Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?
- Thread starter Billy T
- Start date
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
BillyT has already answered this exhaustively...several times.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Alcohol fuel, good excuse if you get pulled over.....
If produced from cane, grown in tropical lands, where little or no petroleum based fertilizer is need (to accelerate growth before the cold winter of Iowa sets in etc.) then you get approximate 8 times more energy out in the alcohol than the fossil energy input. (This extra energy comes from the captured sun light.)
If the alcohol comes from corn grown in Iowa (main producing state in US) then even the most optimistic of it supporters claim only 1.3 units of energy out for each unit of fossil energy input. More honest evaluation, by institutions such as the the Un. of Cal and Cornell, who have no economic interest in the results, tend to show the energy out is equal to the fossil energy input, of perhaps slightly less.
As far as I know, only the Un. of Illinois disagrees with this. It is cheaper to ship the corn in train cars than the alcohol to near the market areas (Chicago and East coast, etc.) so almost half of the plants that convert corn to alcohol are either in Illinois or near it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps your memory is in error? - Even big oil agrees that there is large energy gain factor with alcohol from sugar cane, but of course they are not supporting that as it would greatly reduce oil consumption, as it has in Brazil. - Brazil is now self-sufficient in auto-fuel. (All domestic cars now sold, with very few exceptions, mainly expensive imported cars, can run on pure alcohol and do as it is cheaper per mile.)
Big oil likes and supports GWB´s alcohol from corn as it will not significantly, if at all, reduce oil consumption. GWB himself never promisses that corn based alcohol will reduce oil use. He only says that alcohol can displace 20% of the gasoline used in US by 2020 - the public mis understgands this as a 20% reduction in oil imports, but by 2020 US will be even more dependent upon GWB´s main FINANCIAL supporters (THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY.)
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with alcohol fuel is that it'll never work anywhere outside of Brazil. For example, the US already produces more ethanol than Brazil, but it's still not enough to make a dent in gasoline consumption. If America were to adopt the kinds of policies that Billy T favors (i.e., dropping tarriffs and importing lots of Brazilian ethanol), the only difference for the US would be a stabilization in the price of corn, and less seasonal variations in ethanol prices. Even if America imported Brazil's entire ethanol output, it still wouldn't be enough to convert America's car fleets to 20% ethanol flex-fuel. There's simply not enough cane-based production potential out there to put a significant dent in world gasoline consumption. On the Brazilian side, exposure to US ethanol demand would drive up ethanol prices to the point where Brazilians could no longer afford to use it as fuel, and they'd be right back where they started (albeit with some extra income from ethanol exports). The only way ethanol is ever going to make a real difference is if processes for cellulosic production become affordable. Cane works great for Brazil, and Brazil alone, but is not going to work on a larger level.
Also, Brazilian oil-independence has as much to do with a recent boom in oil exploration as with ethanol fuel. It's not so much that Brazilians consume less oil than they did, say, 5 years ago (you can't run diesel engines on ethanol, after all), but that Brazil produces a bunch more oil.
Also, Brazilian oil-independence has as much to do with a recent boom in oil exploration as with ethanol fuel. It's not so much that Brazilians consume less oil than they did, say, 5 years ago (you can't run diesel engines on ethanol, after all), but that Brazil produces a bunch more oil.
As usual, there is a lot of truth in quadraphonics adjacent post, but it is over stated (MHO) in some spots.
Brazil is not the only tropical country. In fact the potential for producing alcohol closer to US in the tropics, including Cuba, is at least equal to the US´s total potential from corn and would significantly reduce the cost of driving in the US and the lessen money the US is currently sending to terrorists.
I do not know the details of the chemistry but Brazilian oil company, PetroBras, is begining to produce bio-diesel and as I recall about 10% of diesel used in Brazil, by laws already on the books, will be bio-diesel in only a few years. They do something with hydrogen during the refining process and call the bio-diesel produced "H-diesel." H-diesel is now supplying the legally required 2%. Brazil is leading the world in bio-diesel, just as it did in alcohol fuel.
