Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?

[Billy T]

Well, if you think that the cost of agricultural labor in the United States differs significantly from its cost in Mexico and Central America, you're really out of touch. You may have heard about the 12+ Million illegal immigrants from those countries that are living in America?

If that were true, why would these illegal immigrants be risking death in the deserts of the SW, and when caught and deported, try again to sneak back in with full knowledge that they may die in the effort?

I do not have salary data (probably no one does - only someone's estimates) but logic and fact they are willing to die to get US wages clearly shows that:
It is you, not me, who is "really out of touch." Be a little more logical!

 

[cosmictraveler]

Hydrogen is the way to go. There always could be a drought and the farmers won't raise enough grains to produce the energy needed. With hydrogen all you need is water, which we have allot of and nuclear power to make the hydrogen. Simple, easy to do. Why are we waiting???:shrug:

 

[Billy T]

More on fact that cane based alcohol is not likely to be available to US, when it finally realizes that it should be importing it, not preventing its importation:

"... a joint effort between Brazilian oil monopoly Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) and trading house Mitsui & Co., with financial support from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation.

Japan will use the ethanol to reduce its use of gasoline by mixing the two fuels. In the near future, all of Japan's gasoline is expected to be at least 3 percent ethanol.*
....
Petrobras, Mitsui and JBIC are analyzing their participation in 40 projects evaluated at $8 billion for building 40 new "usinas," or processing plants, which produce alcohol and sugar from sugar cane. Brazil has 335 processing plants throughout the country.

"Our target is to produce ethanol to be exported only to Japan," said Paulo Roberto Costa, who heads Petrobras' supply division, ...
The cost of building a processing plant is $250 million, and .... We are solely interested in the production and distribution of ethanol, while usina owners will guarantee the sugar cane crops," he said.

Within two or three months, Petrobras will sign a pioneer contract to produce 1 billion liters of alcohol annually at five processing plants in the states of Mato Grosso and Goias in western Brazil, and in the southeastern state of Minas Gerais. The contract will be part of a pilot project, Costa said.

"Each of these five usinas will produce 200 million liters of ethanol within 2 1/2 years, and the whole production will be exported to Japan," he said.

Petrobras Strategic Plan estimates the company will export 3.5 billion liters of ethanol in 2011, with 90 percent of that expected to be shipped to Japan for mixing with gasoline. Brazil exports about 3 billion liters of ethanol a year and expects to more than double that to 7 billion liters in 2012, according to the Sao Paulo Sugarcane Agroindustry Union (Unica), a private body representing firms that produce more than 60 percent of Brazil's ethanol.

condensed FROM: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20070822a3.html

In addition, as reported earlier, the company I am share holder in, San Martino, second largest, has 30 year contract to supply Japan. Mitisbusi is financing and taking part ownership in the new "usina" now being built. The fields that will supply it are 100% mechanized - so leaves are not burn off the cane stocks to facilate harvesting, but enrich the soil and sequester even more carbon.
----------------------
*That is national mix. In less than 1% of US gas stations E85 is available for sale (I think more expensive than gas, but not sure of this.) So even if they sold only E85, the national mis in US is less than 0.85% Toyota is making a Felx fuel car in Japan now. All the main makers have been selling them in Brazil for 3 to 6 years. (discounting the expensive imports, New car sold in Brazil ar about 95% flex fuel and run on pure alcohol now as it cost less than half as much per mile to drive with pure alcohol. (Can buy it for R$0.94 vs 2.34 in my local station now as there is a glut of alcohol at present.)

 

[Billy T]

Hydrogen is the way to go. There always could be a drought and the farmers won't raise enough grains to produce the energy needed. With hydrogen all you need is water, which we have allot of and nuclear power to make the hydrogen. Simple, easy to do. Why are we waiting???:shrug:

Answer is also simple:
IGNORANT GREENPIECE ACTIVISTS

They lead my list of organizations who have harmed the environment most! - Forced US to be dependent upon coal for most of its electric power.

