Ethanol

[Stinky The Clown]

I'm posting this as a poll, but I really am hoping for discussion.

The whole ethanol thing is artificial. It was somebody's wet dream to stave off an oil crisis and wean is from our dependence on foreign crude.

It has, instead, artificially inflated food costs, used more energy than it saves, and caused us to go deeper still into the shitter.

Democrats are as to blame as Republicans, but for different reasons.

So, what do you think?

[Disturbed]

1. Hemp needs to be Legal, now.

It won't solve the entire fuel problem but it would help.

[Uncle Joe]

22. I agree, oh Disturbed one.

:thumbsup:

[DaLittle Kitty]

66. ETOH Gas Is Watered DOWN Gas... DUMP THE SUBSIDY TO ADM NOW!

THIS IS CORPORATISM/FASCISM on the march! :argh: FIGHT THESE
MF'ers
Now
!

[BOHICA06]

2. Drill the Gulf of Mexico til it squeaks

...liguify coal, and tip your hat to the Porcupine Caribou as they pass under the pipeline.

Supply and demand - work both ends. Conserve & find more!

[piedmont]

6. Yeah, do that and learn to enjoy the heat. nt

[BOHICA06]

7. Before the heat ...

..the grouper fishing would be premo! :hi:

[piedmont]

3. Ethanol just replaces a non-renewable resource with a non-sustainable practice.

From irrigating the corn to brewing and refining the ethanol, this is a very water-dependent fuel.

We're already depleting water from the Ogallala aquifer at a rate equal to 18 times the annual discharge of the Colorado River. And that aquifer may be gone in 25 years.
Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

[HereSince1628]

4. For once, I'm voting my self interest....I'm going to grow more corn.

I've kept 20% of my acerage out of cultivation since 1989. Land that the state won't let me develop because it is Houghton muck. Land that I'd like to put a temporary pond on to attract wildlife but the state and the feds say no.

So...this year it's going to produce corn and they can't stop me. I'm not bound by any conservation program or tax sheltering program.
Why would I do that? Because actually, I need the income for retirement. If you don't understand that, I'm sorry but I'm voting self-interest with my actions. I suspect you'd have done the same, but sooner. With any luck I'll be in the black and the price of corn will be depressed because thousands of others like myself will move land into production.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I'd rather you grow it than ADM

ADM - the Exxon Mobil of the new Millenium.

[galledgoblin]

8. corn-based ethanol is idiotic

ethanol will never be the "magic bullet" so many are desperate for, but at least cellulose/wood-based ethanol is more efficient.

[liberal N proud]

9. Grain does not need to be used to make ethanol

The stocks and other cellulose material can be used and some with even better efficiency.

[lonestarnot]

10. Just wondering about sugar cane? Brazil is wall to wall sugar cane and is energy independent.

[piedmont]

12. And they're also a tropical country that can grow cane year-round.

Plus, growing that much cane has HUGE ecological costs.

[OmahaBlueDog]

57. If you can grow cane, you can grow it year round.

That said, you're right, it's hugely ecologically harmful to grow, whether in Brazil, or Florida/Hawaii/Louisiana.

You can still typically only get one crop cut per year whever you grow it.

[Two Americas]

11. social suicide

The main reason for needing fuel for transportation in the first place is to get food to the eaters. Suburbanization, and the increasing dependence upon automobiles, has made this more and more difficult in many ways.

Burning food to support suburbia is backward, and amounts to social suicide.

Burn suburbia and convert it all back to productive farm land. Problem solved.

How much more does humanity need to suffer, how much more needs to be destroyed, for the sake of supporting the very modern and unsustainable phenomenon - the exploitative and destructive suburban lifestyle, a lifestyle which is only available to a relative few in any case?

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Do you propose to burn suburbanites along with suburbia?

[Two Americas]

15. lol

It was a joke. As I wrote it I wondered if it was somehow too provocative and if someone would take offense.

What is the point of your post? Who could possibly take offense, or take it personally, that a system for organizing communities comes under criticism?

If you meant your post as humor, I apologize for assuming that it was intended to be hostile. Even were it intended to be hostile, I am sure that we can discuss the issue productively despite the bad start if you are so willing.

