Slashdot Log In
Dept. of Energy Rejects Corn Fuel Future
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Mar 29, 2007 08:18 PM
from the gas-on-the-cob dept.
from the gas-on-the-cob dept.
eldavojohn writes "The United States' Department of Energy is stating that corn based fuel is not the future. From the article, "I'm not going to predict what the price of corn is going to do, but I will tell you the future of biofuels is not based on corn," U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said in an interview. Output of U.S. ethanol, which is mostly made from corn, is expected to jump in 2007 from 5.6 billion gallons per year to 8 billion gpy, as nearly 80 bio-refineries sprout up. In related news, Fidel Castro is blasting the production of corn fuel as a blatant waste of food that would otherwise feed 3 billion people who will die of hunger."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Ethanol Demand Is Boosting Food Prices Worldwide 599 comments
hereisnowhy writes "The rising demand for corn as a source of ethanol-blended fuel is largely to blame for increasing food costs around the world, the CBC reports. Increased prices for ethanol have already led to bigger grocery bills for the average American — an increase of $47 US compared to July 2006. In Mexico last year, corn tortillas, a crucial source of calories for 50 million poor people, doubled in price; the increase forced the government to introduce price controls. The move to ethanol-blended fuel is based in part on widespread belief that it produces cleaner emissions than regular gasoline. But a recent Environment Canada study found no statistical difference between the greenhouse gas emissions of regular unleaded fuel and 10 per cent ethanol-blended fuel. Environmental groups have argued that producing ethanol — whether from corn, beets, wheat, or other crops — requires more energy than can be derived from the product."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, ethanol and bio-deasil will come from algae or other microbes. The simple fact is that it allows for a continual stream of fuel as well as feeds on our waste. Finally, the amount of fuel that it uses is a fraction of regular crops.
Have to laugh at what castro is saying. There is plenty of food for the world. The issue is one of distribution. Correct that, and we could cut back on crops.
Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, now that farmers might actually have a CASH crop and end the govt subsidies, people don't want to pay fair prices for food... funny how "free market" raiders don't like when another industry can lock up some profits at their expense. It does seem "wasteful" to use the food crop for fuel, but poverty and hunger are not due to lack of food like Casto and others would like to think... we ship more than enough food to the starving nations to feed them, their leaders sell it or burn it instead of helping the people... the GOVTS simply don't care about other people. We grow lots of crops to not use expressly for food that corn can be used for both food and fuel is a good thing! Like how soy can be used for all sorts of things.
Frankly, we need to get more "eco-friendly" all life comes from the Sun... even coal and oil were once vast herds of dinosaurs and lush forests before being buried by massive amounts of earth being flipped over... last I checked we're not making anymore dinosaurs for oil anymore. If we can get slightly less power from a plant without waiting the thousands of years to make oil we should go for it.
Parent
Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
US corn has a 44.64 cent / bushel average subsidy to start with. Each bushel makes about 2.5 gallons of ethonal which is then subsidized by 51 cents/gallon plus another 10 cents per gallon if you produce less than 60 million gallons.
The latter subsidies distort market conditions and take away corn from feedstocks hurting ranching and other industries.
At the same time we impart a 54 cent/gallon excise tax on sugar ethanol from Brazil. The reason is we have the same excise taxes per gallon as for gasoline. The problem is that ethanol produces about a third less energy per gallon, so the tax burden for its use as a fuel is higher. Brazil has economic leverage in that sugar cane is more efficient than corn when used to produce ethanol and they have a more suitable climate for growing it. It costs them about 50 cents/gallon to produce; we subsidize corn by more than it costs Brazil to produce. That said this picture is a little distorted as Brazil subsidizes their sugar crops and ethanol production.
Its not a matter of people paying fair prices for food, though they aren't if you want to argue from a free market perspective.
The issue is that corn ethanol can only exist because of very large market distortions and just doesn't supply a viable economic alternative fuel source.
