Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I am by no means an expert in energy production, but I have seen some articles (see links below) lately that make me question whether producing ethanol (fuel additive derived from corn) as a replacement to petroleum is a good solution. It seems that the presidential candidates are all in favor of increased ethanol production as it is a boon to farmers and could potentially lead to decreased farm subsidies (and potential tax savings for you and me). However, there are very serious worldwide repurcussions to doing this. First of all, because food is now being used for fuel, the supply of food is shrniking worldwide. This is leading to much higher food prices throughout the world and the hardest hit are the poor developing nations. See <a href="http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420" target="_blank">http://www.economist.com/displ aystory.cfm?story_id=10250420</a> Because food prices are rising, people in developing nations are hoping to cash in. Therefore, they are destroying rain forests at an unprecedented and alarming rate in order to clear space for farming. See <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/s cience/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch</a> So I ask, is it all worth it? We want to get away from petroleum dependence but it seems there are worse things in the world than higher gas prices.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn The corn that is used to produce Ethanol is generally not the same type of corn that you eat. I definitely think we should continue using it. It's basically solar powered energy conversion. Use the power of sun absorbed by the chlorophyll of corn to produce oils than can be burned to force engine pistons to move. I wrote a letter to my Congressman and Senators to consider growing corn in interstate highway medians and high-voltage transmission power line right-of-ways across the nation. The ethanol produced by this vast acreage could be used to power all vehicles in the federal and state governments, as well as create new ag-related jobs.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Burning food-based fuels also does little to curb greenhouse gas emissions. You might gain some energy independence, but still haven't solved the CO2 emissions problem. Ultimately, electricity is the power source we need to tap to solve our energy problems. Even coal fired power plants can be engineered to produce less greenhouse gas emissions than an ethanol-powered car. You can generate energy from solar, wind, nuclear, any number of green sources. Even the non-green sources, like coal, are available here in our own country in abundance.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's ok if you want to give corn producers something else to sell to. We need electric motor cars, not internal combustion.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << as well as create new ag-related jobs. >> Shouldn't we set our sights on job-growth in industries that require more skill than agriculture? Agriculture is an essential industry, but I think the wealth of our nation is better served by exploring opportunities in science and technology rather than just plain old farming. Any agenda to create or promote agrarian jobs is a pretty reactionary point of view.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Ultimately, electricity is the power source we need to tap to solve our energy problems.> plpeters posted this Scientific American link in another thread. This is the sort of thing we need to be doing. Please read it. It's fairly long, but in 10-15 minutes you'll have a much better appreciation for the possibilities of real energy independence. <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.c" target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/article.c</a> fm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Agriculture is an essential industry, but I think the wealth of our nation is better served by exploring opportunities in science and technology rather than just plain old farming.>> Agriculture requires just as much science and technology as any other field you can name.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Agriculture requires just as much science and technology as any other field you can name. >> Partially true, but the idea that planting rows of corn in the median of highways is going to create agricultural jobs beyond just more people to drive tractors and plow fields is a stretch.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "The corn that is used to produce Ethanol is generally not the same type of corn that you eat." Ok, but when corn growers opt to grow that type of corn instead of food cron then prices for corn rise. And what about the destruction of rain forests to crow fuel crops? Seems short-sided and irresponsible of Americans to condone this.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Dabob, intersting link. I think it illustrates there are alternative alternative energy sources out there that achieve the goal of being less dependent on petroleum without destroying the environment. I recently wrote an extensive paper on nuclear energy, which I think provides another good energy alternative. Advances in receylcing spent fuel rods (meaning very little nuclear waste) and increased operating efficiencies make this a very attractive option.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 I think Ethanol is a short-sighted solution to our energy problems. Yes, in the long run it could probably help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fuel, as has been pointed out already in this thread, it just leads to more problems. It's like trading one bad idea for another. Oh, and did you know that the current from of ethanol production takes almost as much energy to create as you get from the finished product? It seems to me that the best solution to America's energy needs is for us to start generating as much of our electricity as possible from green sources - like solar and wind - and converting our cars to use this electricity.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "plpeters posted this Scientific American link in another thread." I'm glad you enjoyed the article - it's definitely an interesting read and really makes you wonder why it's taking so long to reach energy independence in this country. When you see just how little it would actually take to get this country off oil, you really have to start questioning what's standing in the way...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip There is current research on converting prairie grasses and other non-food producing plants to ethanol. That way land that is not good enough to support food crops can be used to grow stuff for energy without reducing food production. I agree that ethanol is a short term solution and that the long term solution will need to be new forms of electricity generation as well as increased use of nuclear generation.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I agree that ethanol is a short term solution" Which is why I just don't understand all the focus on it. I think pretty much everyone would agree that this is, at best, a short term solution to get us to be less dependent on foreign energy sources. So, why is the current government so focused on increasing research into ethanol? Shouldn't they be more focused on the actual long term solutions like solar, nuclear and wind power? Where is the big government push for these forms of power? I hate to sound like a conspiricy theorist, but it just seems like something rotten is going on here.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << So, why is the current government so focused on increasing research into ethanol? Shouldn't they be more focused on the actual long term solutions like solar, nuclear and wind power? Where is the big government push for these forms of power? >> When lobbyists from the oil industry and farm industry write all the legislations, it doesn't leave much room to pursue other solutions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <When you see just how little it would actually take to get this country off oil, you really have to start questioning what's standing in the way...> Boy howdy. <Where is the big government push for these forms of power?> Agribusiness (ADM and etc.), and farm belt congressmen would be two big reasons. It's shortsighted but hey, if YOU were representing Iowa and you knew it meant money for your people in the short term, you'd probably back it too.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Farm subsidies are a big deal - and very political. I don't know all the details but I'm sure it plays a big part in the excitement over ethanol.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <<Shouldn't we set our sights on job-growth in industries that require more skill than agriculture? Agriculture is an essential industry, but I think the wealth of our nation is better served by exploring opportunities in science and technology rather than just plain old farming. Any agenda to create or promote agrarian jobs is a pretty reactionary point of view.>> The design of new machines and methods to cultivate and irrigate crops in highway and power line areas will involve new engineering and manufacturing projects. It may also lead to the design of new crops able to withstand these rugged areas. Think about it. Vegetation absorbs CO2 to create O2. CO2 vehicles next to CO2 absorbers. O2 producing crops next to O2 absorbers. Could help offset CO2 into the atmosphere.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Think about it. Vegetation absorbs CO2 to create O2. CO2 vehicles next to CO2 absorbers. O2 producing crops next to O2 absorbers. Could help offset CO2 into the atmosphere. >> Except farmland lies fallow for most of the year. You would be more efficient by just planting trees in the same space if your goal was CO2 absorption.