[Javaman]

62. suburbanities are soylent fuel!!! nt

[ThoughtCriminal]

14. The money needs to shift to non-corn ethanol

Demonizing all bio-fuels is huge mistake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/opinion/24cohen.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[notesdev]

16. Food crop production is interrelated

Land that can be used to grow one crop can be used to grow another. If ANY food crop is used for biofuel, the price of that crop will rise and cause more land to be devoted to that crop, and less to other crops. Change from corn to something else, a lot less corn will be grown and a lot more of that something else, which doesn't do a single thing to help solve the problem.

Biofuel made from anything that would displace food crops is "Soylent Fuel". To participate in it is to share responsibility for mass murder by starvation.

[ThoughtCriminal]

40. Most of the plant material does not end up as food

stalks, leaves, etc. There are also alternatives like algea that need research.

Read the link I posted.

[notesdev]

44. I don't think

that any potential benefits of biofuel are worth the extreme risk of irresponsible policies, and I don't trust either party to make biofuel initiatives into anything but a giveaway to their campaign donors.

Sugarcane ethanol is far superior to corn ethanol, but we're still talking food. The price of sugar is up 60% since Brazil's sugarcane biofuel initiative.

A little tweak of policy here or there and all the environmental benefits disappear and people starve to death. It's just not worth the risk for the tiny percent of overall energy production that even an ideal biofuel scenario would generate.

[ThoughtCriminal]

45. OK - so don 't read it

And keep on sticking to oil industry propaganda.

[notesdev]

58. I did read it

It wasn't convincing. The rewards are not worth the risk, and the article's contents, even if viewed uncritically, don't change the equation.

[OmahaBlueDog]

59. People aren't starving to death because of biofuels

We have no corn shortage, although much of what we grow is not generally suited to human consumption. Maize/corn is simply not a huge food staple around the world, and your <<a little tweak of policy here or there and all the environmental benefits disappear and people starve to death>> is the kind of mindless comment that gives progressives a bad name.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90006310&ft=1&f=1004

In the above link, look on the article on Haiti. What is causing the food issue there. Is it corn? No, it's the spiraling price of rice. Are we making rice ethanol? No, not at this time. Can you grow rice on corn firelds? Not hardly. Oh but wait...

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2008/04/28/news/business/doc48122dfa23a59479761856.txt

Look at the article in the above link. It turns out that rice is being bought by speculators, who expect the prices to rise. That's been combined by Asian nations limiting or banning exports of rice. Does this mean there's a rice shortage?

"...here is no dearth of rice in the United States. The Department of Agriculture projects U.S. rice supplies this year will be 8.3 million tons, nearly unchanged for the past seven years. Because Americans consume just 10 percent to 15 percent of what residents of Asia’s big rice-eating nations devour, there’s plenty for domestic consumption, said Nathan Childs, a USDA market analyst....Rice consumption here is so low that as much as half of the domestic crop is exported."


Then, there's this, which I admint is corn industry propaganda, but has some excellent points:

Grocery Manufacturers Put Forth Hype
By Rick Tolman, Chief Executive Officer
National Corn Growers Association

Regular readers of this column know I am proponent of biofuels and its benefits to our environment, economy and energy independence – and a proponent of agriculture solutions to help ease our energy woes. I am also an outspoken advocate of representing issues fairly and accurately.

I respect there are two sides to every issue and the media is the outlet for presenting those sides. However, as a keen media observer, it’s apparent the incline of the media slant is increasing. Maybe it’s the 24-hour, up-to-the-second news cycle. With such pressure to deliver, it seems fact checking has slipped. This past weekend the New York Times ran a story on bloggers feeling the stress of delivering news-breaking content in such a rapid-fire manner with some even going so far as to suggest a quiet news period each day.

Now there’s an interesting concept. Just imagine how that might reduce the media hype. The hype such as that put forth by the Grocery Manufacturers Association claiming corn for ethanol is the force behind rising food prices. Never mind the fact that the price of a barrel of oil is at an historic high and climbing. Never mind that economists tell us that a $1 increase in gasoline will squeeze your food budget two to three times more than a $1 increase in a bushel of corn Never mind the fact that a Merrill Lynch economic analyst told the Wall Street Journal that ethanol has helped ease fuel prices by 15 percent. Imagine, if you will, the impact to your food bill of another 15 percent increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline.