If you want ethanol, fine, it is a reasonable goal, but leveraging corn isn't the best way to reach that goal. We can't compete with our corn ethanol on the world stage. All we are doing is playing protectionist sleight of hand games with the underlying economics. It lets politicians talk about how they are helping local farmers and talk big about having a vision for the future about energy self-sufficiency, but its all a shell game.
Now isn't the time to subsidize, it is the time to seriously evaluate if we want to construct an enormous infrastructure for corn ethanol production that doesn't make sound economic sense and that we will be stuck propping up indefinitely.
Parent
Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Sugar is a good way to go. Sugar is very fast growing which is why ethanol in Brazil is pretty cheap: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/17/AR2005061701440.html [washingtonpost.com]. There flexi-fuel cars can run on gas (which is at least 25% ethanol) or E100 (100% ethanol).
A massive usage for corn is in fattening cattle. This is a hugely wasteful way to feed people compared to a more direct approach such as eating the corn or soy or whatever, Processing into beef is very wasteful. This would also drive up beef prices which would make McDonalds unhappy with DoE
There is no reason why there should not be a multi-input strategy. Corn can grow where sugar cannot. Algae can grow where corn and sugar can't. It is silly to really argue for one over the other. Rather make a multi-input ethanol industry.
Parent
Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go (Score:4, Interesting)
This system offers a number of obvious advantages:
1. It reduces the pollutant output far below Kyoto Protocol mandates since the algae absorption of the exhaust gases cuts CO2 and NOx emissions way more than 50%.
2. With a couple of hundred acres of tanks fed by the coal powerplant exhaust, we could produce millions of gallons of diesel/heating oil fuel per year from ONE site.
3. The "waste" from the processing of the oil-laden algae could be processed into animal feed, plant fertilizer or even ethanol.
Parent
Re:corn and switch grass are NOT the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at North Korea, where the government makes the (mis)allocation of resources to military expenditures rather than food supplies. Take a look at Sudan, where the government has no interest in the health of its citizens, or Somalia, where there is no functioning national government.
By and large, the countries which have opened themselves to Western-style Keynesian socialist markets are developing themselves out of food security issues (China, India, and other developing 3rd world states). The other places, where nationwide starvation remains a chronic issue are either the result of natural catastrophe (Bangladesh), or broken governments (North Korea).
Parent
I would like to know (Score:5, Interesting)
While I'm thinking about it, why aren't the car engines run like the train engines, with the diesel motor running at a more or less constant rate refueling the batteries that run the electric motors that actually turn the wheels - the diesel engine could be much smaller than normal because it won't have to peak to provide power - just a nice steady constant - wouldn't even have to be a normal 4 stroke engine - it could be a stirling engine that is highly efficient but has problems speeding up - though Ford managed to get it's 0-60 speed down to 17 seconds while experimenting with alternate engines during the 70s oil crisis - making it's marriage to this application ideal.
Any thoughts on this? I admit I don't have much knowledge in this area and probably missed something very basic that is wrong with the idea.
Re:I would like to know (Score:5, Informative)
First, trains don't have batteries. It's just:
engine->genset->electric motor.
Diesel engines (especially large ones) work within a very narrow power band. For on highway trucks it's around 1000 - 2000 RPM. This is great when pulling a heavy load, but it means that you're gearing has to be set up accordingly. This is why 18-wheelers have 13 speed gear boxes.
With the amount of torque that trains need to get up to speed the gear box would need to be as long, if not longer, than the train itself. You'd need a 10000:1 (made up number) gear ratio to get the train moving, but that ratio would only be good for 1000-2000 RPM, so you'd have to shift to 9999:1, etc.
The genset -> electric motor works great because the electric motor has a near infinite 'gear ratio' and provides peak torque from 0 RPM.
However there are losses, you'll never get better than a drive where the engine is connected directly to the wheels, this is why some automatic transmissions allow you to lock up the torque converter.