Certainly greater fuel efficiency and less massive cars are part of the solution to the US transport needs. The current US system will collapse as the demand from China and India etc. ramps the price of oil up beyond $100/ barrel. Joe American can not afford his suburban life style with higher cost fuel and steadly shrinking real incomes. Unless some more intelligent policy is adopted soon, the drop in suburban home values will accelerate.
When many tropical lands are gaining income from alcohol, the production can supply a significantpart of US and EU demands for mobile fuel, but it will not happen in only one of two years and not at all if GWB and his oil friends have their way. Yes, if it proves to be feasible, cellulosic alcohol is the way to go - With it Brazil and other tropical (sunshine rich) land can supply the entire world´s needs for auto fuels, if more efficient smaller cars also replace the US gas hogs and some greater use of public transport is developed.
Brazil is not the only tropical country. In fact the potential for producing alcohol closer to US in the tropics, including Cuba, is at least equal to the US´s total potential from corn and would significantly reduce the cost of driving in the US and the lessen money the US is currently sending to terrorists.
I do not know the details of the chemistry but Brazilian oil company, PetroBras, is begining to produce bio-diesel and as I recall about 10% of diesel used in Brazil, by laws already on the books, will be bio-diesel in only a few years. They do something with hydrogen during the refining process and call the bio-diesel produced "H-diesel." H-diesel is now supplying the legally required 2%. Brazil is leading the world in bio-diesel, just as it did in alcohol fuel.
Certainly greater fuel efficiency and less massive cars are part of the solution to the US transport needs. The current US system will collapse as the demand from China and India etc. ramps the price of oil up beyond $100/ barrel. Joe American can not afford his suburban life style with higher cost fuel and steadly shrinking real incomes. Unless some more intelligent policy is adopted soon, the drop in suburban home values will accelerate.
When many tropical lands are gaining income from alcohol, the production can supply a significantpart of US and EU demands for mobile fuel, but it will not happen in only one of two years and not at all if GWB and his oil friends have their way. Yes, if it proves to be feasible, cellulosic alcohol is the way to go - With it Brazil and other tropical (sunshine rich) land can supply the entire world´s needs for auto fuels, if more efficient smaller cars also replace the US gas hogs and some greater use of public transport is developed.
Last edited by a moderator:
I seriously doubt that statement. As I mentioned previously, American corn ethanol production already exceeds Brazilian cane ethanol production. Unless you can point out some suitable tropical locations with as much (indeed, more) arable land than Brazil, then there really isn't anywhere significant to expand. It's true that Cuba could produce a decent amount of cane, but not enough to significantly dent American fuel needs. Again, even the entire output of Brazil, combined with America's production, isn't enough to do it, even if US fuel efficiency were to double. And that's without taking into account demand from the rest of the world.
Moreover, impact on food prices of large-scale ethanol production in said tropical countries (which are still largely agrarian) would be devestating. We're talking millions of people starving to death worldwide, every year. The current push for more ethanol production, both in the US and Brazil, is already driving up food prices worldwide and contributing to a resurgence in famine (international food aid budgets only go half as far as they did a few years ago). There are some very real, very serious consequences to deriving our energy and food supplies from a single source, and ethanol advocates must give them more consideration if they wish to be taken seriously. One very nice thing about fossil fuels is that you get them by drilling holes in the desert/ocean rather than by converting croplands, as is the case with ethanol.
Anyone who knows anything about biodiesel knows that the European Union has led the world in that area for decades. Brazilian biodiesel production is not even a blip on the world radar. Moreover, many US states have had even more aggressive biodiesel policies than Brazil does for years now. you can even get *organicly produced* biodiesel in Washington. It may well be true that the Brazilian government is pursuing a more activist policy than the US federal government on the issue, but that hardly amounts to "leading the world" and also indicates a real lack of understanding of US political economy.
