| Wednesday,
April 30, 2008 Food
Burning Facts: Plant Infrastructure
Dear Jerry,
These references have been cited in past years here.
Still, a baseline of facts and scale are good fuel for a discussion:
Ethanol:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/ This identifies
owners, feedstocks and plant capacities. Brought to us by the Renewable
Fuels Association. 147 distilleries are in production today, with 55 under
construction and 6 being expanded. Current production capacity is 8.5
billion gallons. Another 5 billion gallons are in the construction category
for a current 58% capacity expansion. The bulk of these presently operate on
corn. The general consensus is these plants yield a net 30% energy addition.
An accompanying geographic map is here:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/
objects/documents/1494/plantmap_
janaury_24.pdf
which readily explains the sensitivity of Iowa correspondents on this
subject. But we're just getting started with food potlatch sites.
Bio-diesel:
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/
fuelfactsheets/Producers%20Map
%20-%20existing.pdf
One hundred seventy one (171) plants are currently in
production
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/
fuelfactsheets/Producers%20Map
%20-%20Construction.pdf
and another 57 plants are under construction plus 3
being expanded. The bulk of these operate on soybean feedstocks.
This is TODAY, which is too late to influence. The
'good' news for tommorow is the USA's first sugar cane bagasse to ethanol
plant is now underway in Louisiana. The 'better' news is nearly all of
Florida is well known to be suitable for cane growing. Just select which
products should be reduced or removed from Florida's current agricultural
cornucopia. We can easily clear-cut citrus groves, reduce vegetable truck
farming and plow up most cattle range lands. Best of all is the preferred 3d
or 4th year rotational crop for cane fields. This is corn.
The question remains, can any referee besides foaming
revolutionary mobs blow a whistle at this point?
Best Wishes,
Mark
p.s. In case folks missed this:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=
6§ion=0&article=108556&d=4&m=4&y=2008
"In an interesting tussle, a virtually unnoticed
clause was added almost at the least moment to a US energy bill that bars
the government, in particular the Department of Defense, from using Alberta
crude because it is deemed unconventional and too dirty. A provision in the
US Carbon Neutral Government Act incorporated into the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 act effectively bars the US government from buying
fuels that have greater life-cycle emissions than fuels produced from
conventional petroleum sources."
"California Democrat Representative Henry Waxman,
chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and
Republican Tom Davis added the clause. In a letter dated March 17 to the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Waxman wrote the clause
was in response to proposals by the Air Force to develop coal-to-liquid
fuels which produce almost double the greenhouse gas emissions of comparable
conventional fuel."
==
Subject: On ethanol and higher food prices.
Jerry,
The cover story for the December, 2007, issue of the
Economist dealt with the end of the era of cheap food:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420
The article blames higher food prices on (1) rising
meat consumption in India and China (more grain diverted to animal feed) and
(2) ethanol subsidies. They put most of the blame for the recent sharp run
up on ethanol production. Curiously, they didn't say anything about the
impact of rising oil prices food production costs. The picture they paint
regarding corn use and production don't seem to be consistent with the
picture painted by Steve (from Iowa?):
------- begin excerpt -----
Higher incomes in India and China have made
hundreds of millions of people rich enough to afford meat and other
foods. In 1985 the average Chinese consumer ate 20kg (44lb) of meat a
year; now he eats more than 50kg. China's appetite for meat may be
nearing satiation, but other countries are following behind: in
developing countries as a whole, consumption of cereals has been flat
since 1980, but demand for meat has doubled.
Not surprisingly, farmers are switching, too: they
now feed about 200m-250m more tonnes of grain to their animals than they
did 20 years ago. That increase alone accounts for a significant share
of the world's total cereals crop. Calorie for calorie, you need more
grain if you eat it transformed into meat than if you eat it as bread:
it takes three kilograms of cereals to produce a kilo of pork, eight for
a kilo of beef. So a shift in diet is multiplied many times over in the
grain markets. Since the late 1980s an inexorable annual increase of
1-2% in the demand for feedgrains has ratcheted up the overall demand
for cereals and pushed up prices.