BTW 1: There are huge volumes of coal burnt and this is the main US release of radioactivity into the air. (Mainly as K40, an isotope of potasium, which is easily incorporated into the human body.) I.e. coal makes more radioactivity per Kilo-Watt-Hour of power produced than if it came from U235. (Why I called them "ignorant.")

BTW 2: At present, alcohol is the way to go. Perhaps forever, if it can be economically produced from celluose, but that is highly questionable now. One other "way to go" is more and better public transport. In cities, where smog etc is serious health problem (read LA , Denver and many others - roughly 1/2 the nation's cities) IMHO, there should be a "crash* effort" to make the super -flywheel - bus as it has the mobility street cars do not, yet is 100% electric with regenerative braking that street cars do not have. Super-flywheels can have 10 times the energy stored per pound as batteries, but in practice only a fives times more is reasonable.

A government, run by big oil is obviously not interested in them for buses. For space applications, in addition to superior energy stored per pound, they can also stablize the space craft, so only NASA is developing them now, as far as I know. About 35 years ago, at APL, where I worked, Dan Rabinhorst lead the super-flywheel effort, but funding was always difficult and then stopped entirely as they were becoming obviously a real threat to the diesel bus. We did mainly distruction / continment tests of various rotor designs. (This did not require the magnetic bearings, so was easy to "spin her up" in vaccum til she busts.)
--------------------
*Pun definitely not intended.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Did you know that American oil is of much higher quality that other countries which it can sell at a higher rate. American oil companies sell that oil to other nations to make more money than they could selling it inside of America. That way they reduce the amounts of gas to the people in America making them think that there's an oil supply problem, then raise the gas prices to everyone. Americans are getting screwed

 

[quadraphonics]

If that were true, why would these illegal immigrants be risking death in the deserts of the SW, and when caught and deported, try again to sneak back in with full knowledge that they may die in the effort?

In the case of farm work, the difference isn't so much the wages, but the availability of work. Of course, many of the immigrants come looking for higher-paying work in cities, but you get the point... Also, a big part of the reason that we have so many illegals here permanently is that it's become so difficult to cross the border that people don't return once they're here. What used to be seasonal labor for the harvest is now a permanent population of low-wage labor.

 

[Billy T]

...many of the immigrants come looking for higher-paying work in cities, ...

I strongly doubt that. They COME to work in the fields as they do not speak English, have city skills, etc. After they have been here some years, some do learn these things (and how to collect wealfare etc) and move to the cities.

BTW, the low-wage farm workers of Poland are doing the same thing in Germany now that Poland is part of the EU. I.e. FOR THE HIGHER WAGES, they do the back-breaking labor in the fields - pick 100% of the aspagrass grown in Germany etc. They too migrate to the cities when they speak German, have city skills etc. In both countries, the farm fields are the initial attraction and serve as great open-air schools.

 

[quadraphonics]

I strongly doubt that. They COME to work in the fields as they do not speak English, have city skills, etc. After they have been here some years, some do learn these things (and how to collect wealfare etc) and move to the cities.

No, that's not how it works any more. Maybe back in the 1950's that was what happened, but you don't need to speak much English at all to work most of the non-agricultural jobs that illegal immigrants do. You DO, however, need to speak Spanish if you want to work as a manager at, say, McDonald's.

BTW, the low-wage farm workers of Poland are doing the same thing in Germany now that Poland is part of the EU. I.e. FOR THE HIGHER WAGES, they do the back-breaking labor in the fields - pick 100% of the aspagrass grown in Germany etc. They too migrate to the cities when they speak German, have city skills etc. In both countries, the farm fields are the initial attraction and serve as great open-air schools.

The two situations really are not comparable, but notice that the same thing happens in Poland as in Mexico: all the works flee in search of higher wages, which drives down the wages in the host countries, and drives up the wages in the source countries. The end result is that the wages do not differ much between the two countries.