The GMA has a short memory as it is the same group whose members fought to stop development of drought-resistant biotech wheat. Wheat supplies tightened following a drought in Australia and short supplies elsewhere. Global demand and short supply were the culprits for rising wheat prices.

And I am not the only one to see the hype behind the GMA push. The other day, I received the email below from Bill Jorgenson, a consultant for the food industry, in response to an interview in E&E Climate with Scott Faber, GMA’s vice president of government affairs. In part, his letter states:

Scott Faber's comments from E&E News shows a disregard for fact. Biofuels do not use over a third of the corn crop, the figure is closer to 20%.

A third of the price of food commodities today is due to hedge funds, as in the case of oil, playing with markets.

Rice crops have not been impacted by acreage switch to biofuels one iota. Yet their price has risen second to most.

Ask Tyson why they are diverting all the chicken and beef fat from operations into biofuels with a petrol partner, instead of having the fat going into feed for animals to give the energy needed to the animal. Maybe that is one reason feed prices went up to their own operations.

Finally the choice of "burn your lunch for a ride home" when the profit margins of the food industry have risen by 50% with price increases (all not covered by increased expenses or the bottom line would not move) is what really brought me to ask if this is to divert attention or really concern.



In case you missed it, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on April 3 spoke out on this issue, telling reporters: "Today there are more people who eat. The Chinese eat, the Indians eat, the Brazilians eat ... and people live longer," arguing that the growing number of mouths to feed is causing the inflation in food prices.

Producers have not lost sight of their obligation to help feed the world. Nor have the companies who are investing millions of dollars to find solutions to feed humans, livestock and ethanol plants. Our growing global population is demanding more of those of us in the agriculture sector and we have delivered.

Don’t get fooled by the hype.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Corn's Impact on Retail Food Prices: Five Truths

"What effect do these higher commodity costs have on retail food prices? In general, retail food prices are much less volatile than farm-level prices and tend to rise by a fraction of the change in farm prices."
-- Ephraim Leibtag, USDA economist

1. Food in the United States has become more affordable. Americans spend just 10 percent of their disposable income on food expenses, the USDA reports, while households in countries like India often spend 50 percent of their budget on food. Even countries in Europe spend more than twice what U.S. consumers spend on food costs. And the amount Americans have been spending on food over the years (as a percentage of their income) has decreased significantly.

2. Food price increases are overall stable. Over the years, with a few exceptions, food prices have followed or slightly trailed overall inflation. Recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that marginal increases in retail prices due to higher energy and other costs are projected to continue and lead to food price increases somewhat greater than general inflation through 2009. After that, however, retail food prices are estimated to increase at less than the general inflation rate. For some perspective, food inflation was 4.0 percent in 2007, compared to the 25-year average of 2.9 percent.

3. Farm products such as corn are a small part of the food bill. Numerous cost factors contribute to retail food prices. According to USDA, labor costs account for 38 cents of every dollar a consumer spends on food. Packaging, transportation, energy, advertising and profits account for 24 cents of the consumer food dollar. In fact, just 19 cents of every consumer dollar can be attributed to the actual cost of food inputs like grains and oilseeds.

4. Corn is an inexpensive food ingredient. At $4 per bushel, the average price in 2007, corn costs 7 cents a pound, so fluctuations in the price of corn are not often reflected in the retail prices for food items. Even a standard box of corn flakes contains approximately 10 ounces of corn - less than a nickel's worth. And while corn is a more significant ingredient for meat, dairy, and egg production, it still represents a relatively small share of these products from a retail price perspective. The USDA reports that higher corn prices pass through to retail prices at a rate less than 10 percent of the corn price change.

5. We have production and supply to meet all corn demands. Corn growers are not only growing enough corn to meet all demands - but to carry over a surplus into the next year. For 2007, that carryout was 10 percent of production. One reason for our success is increased yield, or bushels grown per acre. And also thanks to technology improvements, we are getting more efficient when it comes to producing ethanol and developing valuable uses for its coproducts, such as grain that provides good nutrition for livestock.