Diesel hybrids are coming, but the gains over a traditional diesel engine aren't as great as over a gasoline engine.
Parent
Re:I would like to know (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the grandparent poster meant direct, electric-only wheel power, not the "dual-forces on one driveshaft" approach current hybrids use.
Diesel-electric locomotives have no direct mechanical linkage from the hydrocarbon-fueled engine to the wheels on the track. This is exactly the kind of car I am waiting for. I'm a EE, so I like the idea of electricity as the main transport of energy in a car. And the hydrocarbon engine plus generator could be replaced in the future by better technology. So IF someone made an inexpensive, reliable fuel cell, it could take the place of the engine.
Parent
Re:I would like to know (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the link: http://www.leftlanenews.com/hybrid-mini-offers-64
640 hp, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, 160 hp per wheel-motor, and a 3 prong plug-in-the-wall adapter for charging the batteries up.
Cool, huh?
Parent
Re:I would like to know (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
three billion? (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you buy their generous estimate of 35K deaths/day, that's over 200 years to reach 3 billion deaths.
Re:three billion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Sugar Cane fuel is the current answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know that the only reason that makes U.S. not to get more ethanol from Brazil is protectionism via subsides and import quotas? Fidel got it right on this one, in order to protect the few (and rich) local corn farmers (not to mention the oil barons), U.S. impedes cheap sugar and ethanol to reach the U.S., artificially increasing the demand of corn for ethanol production, driving corn prices up and, this way, making things harder for poor people on U.S. itself and, indirectly, on Mexico too (thanks Nafta). Check this article [cnn.com] and see, it is past the point of speculation and conspiracy theories.
Law of unintended consequences in action here. It could be different. Unfortunately, I'm not a citizen of U.S., so, I'm not part of the democratic process there. But a lot of you are, and only you could make the difference. You can wait for the Tesla electric car [wikipedia.org] all your lives (maybe it will fly too, if you wait time enough) while complaining about dependence on fossil fuels and financing wars on it, or you can make the difference now and take a stand on it.
Re:Sugar Cane fuel is the current answer (Score:4, Interesting)
On a better note there is commericial cellulose based ethanol production going on in the USA - it's just still at a small scale apparently. That's the answer to corn ethanol - use the stalks and leaves instead of the kernels.
Parent
wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you say it, no, we don't need to think of the children. Industrial hemp contains less than 0.3% THC, as opposed to the 20%-30% that is found in unfertilized female plants that are grown for drug use. But God forbid anyone grow hemp: we all know what evils marijuana can cause [imdb.com].
Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh shit, what now? (Score:3, Funny)
Correct (Score:5, Interesting)
Ethanol is not the way forward, the BBC has an interesting article [bbc.co.uk] on this, some excerpts:
So it seems the right decisions are being made here. I'm quite suprised as I thought lobby groups were already springing up around so-called 'green fuels', I've seen some suspicious adverts for ethanol fuels on Canadian TV recently.
How many calories can we grow? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is the Earth big enough to provide 15-20 times the current food production level of biofuel-grade plant material? And if we plant more energy crops won't we be planting less food crops?
The US will be fine, but any one who eats food grown on land that could be used to grow an energy crop will see higher food prices.
Subsidies stink (Score:5, Insightful)
When I went to college (in Morris, Minnesota) there was an ethanol plant in town and I researched ethanol production just to provide some context to the awful smell (think rotting sileage) that hit my apartment complex when the wind was right. Even back in 1990 there was little justification to use ethanol because of the high energy use for production, the increased end-unit costs because of the need to blend at the POS (because ethanol absorbs water it needs to be mixed into the blend near the end delivery point) and the other implications for vehicles (reduced power/volume, injection issues, etc). The investment that the government has made has been misplaced. It purely subsidizes this waste instead of promoting the development of more efficient production/end product. The plant in Morris is still producing the exact same product in the exact same way, the only difference is now (16 years later) they are making money hand over fist.