Yes, and any sensible policy will recognize that. That doesn't add up to an argument in favor of ethanol in particular, though. Anyway, increased fuel efficiency is not going to decrease the total demand for fuel; it's just going to slow its growth, and improve the energy intensity of the US economy. The total amount of energy required (which is the relevant figure for comparing with world production capacity) will continue to grow, even as more miles are driven per gallon (or, more generally, more dollars are made per joule). If your suggestion is "well, if America cuts its energy requirements by an order of magnitude, then ethanol can play a major role," you're deluding yourself. Moreover, if fuel efficiency were to improve by a significant factor, the price of oil would drop to the point that ethanol would no longer be competitive.
It probably is true that US production of ethanol exceeds Brazil´s, but one can not be sure as they are almost the same and Brazil´s data collection is not as well developed as is the US - lot of small producers not much any central data base.
This is not very important, compared to the fact that EVERY "gas" station in Brazil has had pump for alcohol for two decades and in US few do. In US, even with production about same as Brazil, the GOAL is to get to 20% of gasoline displacement by 2020 - Brazil is already at least twice that level of alcohol use in it transport system.
I do not remember where, perhaps in this thread, the accurate datawas posted, but only by converting existing pasture land to cane, Brazil could increase alcohol production several fold (five times more I seem to recal) When the US finally does open its market to cheaper Brazilian alcohol Brazil will be producing several times the US volume. Currently there is a glut of alcohol in Brazil - price is down about 40% in the last year. Obviously the lack of market, not land is what has allowed US to matchor slightly exceed Brazil´s production.
The US policy will in the end keep US dependent on the oil supliers as the Chinese and Japanese are now signing long term contracts and buildiing new refineries and tankers to take what brazil can produce in the future. (There will be little left to sell to US, when US realizes GWB´s mistake in this area.)
Also we disagree on what US demand for fuel will a decade hense. I think it will be slightly less than it is today. You obviously do not. (This not only because we see the economy of US then very differently but also because by then Detroit will be making he cars it should have a decade ago and with many out of work in a depression there will be funding for mass transit etc., again as should have occured a at least two decades ago, instead of the suburban sprawl that did occur.)
Summary:
Even without celulsose alcohol, the conversion of pasture to alcohol production in Brazil plus some expanson into forest lands will increase Brazil´s output by at least five times in a decade. With celulous alcohol then all global sources can supply more half the fuel needed. Battries and super capacitors (storing nuclear and coal enery) for urban use could supply the other half, if economical but as you note oil will not go much above $100/barrel (current dollars) if cellulosios alcohol is economical at that level. (I think there is good chance that this will be possible.)
On the food / starvation question I agree that massive use of land for energy production will tend to drive up food prices; however, beef (meat in general) production is already a very inefficient way to feed people. Like it or not, if I am correct about the existance of a depression in US and EU, there will be more efficient food production with less meat eaten. Thus conversion of pasture to alcohol production may not be the big deal some are suggesting.
On the bio-diesel lead you may be correct, but I do not know of any country in europe that is currently supplying 2% of its diesel needs from plant oils. Can you name one?
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't matter who is int he lead right now, the points are that US ethanol production is already comparable to Brazil, and growing much faster (tripled in the past 10 years, doubled in the last 5 years). By this time next year, America will have left Brazil well behind.
You're missing the point, which is that America's fuel consumption is so much larger than Brazil's that even the huge domestic production isn't enough to supply such a network of pumps. To get America to the 20% goal will require America to consume TEN TIMES as much ethanol as Brazil currently does. it's not a simple matter of installing pumps and selling flex-fuel cars: the fuel production simply does not exist.
I'm not going to debate unreferenced estimates, but even if this were true, it would still be far short of the production required to get America onto 20% ethanol.
The kind of depression you're talking about will make all these considerations moot, because it would drive global oil consumption down to the point where none of these alternatives are economical. If America's oil consumption were to get cut in half, it could then be met by domestic production, with a little bit of imports from Canada.
Pretty much all of them get at least that much from biodiesel, and have for quite some time. What's more, diesel is used to fuel a much broader range of transport than in other areas. Many personal automobiles run on diesel, not just big shipping vehicles. Brazil's whole program is modeled on Europe's use of biodiesels, so it's pretty hilarious that you think they're leading the way.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Nevermind Cuba...how bout producing ethanol from sugarcane in Louisana, Georgia, Florida, Alabama...Texas?