Because this change in diet has been slow and
incremental, it cannot explain the dramatic price movements of the past
year. The second change can: the rampant demand for ethanol as fuel for
American cars. In 2000 around 15m tonnes of America's maize crop was
turned into ethanol; this year the quantity is likely to be around 85m
tonnes. America is easily the world's largest maize exporter-and it now
uses more of its maize crop for ethanol than it sells abroad.
Ethanol is the dominant reason for this year's
increase in grain prices. It accounts for the rise in the price of maize
because the federal government has in practice waded into the market to
mop up about one-third of America's corn harvest. A big expansion of the
ethanol programme in 2005 explains why maize prices started rising in
the first place.
Ethanol accounts for some of the rise in the
prices of other crops and foods too. Partly this is because maize is fed
to animals, which are now more expensive to rear. Partly it is because
America's farmers, eager to take advantage of the biofuels bonanza, went
all out to produce maize this year, planting it on land previously
devoted to wheat and soyabeans. This year America's maize harvest will
be a jaw-dropping 335m tonnes, beating last year's by more than a
quarter. The increase has been achieved partly at the expense of other
food crops.
This year the overall decline in stockpiles of all
cereals will be about 53m tonnes-a very rough indication of by how much
demand is outstripping supply. The increase in the amount of American
maize going just to ethanol is about 30m tonnes. In other words, the
demands of America's ethanol programme alone account for over half the
world's unmet need for cereals. Without that programme, food prices
would not be rising anything like as quickly as they have been.
According to the World Bank, the grain needed to fill up an SUV would
feed a person for a year.
-------- end excerpt ------
I'd expect the Economist to do more fact checking than
Drudge.....
CP, Connecticut.
==
How the rich starved the world.
<http://newstatesman.com/200804170025>
- Roland Dobbins
==
Ethanol, food, and inflation
Hi Jerry,
If we're serious about using ethanol, we should lift
the import restrictions/duties and allow Brazil to ship it to us at much
lower cost than we can make it ourselves. They make it from sugar cane,
which is a much more appropriate source, much easier to grow, and has a much
higher return on energy than corn.
There's really two mandates: One that we use ethanol,
and the other that it be made from corn, and debate them separately. The
former is an energy strategy (misguided in my opinion), the latter is a
lobbying strategy from Archer Daniels Midland.
Frankly, I'm not sure that either are a significant
impact on the price of food. As another correspondent points out, the dollar
has fallen between 60-75% over the past eight years. If we compare the price
of most commodities to each other, to gold, and to foreign currencies, we
find that the majority of the price increase (but not all - China really has
increased demand) is due to the collapse of the dollar. Several estimates
are that gas would be $60-70/barrel in the absence of the dollar's collapse.
The capacity of foreign companies to absorb the
dollar's decline (and accept lower profits) has been exhausted, and we will
see price increases across the board over the next year. In addition, the
economic stimulus checks we're all about to receive are a textbook example:
that money didn't exist, it was printed by Congress. More dollars chasing
the same amount of goods is the classic definition of inflation.
So if we want cheaper gas, we need to stop deficit
spending, raise interest rates, and start producing wealth instead of
printing it.
Cheers,
Doug
==
Howdy Doctor Pournelle:
I did a little commodities shopping on Saturday. I
bought large quantities of pasta and certain canned goods on Saturday.
Despite huge increases in the "per bushel" price of corn, it was still 50¢
per 15 ounce can at my local Kroger. I bought a case. I also bought certain
favorites in bulk from Costco, where rice was once again available.
A sign read "Limit 4 bags per customer" over the 20 lb
bags of basmati. There was maybe half a pallet left. I saw a lot of people
congregate around the sign, but no one took any. Aside from the local Indian
community, many of Houston's local ethnic restaurants are afraid of running
out. I think that also drove the rush to get some. I scanned carts near me
as I checked out. No one had rice that I could see. I believe the
media-induced panic is ending.
Still, I spent less than $200 on a back seat full of
non-perishable food. I stuck to my list, and as a result I only need
perishables in the near future. I'm considering a coffin freezer (also known
as a "reach in") to deal with this summer's expected meat price increase.
Best,
Bill Kelly
Houston, TX
==
Jerry: Fear mongering?
http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994
<http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994>
I wonder if our food delivery system has become as
brittle as our petroleum fuel delivery system.
