And one key point in the Economist’s take on increasing food prices is that it creates an opportunity to eliminate subsidies to the farm industry, if the politicians have the stomach for it (which does not appear to be the case, unfortuantely)

Conventional oil production has peaked.
It has not. Global oil production (and use)is still increasing. Educate yourself, please. Preferably before commenting…

Word Oil Demand, bbl/d
2003: 79.3
2004: 82.4
2005: 83.6
2006: 84.4
2007: 85.8

Here’s a prediction: In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, the United States’ leading oil-producing state, said that all the oil would be gone by 1878. Looks like some things never change…

The era of cheap oil is over.
You may be right on this one. And the problem is?

You know very well why that’s the case. That’s what people wanted. They want their next car to be longer, wider and more powerful. Inevitably, that means heavier. Why are they jumping for joy at 28mpg? Because they can hang with a Porsche Boxster down the straight with room for kids. That’s what Americans like about cars. That’s why CAFE is useless…because it penalizes the companies that give Americans what they want.

You can’t make people want smaller, lighter cars. So what do you propose? Legislation? Tax? Something else altogether?

Point #2: that productivity is based in large part on fertilizer, which is produced from oil.
True. But it doesn’t have to be. Some day we may figure out a way to recover all the nutrients in wastewater, manure, stale food, etc.

They took the calculating system for ethanol’s energy input v. output to task, and said that gasoline’s was even worse.
As this guy puts it: If the energy balance was really this good for ethanol and that bad for gasoline, why would anyone ever make gasoline? Where would the economics be? Why would ethanol need subsidies to compete? It should be clear that the proponents in this case are promoting false information.

Point #1: H. sapiens already appropriates about 40% of the world’s photosynthetic production. There is not enough good ag land to come anywhere close to fueling the nation’s cars with corn-based ethanol.

Point #2: that productivity is based in large part on fertilizer, which is produced from oil.

2. Celluosic ethnanol technologies are also beginning to become more feasible.

3. At some point, the environmentalists need to say yes to a renewable. Any renewable. Please. Nuclear? China Syndrome. Wind? Messes up my views. Ethanol? Too much corn. Solar? Too expensive, not enough Silicon. The list goes on and on.

Today in the USA we are driving around in vehicles that get rather sucky gas mileage. Why do the gas mileage suck? Because we are driving over-sized, over-powered cars and SUVs. Today the avarage new car buyer will purchase a vehicle with easily over 150hp to move around a 3500lb car. 20 years ago the same driver was getting a 100hp 2500lb car.
Considering the advances in engine and drive-train technology if we had kept the weight down on our cars we would be seeing MPG figure well into the 40s and possible the 50mpg range.

If we use the oh so popular Camry of 1988 and compare it to today’s as an example we see a car that has grown considerable in size what was at best a 2800lb car is now 3500lbs+. The 4 cyl engines has grown half a liter and the v6 has grown a full liter. Why on earth do folks jump for joy over getting 28mpg from a family sedan?

Today we talk about Ethanol because no one in power is willing to say to Americans what they need to hear. The car companies are all content to continue to sell bigger and more powerful cars for more $$$$. The Oil companies are quite happy to continue to sell you all the gas they can pump out of the ground and sea.

Now if I were a billionaire today I would not care about any of this because I would feel safe and secure in the notion that I can still afford to buy my children and grandchildren a very nice future. There will be enough food and fuel for them because they will be able to pay 10.00 per gallon of gas and $7.00 for a loaf of bread.

What was the saying about robbing Peter to pay Paul?

1996MEdition – The same environmentalists that keep oil companies out of the western US and ANWR are not going to let this happen.

Currently, the government makes payments to some farmers not to use their land for farming, just another sign American farmers can increase production quite a bit.
Is all of this land environmentally sensitive? I don’t know, but I doubt it.

Fertilizer and water use: that’s a problem with corn. Good reason to switch to other crops for cellulosic biofuel.

I agree with you, but I do think the general idea of biofuel is worthwhile. Over time the world will learn how to do it properly.

Engineer: Nope. The Energy Bill would double corn ethanol production and add cellulosic on top of that.
Waste->Fuel is about adding value

Correct, but the increase in corn ethanol production will slow down and eventually stop when cellulosic biofuel takes off.
Waste->Fuel is one example of that and I’m all for it.

Biofuel doesn’t necessarily mean ethanol. I hope 2nd generation biofuel takes off, that can be mixed with gasoline without giving engine trouble.

