used, and you can switch feedstock with every batch. The cost of producing ethanol is probably about 1.85/gallon, depending on your feedstock, of course. There is no reason not to use Ethanol or even pure alcohol. The simplicity of production is such that even toothless backwoodsmen have had stills for hundreds of years. But the oil companies have spent millions spreading myths to dissuade us.
Comment
31 of 31
July 14, 2008
Amazing. I don't think anyone got the irony of my previous sarcastic comment. But I will barge in and blunder on. Don't the people writing on this forum see the intractable dichotomy that is demonstrated by the never ending debate about corn? "Its horrible to turn corn into alcohol when that corn could feed so many people." "Growing corn is horribly destructive to our already diminished soil, is environmentally disastrous and consumes vast amounts of petroleum and petrochemicals (including fertilizer) to grow it." Does growing corn to feed all these starving people eliminate its destructive downside? And if all these starving people who need corn to eat were buying all this corn that has been grown to meet ANOTHER DEMAND wouldn't their demand have the same effect on prices as the corn for ethanol demand? I know that many are thinking "we would give the corn to the starving people" but SOMEBODY'S GOT TO PAY FOR IT! Corn doesn't appear with the wave of a magic wand. Whoever buys the corn increases the demand and regardless of the end user the price goes up. Finally, if someone "gives" all this misused and environmentally destructive corn away there is a debit entered on the balance sheet of the "someones" somewhere. If, because of your outrage due to this waste of corn when there's all these starving people, you haven't noticed lately but there is kinda a debt crisis going on in the world. Who's gonna pay this debt to "give" this corn away?
We are at critical mass and the cooling water is slowing down when it should be speeding up. We must either increase production or decrease demand. Will humans voluntarily take the steps necessary to decrease demand or will they wait for the fallout of a world wide meltdown? Is "giving" environmentally destructive corn to starving people to barely keep them alive so they can produce more dysfunctional, starving people requiring more destructive corn the way to improve their future and the future of our planet?
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!

Register Now   Sign-In

Jennifer Runyon

View Jennifer Runyon's Profile
About: Jennifer Runyon is managing editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com and Renewable Energy World North America magazine, coordinating, writing and/or editing columns, ... more »

Advertise With Us

PLANSEE SE Met Office Richardson RFPD, Inc. American Wind Energy Association Talesun Solar AltaTerra Research ESI Inc. of Tennessee
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters