Does corn Ethanol need to die?

[Jdvn1]

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.

Oh, I agree with that wholeheartedly. But, this kind of change is gradual, and change in developing countries is amazingly difficult. I don't think we'll see "good" jobs in a lot of countries for a long time, but "better" jobs for the people are much more viable.

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.

Well, the idea behind competition (which subsidies harm) is that you're forced to sell at prices closer and closer to actual production price--making it very difficult to get rich. This idea doesn't always work perfectly, but with increasing competition, it works a lot of the time.

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.

Sure, though I'd argue that a "change" is often seen as a "downside" when it isn't (necessarily) one.

 

[Umbran]

It's theoretically possible that it could be synthesized, but no one's tried.

No, it is well known that you can synthesize long-chain hydrocarbons. We do it all the time. The thing is, that doing so for an energy source is a losing game - basic thermodynamics says that you cannot get more energy out of the molecule that you put into it. For fossil fuels, that energy was put in for us by biological and geological process, so to us it looks to cost only what it takes to extract and process it. But to chemically synthesize it, you need energy.

So, if you have a big solar array, and you need to make the energy portable, you can use the electricity to make gasoline, and put it in a gas tank. But you lose some of the energy in the process. Generally, the fewer conversion steps your energy has to go through to meet our needs, the better.

There's an economic argument for the idea that we'll never actually "run out" of oil, that there'll always be some left, even if there's a finite amount.

Technically, yes, but as you note, this is somewhat semantic. In terms of bulk energy production, becoming economically inviable is "running out" - if it costs more wealth to get out of the ground than you get for burning it for fuel, the fuel is effectively not there at all.

 

[Umbran]

I suspect we'll, one way or another, wind up using nuclear power a lot more in the future. We've got thousands of years worth of uranium available in domestic sources, and it doesn't generate anything that would contribute to global warming.

Note one technical inaccuracy - nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gasses, but it does produce waste heat that gets dumped into the environment. Nuclear plants are normally situated on rivers or large bodies of water precisely so they can dump heat into that water.

Warming the oceans, aside from the direct environmental impact, makes the ocean less capable of holding dissolved CO2 (the oceans are already a major CO2 sink) - release of oceanic carbon dioxide is a global-warming threat.

The problem, of course, is twofold: No one wants nuclear plants near them, and then there's the waste issue.

Part, but not all, of the waste issue can be dealt with by policy. Right now, there are three basic wastes from nuclear power - heat (see above), a load of radioactive concrete and metal from the reactor that has to go somewhere when it is decommissioned, and the spent fuel.

With fission reactors, the first two are unavoidable. The last, however, can be largely mitigated by recycling the fuel. We don't currently do so as a matter of policy, not of engineering or science. Passed through the right process, you can get much more energy out of basic Uranium or Plutonium, and end with products that are far less nasty to store.

Supposedly, there's enough potential solar power in Arizona to run the country.

On broad average, the Earth's surface gets about 250 watts per square meter (this takes into account the fact that it is dark at night, that you don't get much in the early morning and late evening, and so on, but ignores clouds). Peak solar energy on a clear day on a surface perpendicular to the sun's light at sea level (like at the equator at an equinox) is about 1000 watts per square meter.

That gives you some idea of the potential. A square meter will run a couple bright lightbulbs all day. Three square meters will run a microwave oven. If my napkin-math is correct, 150 square meters for an hour will give you roughly the energy you get burning a gallon of gasoline.

Arizona has an area of 295,254 square km.

 

[Jdvn1]

No, it is well known that you can synthesize long-chain hydrocarbons. We do it all the time.

Well, I mean on a mass scale, or in a way similar to how it was "naturally" made.

The thing is, that doing so for an energy source is a losing game - basic thermodynamics says that you cannot get more energy out of the molecule that you put into it.

Isn't that the point of converting energy types? You don't get more energy than you start with, but can't you get more usable energy?

For fossil fuels, that energy was put in for us by biological and geological process, so to us it looks to cost only what it takes to extract and process it. But to chemically synthesize it, you need energy.

It's still interesting to note, I think, that the biological and geological processes aren't fully understood. Once they are, a viable new means of production could pop up.