[notesdev]

61. out of date info

your second link is broken so I couldn't read that one.

As far as the rest of the argument, the information is out of date. Corn alone is already at $6/bushel, not $4; and then there is the downstream effect on other crops, especially wheat, the price of which has risen even more; and the downstream effect on everything produced with corn, especially meat. Right now meat producers are culling herds they can't afford to feed, so there is a temporary glut of meat on the market that keeps prices down. But wait 'til next year, as they say - you're going to see meat prices rise like we have seen crop prices rise.

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080404/WIRE/804040363/1036/BUSINESS01

Relying on the 2007 numbers, the situation doesn't look too bad; illuminated by 2008 numbers, it is quite alarming.

[OmahaBlueDog]

64. Even if the information has aged, you can extrapolate certain conclusions

For example, if a box of corn flakes uses $.05 worth of corn if corn is @$4, then you're still talking less than $.10 @ $6 per bushel.

Will meat prices rise. Yes -- but not just because of corn. Energy prices for slaughter, transport, and refrigeration are going to drive that as much as feed.

... and where is this culling taking place? I live in the heart of beef and pork country, and I'm not seeing a problem with either corn supply or livestock health.

[newmajority]

17. Biofuels in and of themselves are a good idea

Finding a more efficient source than corn is a better idea. NOT replacing Exxon and Chevron with Monsanto and ADM is even better than that. Get the Frankenfood bastards out of the loop. And while we're at it, cut off the corn subsidies (at least to them) and get the High Fructose Corn Poison out of the food supply. It's literally killing people.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. I think...

...the GOP-controlled media has recently been pushing this lie that ethanol takes corn away from food and uses it for energy.

This is a lie.

Allow me to repeat: using corn for fuel does not take food away from people

Repeating the lie does not make it true.

Some facts:

* corn is used for many things:
1. food (for humans)
2. food (for cattle)
3. food-like substances (HFCS)
4. fuel

Another poster commented that growing corn for fuel is water inefficient. I submit using corn for the beef industry wastes more water. Also, I believe, if this country got serious about alternative fuels, we would find a better way to convert corn into ethanol, in addition to better (and more) alternatives.

Personally, I feel if using corn for fuel puts an end to HFCS production, I would encourage it.

HFCS is not food.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Can you show those statements to be true?

Not being snarky ...... just asking to understand through more than your simple statements.

[ColbertWatcher]

24. OK.

HFCS is high fructose corn syrup.

The percentage of HFCS consumed by Americans increased http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/18/FDGS24VKMH1.DTL">4080% in the 1980's.

"USDA estimates 2007 per capita high fructose corn syrup consumption...was 40.1 lbs per year."

http://209.85.173.104/u/CSPI?q=cache:IKufWHfjL4MJ:www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/final_soda_petition.pdf+HFCS&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&ie=UTF-8">Domestic usage of HFCS was about 9.2 million (short) tons in 2003 (or about 63 pounds per capita). About three-quarters of HFCS is now used in soft drinks. HFCS has largely replaced sugar in beverages, but beverages sweetened with sugar provide the same number of calories and amount of sweetener.

Sorry it took so long, but many of the articles about HFCS talk about dietary stuff. It was hard to find just plain numbers without all the obesity crap in there.

As far as how much corn is fed to cattle, I found one link:

The bulk of the nation's crop ends up feeding livestock.

But, I am sure there are more...

[Stinky The Clown]

25. I know what HFCS is and why it ain't good .......

.... my question was about your statements that using corn for fuel doesn't take food away from people. Unless you're saying that HFCS isn't food and hanging your argument on that .... which, of course, is arguable. HFCS is food. It may not be good food, but in that it is consumed as a ubiquitous part of the American diet, it is, indeed, food.

(I do not disagree with your premise that HFCS is 'poison' and ought to be banned.)

[ColbertWatcher]

29. The argument is...

...corn is being used for fuel instead of food.

I'm saying that the HFCS people made the amount of corn used as "food" appear to increase. When people found out how much HFCS was in food, the amount decreased. That decrease does not mean the corn was being used for fuel instead.

If the amount of corn grown is a fixed and finite, any use of corn that is not food for humans takes food away from humans. Which means, corn as cattle feed and corn as sweetener takes away from corn as human food.