Chris C
===============
The following is a
long discussion. My part of it was not very well done: I was distracted, my
head wasn't working well, and I was trying to end it without a long
discussion.
It is worth your reading:
Subject: oil, food, and
ethanol
Jerry, I've just had a
chat with a friend of mine, who owns a 1,500 acre combined cattle and grain
farm.
He tells me that the
price of fertilizer has gone right out of sight - he used the term 'through
the roof'. The reason, of course, is that fertilizer is a petroleum product,
and as such is subject to the price of oil. Herbicides and pesticides are
also products of the petroleum industry.
He also advises me that
the outrageously high price of diesel fuel oil is exacting a heavy toll. The
reason is that virtually every piece of heavy farm equipment - combines,
tractors, balers, you name it - use diesel fuel. The cost of running the
equipment is dramatically more than it was last year.
These two factors are
key contributors in the rising price of food.
You've published
several letters that mention the lack of wisdom in using food to make fuel;
frequently, I have been left with the impression that many of your readers
believe that, if we would just stop using food for ethanol production,
everything would magically be fixed.
Of course, that is
incorrect.
The key underlying
factor is the high cost of oil. If ethanol production were halted tomorrow
morning, the cost of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and diesel fuel
would remain the same; and these costs would continue to be reflected in the
cost of food. Similarly, the high cost of diesel causes transportation costs
to be higher, which acts to further inflate the price of food at the
destination. And the lack of ethanol fuel resulting from our shutting down
ethanol production would result in an increase in gasoline demand, thus
forcing the fuel prices even higher.
There are good
arguments to suggest that our newly adopted practice of turning food into
ethanol - which allows the wealthy to drive, while forcing the poor to
starve - is morally unsound. Even this can be solved; it doesn't take a lot
of imagination to envision a genetically engineered crop that would grow in
marginal soil and convert easily to ethanol, and that is research we should
do. It would be a tremendous gift to the world, and is exactly the kind of
research that the United States does best.
But meanwhile, it is
incorrect to suggest that one relatively small factor - ethanol production
from food crops - is single handedly responsible for the high cost of food.
In fact, the amount of food actually used for ethanol production in the
United States is quite small, and the food used is of poor quality. The
reality is that ethanol production from food crops is a very small
contributor to increased food cost. The oil companies would like you to
believe otherwise, for ethanol production threatens their profit structure;
but a fact is a fact. You can ignore it, but you cannot refute it.
The real causative
factor in food cost increases, is the high cost of oil. When we find a
mechanism to lower that cost, we will solve the food cost issue.
And until we find that
mechanism, we will not.
Regards, Charlie
I replied:
RE: oil,
food, and ethanol
Don't
be silly. The easy way to make ethanol is to import sugar from Brazil and
use that. Of course we don't and won't do that.
The easy
way to bring oil prices is to drill offshore and on the North Slope. Of
course we don't do that.
The easy
way to bring electricity prices down (you can make fertilizer with
electricity) is to build nuclear power plants, expensive but cheap compared
to wars. Of course we won't do that.
Jerry
Pournelle Chaos Manor
Re:
oil, food, and ethanol
Hi, Jerry - thanks for
the email. I trust you are continuing to recover, and growing stronger every
day. My thoughts are certainly with you, every day.
Certainly it's true
that ethanol can be made from sugar; ethanol can be made
from a lot of things.
But my understanding of the administrations' goal is to move the United
States toward an internally generated, sustainable energy
model. Importing
anything, from anywhere, will not achieve that goal.
(By the way, I think
that 100% energy self sufficiency is a worthwhile goal.
Bush is aiming for
something like 15%, ten years from now. It's a very modest goal, and I'd
like to see the time frame shortened and the percentage
increased. Stress the
engineers, and see what happens. Maybe they'll break - or maybe they'll
break through.)
Back on topic now.
Not too sure about
offshore or North Slope drilling. I don't think there are any large pockets
of oil that aren't already being exploited; if you know of any, I suspect
you can become very wealthy in an amazingly short time. Oh, there's the
protected wilderness area in Alaska - but that will offer only a temporary
respite, perhaps 5 or 10 years. We need a permanent solution, not another
Band-Aid.