Technically, yes, but as you note, this is somewhat semantic. In terms of bulk energy production, becoming economically inviable is "running out" - if it costs more wealth to get out of the ground than you get for burning it for fuel, the fuel is effectively not there at all.

Well, it never costs more to get it out of the ground than you get for burning the fuel without price restrictions. The value of burning the fuel would just go up (which is what rising fuel prices show, that people pay more for burning fuel). I suppose that's still somewhat semantic, though. If there were no alternative to such fossil fuels, though, then those last barrels might still sell and get used up.

The "running out of fuel" argument tends to rely on the idea that there won't be technological advances or options to provide an alternative to the original resource. While that's possible, it's also unlikely.

If you don't go for that argument, and say "it's there, but it's effectively not, since it's not worth it to pump out" then you're not saying anything other than "markets will work." After all, it is also possible to no longer "be worth it to pump out" without anyone using a single drop of oil--if an alternative comes along which is cheaper, more effective, and easier to use than oil comes along. In that case, everyone would go to the alternative as quickly as possible, and our oil reserves would mean nothing. It would no longer be worth it to pump more oil, since the alternative is a better deal.

 

[Ranger REG]

Correct, but see again that bit about how sugarcane doesn't grown in the American plains - it needs a tropical or subtropical environment, with a goodly amount of rainfall. Switching from foreign oil to foreign ethanol does not put you into a better economic position.

Like Hawai'i?

 

[DarkKestral]

One thing people don't necessarily know: corn ethanol is rich in byproducts. The byproducts are often times capable of recouping the cost of production even without subsidies. So the ethanol itself is actually a kicker. Which is one reason we produce it.

Furthermore, grain prices aren't just rising due to ethanol production; grain sales are rising even on grains not used for energy production, and the market is reaching and maintaining unit sale prices that are 3-4x what they were even a year or two ago. As a result, trading restrictions meant to restrain price volatility have been repeatedly lessened to allow the market to adjust because demand is so high from the food consumers. Prices now routinely go up as much as 50c a day today and can soar to 75c or more before trading stops... A year or two ago, trading for a given grain totally stopped once its unit sale price shifted more than 25c in a single day of trading. About year ago, soybeans were the cheap crop; traders were lucky to get 6 dollars a bushel. Now, for that same bushel, 15 dollars is considered cheap. Wheat and corn are yet more expensive. If we saw that sort of inflation at the pump, the US would collectively scream bloody murder, but that's the reality.. prices and demand are just that high.

Yes, ethanol does have an effect on prices, but it's probably much smaller than you'd guess. In fact, the market's so good that ethanol production is looking like it will be too costly for too little gain very quickly; the pure grain will sell for more.

(In the case of fairness: I have a relative in the grain business who is involved in the trading portion of the business, so she knows the prices very well and has a financial interest in grain prices.)

 

[Arnwyn]

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

Sounds like a problem with local political conditions, as opposed to being a "problem with biofuels".

 

[Umbran]

Like Hawai'i?

Like Hawaii in climate, yes. But not like Hawaii in size. Hawaii just isn't big enough to be the nation's energy breadbasket.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't that the point of converting energy types? You don't get more energy than you start with, but can't you get more usable energy?

Sorry, I'm a physicist, so I'll be picky about the language around energy. No, you don't get more usable energy. You may get more useful energy, but that's not the same thing. The usefulness of a particular form is entirely situation dependent.

Let us say we start with solar energy. You can turn that into electricity (with some loss in your solar panel). Now, you can either (1) use that electricity to drive a machine directly, or (2)you can turn that electricity into gasoline, and then run the machine with an internal combustion engine.

With (1), you will have more energy to use, as to get to (2) you will lose some in conversion. However, that may not be convenient - if you need that energy in Alaska, where there isn't a power line handy, you may want it to be more portable.

Well, it never costs more to get it out of the ground than you get for burning the fuel without price restrictions.

No, I think you are confusing cost and value, which are not the same thing. The cost of a thing can exceed its value, at which point you do without it.

Consider it this way - diamonds can be burned to release energy, but nobody considers them to be a fuel. A real Gutenberg Bible can be burned to release energy, but nobody considers it to be a fuel.

 

[Megaton]

Not sure if this was said yet, but corn ethanol is actually not even good for the environment because of the pollution created from producing it... and it also drives up the price of corn itself. Lose-lose imo.