awallis
Well-known member
Sorry, Herm. I'm going to have to disagree.
Unfortunately, these numbers are incorrect. Many estimates place corn production at a 10:1 ratio. That is, it takes 10 calories in (fertilizer, fuel, etc.) to get 1 calorie out. Yes, the sun adds calories, but don't forget that we only use a small portion of the plant. Even the most optimistic estimate only allow the sun to double the energy--2 gallons ethanol for 1 gallon whatever. See: http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/...ch_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html
Finally, my family owns a farm. It takes hundreds and hundres of pounds of fertilizer for just a few dozen acres. The gallon figures you use are inaccurate except on the most fertile of soil, which is and will be a rarity until we move to more sustainable practices, which are more expensive.
Unfortunately reducing corn prices have actually devastated Mexico. One of the huge immigration pressures of the last 15 years can be found in NAFTA, which puts American subsidized corn in competition with unsubsidized, unfertilized corn in Mexico. The workers you see coming into the U.S. have given up farming in Mexico because we undercut them in a relatively simple cause-effect scenario. So yes, a tortilla costs less in Mexico City, but the rural poor are suffering and coming here. In terms of farm policy in Mexico or the U.S., this rural-urban divide is essentially a new form of colonialism. The large markets on either coast are exploiting the people and the land of the interiors, extracting huge amounts of products and making a profit on the surplus value. Unfortunately both political parties are more than happy to place the corporate profit above the interests of farmers and small manufacturers.
As far as paying money to keep farms inactive (our policy from 1935 to the Nixon years), well, it worked. It kept farms productive and the price of food fairly stable. During that time the middle class grew faster and bigger than it ever has since. Overproduction of food, while not all bad, has also led to all sorts of ills, both environmental and societal: pollution, monocrop production, obesity, etc.
Ethanol is, at the absolutely most optimistic, a doubling of energy that allows for profiteering at many points in the production line (huge subsidized farms, fertilizer and seed manufacturers, corn markets, ethanol producers, oil distribution network, etc.). It seems the better option is to develop cars that are twice as efficient (already very possible) and convert to more sustainable practices: solar and wind. LET'S CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMEN!
Cheers-
Andy
Unfortunately, these numbers are incorrect. Many estimates place corn production at a 10:1 ratio. That is, it takes 10 calories in (fertilizer, fuel, etc.) to get 1 calorie out. Yes, the sun adds calories, but don't forget that we only use a small portion of the plant. Even the most optimistic estimate only allow the sun to double the energy--2 gallons ethanol for 1 gallon whatever. See: http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/...ch_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html
Finally, my family owns a farm. It takes hundreds and hundres of pounds of fertilizer for just a few dozen acres. The gallon figures you use are inaccurate except on the most fertile of soil, which is and will be a rarity until we move to more sustainable practices, which are more expensive.
The illusion that water is plentiful is unfortunate. Aquifers all over the world are being pumped at an astounding rate. This includes "rainy" areas like the midwest where the huge majority of corn is grown. The side effects of increased irrigation are many, so I'll just name a few: fertilizer runoff (wasted energy!), increased salinity of the soil, less potable water for humans... The problem here is to think that plentiful water and sustainable practices go together. Unfortunately the oil economy has warped our sense of what is "normal" and sustainable.
Unfortunately reducing corn prices have actually devastated Mexico. One of the huge immigration pressures of the last 15 years can be found in NAFTA, which puts American subsidized corn in competition with unsubsidized, unfertilized corn in Mexico. The workers you see coming into the U.S. have given up farming in Mexico because we undercut them in a relatively simple cause-effect scenario. So yes, a tortilla costs less in Mexico City, but the rural poor are suffering and coming here. In terms of farm policy in Mexico or the U.S., this rural-urban divide is essentially a new form of colonialism. The large markets on either coast are exploiting the people and the land of the interiors, extracting huge amounts of products and making a profit on the surplus value. Unfortunately both political parties are more than happy to place the corporate profit above the interests of farmers and small manufacturers.
As far as paying money to keep farms inactive (our policy from 1935 to the Nixon years), well, it worked. It kept farms productive and the price of food fairly stable. During that time the middle class grew faster and bigger than it ever has since. Overproduction of food, while not all bad, has also led to all sorts of ills, both environmental and societal: pollution, monocrop production, obesity, etc.
Ethanol is, at the absolutely most optimistic, a doubling of energy that allows for profiteering at many points in the production line (huge subsidized farms, fertilizer and seed manufacturers, corn markets, ethanol producers, oil distribution network, etc.). It seems the better option is to develop cars that are twice as efficient (already very possible) and convert to more sustainable practices: solar and wind. LET'S CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMEN!
Cheers-
Andy