 

[Billy T]

No, that's not how it works any more. Maybe back in the 1950's that was what happened, but you don't need to speak much English at all to work most of the non-agricultural jobs that illegal immigrants do. You DO, however, need to speak Spanish if you want to work as a manager at, say, McDonald's.
The two situations really are not comparable, but notice that the same thing happens in Poland as in Mexico: all the works flee in search of higher wages, which drives down the wages in the host countries, and drives up the wages in the source countries. The end result is that the wages do not differ much between the two countries.

I will take your word on this - have not been direct observer for 16 years. Also what you say about the wages tending to move towards each other makes sense.

 

[quadraphonics]

I will take your word on this - have not been direct observer for 16 years. Also what you say about the wages tending to move towards each other makes sense.

Another thing to keep in mind is that just about every major American city now has a large, entrenched immigrant population, so it's not terribly problematic for newcomers to move directly into the cities.

Regarding Germany and Poland, there's the stereotype of the Polish plumber coming and undermining German wages. I read somewhere a while back that the flipside of this is that you now have to pay German wages to get plumbing done in Poland, supposing you can even find a plumber in the first place.

 

[Billy T]

There appears to be a difference in alcohol source crops most suited to India vs Brazil:

"Sugarcane requires 18 months to harvest {in India} while tropical sugar beet takes up to just five months and uses a half to a third of the water that sugarcane needs. On the financial side, the cost of cultivation for cane ranges between Rs 20,000 and Rs 25,000 per acre, while tropical sugar beet can be grown for nearly half the cost at Rs 10,000-12,000 per acre, explains Chavare. “A yield of 30 tons per acre of tropical sugar beet is economical for the farmer. If this rises to over 40 tons per acre, it is very good,” he says. In addition a more important benefit is that of reclaiming the land for further cultivation. “In parts of Sangli district, land is lost every year on account of over watering for sugarcane. ..."

From:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Food/Sweet_surrender/articleshow/2395951.cms

 

[cosmictraveler]

Hydrogen can be made rather easily, look at this again....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKtKSEQBeI&mode=related&search=

 

[Billy T]

Hydrogen can be made rather easily, look at this again....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKtKSEQBeI&mode=related&search=

I have seen this before and also previously pointed out that it is a negative energy source (More energy required to produce the RF field and split the H2O than is available when the produced hydrogen is burned (I.e when it is recombined with oxygen)

The very best one could do IF there were zero energy required to produce* the RF field would be to "break even" - I.e. every joule you can get by recombining the produced hydrogen with oxygen was required to split the H2O in the first palce, but of course there are loses in practice so even if the high quality RF energy were magically available at zero energy requirement, you could not even "break even." (For example in his set up, more than half of the RF is simply radiating away into space. Another large fraction is just heating the quite conductive salt water, like a microwave oven, not splitting H2O.)

There is alot of hydrogen produced for comercial reasons. I am almost sure by chemisty on natural gas as even the much more efficient electrolysis of water process (than this RF splitting) is not economially competive. I think that Chlorine is produced by an "electrolysis like" process (in strong NaCl brines that flow from some wells) and as a lower value by-product, some hydrogen may be recovered. - Perhaps it is worth collecting for sale, but if so, it only competes with the hydrogen from decompositon of natural gas because the Chlorine is paying for the production of it.

I am not a chemist and working from old menories here so I may be wrong. If so, please correct me on how hydrogen is comercially porduced. I am sure I need no correction when stating that this RF produced hydrogen is a net "negative energy source."
------------------------
*by "produce" I mean the energy used to generate the RF, not the energy in the RF. For example, assume all the disipation in the wires and transistors (or if with vacuum tubes, their filaments are magically hot, etc.) is zero. Obviously the RF field itself must have energy and I am not assuming it is zero as that is the energy which splits the H2O (it will in practice also heat the water os you can not even "break even". Further more if the produced hydrogen is used as fuel, you will not get mechanical energy out equal to even half ot the chemical energy in the hydrogen as the Carnot limits will apply. Also, by very nature of RF energy there will be enormous losses as it radiates away instead of splits water. I would guess at least half is not spliting water even if entirely enclosed in a copper chamber to prevent any escape of radiation as then the currents in the chamber walls are disipating energy - same reason only a <50% fraction of the RF energy your microwave used is actually heating the food.


