More problems with corn ethanol
December 22nd 2007 01:41
Honestly, I don't have a vendetta against corn ethanol. I WANT alternative fuel sources. We all NEED alternative fuel sources. However, corn ethanol continues to pop up in the news as being particularly problematic when used as a fuel. Here's the latest insight into why corn ethanol isn't the ideal resource for our energy needs here in America:
That's not good news. It makes good sense, environmentally speaking, for us to be self-sufficient in terms of our fuel production. If we can produce fuel here, the burden on the environment is less than if it's transported halfway around the world. Also, these new fuels are supposedly cleaner burning than the gasoline we now use. However, if the production of ethanol from corn results in significant negative impacts on our oceans and waterways, then it creates a whole new set of problems.
The following comments sound a little panicky, but their veracity should be assessed and considered as we continue to ramp up corn ethanol production:
How believable are those comments? Well, as the article states, corn is "too profitable" for farmers to stop producing it. As the production volume increases, this problem could quickly become much worse.
Maybe a solution could be found through the use of less damaging fertilizers, but things like that don't happen overnight. And with cash being king, any replacement for the existing fertilizer would be rejected if it wasn't cost-effective to use.
This is just one more strike against corn ethanol. I really hope that someone in Washington will start thinking more critically about this issue and start shifting the focus to more viable alternatives. They're out there. We just need leadership who will have the foresight to move our country in the right direction.
The nation's corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer. And when that nitrogen runs off fields in Corn Belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and eventually pours into the Gulf, where it contributes to a growing "dead zone" — a 7,900-square-mile patch so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.
That's not good news. It makes good sense, environmentally speaking, for us to be self-sufficient in terms of our fuel production. If we can produce fuel here, the burden on the environment is less than if it's transported halfway around the world. Also, these new fuels are supposedly cleaner burning than the gasoline we now use. However, if the production of ethanol from corn results in significant negative impacts on our oceans and waterways, then it creates a whole new set of problems.
The following comments sound a little panicky, but their veracity should be assessed and considered as we continue to ramp up corn ethanol production:
With demand for corn booming, some researchers fear the dead zone will expand rapidly, with devastating consequences.
"We might be coming close to a tipping point," said Matt Rota, director of the water resources program for the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental group. "The ecosystem might change or collapse as opposed to being just impacted."
"We might be coming close to a tipping point," said Matt Rota, director of the water resources program for the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental group. "The ecosystem might change or collapse as opposed to being just impacted."
How believable are those comments? Well, as the article states, corn is "too profitable" for farmers to stop producing it. As the production volume increases, this problem could quickly become much worse.
Maybe a solution could be found through the use of less damaging fertilizers, but things like that don't happen overnight. And with cash being king, any replacement for the existing fertilizer would be rejected if it wasn't cost-effective to use.
This is just one more strike against corn ethanol. I really hope that someone in Washington will start thinking more critically about this issue and start shifting the focus to more viable alternatives. They're out there. We just need leadership who will have the foresight to move our country in the right direction.
| 71 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L. Bradish
There are so many areas in the USA with high winds that even wind power should be considered, at least as an augmentation. We have 250 years supply of coal, too. And hydro-electric is still a viable possibility. How about ANWAR? And the Gulf? Solar power works on a small scale, maybe that could be increased with the right technology...
My point is that you're right. We need new energy sources that don't include causing more damage. If we keep letting Algore and his "greenies" dictate what the national policies are for energy (or anything else, for that matter) we'll get no further along than we are and wind up having to revert to riding horses (but they produce methane when the have gas, don't they) or walking everywhere we go. As long as the "greenies" have all the fuel they need, they'll keep at the rest of us to cut down and even force us to do so.
Does the term "green house gasses" sound as silly to you as it does to me? After all, aren't green houses where food is grown when the climate is unfriendly? On a much larger scale, shouldn't the "greenhouse effect" be better for farming?
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I posted something a while back about shale oil. Apparently, we're about to see some breakthroughs in that technology. That could REALLY help us get off foreign oil. Apparently, there are tons of shale oil sitting in the ground out west. Also, I'll post something soon about solar cells. I think we're about to see some breakthroughs there, too.
As far as the term greenhouse gases, I just checked out Wikipedia. The greenhouse effect is a good thing, it seems (as you suggested). It makes our atmosphere like a greenhouse that is hospitable to growing food and living. It keeps our planet from being a frozen wasteland. Apparently, the issue is that man creates additional greenhouse gases. I guess that is making things hotter than nature intended. So I guess, technically, it's like we live in a greenhouse here on Earth (which is good) but we are pumping all kinds of additional gases into the greenhouse and it's overheating. At least that's what Wikipedia says -- and Wikipedia is NEVER wrong.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I do think nuclear and wind and solar energy should all be explored/utilized. And all ethanol is not created equal. Apparently, cellulosic ethanol (from wood products) is promising. Of course, that could lead to inflation for other wood products -- for houses, furniture, etc.
I like the idea of using algae to create fuel. If you're a fisherman, I'm sure you've seen plenty of algae or pond scum. Man, wouldn't it be nice to find a use for that junk? I posted something about it a while back, if you're interested.
Algae as an energy source
I saw your blog name. I'm a notoriously unlucky fisherman, too. The last time I went fishing, I caught a small catfish, a small bream, and a baby cottonmouth. That was at a lake in Georgia near my house. At least I caught a variety of creatures.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
I thought everyone had realised by now that this form of 'alternative fool' had already gone belly up. It's not viable as water is short and people need food to eat, more than SUV's on the road...
I have done many posts on alternatives, especially Hydrogen, which really looks set to rock and roll us into the next century... ther eis beer too, that works well and next, hopefully, something that looks like Jame's Bond's Astin Martin and runs on kitchen scraps like the Delorean... oh sheer bliss.
but /seriously/ it won't be long now...
Lilla ...
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I hope hydrogen is a viable solution. Hydrogen is certainly plentiful enough for us. Likewise with solar, wind, oceanic waves, etc.
Comment by Writers Lounge