Comments on: E85 Boondoggle of the Day: Water, Water, Everywhere

By: Engineer

Engineer — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:30:32 +0000

Of course, this sort of thing wouldn’t matter so much if the US and the earth weren’t so overpopulated with H. sapiens.
Nope. Homo sapiens numbers aren’t the problem. We’re not rats.

Earth could not support six billion hunter-gatherers, each one of those require too much land, low as their carbon footprint may be. With some technology, we are able to provide the food and clean water, haul away the wastes and keep the air and water reasonably clean, as the H. sapiens numbers increase from six to seven billion. With future technology we will be able to support much more than a mere seven billion people.

I know, it’s not pretty. And it’s certainly far from perfect. But as long as the leaders don’t interfere to much with their subjects, people have this interesting ability to adapt and survive…

By: Banned User

Banned User — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:56:59 +0000

And now with the high price of fertilizer the farmers are switching to soybeans. Could be a big corn shortage.

How does the government think up so many stupid ideas? Lucky for them they are using other peoples money and not their own.

By: David Holzman

David Holzman — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:21:56 +0000

A land plant requires roughly 500 molecules of H2O to fix a molecule of carbon, according to a plant biologist from Harvard who I interviewed a couple of years ago. (She told me that she felt it was pretty miraculous that plants had been able to evolve to grow on land because they lose so much more water than they can use.) That accounts for the massive thirst of crops, including biofuel feedstock crops. Of course, this sort of thing wouldn’t matter so much if the US and the earth weren’t so overpopulated with H. sapiens.

By: Engineer

Engineer — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:42:16 +0000

And no – other biomass won’t save the day. The water use during extraction is massive.
Have to disagree, Champ.

As I have pointed out before: All the discussion of what the ideal energy crop would be, is premature: we have a free feedstock that we are not even using: waste. Correction: in many cases it is cheaper than free, i.e. people will pay you to take it off their hands.

In 2007, Americans sent 254 million tons of waste to disposal…

No energy crop needed. We just need to process what we have…

By: Stein X Leikanger

Stein X Leikanger — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:33:06 +0000

Bio-ethanol from corn is institutionalized madness, agreed upon by the agricultural lobby and politicians because it allowed them to bypass WTO restrictions on subsidies.

This one is going to become very, very costly and with grave repercussions, before people accept the folly of it.

And no – other biomass won’t save the day. The water use during extraction is massive.

By: shaker

shaker — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:48:39 +0000

With the declining water table in the Midwest becoming an issue, ‘fuel from water’ sounds like an inequitable tradeoff.

By: sean362880

sean362880 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:42:55 +0000

The cause for EtOH mandates is, was, and always has been about the corn lobby. The ‘green rep’ is just a myth. Unfortunately, 40+ senators from corn producing states, the last two presidents, and a large portion of the House conspire to make it politically impossible to do anything about it.

By: Richard Chen

Richard Chen — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:25:34 +0000

Drink or drive – choose one.

By: essen

essen — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:11:32 +0000

Not to mention driving up food costs and ruining boat motors.

By: rocketrodeo

rocketrodeo — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:10:44 +0000

You know, I hadn’t heard that corn growing WAS expanding into arid regions. There isn’t a farmer out there who isn’t aware that corn is a water intensive crop.

By: AJ

AJ — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:04:33 +0000

And all at the cost of us taxpayers. Thanks Washington!