Finally, corn requires a tremendous amount of water to grow. When we grew corn we didn't irrigate but big corporate farms cannot resist. The Oglalla aquifer is draining, which is a big deal. Irrigation for crops of all sorts are the primary culprit but the impact is larger -- most of the 'breadbasket' of the US is dependent in many ways on the viability of the Oglalla aquifer.
I am stunned and pleased that the DOE has stepped up and stated what should be the obvious. I hope that people following the stories realize that subsidies without measurable and definable goals have no place in our "free trade" economy (tongue in cheek there).
Cellulosic ethanol is the way to go. (Score:5, Interesting)
The great thing about sugarcane and cellulosic ethanol production is they don't require outside power to run, unlike corn ethanol plants. They take a byproduct of the production process and use it for fuel.
Cellulosic Ethanol From Municipal Solid Waste (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do we fight nature? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am sorry for being so cold and callous as I enjoy my luxurious life in the US, but why do we fight so hard to have more people living in areas where they apparently shouldn't be living per Mother Nature? I get so frustrated when people talk about the food supply problems and the water supply problems and how are we going to solve all these problems when perhaps, maybe, just maybe it is time to consider that the planet has enough human beings on it and adding to the population isn't the best move? Reminds me of the Matrix and Agent Smith's analysis of the human species as the only one that doesn't live within its bounds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:zombie castro said what? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:zombie castro said what? (Score:5, Informative)
"(...) independientemente de la excelente tecnología brasileña para producir alcohol, en Cuba el empleo de tal tecnología para la producción directa de alcohol a partir del jugo de caña no constituye más que un sueño o un desvarío de los que se ilusionan con esa idea. En nuestro país, las tierras dedicadas a la producción directa de alcohol pueden ser mucho más útiles en la producción de alimentos para el pueblo y en la protección del medio ambiente."
Translates (roughly) as:
Independently of the excellent Brazilian ethanol production technology, in Cuba the use of such technology to direct production of ethanol from the sugar cane is nothing but a dream or a fantasy from the ones who have illusions with this idea. In our country, the soil dedicated to the direct production of ethanol can be much more useful in the food production for the people and for the protection of the environment.
So, stop spreading lies and RTF Editorial.
Parent
Re:zombie castro said what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Half of all cuba's exports earnings are from sugar. Cuba used to supply 35% of the world's sugar, but now only 10% [usda.gov] (though that's still a lot for a little island). The decline is primarily due to the price of sugar dropping 58%. Therefore if sugar was used for ethanol, it's price would increase like corn's price is doing now, and Cuba's sugar exports would approach previous highs.
Which is all to say, there's not really anything wrong with that. Sugar is better at making ethanol than corn by a longshot, and there's nothing wrong with a little national self interest, even from zombie communists
Parent
Castro is right (Score:5, Interesting)
How to make yourself unpopular on a US based system...
However, seriously, between 1845 and 1849 Ireland had successive years of record harvests, and in each year exported huge amounts of grain. What's famous about those years? Yes, that's the Great Famine [wikipedia.org]. People worked all day producing wheat which they couldn't afford to buy, so it was exported and they starved. There was no shortage of food in Ireland during the famine; there was a shortage of food ordinary Irish people could afford to buy. Similarly, in the Ethiopian famine of the mid 1980s which led to the formation of Live Aid [wikipedia.org], Ethiopia - so plagued with drought that it could not feed its people - was exporting so many water melons to Europe that it could afford to buy helicopter gunships with the proceeds. Again, people starved not because there was no food, but because they could not afford the food that was plentiful.
The world's agricultural system is at full stretch at present producing enough food for (most of) the world's population. But our machines consume far more calories than we do ourselves. So if we switch our machines from consuming fossil fuels to consuming bio-fuels, then all the worlds agricultural land put together is not enough.
