<p>If you look at Marite’s wiki article and click on “efficiency of common crops”, you go down to a chart that compares various sources of ethanol. Compare sugar vs. corn and you see yield gal. per acre US of about 600 for sugar and 380 for corn, and % svgs of greenhouse gas at 87-96 for sugar and 10-20 for corn. So you get more ethanol per acre from sugar, and significantly more greenhouse gas svgs from sugar over corn.</p>
<p>Farm subsidies should be done with whole sale. This is one issue where both parties drop the ball. Farm subsidies A. drive up world food prices and B. encourage illegal immigration because rural farrmers in Latin America cant compete with subsidized American farms in a free market.</p>
<p>The one benefit that I like in farm subsidies is that it permits carrying excess capacity. Something that is normally considered inefficient in markets but useful for other reasons.</p>
<p>But will sugar cane grow in Illinois and Iowa? Probably not. Sometimes we have to deal with what is possible–not what is ideal.</p>
<p>[Ikisan</a> - Suiatble soils for Sugarcane cultivation](<a href=“http://www.ikisan.com/links/ap_sugarcaneSoil%20and%20Climate.shtml]Ikisan”>http://www.ikisan.com/links/ap_sugarcaneSoil%20and%20Climate.shtml)</p>
<p>^^ Precisely. You may get more ethanol from sugar cane, but that does not prevent corn growers from wanting a piece of the action. As I said, I’m disappointed in Obama over this.</p>
<p>The problem is there is very little land suitable for sugar in this country and lots of it for corn. Thus corn makes sense for the US. Do we want to have dependence on other countries for biofuels too?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Biofuels are fine, if they can be competitive WITHOUT subsidies. We can not justify subsidies and than be in free-trade agreements that are “supposed” to remove protectionism.</p>
<p>It may or may not make sense for the US, but world-wide hunger will have an effect on the US. We cannot ignore it.
By the way, the largest producer of sugar cane is going out of business. allowing FLA to restore the Everglades.
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/us/25everglades.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/us/25everglades.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a>.</p>
<p>I’d like the US to explore other sources of energy.</p>
<p>Like Nuclear??? All the other stuff is pie in the sky 25 years away at best.</p>
<p>“All the other stuff is pie in the sky 25 years away at best.”</p>
<p>That’s why I get a kick out of one of the standard Dem talking points about opening ANWR or drilling offshore. They say, “Well, it will be at least 8 years before we get any of that oil”. Why doesn’t anyone ask them how long it will be before any of these new technologies can be invented, perfected, commercially viable and broadly-enough deployed to make a dent on our energy needs? </p>
<p>Sure, go ahead and research all you want - even provide government funding for the research. Eventually it may pay off. However, our current infrastructure is based on fossil fuels and we need to crank up our capacity as fast as possible AND crank up our nuclear capacity. I’d even be in favor of a government mandated floor on fossil energy prices so that private industry wouldn’t have to worry about a sudden glut of oil from OPEC making their investments in new technologies or methods of extracting energy from existing sources economically non-viable.</p>
<p>Switchgrass-based ethanol is generating a lot of excitement in the scientific community. The net energy output from switchgrass is 20 times better than from corn:</p>
<p>[Biofuel:</a> Major Net Energy Gain From Switchgrass-based Ethanol](<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109110629.htm]Biofuel:”>Biofuel: Major Net Energy Gain From Switchgrass-based Ethanol | ScienceDaily)</p>
<p>[Biofuels</a> from Switchgrass: Greener Energy Pastures](<a href=“http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html]Biofuels”>http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html)</p>
<p>“I believe they use no oil.”</p>
<p>No, they do a substantial amount of drilling for oil and oil represents a very large share of their total energy use. In fact, if you check out the Wiki article posted above, you will see that the US actually makes more ethanol than Brazil.</p>