That said, it’s not obvious there is a huge problem with corn:
- more land can be made available to agriculture
- productivity of farms is steadily increasing
- most corn is fed to pigs not people
- the cost of food depends more on the cost of energy and the supply chain than the cost of corn cobs
- food prices are still very low
- worldwide there is lots of capacity to expand agriculture

The supporters of ethanol seem to just see it as an alternative fuel but neglect to take into consideration just how inefficient and costly the production of Ethanol is. Ehtanol is not our future, it is only a bad idea that is making its way though our media and government because some key players on the food/ energy seen stand to make a killing on it.

Questions that need to be answered:
How much corn does it take to make a gallon of Ethanol?
How much land is necessary to grow said corn?
How much water is needed to grow said corn?
How much fertilzer is needed to grow said corn?
Since corn can’t be pumped from the farm to the processing plant, how much fuel must be used to transport said corn to the plant?
How much energy will be used to process the corn into Ethanol?
Now since Ethanol is not compatitable with our existing gasoline and diesel pipeline infrustructure how much money and resources will now need to be spent to get the Ethanol to the point where it is mixed with gasoline?

In addition to all of this the population in the USA and world is still growing and will continue to have increased demands for FOOD!

So the way I see it we will be spending an extra 10 cents for basic food items for every 1 cent we save at the gas pump.

That reminds me. Last week on Autoline Detroit, they had Mary Beth Stanek, the Director of GM’s Environment, Energy & Safety Policy, Professor Bruce Dale, an ethanol expert, and Jim Zook, the plant manager for U.S. Bio Woodbury. They took the calculating system for ethanol’s energy input v. output to task, and said that gasoline’s was even worse.

http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/

It’s hard to have a serious conversation about this subject without it getting political, and therefore nasty.

http://www.poetenergy.com/learn/foodandfuel.asp

The same environmentalists that keep oil companies out of the western US and ANWR are not going to let this happen. Read this article about fertilizer runoff:

Link

What if we planted candy corn?

Not sure where the facination with ethanol comes from – a lingering remnant of Prohibition? Ethanol is a pretty lousy fuel, compared to existing supplies. And distillation means that overall production efficiency will always be low.

As I said before, Food->Fuel is criminal. As implied above, it is going the wrong direction. Agriculture is all about Fuel->Food, where the input fuel would include diesel, fertilizer and solar power.

On the other hand, Waste->Fuel is about adding value, not destroying it. In spite of Congess’ best efforts some Waste->Fuel projects are moving ahead. We may get workable (and affordable) biofuels, afterall. Thank God for the free market, or when we talk about fuel, what’s left of it.

As for population growth: a higher population means you need more technology to survive. Earth cannot support 6 billion hunter-gatherers, despite what the greens would claim. Likewise, to support 12 billion (and beyond) would require using the available resources ever more wisely. Can be done. And will.

That bit aside, who greenlighted the idea that you can take a substance with half the caloric output of gasoline and mix it with gasoline without any ill effects on performance? And why on earth would you run a car on 85% mixtures of the stuff? Ethanol dragsters run great on it, but they also use a full gallon or two in a single run. They also need the extremely high octane of alcohol. Racers depend on the relative safety of ethanol based fuels because they tend to crash at high speed a lot. Fuel economy and foreign oil dependency is not an issue.

Not only is this going to be seen as a huge mistake years from now, but we are going to be stuck with it. Grain producers are jumping for joy.

And that is fine. We’re all consumers of both food and energy, so I don’t mind paying, say, 1 cent more for a box of cereal, if it reduces gas prices by 5 cents per gallon.

Note that the energy bill is supporting cellulosic biofuel, not made from corn. So, the corn problem will be fixed over time.

That said, it’s not obvious there is a huge problem with corn:
- more land can be made available to agriculture
- productivity of farms is steadily increasing
- most corn is fed to pigs not people
- the cost of food depends more on the cost of energy and the supply chain than the cost of corn cobs
- food prices are still very low
- worldwide there is lots of capacity to expand agriculture

“A ten minute conversation with the average voter is the best argument against democracy”.

I’m not too bothered about the price of corn. It is actually a fairly lousy food source, with low yield of edible bits compared to the volume of the plant. It is not well digested by humans, and it has very little nutritional value, other than the energy value from the sugar content.

The problem is that ethanol subsidies have created an artificial market for corn which is causing agribusiness to convert from farming something that does have some nutritional value to growing feedstock for fuel.

The problem isn’t ethanol itself, despite its profound drawbacks as a fuel. The problem is the subsidies completely screwing with the market. I’m no free market fundamentalist, but this is truly an example where you mess with the invisible hand at your peril.