I'm with you 100% on
nuclear plants. We need them, and we need a government
that has the backbone
to ram them through. But I will admit - I've never heard of making
fertilizer with just electricity. Certainly you need electricity, but you
also need raw materials - and I thought the readiest source of those raw
materials was oil. I may be mistaken. Regardless, even
if you cannot make
fertilizer from electricity, we need electricity for a hundred million other
things, and we shouldn't be burning oil to make it.
We don't have nuclear
plants today, because the existing energy industry funded and organized a
bunch of ecological rights groups in the 1970's. They did a spectacular job
of painting the nuclear industry as a terrifying monster, with the result
that there hasn't been a single nuclear plant built
in 30 years. At least,
not in the United States; they're flourishing everywhere else. Coal, oil and
natural gas have had the domestic energy market to themselves for
generations, exactly as the conventional energy industry planned.
They're doing the same
thing today; they want to quash this ethanol upstart,
and keep the energy
field to themselves. The simplest way to do that is portray the generation
of ethanol from corn as the single reason for food riots around the world,
and the single reason why food - all food, not just corn - is so expensive.
And that logic is far sillier than anything I suggested; yet it's
everywhere, from CNN to Drudge Report.
And no one is
challenging it. Except me, and I must admit, it feels kinda drafty out here,
all by myself.
I say again: the reason
food is expensive is because fertilizer, pesticides,
herbicides and diesel
fuel have all risen dramatically in price, and those costs are being passed
on to the consumer. Eliminating the miniscule production of ethanol will not
change that. But it will make the energy industry very happy, which of
course is their goal.
The reason that
fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and diesel fuel have risen in price so
much - between 4 and 6 times - is because all of those products are made
from oil; and oil has risen from $20 a barrel to $120 a barrel over the last
8 years.
The way to bring the
price of food down is to bring the price of oil down. The way to do that, is
to either decrease oil demand, or increase oil supply. However, we cannot
seem to increase the oil supply, for new supplies cannot seem to be found.
Hence, we must decrease demand.
Demand can be decreased
most effectively by introducing a competing energy source, and ethanol is an
excellent choice. It can be made from corn, potatoes, sugar, sugar cane,
sawgrass, dead crows, grass clippings, or just about anything that grows;
and it can be turned into E85 fuel, which is 85% ethanol, and that fuel can
be burned in many thousands of American cars already on American roads. The
rest of the fleet can be modified with nothing more than a new automobile
computer, an afternoons job for a home handyman.
If we produce lots of
ethanol from non food sources, we'll drive the price of oil down. Way, way
down. And no one need starve in the process.
And ultimately, isn't
that what we want?
Best wishes, Charlie
RE:
oil, food, and ethanol
If you
believe that ethanol will make the US energy independent I have this bridge
I own that you ought to invest in
Jerry
Pournelle Chaos Manor
Re: oil, food, and
ethanol
Hi, Jerry. I think
you're suggesting that growing enough corn to make enough ethanol to feed
all the hungry automobiles of America is not possible. In general, I agree
with you, if we're talking today, right now, immediately, this minute; but
that doesn't mean we shouldn't make a start.
The Wright Flyer wasn't
capable of carrying hundreds of passengers across the Atlantic, either; but
today, that task happens hundreds of times a day. Technology will do that.
Just to quantify the
discussion:
U.S. Motor Gasoline
Consumption in 2006 was 389 million gallons per day.
According to the
National Corn Growers Association, an acre of corn yields 100 bushels.
According to
EthanolFacts.com, One bushel of corn yields about 2.8 gallons of ethanol.
So, 1 acre of corn can
generate 280 gallons of ethanol.
We need 330.31 million
gallons of ethanol a day to make enough E85 to fuel the US fleet. (85% of
389 million gallons of gas).
So, 120,563,000,000
gallons of ethanol is required on an annual basis. Assuming 1 crop per year,
430,582,143 acres are required to grow the corn.
There are 640 acres to
the square mile.
So, 672,785 square
miles are required to grow the corn.
Area of the US =
3,537,441 square miles.
So, assuming that no
improvements in ethanol production efficiency are realized and that only one
crop per year is produced, roughly 19% of the land mass of the United States
would be required to grow enough corn to make enough E85 to replace all the
gasoline consumed in 2006.