One of the inevitable consequences of capitalism is that it distributes scarce goods inequitably. In a drought, the poor go thirsty while the rich water their golf courses. In a famine, the poor starve while the rich put biodiesel into their SUVs. This flies in the face of every system of ethics we know, and yet it is the inevitable consequence of capitalism. Ghandi said 'the earth produces enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed'. Personally, I think he was an optimist; but nevertheless, one person's biodiesel is - inevitably - another person's hunger.
Parent
Re:zombie castro said what? (Score:5, Informative)
No, he is saying, although their soil is appropriated for sugar cane (and I add, dutch, spanish and portuguese fought for it in the past exactly because of it), he believes the soil better use is for food, because people is more important that everything else. That's the point of the whole article.
Nothing about the GP's stating he wanted sugar cane used so his crops would be worth more.
GP implied that Fidel's interest on shifting the ethanol production from corn to sugar cane is benefitial to Cuba. Fidel's point is that everything ethanol is bad if land that could be used to produce food is used to produce fuel.
In case your wondering, taking the majority of the competitions product off the market makes your prices go up. It is the free market thing."
Yes. Except that there is no Free Market in Cuba. And that, even if there was, there is this little thing called U.S. mandated worldwide embargo on any Cuban export, so they couldn't benefit from it. Don't they teach those things there on history/geography classes?
Parent
Re:zombie castro said what? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
No, they really don't. It's kind of sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
We're just lucky to get a very small warning about McCarthyism and some coverage of the Civil Rights movement. All US history south of our borders post-Spanish-American War is pretty much not taught in high school -- especially anything critical of our actions during the Cold War. Too much of what is going on today can't be understood if your knowledge of world events pretty much ends at WW2. Why the US's enemies are enemies and why many of our allies who don't share our values at all are allies is pretty much a mystery to the vast majority of the electorate.
It gets me depressed about the future every time I think about it.
Parent
Re:No, they really don't. It's kind of sad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Never complain about history classes. Not only is said that "history is written by the victors", but it is heavily culturally based. I'm not talking about propaganda, just about the focus that you get in school. Now, I have read much more about American history on slashdot than I had at school. I, however, got fed the whole creation of the European Union with all its boring treaties and whatnot. Americans probably get that as a summary "The EU was created in as the ECSC in 1951 and evolved (or Intelligently Designed) from there on". My contemporary history consisted mainly of EU blah-blah, and at least I understand my part of the world thanks to it.
Overlaps are probably in history are the things that happened a real long time ago: pre-historic times, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans. The sole exception would be World War II, which still differs from content. Europeans get the mantra "look how, horrible, horrible, horrible, it was... let's never do that again", Americans get the mantra "Evil Hilter! We, heroes, had to get over there to save the World".
Geography is the same: we got to learn the name of every country of the world and their capital, plus the internal structure of our own country", you do the same (I hope)... The internal structure is just different ;-) I expect a Frenchman to know about his Departements, a German to know about his Bunderlander and an American to know about his states. I don't know them, because I'm neither. So don't ask me what the capital of Utah is. I don't know... If you're an American, you should though.
Parent
Re:zombie castro said what? (Score:5, Informative)
* International Sanctions against the Castro Government. Economic embargo, any non-US company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the US, which is a much larger market.
IF that is not enough an worldwide embargo, what is?
And I know they teach this on Brazilian schools, so, let's cut the "don't they teach this" thing and move on.
Parent
Re:zombie castro said what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chavez, therefore, has a vested interest in making sure that the price of oil is not affected by either the promise or reality of alternate fuel sources. He is also pushing against a US/Brazilian alliance to increase Latin American use and production of cane-based ethanol - he does not want to see either country increase their influence in the region. Brazil's Lula da Silva is hardly a US puppet (he's a leftist), but he doesn't hide his dislike of Chavez and has had a fairly good working relationship with Bush. Plus, cane-based ethanol has been an incredible boon to Brazil, vastly reducing Brazil's need for oil. It's also 6-8 times more productive than corn-based ethanol - done correctly, it makes real economic and environmental sense (if used as just one of many ways to move to a post-oil energy economy). Castro's editorial is just a followup on a conversation he and Chavez had on Chavez's talk show, "Alo Presidente". While it was billed as a "spontaneous" discussion, at several points Castro made references to talking points given to him by Chavez.