Really the only thing uncertain is whether or not he is "ignorate and sincere" or just another "con-man" trying to make a quick buck off ignorant investors.

 

[Billy T]

Nobel prize winner (in Chemistry / 1995) Paul Crutzen has just published detailed study of greenhouse effect of various liquid fuels in journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions

The primary conclusion is:
Alcohol from corn causes a 90% INCREASE in the greenhouse effect (compared to burning gasoline) and from sugar cane a 50% DECREASE in greenhouse effect.
Stated alternately:
Replacing two gallons of gasoline with alcohol (ETOH) from corn is equivalent to the combustion of 3.8 gallons of gasoline, but if the alcohol comes from sugar cane it is equivalent to combustion of only 1.0 gallons of gasoline. Note that on a volume basis, alcohol has only about 70% of the energy content of gasoline, so for the same energy (miles driven) there is still a reduction with cane alcohol. From an energy POV, the two gallons of alcohol replace only 1.4 of gasoline. As every drop of cane alcohol used, instead of gasoline, produces a net greenhouse gas benefit, the more that must be used the greater the benefit. (More CO2 is removed from the air than alcohol had the same energy content as gasoline.)

Thus, for the same energy each gallon of cane alcohol is the same as NOT BURNING 0.2 gallons of gasoline but if it comes from corn it is the same as BURNING AN EXTRA 0.9 gallons of gasoline, AS REGARDS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT PRODUCED BY SAME MILES DRIVEN. (Note added later by edit: I now realize that I did not do this accurately. I only pentalized the cane alcohol, not the corn alcohol, for its 30% lower energy content. - if done correctly the advantage of cane is considerable greater.)

Most prior studies have concluded that corn alcohol is about neutral and cane alcohol is a 5 to 8 fold reduction in the greenhouse effect. All the industry supported studies of corn alcohol show a slight benefit and all of the university studies have shown a slight worsening effect, except the Un. of Indiana's (state where half of the new refineries are being built) study did show slight benefit.

The large difference is that Dr. Crutzen's analysis included the effect of the N2O released by the growing plant as it takes CO2 from the air where as the prior studies only consider the CO2. In much of the US, corn must be stimulated by heavy fertilization to get the yield before the frost. The production of this fertilizer (and to some extent the greater use of machinery) caused the significant advantage of cane alcohol over corn alcohol in ALL the prior, CO2-only, studies (even those paid for by the corn based alcohol industry).

The dramatic superiority of cane over corn from a greenhouse gas effect POV is due to the way the plant UTALIZES the fertilizer (not only the CO2 released in fertilizer PRODUCTION, as considered in prior studies). The utilization* of the fertilizer is accompanied by the production of N2O and, like methane, each molecule of N2O released is a much more powerful contributor to the greenhouse effect than each molecule of CO2 released in the production of the fertilizer. I.e. the prior studies neglected the main greenhouse gas effect. Fertilized corn is a terrible source of alcohol, from a greenhouse POV!

Dr. Crutzen did qualify his results by stating that he was assuming that the cane was grown in existing pasture instead of in new fields created from forest. I note however, that even if forest is destroyed to make new growing field (illegal in Brazil, but does happen**) this is a "one time effect" = I.e. eventually the use of two gallons of cane alcohol equivalent to not burning approximately three gallons of gasoline (from a greenhouse, not energy, POV) will remove from the air all the carbon that was once locked up in the trees of the forest.
--------------------
*Obviously the N2O is produced from the nitrogen in the fertilizer. All fertilizer is very rich in "fixed" nitrogen. - Plants cannot utilize the N2 making up 80% of the air, but need to get it from compounds like ammonia (NH3) but I do not understand the details of this process that creates and releases N2O.