That's a lot of land.
How does that compare to the land mass currently being used for crop
production?
According to the USDA,
in 2002 about 531,250 square miles of that area was currently being used to
grow food. That's about 15% of the total land mass.
But: if we could manage
two crops a year, we could reduce the square footage needed to grow the
necessary ethanol to 9.5%.
And if we could double
the ethanol production through hydroponics, genetic engineering and
intensive farming, we could get it down to 4.75%.
I look at all that
desert land in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas... and I wonder how much
corn could be grown using intensive farming techniques, hydroponics, and
high ethanol yield corn.
Oh, what the hell. It's
a damned stupid idea. Instead, lets just keep sending billions of dollars a
day to the middle east, so the terrorists can kill us. That's easy. Growing
enough extra corn to get rid of the terrorist threat? Hell, man. We might
have to invent something. We'd have to actually work, for a change. What a
bitch of a thought. Never mind that we'd suddenly be spending billions of
dollars a day IN THE UNITED STATES, stemming a huge leak in our foreign
trade, employing local American workers and putting the screws to people
that don't like us, and want to kill us.
It's so much easier to
just sit around, do nothing, and moan.
Sigh. Charlie
Subject:
RE: oil, food, and ethanol
The
laws of physics didn't limit airplanes.
It takes
more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it gives off when it is
burned. That's a mug's game.
Ethanol
is in some ways like hydrogen: a distribution mechanism, possibly. But not a
source of energy for an industrial society.
If we
had lots of cheap electricity we could use that to make fertilizer to grow
corn to harvest to make into ethanol; but we don't have lots of cheap
electricity with nothing else to do with it, and if we did there are better
ways to distribute it than ethanol.
If it
were so good it wouldn't need laws requiring it.
Jerry
Pournelle Chaos Manor
Subject: Re: oil, food,
and ethanol
From the national Corn
Growers Association (biased site, but verifiable information):
Ethanol Production: A
Net Energy Winner
There is clearly no
doubt that fuel ethanol contains more energy than it takes to produce.
In June 2004, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture updated its 2002 analysis of the issue and
determined that the net energy balance of ethanol production is 1.67 to 1.
(For every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is
produced.) In 2002, USDA had concluded that the ratio was 1.35 to 1.
The USDA findings have
been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska
and Argonne National Laboratory. In fact, since 1995, nine independent
studies found ethanol has a positive net energy balance, while only one
study - which used outdated data - found the energy balance to be negative.
A Michigan State
University study (2002) found that ethanol produced from corn provided 56
percent more energy than is consumed during production (1.56 to 1). This
study looked at producing ethanol from both dry and wet milling of corn-and
included corn grain production, soybean products from soybean milling and
urea production.
These studies take into
account the entire life cycle of ethanol production-from the energy used to
produce and transport corn to the energy used to produce ethanol to the
energy used in the distribution of ethanol in gasoline.
Ethanol opponents
frequently cite a study by Cornell University's Dr. David Pimentel, who
concluded that it takes 70 percent more energy to produce ethanol than it
yields. Pimentel's findings have been consistently refuted by USDA and other
scientists who say his methodology uses obsolete data and is fundamentally
unsound.
There's lots more at
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm <http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm
I guess it depends on
whom you wish to believe. But if Ethanol is so bad, how does Venezuela
manage to run most of their vehicles on E85?
Charlie
RE: oil,
food, and ethanol
1.67 to
1
Think on
that for a moment
But I am
sure you are right and it's a great idea to subsidize turning corn to
ethanol and leaving the price of corn to go where it will. Subsidies never
change market conditions.
Thank
you
Jerry
Pournelle Chaos Manor
Sure, I wish it were a
million to one. It isn't. But it is a mechanism for converting solar power
to a portable, storable fuel that's better than anything else we've got.
I cannot address the
issue of subsidies, for I lack accurate data; but I am told that just about
every crook and nanny of the energy sector is getting a subsidy in one form
or another. I'm told that the conventional energy establishment - oil,
natural gas - is also heavily subsidized. But I have no specifics.
