Does corn Ethanol need to die?

[Jdvn1]

I've sometimes wondered if garbage based ethanol would be viable. All the vegetable and fruit matter that goes down the garbage disposal, into the trash, or best case into compost being fermented...

In other most probably impractical ideas, I've often found myself wondering if "thin power plants" set up down the medians of interstates could work, using solar and wind/vibrational energy.

I like these ideas and would like to know how feasible they are.

 

[kenobi65]

Other alternatives appear to be wind and solar power. Supposedly, there's enough potential solar power in Arizona to run the country, and enough potential wind power in the Dakotas to do the same (though that would appear to require turning the state into a giant wind farm).

Wind's got some of the same "not in my backyard" issues in some places; there are only certain regions in which it seems to be economically feasible (i.e., where it's windy enough), and current residents of those areas are frequently unhappy over the prospect (it's noisy, it ruins the view, it kills migratory birds, etc.).

 

[Pbartender]

For anyone interested, there's an excellent articles on biofuels in the October 2007 issue of National Geographic.

A few numbers from the article...

Corn ethanol (U.S.):

* $0.68 greater than retail price for energy equivalent of gasoline.
* 1.3x greater energy output than fossil fuel energy input required for production.
* 22% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline.

Sugarcane Ethanol (Brazil):

* $1.03 less than retail price for energy equivalent of gasoline.
* 8x greater energy output than fossil fuel energy input required for production.
* 56% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline.

Biodiesel (Germany):

* $0.58 greater than retail price for energy equivalent of petroleum diesel.
* 2.5x greater energy output than fossil fuel energy input required for production.
* 68% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum diesel.

Cellulosic Ethanol (U.S.):

* Still in R&D stages (no cost comparison).
* 2 - 36x greater energy output than fossil fuel energy input required for production.
* 91% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline.

Algae (U.S.):

* “High hopes hang in bags of algae outside the Redhawk power plant near Phoenix, Arizona. Researchers say the fast-growing green scum, fed by power plant exhaust, could soak up carbon dioxide while cranking out 5,000 gallons of biodiesel an acre each year - at least in theory.”

Also note...

(E)ven if we turned our entire corn and soybean crops into biofuels, they would replace just 12 percent of our gasoline and a paltry 6 percent of our diesel, while squeezing supplies of corn- and soy-fattened beef, pork, and poultry. Not to mention Corn Flakes.

The current real problems with biofuels is that... A) Many third-world countries are planting biofuel crops in preference to food crops because it makes them lots of money, thereby exasperating local hunger problems, B) In order to reduce costs, exploited manual laborers are often used to harvest the biofuel crops, and C) more native ecosystems are being cleared in tropical areas in order to expand biofuel crop production.

So, sure... You can get a more efficient, cleaner burning, renewable fuel source, but at the potential expense of global hunger, practical slave labor conditions, and the destruction of the natural ecosystems that would do more to halt global warming just by existing than biofuel production ever will.

TANSTAAFL.

 

[Pbartender]

I've sometimes wondered if garbage based ethanol would be viable. All the vegetable and fruit matter that goes down the garbage disposal, into the trash, or best case into compost being fermented...

They're working on it...

Coskata's secret weapons are patented bacteria and bioreactors that it says can produce larger amounts of cellulosic ethanol at lower cost than other methods from materials including farm waste, household trash and prairie grass. Oklahoma State and Oklahoma Universities developed the micro-organisms and granted exclusive license to Coskata, which developed the bioreactors and process to recover the ethanol.

The company says it can turn four old tires into seven gallons of ethanol and two bales of hay or straw into five gallons at a production cost under $1 per gallon. That compares with $1.40 to $1.50 for corn-based ethanol, according to the Renewable Fuels Association and Department of Energy, respectively.

The project has a long way to go before achieving a significant scale. Privately held Coskata, which was launched in 2006 and has 37 employees, will open a plant late this year in a location to be named that will be able to produce 40,000 gallons annually.