**In Brazil forest are illegally destroyed for the timber (lumber) they contain. Often after the commercial trees have been cut (many individually worth $500 or more) the forest is usually burned to help hide the crime. Then some poor persons who previously lived by collecting nuts or illegally trapping animals (a parrot brings more than $2000 in Sao Paulo, but he is lucky to get $200 for it) is reduced to trying to farm the poor soil or use it for pasture. The anti-timber theft enforcement is much better now than a few decades ago. - Fact that forest is cut for its wood, not to make pasture or plant sugar cane, is demonstrated by fact that the illegal deforestation was more than twice as rapid in the past, before Brazil was producing any alcohol! Hopefully there will still be some Amazon left for future generations if the enforcement against the loggers continues to improve.

 

[2inquisitive]

Billy T, I have only looked into this a little, but you seem to be making some assumptions that may be incorrect. First, alcohol from RAPESEED, as done in Europe, may be the worst method of producing alcohol. It may result in a 70% increase in N20, according to some preliminary studies. Alcohol from corn may produce a 50% increase in N20. I have not found how sugar cane rates in these new studies. These estimates were preliminary estimates, they indicated that much more work was need to understand the true effects. Your assumption that it is the nitrogen-rich fertilizer that causes the increase is unwarranted. You assume that if the soil is naturally nitrogen-rich so that no fertilizer is needed, no excess N20 will be produced. That is not true, the plant gives off the N20 during its growing process whether it gets the nitrogen directly from nitrogen-rich soil or from the added fertilizer.
The biggest problem to overcome is how to utilize the entire plant, to convert the waste cellulose from the stalks, leaves etc. into alcohol. With corn, we only use the corn kernels for alcohol production. With sugar cane, you only use the juice from the stalk for alcohol production. I think Brazil does burn some of the biomass for energy and the US uses some of the biomass in animal feeds.

 

[Billy T]

Billy T, I have only looked into this a little, but you seem to be making some assumptions that may be incorrect. First, alcohol from RAPESEED, as done in Europe, may be the worst method of producing alcohol. It may result in a 70% increase in N20, according to some preliminary studies. Alcohol from corn may produce a 50% increase in N20. I have not found how sugar cane rates in these new studies. These estimates were preliminary estimates, they indicated that much more work was need to understand the true effects. Your assumption that it is the nitrogen-rich fertilizer that causes the increase is unwarranted. You assume that if the soil is naturally nitrogen-rich so that no fertilizer is needed, no excess N20 will be produced. That is not true, the plant gives off the N20 during its growing process whether it gets the nitrogen directly from nitrogen-rich soil or from the added fertilizer.
The biggest problem to overcome is how to utilize the entire plant, to convert the waste cellulose from the stalks, leaves etc. into alcohol. With corn, we only use the corn kernels for alcohol production. With sugar cane, you only use the juice from the stalk for alcohol production. I think Brazil does burn some of the biomass for energy and the US uses some of the biomass in animal feeds.

Your points are well taken. I was only assuming that the more extensive use of fertilizer (in cold climates to stimulate rapid growth, maturity of the corn before frost) was the reason why alcohol from corn was 1.9 times more producer of "greenhouse" gases than use of gasoline would. According to Dr. Paul Crutzen (Nobel prize winner in Chemistry 1995). This in contrast to alcohol from sugar cane, which makes only 0.5 release of what the use of gasoline would (again according to Dr. Crutzen).

After thinking about more it, my assumption seems to be possibly the true reason, but certainly not necessarily the reason. Perhaps it is just the difference in how the plants process the "fixed nitrogen" and does not depend upon how concentrated it is in the soil near their roots. Both corn and sugar cane must use some from some source. It is also possible the reason corn is so much more a producer of greenhouse gases than sugar cane is that sugar cane plant simply needs less. - Obviously I do not know and was assuming. Thanks for point this out, but the fact remains, reguardless of these details, that corn alcohol is MORE polluting than gasoline (almost twice as bad) and sugar cane alcohol is only half as polluting as gasoline. (Assuming Dr. Crutzen knows what he is talking about, but that seems likely, given he is recocognized world expert and has published in peir-reviewed journal his results.)