I agree that US production will be greater than Brazil's until Brazil's export market grows - currently the best producers are financially at best at "brake even" and many are losing money. Only those with long term POV are expanding. Waiting for the Japanese to build tankers as agreed, convert to alcohol etc. The postential for Brazil to produce at leaswt 10 times more than US is very real:
From post 24:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1055867&postcount=24
“ …Brazil had 6.5 million hectars in sugar cane in 2005/06 harvest. (Our fall is in March) and because alcohol demand is rapidly growing will harvest from approximately 9 million hectars around the end of 06, start of 07. The university study (see post of 11-25-05 below)* indicates that in Brazil 250 million hectars of pasture or woodlands are suitable for sugar cane production. …”
Thus even with out the improvement of yield by genetics or the development of cellulousic alcohol the current production of Brazil alone could be increased more than 35 fold. The US can at best increase its production by a factor of 3.5 and even that would be a great stress on the cost of food as there is little un or under used agricultural land in the US. (Most of Brazil’s is very underutilized, but not the areas near the population centers of Sao Paulo and Rio, where agricultural use of land is well developed.)
* http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=915616&postcount=19
I may be wrong about the Brazil leading in bio-diesel, if you are correct that most European contries also get 2 or more % of their diesel from plant oils. I assume (from riding on trains in Europe) that it must be sunflowers. Can you give more details? PertroBras may just be making excessive claims, but some European countries are trying to buy bio-diesel from Brazil.
Well, in any case, the sugar-growing lobbies from that area (and the anti-Castro exile groups in Cuba) will ensure that we never, ever open our market to Cuban sugar/ethanol.
Naturally, since the EU biodiesel market is so huge, they will indeed seek supplementary imports from time to time. All that means is that their demand is bigger than their production, not that Brazil's production exceeds Europe's. And I believe that rapeseed is the main feedstock used in Europe. More info here:
http://www.ebb-eu.org/
http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/mag/soybean_us_versus_world/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Demand_and_availability
(excerpt: "Global biodiesel production reached 3.8 million ton in 2005. Approximately 85% of biodiesel production came from the European Union.")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel_around_the_World
Consider the following production stats (from the last link):
Brazil: 12,000 cubic meters per year
Quebec: 35,000 cubic meters per year (don't have numbers for Canada as a whole)
Czech Republic: 60,000 cubic meters per year
Germany: 3,000,000 cubic meters per year
Indonesia: 136,000 cubic meters per year
Malaysia: 590,000 cubic meters per year
UK: 500,000 cubic meters per year
United States: 290,000 cubic meters per year
So, about the only countries that produce less biodiesel than Brazil are those that don't even have biodiesel industries. Also, these are actual production numbers; the total installed production capacity in Europe is even larger by a wide margin. Brazil will need to quintiple production just to catch up with the Czech Republic. Moreover, production in many of those countries (US, Canada, some others) is growing as fast or faster than production in Brazil. They were literally the last guys to show up at the biodiesel party, so it's pretty hilarious that you think they're some kind of world leaders.
As far as your wild figures of Brazil boosting ethanol production by a factor of 35, you'll need to cite actual sources if you want to be taken seriously. Posting links to previous posts containing unsupported claims doesn't count.
The earlier post told the source (the most important agricultural university in Brazil did the study and made the report) but It is in Portuguese, so not much use to you I assume. (also I do not have it. - I only read the summary article in Folio de Sao Paulo and that was some months ago, so no longer have even that.)
Below is some related news from only a few days ago, in English you can check. You have no reason to call my information "wild and unsuported," except your lack of ability to follow the studies being done in Brazil. (I named the university that did the study in the earlier post.)