Castro may be many things, but he's not stupid - Chavez is the best thing that has happened to him in years. If he has to sell-out a declining industry (Cuban sugar cane) in order to do so, he will.
Parent
I'm more amazed (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I'm more amazed (Score:4, Informative)
Acudo en este caso a una agencia oficial de noticias, fundada en 1945 y generalmente bien informada sobre los problemas económicos y sociales del mundo: la TELAM. Textualmente, dijo:
"Cerca de 2 mil millones de personas habitarán dentro de apenas 18 años en países y regiones donde el agua sea un recuerdo lejano. Dos tercios de la población mundial podrían vivir en lugares donde esa escasez produzca tensiones sociales y económicas de tal magnitud que podrían llevar a los pueblos a guerras por el preciado 'oro azul'.
"Durante los últimos 100 años, el uso del agua ha aumentado a un ritmo más de dos veces superior a la tasa de crecimiento de la población.
"Según las estadísticas del Consejo Mundial del Agua (WWC, por sus siglas en inglés), se estima que para el 2015 el número de habitantes afectados por esta grave situación se eleve a 3 500 millones de personas.
And my (rough) translation:
I'll resort to an official news agency, founded in 1945 and generally well informed about the economic and social problems in the world: the TELAM [telam.com.ar]. Textually, I say:
"About 2 billion people will live, in only 18 years, in countries and regions where water will be a distant memory. Two thirds of the world population may live in places where this scarcity will create social and economic unrest in such magnitude that could lead those people to wars on this precious 'blue gold'".
"From the last 100 years, the use of water has increased in a rate two times superior to the population growth rate.
"According with the World Water Council (WWC), it is estimated that in the year 2015 the number of people affected by this serious situation will increase to 3 500 billion people
Parent
Welcome to Presidential politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Cuba a potential major sugar producer (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no technical reason for it. It is pure politics and the media exploiting(mocking) the anger with the petroleum companies. And it's putting more rainforests at risk. I don't what it does to the soil. I'm sure it will make Monsanto rich. As long as we continue using our present day jalopies, biodiesel is the one true fuel for rapid oxidation. And for the best bang for the buck(best yield per acre), algae [wikipedia.org] is the way to go(about half way down the page). Heck you can grow the stuff in(on) the ocean. No need to use up valuable real estate, but in case you want to anyway, "More recent studies using a species of algae with up to 50% oil content have concluded that only 28,000 km or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes. Furthermore, otherwise unused desert land (which receives high solar radiation) could be most effective for growing the algae, and the algae could utilize farm waste and excess CO2 from factories to help speed the growth of the algae."
Parent
Re:zombie castro said what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Holding an election does not necessarily imply democracy... Democracy is the ability to vote and have freedoms without the interference of government. The interference part is definitely not happening with Chavez!
Parent
Re:zombie castro said what? (Score:4, Insightful)
This topic has been around for centuries. One of the most prominent starting points is Thomas Malthus's thought(yours is somewhat similar) and it is also in Wikipedia, but I'll summarize here.
He assumes population grows geometrically, while food supply is linear. Given this premise, at some point those two lines are going to cross, and at that point, there will be just enough food to keep everyone at the minimum amount needed to survive at that level of population and widespread poverty. Too many extra people, they starve to death until you're back at the equilibrium, too few people, and they keep breeding until it raises to the equilibrium.
However, technology was not accounted for(rightfully so, since he was not around to witness the bounty of the industrial revolution make food supply explode). So the "Malthusian" situation will not occur so long as a sufficient level of technological growth is sustained to tweak that linear food supply line upwards to keep ahead of the geometric population growth.