BTW, I know nothing about rapeseed alcohol. In fact, I would have guessed that is a potential source of only bio-diesel! Also I just recently learned of "tropical sugar beets" in Indian newspaper, which pointed out that they can be harvested in 6 months (not the 18 sugar cane requires in India) and require only 1/3 the water that cane does. (Acording to that article growing sugar cane is causing soil errosion and the beet alternative dose not with less water used.) India is just now changing its laws/regularions to allow cane crushers to produce either sugar of alcohol. In past only molasas could be used to produce alcohol, as I understand it, because sugar was in short supply in India*, but now it is glut on the global market, with about half the price it had only a couple of years ago.
---------------
*Was illegal to export when world price was high,but now that few want to, it is legal again. (All modern governments, unfortunately in IMHO, excessively manage their economies, rather than let Adam Smith's invisible hand do the job, so you end up with US-like complex tax codes and India's silly "alcohol only from molases" details instead of trade and most economical production possible.)

 

[Billy T]

To show some of the other adverse effects of GWB's insane alcohol from corn program:

" ... Wheat futures for December delivery rose 6 cents, or 0.6 percent, to $9.39 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade. The price was up 22 percent this month and has more than doubled in the past 12 months. ..."

FROM:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahz4k9Whhrys&refer=home

I am sure price of corn will more than double next year when the alcohol refineries now being constructed can process more of the corn crop. Now the cost increase in food is better seen in things like wheat it is competing with for fields. (I think the price of corn may actually be significantly down and some is being stored waiting for these refineries to open.)

 

[2inquisitive]

Billy T,

Your points are well taken. I was only assuming that the more extensive use of fertilizer (in cold climates to stimulate rapid growth, maturity of the corn before frost) was the reason why alcohol from corn was 1.9 times more producer of "greenhouse" gases than use of gasoline would.

Most all the corn grown in the US is some type of hybrid variety. There are long-season hybrids that require 100 more days for the corn to reach maturity than short-season hybrids. Others are mid-season hybrids. The main reason for the use of fertilizer is to increase yield per acre, not to make it mature faster. Another thing I am unsure of is how the length of the growing season required affects the N20 released per plant. There may not be much difference between varieties that 'grow fast' and mature early and a variety that grows and matures more slowly. The slower growing variety is releasing N20 over a longer period of time while it takes longer to reach maturity. I am neither a farmer nor an expert in these matters, but they are a lot more complicated that at first glance. I already knew of the various lengths of time to maturity for different corn varieties, so I did a google search for some additional info. Here is a link pertaining to what I am posting about:
http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0101.html

Thanks for point this out, but the fact remains, reguardless of these details, that corn alcohol is MORE polluting than gasoline (almost twice as bad) and sugar cane alcohol is only half as polluting as gasoline. (Assuming Dr. Crutzen knows what he is talking about, but that seems likely, given he is recocognized world expert and has published in peir-reviewed journal his results.)

This assertion is what I could not confirm, Billy T. I read the popular press articles on Dr. Cruzen's paper, but I could find no mention that alcohol from sugar cane reduces greenhouse gasses emissions by 50%. Are you comparing old data that did not consider the N2O emitted during plant growing for the sugar cane 'reduction' in greenhouse gas with the new data that does consider the N2) for corn and rapeseed only? Why do you believe that a stalk of sugar cane gives off only a fraction of N2O compared to a very similar stalk of corn? I think you are mixing old with new data to arrive at your conclusions. Are you also aware that Brazil's habit of burning the biomass (stalks, etc) has an adverse affect on pollution? In some areas, there has been a 33% increase in hospital admissions due to the pollutants in the air, mostly young children and the elderly. US anti-pollution laws will not allow the open burning of the biomass, so it is converted into animal feed instead, which is a non-polluting solution.

