July 9, 2007
BUT WHY NOT CUT TO THE CHASE...:
Food Fight: The case for turning crops into fuel. (William Saletan, July 7, 2007, Slate)
Biofuel is our next logical technology. We've had an agricultural revolution, an industrial revolution, and an information technology revolution. Now, we're putting them together to harness the power of life. Ecologically, it's ideal: a fuel that literally grows on trees.But biofuel has aroused the same fears as free trade, with a twist. The argument against free trade was that people in poor countries would underbid and take jobs from people in rich countries. The argument against biofuel is that people in rich countries will outbid and take food from people in poor countries. The old buzzword was job security. The new buzzword is "food security."
What critics of free trade forget is that people in rich countries aren't just producers; they're consumers: Competition from poor countries drives down wages but compensates by lowering prices. Conversely, what critics of biofuel forget is that people in poor countries aren't just consumers; they're producers. Crop purchases by rich countries drive up prices but compensate by driving up incomes. Castro says turning food into fuel is a "waste," but that's not true. Fuel helps make food available and affordable.
Castro thinks the very idea of making fuel from food is "diabolical." But using food for fuel wasn't Satan's idea. It was God's. Fuel is the whole point of food. That's why edible crops such as corn and cassava are also easy ethanol sources: They're loaded with energy-bearing starch.
Biofuel doesn't feed people directly. But we've been diverting food from direct human consumption since we domesticated animals. Most of the corn we export today feeds livestock, not people. Two months ago, a U.N. report calculated that one-third of the increased demand for food over the next 30 years will come from people shifting their eating habits to meat and dairy—a net loss of dietary efficiency—as they become able to afford it. I don't see Castro complaining about that diversion. In fact, he worries that biofuel is taking land from "producers of beef cattle." Evidently, he's suffering an irony deficiency.
Castro says Bush insists that biofuels "must be extracted from foods." That's false. Bush points out that corn is an inefficient ethanol source. In its place, Bush touts sugar cane, wood chips, and switchgrass. Such "cellulosic" ethanol could lower the output of greenhouse gases and deliver up to six times as much energy as its production requires.
If you want to help poor people, biofuel beats the heck out of oil. In a biofuel economy, the chief asset is open land. Who has open land? Poor countries.
...and harness the sun before it even grows the plants? Posted by Orrin Judd at July 9, 2007 11:52 PM
Because electricity is a lot more difficult to transport and store than fuel?
I'd rather have sugar cane grown all over a patch of land than bird-killing windmills and hideous solar panels.
Posted by: Randall Voth at July 10, 2007 12:24 AMAssuming you get more energy out of it than you put in. And that it remains economical once you take away the govt subsidies.
Posted by: Gideon at July 10, 2007 1:23 AMWhen has difficult ever bothered us?
Posted by: oj at July 10, 2007 6:13 AMWhy is Castro's opinion on matters meriting attention? Just asking.
Posted by: erp at July 10, 2007 9:18 AMUS corn growing is said to be at its highest level in 50 years; having driven through rural NC recently, I can well believe it.
One of the few nice things about the insane CAFE regulations is that they will encourage cars to be made E85 (85% ethanol/15% gasoline) capable (there's a huge loophole in the otherwise loony requirements if you do so).
Then again, perhaps the battery-powered cars will win in the long run, regardless; in ten years the market will have decided, assuming the govenrment doesn't in the meantime.
Posted by: Mike Earl at July 10, 2007 10:40 AM"In a biofuel economy, the chief asset is open land. Who has open land? Poor countries."
Right. Because poor countries have a long-established track record of being spectacularly efficient at agriculture. Hence one of the main criticisms of ethanol--filthy rich Americans are going to start burning food rather than exporting it to help feed the Third World, in order to make lefties feel good about themselves (and feel good by "attacking" Big Oil) and make American farmers richer.
Obviously Castro & his new protege/sugar-daddy Chavez have their own motivations to stop the US from moving away from fossil fuels, but just because they're against it doesn't mean that ethanol is A Good Thing.
Posted by: b at July 10, 2007 11:15 AMThe market must decide, not the guvmint, ours or any others.
Posted by: erp at July 10, 2007 11:37 AM"A car with an air-compressed engine will be able to drive around 124 miles or eight hours for just under $2.
The OneCAT, created by Moteur Development International (MDI) Founder Guy Nègre, can reach a speed of 68 mph and can cover about 124 miles, or eight hours of travel, which is more than double the road coverage of an electric car. When recharging the tank, the car needs to connect to an outlet for three to four hours or attach to an air pump at a gas station for two minutes.[...]"
They will also have a model with an additional engine that can burn any liquid or gaseous fuel available for highway backup and to compress the air tank. Accidents will be an interesting spectator sport.
We live near I 95 which has been adding lanes and reconfiguring the under/over passes for what seems like an eternity, so we're immune to spectacular crashes. They've become so ordinary, there is barely a delay for rubber necking.
Posted by: erp at July 10, 2007 3:03 PMMarkets are a function of government.
Posted by: oj at July 10, 2007 4:08 PMOh, and don't forget the folks who are performing genetic engineering on microorganisms to make them produce octane (that is, gasoline!) instead of ethanol. If that isn't a wild goose chase, the whole ethanol craze will seem quaint in 20 years.
Posted by: Mike Earl at July 11, 2007 9:27 AM... and governments are a function of the people.
Posted by: erp at July 11, 2007 11:26 AM