 

[Jdvn1]

The current real problems with biofuels is that... A) Many third-world countries are planting biofuel crops in preference to food crops because it makes them lots of money, thereby exasperating local hunger problems

In the short run, maybe, but increased demand in the long run causes increased supply in the long run. That'll cause prices to eventually go back down, and hunger problems to be scaled back.

B) In order to reduce costs, exploited manual laborers are often used to harvest the biofuel crops

Except in cases where people are forced to work in places against their wills (which is a problem beyond that of corn or any economic factor), "exploited manual laborers" choose to work in those places because it's better than their alternative. Take that away from them and reduce their living conditions.

 

[Pbartender]

Except in cases where people are forced to work in places against their wills (which is a problem beyond that of corn or any economic factor), "exploited manual laborers" choose to work in those places because it's better than their alternative. Take that away from them and reduce their living conditions.

Just because someone choses the least terrible alternative, doesn't make that choice any better... It's still terrible in the grand scheme of things.

Just because they can't find better work, doesn't mean they should treated or paid as poorly as they are for doing that work.

Without going any farther into the Forbidden Zone, historically that's the sort of reasoning and attitude that has incited peasant rebellions against nobility.

 

[Jdvn1]

Just because someone choses the least terrible alternative, doesn't make that choice any better... It's still terrible in the grand scheme of things.

Just because they can't find better work, doesn't mean they should treated or paid as poorly as they are for doing that work.

Without going any farther into the Forbidden Zone, historically that's the sort of reasoning and attitude that has incited peasant rebellions against nobility.

"Less terrible" is the same as "better." I don't know what distinction you're trying to make here.

Historically speaking, working class people in factories may have had terrible working conditions, but they were certainly better than their previous lifestyles. To take away the terrible working conditions would have been worse off for them, back to a lifestyle of toiling away in worse conditions, and even they didn't want that.

Should they be treated better? Certainly so. Should they have their jobs taken away from them? No way. But it's the responsibility of other countries and international organizations to enforce basic civil rights and such. Maybe we could demand better working conditions from countries from which we buy goods and services too. Saying that the problem is in the industry (or the industry's growth, or whatever) is diverting responsibility.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Just because someone choses the least terrible alternative, doesn't make that choice any better... It's still terrible in the grand scheme of things.

Just because they can't find better work, doesn't mean they should treated or paid as poorly as they are for doing that work.

I'd also point out that it is possible for the development done by those employers to inadvertently reduce the options outside of working for them. If (to make up an example) an agribusiness dammed a river to irrigate their fields and provide all those jobs, people who lived downriver do not have a choice between continuing subsistence level farming or working one of the new jobs, because the existence of the agribusiness has changed the world around them. I think in most circumstances it would be a mistake to imagine that a major infrastructure changing undertaking provides options without removing any.

 

[Jdvn1]

And, they can't move elsewhere to farm? Or, all rivers have been dammed? Historically speaking, I don't believe this has been the case.

Not historically speaking people choose from the options currently available to them. It doesn't matter if they had an option and it was taken away--if they can do something about an option being taken away, then maybe a class-action lawsuit is a current option--but if their choices are between "find another river," "find another industry," or "work in the factory," then they're going to choose their best option, even if it's working in that factory.

Regardless, not-historically speaking--I think the only time something like this happens is when a large company moves in and does what you do cheaper. That is, competition drives you out of business. And, I think this isn't very common.

 

[Pbartender]

"Less terrible" is the same as "better." I don't know what distinction you're trying to make here.

Only that "better" does not necessarily equate "good". And that the conditions these people work under, while its certainly better than nothing, are still deplorable.

Those are real problems with the industry, not because of the industry itself, but because of the people who are trying to get rich from the industry, and the means they are using to do so.

It's not to say that biofuel is or always will be a bad thing, but we should be plainly aware of the downsides to producing it as well... Not just the engineering and environmental downsides, but the societal and economic downsides as well.