It shows that the need to rotate crops (to avoid excessive cost of fertalizer) is potentially capable of restoring spent pasture to food production (unlike US corn based alcohol, cane produced alcohol may INCREASE the land in food production, if the spent pasture and old pasture, which has now reverted to forest, is added to the agricultural land in use. (Alternately producing sugar cane and peanuts, soybeans or other legumes to add nitrogen to the soil.) Note also that more than half of the alcohol currently produced in Brazil comes from the state of Sao Paulo (one small part of Brazil, near the domestic market) alone. As I told you, the reason US produces essentially the same volume as Brazil reflection the marginal economics in Brazil with the US market closed to imports, not the lack of land.
The following is from:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38675
" ...Brazil's Ministry of Agriculture announced on Jul. 17 that it will ban sugarcane encroachment in the Amazon and the Pantanal, a vast wetland in the west of the country that extends into Paraguay and Bolivia. The ban will take effect through a registry of the areas in which new crops can be planted, and is to be ready within a year.
The purpose is to provide incentives for sugarcane expansion in agricultural areas already degraded by use as pastureland. ..."The expansion of sugarcane in Sao Paulo is already occurring, especially in pasture areas... There is no reason to take over forests, because this country has plenty of degraded land available," Marcos Landell, director of the Sugarcane Agronomy Institute (IAC), told Tierramérica.
A study by the IAC, associated with the government of Sao Paulo state, shows that in the last 30 years production levels jumped from 65 to 90 tonnes of sugarcane per hectare. The number of harvests grew from three to six per year, which increased the sector's environmental impacts.
Also on the rise is the mechanical collection of raw cane. In this way, the leaves are not burned off and instead fall to the ground to decompose as natural fertiliser. According to Landell, in some areas there are up to 20 tonnes of stubble per hectare per year, which represents a huge return of organic material for the tropical soils.
Sugarcane today covers seven million hectares in Brazil, four million in Sao Paulo state alone. With the production level of 30 years ago, twice the area would be needed to obtain the same amount of alcohol produced today, or about 7,000 litres per hectare. The experts hope to push it further, to 11,000 litres per hectare in the next few years by using genetic and industrial improvements.
In 15 years more, the increase in yields across the system should be 80 percent. "In this way, the planted area would not surpass 30 million hectares," says Landell.
Improvements over the past decade allowed cultivation of more than 80 types of sugarcane, "the crop with the greatest number of varieties on each farm. This diversity creates resistance and helps protect the plants from diseases," he explained.
As a result, less pesticide is used. The new varieties are resistant to many of the diseases that tend to affect cane fields.
According to the IAC, the advance of sugarcane could even promote production of food. Fifteen percent of the country's cane fields are available each year for rotation with crops to help renew the soils, which represents millions of hectares for growing soybeans, peanuts and other crops.
In the Sao Paulo region of Ribeirao Preto, direct planting -- without tilling or removing waste from previous crops -- is increasingly being used for renewing cane fields. Cane farmers cultivate and harvest fast-growing varieties of soybean and peanut in the stubble left from cane before beginning a new sugarcane cycle.
On some farms, the new cane is planted among the stubble of the harvested legumes. "This is an irreversible trend," says Landell.
Direct planting without burning off cane leaves is a practice that can be adopted in all sugarcane-growing regions across Brazil, according to the Sao Paulo Agribusiness Technology Agency (APTA).
An estimated one tonne of carbon dioxide is captured per hectare of raw sugarcane harvested.
"When the collection of raw cane is collected -- whose biowaste increases the moisture and fertility of the soil -- is combined with direct planting, the environmental benefits are reinforced," APTA researcher Denizart Bolonhezi told Tierramérica.
In Ribeirao Preto, there are 40,000 hectares of peanut cultivated using direct planting and traditional techniques in sugarcane renewal areas. Two cooperatives, Coopercana, in Sertaozinho, and Coplana, in Guariba, collect and sell the peanuts.
I will read rest of your post and try to reply, if needed, soon - I am traveling back to Brazil tomorrow eve and busy now, but often I get Email notices like the above, so I sent it as support of what I have posted.
Last edited by a moderator:
The name of a university is not a sufficient reference. That's more of an appeal to authority than a citation.