We can probably
generate enough electricity using nuclear, solar power, wind energy, and
whatever else is at hand to meet our needs for the foreseeable future. But
we also need a portable fuel to use in vehicles. Barring dramatic
breakthroughs in battery energy density, if it's going to be a made in the
USA fuel, it's going to be hydrogen or ethanol. Hydrogen is very difficult
to retrofit; ethanol is absurdly easy.
This whole discussion
got started through my assertion that ethanol production was not responsible
for soaring food costs around the world; and in fact, it may be the only
thing that ultimately lowers food costs. I maintain that position is both
accurate and correct.
We have land that is
not currently in production; using that land, we can create enough ethanol
to lower consumption of gasoline, so that supply exceeds demand. When that
happens, both gasoline and oil will fall in price; and those twin vectors
are the real reason for the increase in food costs.
It's clear that I'm not
doing a good job of communicating this message to you; but for the life of
me, I cannot think of any way to state it more plainly. Increased ethanol
production - AND increased agriculture, to provide a raw material source -
will act to decrease gasoline consumption, and lower both food and oil
prices.
That's kinda the bottom
line.
Take care, Jerry. And
be well.
Best, Charlie
And
I have since thought that the $10 billion in ethanol subsidies may have
saved at least that much in money we would be paying for oil, so the program
is not as expensive as I thought.
I
leave this for a future debate, but I do note that I'd rather send 5 billion
to Kansas than 10 billion to the Saudis. And I'd a heap rather send $50
billion to the Midwest than a trillion to the Middle East. Heck, I'd rather
send a trillion to the Midwest than to the Middle East.
At
one time we were paying people not to grow crops. It was called the soil
bank. Perhaps it is time to grow fuels on it?
But
that takes fertilizer.
Nuclear power can fix nitrogen for fertilizer. I'd a heap rather invest a
trillion in nuclear power plants than send that trillion to the Saudis.
I
also note that there is plenty of oil in these United States, but we would
rather sell the nation to the Saudis than drill in Alaska and off shore
including out next to where the Cubans are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Does any of that make sense?
Now
the discussion can begin.
==
getting hungry
Jerry,
I'm at the point in today's cycle when my brain is
turning to mush, and I've not yet tried to assimilate the debate between you
and "Charlie"
That said, I'm reminded on one of Heinlein's famous
predictions: "We'll all be getting a little hungry by and by." Population,
arable ground, petroleum for fertilizer, and energy; his final conclusion
was basically that food would be plentiful as long as there was plenty of
energy, even if it's more expensive.
What we're seeing is that food production costs are
increasing because of petroleum; but food availability is decreasing because
food is being diverted to fuel production, to which of course by the law of
supply and demand imposes its own drivers on price. Add the changing Indian
and Chinese demographics. Global food rationing -- with caloric availability
equalized across all continents by global rationing -- just as Heinlein
showed in Farmer in the Sky. At least it will end our temptation to
overeat...
Jim
=======
“If you want 10,000 tons, they’ll sell you 5,000
today, maybe 3,000."
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/
business/worldbusiness/30fertilizer.html?
pagewanted=all >
- Roland Dobbins
==========
Subject: ahem
Perhaps it is time to get out Aristotle and Cicero
again...
Perhaps the "golden rule" and its surrounding document
might also be a useful reference?
Paul D. Perry
==========
Re: IQ, Wealth, and
Demographic Winter
Is any of this stuff true? Let's do a counter-example.
Until the Twentieth century, cities were not self-sustaining in population,
because the diseases of crowding caused their death rates to exceed their
birth rates. Cities survived because of a constant influx of immigrants from
the countryside. A city was too much of a death trap to have a
self-perpetuating gene pool.
The actual mechanism is probably more like a fairy
tale -- for the past 5,000 years, cities have been running off smart but
penniless country lads seeking their fortunes in the big city.The incentive
is there (cities are centers of economic activity, and there are always dead
men's shoes to fill). I just don't see what Darwin has to do with it. It
seems open-loop from a genetic point of view.
So let's use the original definition of "civilization"
-- "the art of living in cities" -- to suggest that, if we've gotten along
without a self-sustaining gene pool of civilized luminaries for the last
5,000 years, it's probably not time to panic today because they aren't
breeding at replacement rates now that it is finally possible for them to do
so.
