I would strongly recommend reading this post if you are interested in these issues, especially the Christian obligation to aid the weakest in our world.

The whole biofuels push and demand for corn for ethanol production is one key factor that is putting incredible pressure on grain prices worldwide (the other factor is the rising cost of transport). The effects are already felt here in West Africa where there have been increasing demonstrations in a number of countries to protest rising food prices.  Working in a country which must import 80% of its cereals, I can attest the poor are already suffering here.

As they are in Mexico, where the price of grain for tortillas and other corn-meal based foods have skyrocketed this past year alone.  In the US we see it with $4.00 a gallon milk and higher meat prices.

The rich and higher wage earners can absorb this cost, the poor cannot.

I do a considerable amount of driving and keep a record of my mileage. I find that when I use a 10% blend of alcohol gas that my mileage decreases about 10% and so end up using as much gas as I normally use when I use gas without the alcohol blend. There is no savings in gas used by blending alcohol with gas. Perhaps if more vehicles use E85 which is 85% or greater alcohol there may be some savings but it has been found that alcohol emits more pollutants than gas alone so what is the answer?, I don’t know but alcohol does not seem to be the answer.

Re: Art+ [#4] - One of the problems with alcohol biofuels is that they carry less energy in their chemical bonds that petroleum based fuels.  You need more ethanol, by volume, than gasoline to provide the same energy, which is why your mileage decreases in proportion to the amount of ethanol blended with gasoline.

I haven’t done any research on cellulosic bio-fuels, but it sounds like a cool thing if we could use the grass clippings from all those well manicured suburban lawns as a source of fuel and leave the corn and other grains for food use.

It is regrettable that so many have fallen for the biofuel bandwagon. The best evidence shows that it takes at least 1.2 gallons of diesel to plant, harvest, and process sufficient corn to make 1 gallon of gasoline.
Now if we could make gasoline from kudzu, for instance…
That would be a winner all the way around.
Or perhaps make gasoline from recycled newsprint…
After all, the life in the forest floor recycles all the organic material there. Why are we unable to do what a bacteria can do?
Ethanol is the cash crop of choice for ADM and the other agribusiness conglomerates.
And it will raise commodity prices throughout the world.
Good choice?!

what do ya’ll think about switchgrass? i have heard great things about that. what about biodiesel made from cooking oils? i also think that if we laid down track for public transport it would supply jobs as well as cut down on pollution….

I was in the midwest last summer and was amazed at how every field was filled with corn…no fields were left fallow…

Pimental and other noted scientists have pointed out that to produce the nearly 1.5 gal of ethanol required to replace a gallon of gasoline requires more energy than is contained in a gallon of gasoline.  Thus, there is a negative net energy conversion ratio.  Some of the energy needed to convert the corn to fuel can be obtained from coal and therefore does not have to be imported.  This is the only advantage of ethanol as a fuel.

Some oil is still needed for producing and transporting the seeds and fertilizer,and for tractors that plant, cultivate, harvest, and transport the corn.  The amount of oil needed alone almost makes corn a losing proposition.  It is already a losing proposition from the environmental point of view.  Economically it is also a loser.  Not only does it drive up the price of everything that relies on corn, but it also costs more per calorie of energy delivered than does a gallon of gasoline.

Cellulosic biofuels may have some promise, but they too may take more calories to produce than they return as a fuel.  Whenever that happens one needs to keep eyes open for adverse environmental impacts.  For example, more carbon dioxide would be released in the overall production and use of ethanol to move a given vehicle one mile compared to having moved it the same mile with gasoline.

At the moment, our best available technology would be to produce electricity with nuclear plants and run our cars on stored electricity, perhaps with supplementary gasoline usage when needed to extend range.  Most commuter cars do not travel more than 50 miles between overnight storage at a residence for recharging.  If such a car had a 30 HP engine onboard for recharging in those cases where range needed to be extended, drivers would not feel “trapped” by limited range.  For their typical commute they would not use gasoline at all.  In a typical 1000 mile month they might buy a gallon or two for range extension.  500 MPG does not sound too bad to me!

The current thinking of our political system that we should increase fuel efficiency a few percent each year for the next 20 years is completely bankrupt.  The growth in number of miles driven each year will match the growth in efficiency increase and there will not be a net reduction in oil usage.

Only a radical change can help us out of our current situation.  Technology is available to set a CAFE target of 50 MPG by 2010 and 100 MPG by 2020.  Not one single politician has the will to do it knowing that it would make them unelectable.  Most of the voting public wants access to SUVs, trucks and cars that average 10 MPG and they are willing to pay at least $5.00 per gallon to drive them.

I think many would even be willing to pay $8.00 to $10.00 per gallon.  Eight dollars per gallon is an annual cost of $8,000 to drive 10,000 miles.  The annual depreciation on most large SUV’s is around $4,000 per year, so at $8.00, fuel would cost only twice the depreciation.  These levels may seem absurd to you and me, but never underestimate the attachment of the average American to their car.  They will usually let their home go before they will let their car go.

In the near term, I do not see such high levels occuring.  Twenty years from now who knows.  I am only trying to point out most Americans would pay if it does happen.  My only hope is that many would be lured to the idea of having two vehicles.  One with high efficiency for commuter purposes and the larger “fun” vehicle for very occasional use.

From Kudzu—- now there’s an idea!

I think GM’s recent investment in biofuel made from garbage is an indicator of things to come.  Global Warming is a hoax, but it has caused us to look for better ways to be good stewards of G_d’s creation.  The “Garbage Fuel” is cheap at $1.00 per gallon to produce, uses far less energy than that needed to produce ethanol from maize, burns cleaner and can be produced anywhere in the world.  Best of all, it will sell for $1.00 to $.50 per gallon less than gasoline.  The prototype plant will be competed in 2008 and full production is anticipated within 3 years.

GM has upped their ads with hydrogen powered vehicles.  Nice concept, but if you get one, you are limited as to WHERE you can drive it, as not every state offers hydrogen fuel or numerous stations.  So far, while being attractive, it is not practical.