Anyway, this new info is a lot better. However, it still falls far short of supporting your earlier claims of a 35-fold increase. Taking the most generous estimates from your sources, we see an increase in ethanol cropland of just over %300 (from 7 million hectares to 30 million hectares), and an increased land yield of 80% (from 7000 liters per hectare to 12600). This gives an overall long-term maximum production capacity of 12600 liters/hectare * 30 Million hectares = 379 Billion liters per year. Current capacity is 7000 liters/hectare * 7 Million hectares = 50 Billion liters per year. That's a a factor of about 7.6, which is pretty impressive, but still only one fifth of your previous statement. Plus, that uses up all of Brazil's available land for ethanol production; there will be no room to pursue biodiesel or expand food production.
So, how much ethanol is 380 Billion liters per year? Well, it's about 100 Billion gallons per year, or 275 Million gallons per day. Since ethanol contains 34% less energy per gallon than gasoline, that quantity can replace 181 Million gallons of gasoline per day. US motor gasoline consumption runs to 387 Million gallons per day, and is expected to hit 500 Million gallons per day by 15 years from now (the soonest possible time that the 7.6-fold increase in Brazilian production could materialize). So, even if America imported *ALL* of the ethanol that Brazil will be theoretically capable of producing, it wouldn't even cover 40% of transport fuel needs (nor leave any ethanol for Brazil or anyone else to use). The only way that ethanol is going to move from a niche product to a global competitor for gasoline is if cellulosic production takes off, allowing large-scale economical production outside of the tropics, or if Brazil cuts down the entire rain forest to grow cane.
Anyway, this new info is a lot better. However, it still falls far short of supporting your earlier claims of a 35-fold increase. Taking the most generous estimates from your sources, we see an increase in ethanol cropland of just over %300 (from 7 million hectares to 30 million hectares), and an increased land yield of 80% (from 7000 liters per hectare to 12600). This gives an overall long-term maximum production capacity of 12600 liters/hectare * 30 Million hectares = 379 Billion liters per year. Current capacity is 7000 liters/hectare * 7 Million hectares = 50 Billion liters per year. That's a a factor of about 7.6, which is pretty impressive, but still only one fifth of your previous statement. Plus, that uses up all of Brazil's available land for ethanol production; there will be no room to pursue biodiesel or expand food production.
So, how much ethanol is 380 Billion liters per year? Well, it's about 100 Billion gallons per year, or 275 Million gallons per day. Since ethanol contains 34% less energy per gallon than gasoline, that quantity can replace 181 Million gallons of gasoline per day. US motor gasoline consumption runs to 387 Million gallons per day, and is expected to hit 500 Million gallons per day by 15 years from now (the soonest possible time that the 7.6-fold increase in Brazilian production could materialize). So, even if America imported *ALL* of the ethanol that Brazil will be theoretically capable of producing, it wouldn't even cover 40% of transport fuel needs (nor leave any ethanol for Brazil or anyone else to use). The only way that ethanol is going to move from a niche product to a global competitor for gasoline is if cellulosic production takes off, allowing large-scale economical production outside of the tropics, or if Brazil cuts down the entire rain forest to grow cane.
Current Brazilian production of alcohol comes 4/7 from the state of Sao Paulo alone, but Brazil is much bigger than that one state. The Unicamp University multi-year study stated:
" ...with no clearing of rain forests there are 2.5E8 hectars of reasonably level land in Brazil with soil, rain, truck access, etc. for mechanical cultivation of sugar cane. ..." Compared to the 7E6 hectars in current prduction, this is a potential increase of 350 times, without either celluloseic or improved genetics etc., but of course not all the suitable land in Brazil can be devoted to fuel production.
If only 10% of the suitable land were, then again we are back again to the 35 fold increase the other article suggested.
Further more, I have never suggested that Brazil alone could supply the US liquid fuel needs. I have always spoken of "tropical lands." Even then I have never said that all the world's fuel needs could be met by conventional sugar cane alcohol, but if cellulosic production of ETOH is possible and economical, then petroleum could be reserved mainly for chemical feed stocks and luberication.