I have shown that corn as sweetener has increased, meaning more corn is being taken away from people as food and made into sweetener. I also included a link that showed that the majority of corn ends up feeding livestock.

Let's see your links.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. One more link...

...The real causes of the food crisis

[Stinky The Clown]

46. "My links"?

That implies I'm arguing with you.

Hate to tell you this ...... I'm not.

[ColbertWatcher]

48. No...

...it implies that you didn't post links.

[Stinky The Clown]

50. Let's try this again

I'm not arguing with you.

I have no links to post because I don't disagree with you (except for your logic).

I am not going to answer any more of your replies because I do not want to argue.

You're welcome to keep my thread kick by replying multiple times.

[ColbertWatcher]

35. I would like to see links. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

47. You do realize you're talking to yourself, right?

Cuz, I'm not arguing with you.

[ColbertWatcher]

53. OK. n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

27. I'd just add this..

The byproducts of the corn that is used to make the ethanol (DDGs -- Dried Distillers Grains, WDGs -- Wet distillers grains, and corn syrup) are used to feed cattle. Hence, you are making fuel and getting animal feed out of the process.

I never heard this kind of bitching about farmers who were/are not growing corn because the government, in essence, paid them not to do so. And, I never heard this kind of bitching during the 80s when the American farmer was basically losing his ass. People in Haiti and Africa were starving before ethanol, they will be starving during ethanol, and they will keep starving until their crappy, corrupt governments are replaced with something better. That won't happen until America, Inc. has reduced influence in Washington.

We have a powerful corn lobby and that made for a great way for these plants to get up and running. Eventually, they will switch (due to cost as much as anything) to prairie grasses (20% less ethanol per acre under current technology, but a helluva lot cheaper to plant and almost no fertilizer to deal with) or sugar beets (very possible, but would require a lot of corn farmers to retool, and they will resist that).

Also, people talk about the petrochemical fertilizers. Newsflash -- corn growers don't have to use that. Good old fashioned manure works just fine.

[ColbertWatcher]

28. Goose/gander: you need links. n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

31. I don't actually need to provide links to a damn thing

However, since you asked:

DDGs
http://www.poetenergy.com/about/showDivision.asp?pageid=9

I picked POET because they have a great website. Any ethanol manufacturer sells this stuff (like breweries have done for centuries)


Switchgrass
http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0803060.shtml

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

http://www.happynews.com/news/1102008/study-prairie-grass-produce-ethanol.htm

The 3rd link is the one I was thinking of, but the other 2 have great information as well.

I'm assuming it's common knowledge you can grow corn with manure, or have you spent way too much time in town?

[ColbertWatcher]

34. I'm sorry...

...I meant to ask the other poster for links.

[ColbertWatcher]

36. BTW, you're mistaken...

...you really should provide links.

Otherwise, you're nothing more than an internets tough guy/genius.

[OmahaBlueDog]

37. I understand what you're saying, but the problem with links is..

..in the age of the internet, I can pretty much find a link that says anything I want. If you want me to find 5 links showing that corn ethanol is evil, I can do that; you want 5 links showing corn ethanol is the best thing since sliced bread; I can do that to.

I've been inside, up close, and personal at 5 ethanol plants. I know exactly how they work. However, that's easy for me to say, since you don't know me... and me knowing how they work has no bearing on whether they are good policy.

I do believe these things:

1. Our dependence in oil is borne of expediency
2. Our dependence on oil leads us to make bad economic and diplomatic policy
3. People who suggest simply doing away with modern technology are kidding themselves
4. No single solution will end our dependence on oil. Put another way, it won't just be plug in cars, or ethanol, or hybrids -- instead it will be hybrids that run on ethanol and can also be plugged in.
5. Ending our dependence on petroleum, by any means necesssary, should be our number one priority at this time.

[ColbertWatcher]

39. Agreed.

My contention is that the technologies we use today for ethanol, solar, etc. will not be what we use in 5 or 10 years.

It seems everyone is up in arms about current knowledge fearing it will never improve. I always give the VCR or computer as an example. (Here is a link to a picture of a hard drive from 1956.)

Even water heaters have evolved.

