Just read an article at Yahoo, and have a question for those that are familiar with this.

The rise in demand for Ethanol is starting to affect corn prices. Not sure anyone promoting the stuff remembers that we also use corn for food, and that bigger demand=bigger prices.

Question is this, can ethanol be made from something that we don't use for food???

I can see the day where farmers have a choice of selling corn for food for $X and selling it for fuel for $Y, and $Y > $X, and we have ourselves a problem.

Seems not worth it for 3-5 billion gallons max in a nation that uses 200.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061130/..._scene_ethanol

 

There is a lot of research going on in using cellulose to produce ethanol. Which could come from wood, grass clippings, and even corn stalks. Lots of potential just need more research to make it viable.

 

There is some kind of grass, switch grass(?), that has as much energy in it as sugar cane and can be grown in the US. I just remember seeing about it on a Google video. It had that middle eastern guy doing a pressentation about E85 and he was talking about it. The grass was real tall too, maybe 10' or more.

 

What they said. Ethanol does not have to be made from corn. I believe pretty much any wood pulp or fiberous plant material can be used. The ideal scenario would have them using waste products that are not for human or animal consumption.

Also, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, most of the corn produced in this country goes towards feed for livestock.

 

I seem to have a different take on this than most

It would be such a blessing to have Tobacco farmers switch to sugar and have them much more profitable in the same stroke. Moving the country toward independence in fuel would be awesome. Making the Farmer someone who made a decent living again be it through corn, sugar or whatever. Yes we eat corn also but personally good sweet corn is something I get in the summer buying 12 once a month if that.

Ive heard the arguement that if you turned the US into nothing but fields, theoretically you could not sustain our drivers... Well noone said we had to be entirely fuel independent. I am sure Brazil would be happy to export a surplus of E85 to the US. What if Afganistan could grow some crop to produce E85 rather than Poppies. Well what if a particular government that Supplies the US E85 becomes less than ethical or tries to be a monopoly like OPEC? I am sure plenty of nations would be happy to have a new export simply by growing a new crop as opposed to oil where you are limited to dealing with the people who happen to be living above it regaurdless of who they are.

I do not know that the US would become totaly independent by moving to E85, but it does open up alot more competitors in terms of nations we could be importing from. Not just in price, but also in terms of ethically who we want to deal with as a nation, and possibly a new export for poor nations. I think it would allow US farmers to be more profitable rather than just subdividing and getting out of it. I would feel better at the pumps knowing that my money was going to a farmer rather than the middle east.

 

Some might argue that being dependant upon foreign corn is no different than being dependant on foreign oil.

We need alternative fuel sources, yes. But as to what's the best scenario for the US economy and the environment? That has yet to be determined.

 

Would you agree that more nations could grow foreign corn/sugar giving us more nations to choose from possibly resulting in competitive prices, than oil which is fixed and controlled by OPEC? Maybe even the option of not needing to deal with a region or nation that does not like the US if we choose not to?

 

Stop right there!

Therein lies the rub.

While on the surface your scenario would seem to make sense, and granted I'd agree with you up to the point where I cut you off. However, if there would be a demand for foreign corn/sugar as a replacement for oil, who the do you think would be running those farms? OPEC that's who. There's no way they lose out by passing on the potential sales. Then they'd corner both markets, oil and corn/sugar.

This is not unlike the tobacco companies that have already trademarked the rights to brands for marijuana cigarettes should a time come when marijuana becomes legalized. There's no way OPEC passes on such a scenario. Then you'd only be defeating your original intent of eliminating US dependance on foreign oil.

Heck even if we could grow all the corn/sugar we needed here, who the heck do you think would own those farms?

 

I guess I just have a hard time seeing OPEC buying up all the farms across the world. Especially in the US. Aside from real estate prices, that constitutes a monopoly and I couldnt imagine US Legislative or Judicial branch allowing it. Not that I dont think they would try.

 

How dependent? 10% is a lot different than 58%

 

You yourself suggested growing corn in Afghanistan. Why wouldn't they simply grow corn on land they already own in the middle east? If they did that, there's nothing the US legislature could do to stop them.

 

Corn can be grown in a lot more places than oil can be pumped out of the ground (although I'd venture to guess that the middle east is one place where corn crops would NOT be viable).

I don't think OPEC would have any hand in controlling corn. The middle east in general has shown a distinct lack of ability in any kind of economic activity except pumping oil out of the ground. I can't see them successfully maintaining a far-flung global agriculture business where the economics are barely viable to begin with and will require constant innovation and improvement to compete.

If anyone's going to be the OPEC of corn, it'll be a company like ADM (interesting article: http://www.oligopolywatch.com/2004/02/01.html). By owning the strains and processing know-how they make it difficult for other players to enter the market.

 

If my family wanted to sell the corn we grow for feed for our cattle for ethanol, we could not do it. They would rather bring corn in from Iowa, because all of the Corn we grow here, which is alot, still barely produces as much as one county does in Iowa. I don't know if overall the price would skyrocket because of it.

 

I hope you're just joking about only eating corn a few times in the summer. You eat something with corn products, or that ate corn products aduring it's life with pretty much every meal. Corn syrup, corn meal, etc. Farmers don't grow fields of the stuff for no reason.

The price of corn going up probably affects food prices more directly even than fuel since it is in essence a raw material as much as a final product.

 

yes they could grow crops in the middle east where possible, but my question is what would prevent someone in say Afganistan, or [insert nation here] from also growing a crop that could yield ethenol and competing with OPEC?


Excellent point! I didnt even think of stuff like corn oil either. I was only suggesting that currently the government subsidises for farms to stay farms and that crops like tobacco might be converted to maybe something like sugar to produce ethanol. Or if not sugar, maybe something else. I just think that the market would work itself out. Especially other nations being able to export to the US what we cant provide ourselves. I hope I am not looking at this too simplistically as it seems like a good idea to me.

Interesting. I would have thought they would want your corn in addition to what is in Iowa if it was used for Ethanol. Are you saying because you produce it in smaller quantities it would not be worth it even if Iowa had been exhausted? (Exhausted in this case would be an awesome problem to have BTW)