Moreover fuel does not account for all the petroleum used. Petroleum is the single most important feedstock for organic chemicals like virtually all synthetic fabrics, plastics and solvents.
Your arithmetic is quite sobering.
...
It's not a panacea, no...never claimed it to be. It a positice impact, however, and has an added benefit of increased markets for ag products...
There's 200-bu corn raised even here, though. :) Not that it's actually that high an average, that's true. There are so many different "barrels" I wasn't positive which one is the one used in the general sense. The 31.5/gal factor came from my Perry's Chem E Handbook...
IMHO, the only thing that will solve the oil shortage problem is economics.
$10/gal gasoline would bring lots of new technology out of the wood work, but as long as the fossil fuel industry is in control of US energy policy and their stooge occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Av, there will be no meaningful solutions brought forward.
Lew
| Robert Bonomi wrote: || ... || || Automobile usage is a small part of total fuel consumption. like || 1/5 or less. of vehicular use. well under 10% of all petroleum || consumption, when you include oil-fired heating, farm implement, || and marine use. | | Moreover fuel does not account for all the petroleum used. | Petroleum is the single most important feedstock for organic | chemicals like virtually all synthetic fabrics, plastics and | solvents. | | Your arithmetic is quite sobering.
It is indeed.
We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land will be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will become sharply more expensive.
If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently high, we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to repetitively planting the same crop on the same land until the soil is exhausted. Should we get to that point, there will be serious breakage - and the worst of it won't be in the corn belt.
We urgently need to develop alternative energy sources and rethink (especially) our building, production, and transportation technologies. Even 200 mpg cars and 100 mpg trucks won't solve the problem, or even just keep us from freezing in the winter.
We should perhaps begin thnking in terms of /passenger/ miles per gallon and /ton/ miles per gallon instead of /vehicle/ miles per gallon.
And (near and dear to /my/ heart) we need to improve thermal efficiency of the structures we build so that those structures /can/ be 100 - 150% solar heated. All of the technology we need to accomplish this is already available - the problem is that most of what we build with traditional methods is so "lossy" that solar can only provide 30 - 50% of the energy needed for heat.
All of this points to a need for improved and expanded architectural and engineering education - at a time when quality of education appears to be "on the skids".
It makes me crazy that people seem so willing to say: "What do you expect from me - /I/ can't do anything," and expect that politicians will /legislate/ a (no cost) solution. Have we really dumbed down that much?
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA
Even more urgently we need to scale down our need for production and transportation, or at least put a stop to it's growth, wich otherwise eats up all efficiency gains.
[...]
To answer you last question: Yes... The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future worth living in.
Morris Dovey wrote: ....
I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing, at present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop ground in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, (that's the "big if" :) ) it were necessary and economical, be brought back into production for many of these ancillary crops as well as corn and soybeans. As for land "exhaustion", if there is any segment that is concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the land, it is we producers--after all, that is our livelihood, not indirect.
....
In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you propose to achieve *that*?
And don't forget that the btu per unit weight of alcohol is only about
1/2 that of diesel or gasoline.
Plus, I doubt the folks in the third world countries will continue to be content with that scenario even if their populations to somehow magically become stable...
But about 70-80% by volume....
Of course economic growth in the hird world is still necessary, but in the developped part the situation is different; and having an economy whose main interest is growth also in the third world will not work in the long term. How to stabilize populations I have no viable idea other than education, ironically also economic growth, awareness-raising and abandoning ploicies like the global gag rule.
| Morris Dovey wrote: | .... || We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land || will be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be || sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean || derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will || become sharply more expensive. | || If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently || high, we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to || repetitively planting the same crop on the same land until the || soil is exhausted. Should we get to that point, there will be || serious breakage - and the worst of it won't be in the corn belt. | | I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing, | at present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop | ground in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, | (that's the "big if" :) ) it were necessary and economical, be | brought back into production for many of these ancillary crops as | well as corn and soybeans. As for land "exhaustion", if there is | any segment that is concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the | land, it is we producers--after all, that is our | livelihood, not indirect.
You're right, the scenario I presented assumed no major scientific breakthrough - and a prolonged "emergency" (as defined by folks in DC.)
The really sad scenario would be removing control of the land from those who have a sense of stewardship in favor of management by larger ("more efficient") organizations who aren't able to do much of anything well except make campaign contributions.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Connecticut condemnation case provides precedent for other cases that *will* affect family farms. The only questions are how many farms, and where, and for what purpose...
"National security interests" appears to have become a buzz phrase to justify even the most outrageous behavior. These days it even trumps principles like "due process".
I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA
...
...
Well, in actuality it
Morris Dovey wrote: ...
No point in being "gloomy Gus" as Grandpa always said (and he made it through the Dust Bowl days in SW KS--right in the middle of some the most severely ravaged areas--and we raised some 60 bu/A wheat this year on that same ground.
The Court specifically allowed for States to set controls over such behavior and I strongly expect them to do so. Most midwestern states already have limitations on corporate farming altho istr that Iowa is not as strict as the "bread basket" states from ND to TX? I know there is more pressure in some areas in Iowa from increasing urbanization that isn't as strong farther west where it's drier. The key production limitation here continues to be water, which will become more so, even more limiting than fuel availability and cost.
Pulling land out of CRP is a *short*term* only 'fix'. *SMART* farm production involves carefully designed rotation of crops planted on a given plot *AND* the cycling of that land _out_of_production_use_ as a regular element in that rotation. *MOST* CRP acres are land that would be 'idled' even if CRP didn't exist.
You get more acres in production, *BUT*, over time (meaning 5 years, or
*less*), due to degraded land quality from continuous use, yield/acre goes _down_. The effective increase in production is nowhere close to the increased acreage.
Historically, three most important factors to reducing population growth, in order of effectiveness have been shown to be:
1) Reduced infant/child mortality.2) Improved general education (not indoctrination, the three R's, and job-related education) especially for women.
3) Improved access to birth control, especially for women.Absent immigration, France and Italy would have negative population growth indeed, near the end of the 20th century they had the lowest birth rates in the world. Hmm, maybe conversion to Catholocism would help too.
There may be draconian measures that could reduce population growth but the three stated above, appear to be more than adequate, few people find them objectionable as a matter of priciple, and those that do number in inverse proportion to the relative effectiveness. Further, more draconian measures can backfire by fostering rebellion. I recall that a cow-orker helped his sister-in-law and her family emigrate from China to the US back in the 1990s. The couple had twelve (12) children all under the age of 18, some born during the period when childbirth in China was illegal, all born when having more than one child was illegal.
I don't claim to have a deep understanding of the whys but the reasons for the effectiveness of these factors seem to be:
1) Improved infant and child survival rates encourage parents to have fewer children and to invest more in those they have (which feeds back into the second factor.)2) Improved education, especially for women, gives people, especially women, something to which to dedicate their time besides making babies.
3) Pretty much self-explanatory but the interesting thing is the greater effectiveness of the first too.The principle obstacles to implimenting them seem to be that all three and the resultant reduced population growth itself serve to reduce the world population that is easily explaoitable for political and especially for economic purposes.
...
That's an aim directly targetted by most developed nations' tax structure--but it's not clear that punitively taxing the upper echelon actually does anything to actually promote the objective.
I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant. When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the whole plant, rather than just the kernals?
One wonders what selective breeding/genetic engineering can do for each, improving the range for sorghum and the sugar content for both. Appears it would take a ten-fold improvement in the yield before biofuels could replace petroleum fuels and that still does not address coals usage, which generates most of the electricity used in the US.
Guess why I will definedly not have children.
[...]Since the punitive tax is so extremely mild the effect is small.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.