-- Robert
-- Robert Plamondon
That is a fascinating theory, and one I need to think on! Thanks.
=========
Charlie and corn
Hi Jerry,
I note that Charlie has read that you can get 100 Bu
of corn per acre, from which you can distill 280 gallons of ethanol. By
simple extension, he suggests that we could then replace our oil by planting
an additional 670,000 square miles of corn, using "intensive farming
techniques, hydroponics, and high ethanol yield corn". He also suggests that
currently fallow areas such as the great western deserts would be ideal for
the project.
Well, at first glance I see a couple of problems. The
100 Bu/Ac yield is from prime midwest farmland. One wonders if the yield
would be sustained in the proposed region. Also, according to http://www.waterclaim.org/Presentations/etvsprecip/etvsprecip.htm
it requires about 20 inches of water, more or less, to grow corn (in
Nebraska). The Nevada desert would probably require at least as much. This
means that for Charlie's 670,000 square mile corn farm, he would have to
come up with about 1.9X10^13 cubic ft (14X10^13 gal) of water to get the job
done. As the deserts are by nature not exactly neck deep in water, this
would involve supplying his farm with about 6X10^11 tons of fresh water. Per
growing season. As current supplies of fresh water are already pretty tapped
out by civilization as is, I suggest that the Pacific Ocean, a BIG reverse
osmosis plant, and a bunch of pipelines would be a start. I should probably
avoid second and third glances.
Or, more likely, I just don't recognize sarcasm when I
see it.
Bob Ludwick
I had intended to comment on the water requirements, but I ran out of energy
before I could do that. Thanks.
I
don't think we know the true costs here; and that is a matter of some
importance.
It
seems clear to me that investment in oil refineries, domestic oil production
including off-shore drilling, and nuclear power plants would have a higher
return on investment in both produced energy and reduced payment to the
Middle East, but I can't prove that.
=========
Subject: Another data point - wheat markets - and a
general observation
Jerry,
The Washington Post is doing a series this week on the
'global food crisis'. The link which follows has a discussion on wheat
production and wheat prices:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2008/04/28/
AR2008042802509.html
It seems clear that single-factor explanations are
inadequate to account for the current rise in food prices. It is a tangled
mess having to do with government subsidies, tariffs, ethanol mandates,
rising living standards, changing patterns of food consumption, speculative
commodity bubbles in some markets, and temporary supply disruptions due to
crop problems in specific locations.
Despite this muddled picture, the event does raise the
profile of a valid long term issue: Given the growing population of the
planet, rising living standards in populous developing nations, and the
finite limit on crop land, is it wise policy to aggressively promote the use
of croplands for energy production (generally) or liquid fuel production
(specifically)?
Some historians seem to think that, prior to the
1800's, Europe was stuck in a Malthusian trap: population tended to increase
faster than the food supply, leaving most on the edge of starvation.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html) What broke the trap
was the industrial revolution, facilitated in part by the steam engine and
coal. We have been on a productivity binge ever since, and relatively cheap
energy from fossil fuels has been an important part of that binge. If the
end of cheap fossil fuel energy is at hand, do we really want to set up a
new energy infrastructure in which food production competes with energy
production? We might just be walking ourselves back into that Malthusian
trap.....
CP, Connecticut
My
general principle is that energy converts to anything, so investments in
known ways of efficiently producing energy will always pay off: economic
growth and the price of energy have a negative correlation.
Were
I dictator I would drill for oil offshore just to stop some of the bleeding
of resourves to the Middle East; find ways to encourage investment in
nuclear power plants (including direct investment if that were needed); and
start X projects and award prizes for longer term non-Middle East energy
technologies. Alas, I am not in charge.
=========
The
Martian Way
Re: your discussion with Charlie on burning food.
First you are too polite to point out firmly the key
central point. Until we have sufficient electricity from either nuclear,
ground based solar or space based solar ethanol or hydrogen will be
expensive alternatives to petroleum in energy consumption in regard to
production. I have followed this discussion since getting the message
delivered in the punch line of a story by Isaac Asimov called the Martian
Way. We are getting angry and calling each other names while undreamed
resources float within easy reach over our heads.
