Corn niblets could save America from its oil dependency

[emad]

Corn niblets could save America from its oil dependency
By Alec Russell in Blair, Nebraska
(Filed: 30/07/2005)



In the rolling corn-lands of Nebraska, the breadbasket of America, there is an old saying that you will have a good harvest if the blades are "knee high by the fourth of July".

But if Carey Buckles, the site manager of a giant chemical plant, has his way, the bumper crops that future generations of Nebraskans will be dreaming of at this time of year will be of plastic cups and packaging rather than ears of corn.

The plastic churned out by his factory may look and feel like the oil-based commodity the world has become used to in the past 40 years. But there is one crucial difference: the raw material is corn not oil.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/30/wwide30.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/30/ixworld.html

[HereSince1628]

1. The problem is not how long it takes to produce corn starch

The problem is that we have such deep oil demands that all the corn starch we produce can't solve the problem.

Just providing agriculture with one year's bio-fuel would use 25% of all annual US ag production.

There is no way biomass can meet fuel, plastic, livestock feed and human food demands for the current population of the US.

[htuttle]

2. There are far more efficient crops than corn

And no, nobody will be able to afford to drive a 200hp 8,000 pound vehicle that gets 10 mpg anymore. Using 'disposable' plastic to blister pack merchandise will probably also be unthinkable in the future.

Attempting to supply all of our current energy demands with another fuel is ridiculous. We are the most energy inefficient culture on the planet. If we can cut that in half, or by 2/3, then maybe we have a shot.

[HereSince1628]

5. Even if we reduce transportation fuel use by 2/3 ethanol demand

would exceed agricultures capacity to produce it.

Farm and farm to market energy demands are a small portion of the US energy demand and just meeting it would require the diversion of a very large fraction of US ag productivity.

I agree that you can probably get more EtOH per gram biomass from sugar cane or sugar beets but there still isn't enough ag land to meet US energy demand. Our demands far far exceed the limits of annual biological productivity.

And instead of investing in a new energy efficient infrastructure the Congress just approved hundreds of billions to be spent on HIGHWAYS.

Imagine a US that didn't export any grains. Think about what that would mean to world hunger and global political stability...it ain't pretty. I am glad I am in my 50's.

[hecate77]

7. It takes more energy to make Ethanol than you get from it.

This is not a solution, and never will be. Same probably goes for the plastic from corn. You have to get the energy somewhere to grow the stuff, and right now, that comes from oil, oil, oil.

The only real solution is to use solar related energy that does not require some continual huge input of energy to make energy. Wind, solar panels, Ocean Thermal Gradient, beaming MW from space, whatever, but any crop based method will cost more than you get. If you need fuel, then use solar to convert water to H and O, and use that, or some similar solution.

I have a better idea. Let's grow crops to feed people! Not to make oil, not to feed cows and pigs, but to feed people. Then, when everyone in the world has a full belly, then maybe we can feed some cows or make some plastics.

[skids]

4. Plastics is a good use for it.

The oil demand for plastics and other such industrial products is low. I'd rather see them using corn (or other crops) for this purpose than continuing to try to delude us that they can make enough ethanol for the U.S. vehicle fleet.

[HereSince1628]

6. It seems those of us who have read about it realize EtOh isn't a panacea

If we are to move the country toward a solution before all the negative impacts are felt we need to convince everyone that Ethanol while a good idea just can't be produced in the quantities needed.

[etherealtruth]

3. I like the idea of fertile farm land ...

...being used to turn out "foodstuff" that can be used to produce plastics and used as additives to gasoline. It would only be a bad idea if there was wide spread hunger in the world.

Perhaps recycling, efficient technology, low waste and highly durable goods will be unnecessary.

I do understand that this provides a renewable source for many of the products and fuels that we use; i have concerns when addressing the squandering of our resources is not one of the primary first steps.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Keep in mind the carbon/greenhouse gas problem

Burned organic fuels almost always emit large amounts of carbon-containing greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide. This is true for fairly clean fuels as well as for the "dirty" ones that produce soot.

--p!

[htuttle]

9. There is an important difference, however

When thinking about biofuels, keep in mind that when the crops that make biofuels are grown, they absorb exactly as much carbon as they will release when they are burned.

The issue with petroleum fuels is that burning them releases carbon that was originally removed from the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago. This basically makes the atmosphere more like it was long before mammals evolved (IIRC, most petroleum comes from the Carboniferous Era).

There are still pollution concerns with biofuels. Apart from water pollution due to how the feed crops may be grown, localized particulate air pollution would still be an issue from burning them.

Not as big an issue as the ocean rising 20 feet, but not entirely clean either.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. That's basically true

The Golden Question Mark is that after combustion, the carbon compounds enter the greenhouse gas cycle, and it takes a little time for an equivalent amount of carbon to be re-sequestered. This time period may or may not play a critical role in global warming; but if we were to convert to burning biofuels, we would find out quickly!

Incidentally (and you may probably know about this already), the loss of much of the Earth's rain forests and the increase in desertification is also reducing the carbon sequestration process; the oceans' pH has changed, too, reducing their carbon sequestering ability. And warmer weather in the Arctic has encouraged tremendous amounts of carbon release as previously-frozen organic material thaws out en masse and becomes home to countless CO2 and methane producing microbes.

The overall impact of biofuels would certainly be less, but the main challenge is how to use energy more efficiently in general. Even a carbon-clean source of energy like nuclear power still generates considerable "waste heat". The hundred-year spree of energy drunkenness has got to be one of the stupidest things this species has ever done. If we do survive the inevitable crash, we're going to have to make some serious changes in the way we use energy -- something far more radical than just turning the lights off and setting the TV sleep timer.

The real challenge, of course, won't be changing our sources of energy, but changing the way we live.

--p!

[rurallib]

10. Saw this guy from RMI on Free-speechTV the other day

I believe his name was ?Amory Lovins? not sure. He had some great ideas that sounded very practical to get us off oil and onto renewables. Here is the website he gave. Worth a look:
http://www.rmi.org/