Also, that population growth rate is not fixed.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a wikipedia entry on this topic since I don't recall the name used for this topic. Generally population growth rates and death rates were fairly regular throughout human history, and only in very recent years it changed. Technological spurts like the plow and such caused agricultural booms that allowed for larger population. Eventually the industrial revolution hit Great Britain.
This results in a huge increase in food supply so that the population growth rate and death rate leaped. Eventually the death rate drops, and then the population growth rate drops, and they straighten out once more. This happened repeatedly as the industrial revolution spread across Europe.
Africa for example, may not have had this phenomenon occur yet. Their birth and death rates are very very high. However, in modern countries birth and death rates and slowed nearly to a standstill without crashing into Malthusian poverty. Why?
One of the best explanation is the concept of Human Capital. What is a human worth? If we're living in an agricultural society, children can help me manage the farm and produce more and work less. Children help me live through retirement. However, since I'm poor, I have to produce more children since the children are also dying often. The above population phenomenon hits where technology grants abundance. I'm healthier and I can support a larger family so population spikes. My children are surviving from this abundance so the death rate drops. Since I have children who are surviving, that I have to care for, the population growth drops too.
Now I've got a stable family size and a stable population growth rate. Since the economy is filling with opportunities thanks to the new technology(there's different kinds of technology in economics, in this case, we're talking about the kind that make more jobs than they remove). This expanded economy can allow me to do more than just farm. If I invest in education I can get more money! So I go get a non-agricultural job. Families won't need so many kids with less human-labor needed on farms so the family size decreases. As opportunities for women to get jobs they have less children too(women in the west are now going to college, maybe grad school, and have children later and later in their lives.)
Education is expensive, increasing the human capital of myself costs money, doing the same for my wife and kids, it racks up to a large investment. So I actually have a disincentive for having a large family, since I can't put money into all of them without lowering the investment level in each.
If I have the opportunity, I may not even want to invest in making a child so that they can take care of me in retirement. I can have less children or no children at all and instead put that effort into my own Human Capital and focus o
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's much more about massive corporate welfare for ADM (price fixer to the world.)
-jcr
Re:Its about time (Score:4, Interesting)
More data:
http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/1000/1619.html [osu.edu]
Potatoes are still better than corn; for all I know you're right that they're the most efficient. But I just wanted to point out that fertilizers are still going to be necessary.
Parent
Re:Its about time (Score:4, Informative)
The latter is not true. It should more than break even.
That's not remotely true. There are numerous crops for which it is not a net gain to make into biodiesel.
Theoretical energy content hardly matters at all, since there is no 100% conversion method. In gasoline engines, ethanol does NOT result in a 1/3rd drop in fuel efficiency. As an additive, the drop is much lower, and in high concentrations, the higher octane means compression ratios can be increased without adverse effects, giving better fuel-mileage than pure gasoline, not worse.
The US has practically outlawed diesel cars over the past decade with strict emission controls, and high sulfur fuel. You can't really blame the auto companies.
Ethanol is only a stop-gap measure to begin with. Biodiesel would require everyone buying new diesel cars, then building up biodiesel infrastructure, only for slightly better biodiesel fuel to become the stop-gap measure, before emission-free vehicles come about.
Parent
Re:No, half the world is not starving. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, well it would be if everybody would stop shooting at each other for a second.
Parent
Re:No, half the world is not starving. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
A Modest Proposal... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Who cares - my gas comes from petroleum (Score:4, Informative)
That is indeed good advice. You should know that there has come some [scienceblogs.com] rebuttals [typepad.com] to "The Great Global Warming Swindle", and at least one person who participated has since come out with a public letter [realclimate.org] where he explains that he is the one who feels swindled by the makers.
It is also interested to note how the makers react when a couple of noted scientists try to engage him in debate [timesonline.co.uk].
Parent