Using only 10% of the available (and mostly un-used) suitable land in Brazil is not a "wild unsupported" possibility. If the US were to allow its citizens to use the cheaper alcohol fuel available from tropical lands, then much of the money funding the terrorist would be cut off because oil consumption and gasoline prices would be reduced. Current US policy is designed to insure the opposite. (Corn based alcohol may* give a slight net energy gain, over the fossil energy it requires, but even that will disappear as more marginal land is pressed into production. Tropical sugar cane gives an eight fold gain and that will become about a 25 fold gain if cellulosic production is feasible, with little net effect on food production.)
Quoting my old post:
"What part of the facts that tropical countries, with cheap land and cheap labor and 12 month growing seasons can produce alcohol at a fraction of the cost of Iowa, or Germany or England or France etc. do you doubt?"
Do you still doubt that Brazil could produce at least a 30 fold increase in production? I doubt it actually will because there are many other tropical areas also willing and able to produce alcohol (Their total potential is greater than Brazil's, I thinnk, if India is included.) In any case there will be little increase until the US changes its stupid, oil industry serving, policies as the domestic market can use only a small fraction of the potential production.
Also note that the 30million hectars, which you used to get your 7.6 fold increase, is not the 250million hectars of suitable land available. It is a realistic projection of what may occur in next 15 years (with sales only to EU and Japan, but not to the US, I think.)
AGAIN LACK OF MARKET, NOT LAND, IS RESTRAINING BRAZIL'S PRODUCTION.
This is simply false. It would be true if only the state of Sao Paulo were used.
-----------------------
*The Cornell and U of Calif studies indicate a slight negative gain. Only the Un. of Illonis and oil interested studies show a positive gain. Most to the new distiliation facilities are being built either in Illionois or near by states, so they too have a bias compared to the truely disinterested univesity studies.
Last edited by a moderator:
I find that number extremely hard to believe. The total land area of Brazil is about 850 Million hectares, and the rain forest is 400 Million hectares, so you're talking about using 55% of non-rainforest Brazil for ethanol production. That seems pretty unreasonable, to say nothing of what it would do to food prices and potential for biodiesel. Also, according to this publication:
http://www.gronabilister.se/file.ph...b26521ea48&art=376&FILE_ID=20060511084611.pdf
There are only 140 Million hectares of arable, non-rainforest, non-cattle lands in Brazil, which would cap you at a 20-fold increase.
Uh, no, 7E6 times 35 = 245E8. You have to use all of that (theoretical) land to get the 35-fold increase. Using only 10% results in a 3.5-fold increase.
Yes, but you've never suggested any suitable candidates outside of Brazil. Where exactly are these non-Brazilian suitable agricultural lands in the tropics? Sure, there's some lands, but I'm not seeing any tropical areas with anywhere near as much spare land as Brazil has, so...
If cellulosic production takes off, the agricultural waste of American food production would provide enough feedstock to produce mind-boggling quantities of ethanol. In which case, ethanol trade policy with Brazil will be a minor concern.
First of all, the growing season is only 7 months, not 12. Second, labor costs are not a factor, as this kind of production can be mechanized. The advantage is mostly due to the fact of a suitable climate for sugar cane.
Yes. As mentioned above, your math is off by an order of magnitude. If you meant a 3-fold increase, then, sure; in fact, I expect them to produce a 7-fold increase in the medium term.
Oh, and where is all of this spare arable land in India? Unless you plan to kill off a few hundred million Indians, they need all the land they have to feed themselves.
Why harp on the US here? There are plenty of other gasoline-hungry economies out there that aren't importing Brazilian ethanol in significant quantities. If it was as great an idea as you say, then it wouldn't matter if America were intersted or not: Europe, China, India, Australia, etc. comprise a big enough market to buy up much mroe ethanol than Brazil is producing, should they want to do so.
I'll note again that substituting one fuel import for another is not a terribly appealing proposition for most people, even if said fuel does have environmental benefits.
Okay, but I'll repeat that you can't pin the lack of market solely on American policy. There are plenty of other gas-hungry economies out there which are not importing significant quantities of Brazilian ethanol. I submit that the lack of a market is due to a more fundamental factor than the American corn and cane lobbies.