To show some of the other adverse effects of GWB's insane alcohol from corn program:

" ... Wheat futures for December delivery rose 6 cents, or 0.6 percent, to $9.39 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade. The price was up 22 percent this month and has more than doubled in the past 12 months. ..."

Here is another example of your biased viewpoint. Here is a cut & paste from the article:

Commodities had the biggest monthly gain in 32 years, led by wheat, crude oil and gold, as the dollar's slump enhanced the appeal of energy, grains and precious metals as a hedge against inflation.

Wheat climbed to a record in September amid a global grain shortfall, boosting corn and soybeans. Oil also hit a record, and gold reached a 27-year high. The Federal Reserve cut borrowing costs to bolster the U.S. economy, sending the dollar tumbling.

 

[Billy T]

...I am neither a farmer nor an expert in these matters, but they are a lot more complicated that at first glance. I already knew of the various lengths of time to maturity for different corn varieties, so I did a google search for some additional info.

As I am too lazy to search, and also not a farmer, you know more than I do, but I agree with "lot more complicated that at first glance" as that is generally true of most things When carefully considered.

I am not mixing old and new data. Everything I reported came from today's Folio de Sao Paulo article telling of Dr. Crutzen's paper. If you have read in English similar reports, you may be better informed than I am. (I have not tried to read the original paper, and is possible The Folio article has errors.) Please tell what your "popular press" states, if anything, about alcohol from sugar cane. I can understand why there may be little on sugar cane in US press reports and much more in the Brazilian report of his article. I assure you that the 50% reduction is part of the article I read today and is stated to be part of Dr. Crutzen's results, not some old data added. I have never seen any earlier article / study that considers the N2O effects. Note also the Folio has a "t" in his name, but you do not.

...Why do you believe that a stalk of sugar cane gives off only a fraction of N2O compared to a very similar stalk of corn? .... Are you also aware that Brazil's habit of burning the biomass (stalks, etc) has an adverse affect on pollution? In some areas, there has been a 33% increase in hospital admissions due to the pollutants in the air, mostly young children and the elderly. US anti-pollution laws will not allow the open burning of the biomass, so it is converted into animal feed instead, which is a non-polluting solution.

I do not believe that and did not state the N2O came from the stocks, I did mention the concentration in soil near the roots. (I was thinking the more intensive fertilization might make higher concentrations and shift the chemical reactions some way to explain the higher pollution from corn and lower from from cane. It now occurs to me that the particular types of bacteria that live in the roots may differ and be part of the reason - but I am very ignorant and only wildly guessing at possible explainations for the big corn/cane difference Folio states Dr. Crutzen found.

Yes prior to manual cutting, the leaves are burned off the still standing sugar cane. They would cut the cane cutters if this is not done and conversion to mechanical harvesting is nearly half done, but never will be 100% as some fields are to steep for the machines. As for air polution it is a brief problem (dayor two in anyone area) I strongly supect the increse in illness from air pollution is do the growth of automobile sales, not cane.

Sao Paulo is very polluted 365 days each year. I usually go to city about hours away every Monday at 6 AM, sleep in motel Monday night to work on house I am slowly building (all by myself!) until dark on Tuesday, mainly for two reasons: (1) to escape the air polution in world's fourth largest city with traffic jams second to none! and (2) I am too frugal to pay an gym or trainer. I find that exercise, which all need, very boring, but if you set blocks and mix concrete at my age two days in a row, that is a real workout. (I do stop to watch the birds and sail boats etc some.) As I am a slow and careful worker, the house will cost about five times more than if I hired someone to build it, but it has so many special features that I would still need to be there continuosly to supervise, pay for the nite in motel, dinner, etc. anyway.