[OmahaBlueDog]

54. Corn syrup (I can't speak to fructose content) is a corn ethanol byproduct.

Plants often add it to the DDGs to give the cattle something akin frosted flakes to eat -- yum!

[Jack_DeLeon]

19. We need to tear up alot of these abandoned suburbs...

and convert them back to farmland for all kinds of uses.

[OmahaBlueDog]

33. We need to stop building on farm land lihe we have unlimited amounts of the stuff

[trof]

21. It's not WHAT you burn. It's THAT you burn.

The real culprit in global warming/peak oil/etc. is the internal combustion engine.
ANYTHING you BURN, contributes to global warming.
Clean electricity is the answer.
Solar, wind.
Period.

[piedmont]

23. Not necessarily, no.

If you harvest a plant and burn it for fuel, then grow another plant in its place to the same size, the whole process is carbon-neutral and doesn't contribute to global warming. This is true of both internal and external combustion engines.

[Toucano]

26. Why aren't we using non-food crops? n-t

[OmahaBlueDog]

32. Technological gap

They're still working out kinks in large scale cellulosic conversion. We know cellulosic conversion is possible, but it's getting the costs and scale right.

[piedmont]

38. Growing non-food crops on land currently used for growing food is just as bad.

Growing non-food crops elsewhere would further diminish wilderness.

[OmahaBlueDog]

52. No, not necessarily

<<Growing non-food crops on land currently used for growing food is just as bad>>

I live in the south. Last year I grew melons. I hear that the cotton market is good this year, so I plant cotton. How is this bad?


<<Growing non-food crops elsewhere would further diminish wilderness>>

I have 5000 acres of scrub bruch on marginal land in central South Dakota upon which I graze cattle. I decide to move my cattle onto 500 acres of feedlot and cultivate switchgrass on my other 4500 acres. How is that diminishing wilderness?

[pegleg]

41. We can make ethanol from grass clippings, paper, the left over

portions of the corn plant, ditchweed, almost amything cellulosic.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

42. Doesn't ethanol also rely on another diminishing natural resource - water?

I've read about peak water as another major crisis on the horizon. If we have to expand agriculture to meet the needs of both food and fuel, where are we going to get the extra water? In California, we're already being told to cut back on water useage. If we could use ocean water to irrigate the desert, that would be fine. But desalinization requires energy itself. Ethanol is not the answer, in my opinion, but I don't know what is.

[ColbertWatcher]

43. Which is why we shouldn't use hydrogen either.

The last thing we want to do is make it easy for the oil (energy) corporations to privatize water, like they did with electricity in CA in 2001.

[OmahaBlueDog]

49. Not exactly

Burning hydrogen (which, as currently contemplated, would be from a natural gas source), creates water vapor. You can use water to create hydrogen, but you're going to turn it back into water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car

That said, the hydrogen car isn't a particularly great idea.
(see above link)

And in the spirit of linking, but not related to this ethanol based conversation, is a link to an article on noted John Kerry swift boater and Texan and oil speculator Boone Pickens going all green on us:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080418/us_nm/usa_oil_pickens_wind_dc


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_challenge

[ColbertWatcher]

56. Water-Hyrdogen-Water

"You can use water to create hydrogen, but you're going to turn it back into water. "

I don't think the hydrogen car is a good idea either.

Considering the people who are pushing it, I am suspicious of their intentions and don't trust them with a resource as limited as potable water.

Can you imagine an energy (oil) corporation controlling water?

Can you imagine any corporation controlling water?

I know I can...

[OmahaBlueDog]

51. A well run ethanol plant consumes as much water as an 18 hole golf course

That said, golf courses use a helluva lot of water.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

55. I was referring to the water needed to grow the extra agricultural products

whether it's sugar beets or some other source for ethanol. That is, if the world intends to continue meeting both the food needs AND the fuel needs through ethanol production. I wasn't referring to the water needed to run an ethanol processing plant.

[OmahaBlueDog]

60. Fair enough

We do not irrigate crops efficiently. This we can agree upon.

[SammyWinstonJack]

63. Grow hemp. Nourishes the soil, cleans the air. Very versatile plant.

[percussivemadness]

65. see this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3222036

peace