<p>Obviously you can’t grow sugar all over the US, but that doesn’t mean you don’t do it where you can do it. We need a multi-pronged approach to energy independence and sustainable energy. That means biofuel, nuclear, wind, solar, everything. It will take years and years. Not starting spells disaster. This also includes increased drilling for oil, and finding a way thru CCS technology to increase use of coal (carbon capture and storage).</p>
<p>Go to [The</a> Shell global homepage - Global](<a href=“http://www.shell.com%5DThe”>http://www.shell.com) and search for Shell Energy Scenarios to 2050. They have a 52 page PDF book and a video of two forecasts. Scramble is if events outpace plans. Blueprint is if plans outpace events. Global results and impacts. Under Blueprints we reach independence/sustainable in about 2030 vs. not until 2050 under Scramble (ie, panic mode). Even with optimum planning they predict present conditions til 2015, turbulence til 2030, the future til 2050. By 2050 they predict 50% of all vehicles will be electric/hydrogen, and 30% of all liquid fuel will be biofuel. They define biomass fuel as including stuff like wood and dung.</p>
<p>The charts in the pdf are very interesting. Energy consumption world wide doubles (or more), but the extra is made up with alternative fuel and biofuel.</p>
<p>barrons: you may be surprised to learn that I am not opposed a priori to drilling in ANWR or to nuclear energy. The devil is in the details, in particular over disposal of waste.</p>
<p>malakas: I do read what I post. I am aware that Brazil uses sugar cane to make biofuel, thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, and they won’t now. It was a ridiculous ruling at the time and the Supreme Court has ruled in Exxon Mobil’s favor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Malakas:</p>
<p>I said I was aware that Brazil uses sugar cane to produce ethanol. That should be enough. The issue of ethanol was brought up by me in relation to Obama whose state is not conducive to growing sugar cane.
I don’t need to be told by you that I should read up on energy utilization in Brazil, THANK YOU!</p>
<p>
Those activist judges at it again: overturning the verdict of the people under laws duly passed by the Legislature… <sigh> ;)</sigh></p>
<p>Sorry, I know this thread started about offshore drilling, but since ethanol was mentioned, here is a Yale Global article about the ethanol production in Brazil that I found when arguing about this in emails with family:</p>
<p>[As</a> Brazil Fills Up on Ethanol, It Weans Off Energy Imports](<a href=“Yale Global | Yale and the World”>Yale Global | Yale and the World)</p>
<p>Someone mentioned farm subsidies, and while there were subsidies in Brazil when the dictator govt started the ethanol push, they have since been got rid of I think by the new govt. Even in Brazil ethanol looked like it was going to be a failure at one point, but persistence and persverence paid off.</p>
<p>Technology advances also helped make the sugar production for ethanol more efficient per acre:</p>
<p>“Other improvements include using remains of processed cane to power sugar and ethanol plants, and using industrial waste from ethanol production to fertilize sugar fields. As a result, the productivity of Brazil’s ethanol producers has steadily increased. In 1975, Brazil squeezed 2,000 liters, or about 520 gallons, of ethanol from a hectare, or nearly 2.5 acres, of sugar cane. Today, it’s nearly 6,000 liters.”</p>
<p>I was just reading about the Exxon ruling. The more liberal judges found themselves chiding the more conservative judges for not exercising judicial restraint. In a footnote, Scalia and Thomas said the wildlife looked better after the spill and suggested that each little creature be re-oiled.</p>
<p>“I’d even be in favor of a government mandated floor on fossil energy prices so that private industry wouldn’t have to worry about a sudden glut of oil from OPEC making their investments in new technologies or methods of extracting energy from existing sources economically non-viable.”</p>
<p>I heard someone on the radio (NPR) advocating a floor of $4 gal for gasoline to start forcing the behavioral changes needed to transition to more fuel efficient cars, mass transportation, increased demand for alternative fuels. Anytime the price actually dropped below $4 the difference would help fund the R&D for alternative fuel, or mass transit, or it could go to help repair our transportation/energy infrastructure.</p>
<p>As an aside, while Florida and Calif fight offshore drilling, and Mass (?) fights offshore windmills, I’m pretty sure Texas is planning/constructing a windfarm in the Gulf near Galveston. fwiw.</p>