I am in no hurry to finish it. - in about 25 years more I think it will be done, if I can live that long. (My philosphy in live is the destination is not important - the thing that matters is to enjoy the journey.)

...Here is another example of your biased viewpoint. Here is a cut & paste from the article:

I am biased, if you wish to call it that, but becasue of what I have read, not by birth or residence or financial interest etc. I am developing some bias also for butinoil the four carbon alcohol, again based on the facts I have read about it, but it is much farther from being a comercail fuel. Alcohol from cane is already significantly more economical than gasoline, with neither being falsely favored by taxes or subsidies. I.e.on a "level playing field."

I do not understand why you think the Bloomberg article both I and then you quoted shows my "biased viewpoint." I noted wheat was up 22% in last month and that corn had not increased as much. I knew it was in good supply from other articles and that it is below its peak price, although up15% in the last month. (Same as silver is - mainly a dollar dropping effect, I believe, as that article in your quote.) I tried to explain this greater wheat increase also, and am reasonable sure I am correct. Both corn production and alcohol refinery capacity are rapidly increasing but it takes more than a year to make a refinery and less to make corn, so while both are rapidly growing there will be a surplus of corn is reason I offered. Some fields that last year grew wheat are now growing corn, I assume also as reason for the extra price gain in wheat.

I especially do not understand why you made bold "hedge against inflation." This is exactly what I have been saying for years. -I.e that is just "dollar dropping in value" in other words. I do not follow your logic and certainly have been recommend to all that they buy ADRs in countries supplying "raw material", "food stocks" and "energy" (or in a word "commodities") as a "hedge against inflation" (or "dollar dropping" as I usually express this). If you still think this reporting of the facts is a biased POV, then you will need to explain to me why it is.

Do you have access to a library that has the journal Crutzen published in? I do not. I would like to know accurately what it does say about relative merits of cain and corn.

 

[2inquisitive]

OK, Billy T, I found a reference to sugar cane N2O production in an article in Green Car Congress, a pro biofuel organization. The nimbers for the best estimates for corn equal the worst estimates for sugarcane, but sugar cane is better, just not by the degree that you seemed to state. Here is a cut & paste and link:

For rapeseed biodiesel, which accounts for about 80 percent of the biofuel production in Europe, the relative warming due to nitrous oxide emissions is estimated at 1 to 1.7 times larger than the relative cooling effect due to saved fossil CO2 emissions. For corn bioethanol, dominant in the US, the figure is 0.9 to 1.5. Only sugarcane bioethanol—with a relative warming of 0.5 to 0.9—looks like a better alternative to conventional fuels.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/09/study-n2o-emiss.html
A link is given at the website to the original paper, but I get an error message when I try to open it. Maybe your luck will be better.

To show some of the other adverse effects of GWB's insane alcohol from corn program:

This was the statement I was referring to when I said your viewpoint seemed biased. You quoted the increase in price of wheat, corn and soybeans after this statement. The article said the increase was mostly due to overestimating world wheat production and a hedge against the inflating dollar, neither due to 'GWB's insane alcohol from corn program'. I think the 'alcohol from corn program' was mostly due to the US congress, not from oilman Bush.

Both corn production and alcohol refinery capacity are rapidly increasing but it takes more than a year to make a refinery and less to make corn, so while both are rapidly growing there will be a surplus of corn is reason I offered. Some fields that last year grew wheat are now growing corn, I assume also as reason for the extra price gain in wheat.

The price of corn did not decrease due to any surplus, corn increased in price also, just not as much as wheat. There may be a slight shift from wheat-to-corn, but it is unlikely it is great. Remember the farmer's acreage allotments I spoke of earlier? The exact purpose of the allotments is to keep farmers from ignoring one crop in order to use that land to plant a 'hot' crop. Both wheat and corn increased in price, plus soybeans. It seems more likely adverse weather conditions may have affected the estimated yields. The government already knows how many acreas of each crop varity are planted before the crops are ever harvested. The faulty estimates should have been based on acreas planted, but lower than expected yields.