Just last year an asteroid composed of more
nickel-iron than the human race has consumed in its history floated past
within easy reach, we only had to send out a tug and gather it in and
process it. Why did we not do this, stupidity is why, we have had visionary
writers telling us for about 80 some odd years or more now about the riches
that await us in space but the concept has not sunken into the human brain
that it is possible. You and several dozen others have written and stressed
the riches that await the race in near space here in our own solar system,
but what gets all the public and political attention, a piece of religious
minimalist trash called "the Limits to Growth." This piece of trash can be
refuted by one simple phrase, look up and see plenty, look down and see
poverty!
Write a modern version of the Martian Way and show in
detail how our religious minimalist politicians are robbing the future of
billions of people for their own personal comfort. We need a new generation
of muckrakers like Upton Sinclair to turn the public mind outward to our
future instead of backwards to a new medievalism that the current crop of
excessively rich Country Club Democrats wish for! They are so rich and
comfortable they make the Country Club Republicans look like impoverished
street beggars in comparison.
-- James Early Long Beach, CA
=========
Russian Airborne Troops Music Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rAHrHd2lcw
Alexander Buinov was actually an Airborne officer
before going into the music business, so those are probably his genuine
insignia he's wearing in the video.
He certainly looks like every hardcase Foreign Legion
officer I've ever seen pictures of.
Why can't our military do anything of this quality?
-- Tim of Angle
==========
What limits ethanol production
Jerry,
I was at a conference recently that was focussed on
nano-technologies. There was a talk in the bunch, an invited talk, on water
supplies. It seemed like a strange outlier relative to the other talks, so I
went and heard it.
First surprise: Water availability is what ultimately
limits ethanol production in the USA. Not land, not fertilizer. Water. Water
to grow the crop, water to process the ethanol. Some processes (the cheapest
ones) use 10 gallons of fresh water per gallon of ethanol.
Second surprise: There is a fresh water crisis looming
in the US. Not due to seasonal droughts in the Southeast, but much broader.
(The reason the talk was in on nano-technologies is that nano may be the way
to improve the 40+ year old reverse osmosis methods that are still "state of
the art".)
This part in your ethanol discussion, "I look at all
that desert land in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas... and I wonder how
much corn could be grown using intensive farming techniques, hydroponics,
and high ethanol yield corn", is, pardon me, pure moonshine. Not a chance of
anything like that, not even within an order of magnitude.
Chuck
If
water limits and water shortages are a surprise, I have not been making
myself very clear. Those are important and well known limits.
Given energy anything can be done; but we need more energy that we don't
have to pay the Middle East for. Domestic drilling, nuclear power plants --
I sound like a broken record.
==
Building Nukes
I may have mentioned this before, but I think it is
worth another look. If we want to get things rolling in the nuclear power
area we can take a hint from the success of the Navy in its nuclear power
program. In our current crisis it would make sense that major military
installations be energy independent. One way they could do that would be to
build small reactors on large military bases to supply them with power. When
not needed these reactors could be used to provide power to the local grid.
Terrorist threats are reduced as the plants are sitting on a military base,
they would be well guarded.
Hope your recovery continues.
-- --- Al Lipscomb
==========
Today's NYT carried a long story on New Orleans's
reopened schools, and the noble work being done by the waves of new teachers
drawn by their idealistic altruism.
Despite the usual PC sugar-coating, a few amusing
indicators of the actual reality do sneak through. As the paragraphs below
indicate, the absolute best classrooms are filled with students who are
"quiet and sometimes attentive" while the less-good classrooms are filled
with students who are...not.
==============
"From one classroom to another, from disorder to calm,
Carver High illustrates the current challenges. In two English classes, Ms.
Stuckwisch's juniors and seniors are quiet and sometimes attentive; Curtis
Sherrod's freshmen - some 17 or 18 - are another story.
"If I was not a nondrinker, it would be a four- or
five-beer night every night," said Mr. Sherrod, a bearded, ponytailed Navy
veteran, looking out with exasperation over his remedial reading and writing
class. One student was slumped over a desk, immobilized in sleep. Four
others were chattering and twirling their hair. Nearly half the class had
not bothered to show up. From time to time, the teacher vainly called his
charges to order."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/
us/nationalspecial/30orleans.html
R
Astonishing!
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Wednesday
|
