Ethanol and hungry Mexicans - not that simple

[Bravus]

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/?last_story=/tech/htww/2007/04/06/tortillas/

[Dr. Shane]

I am hesitant to jump on that professor's band wagon and blame multinational corporations. I am sure the Mexican meat market is partially to blame. I noticed that it was not highlighted so I am guessing it must not be owned by some big multinational corporation that can be villainized. Free trade actually has brought down the price of corn and does not stop the Mexican government from buying it and creating a surplus.

While I don't blame the corn shortage completely on ethenol, one must remember that a lot of Mexicans despise the US and would be quick to blame several of Meixcan's problems on their northern neighbor.

[Bravus]

Yeah, I posted it not so much to say 'it's got nothing to do with ethanol, it's all the big evil corporations' as to say 'problems are rarely as simple as they seem these days'. Drawing a simple direct correlation between use of ethanol fuels and high tortilla prices, and using that to say 'see, doing anything about climate change attacks the poor' is over-simplifying for rhetorical effect. A reminder that it's not that simple is sometimes useful.

[olger]

I had a place on my shelf beside the Y2K, Ice Ages, Bird Flu miseries, so I put this one there.

I invested in Cardinol Ethanol last fall. Still sleeping well. If we trade our cattle herds off for grain fields, the world would be more efficient.

Bottom line. Some people aren't happy unless they're sad.

`oG

[Dr. Shane]

Well, I never bought into the idea that tortilla prices went up because of ethanol. Tortillas are also made out of wheat so if the corn tortillas went up, I suspect that a lot of Mexicans switched to the wheat tortillas. Tortillas are a staple in our diet where we live. We prefer corn tortillas because they have more fiber but wheat tortillas actually taste a little better. I have not noticed any increase in price at all so it must just be a Mexican thing.

Over 50% of the grain in both Mexico and the US is fed to animals and most of what they eat goes right out their backside, which causes global warming.

Our local sugarcane mill is planning to start producing ethanol and they are going to use a by-product of the sugar cane so ethanol production will not decrease sugar production. However sugarcane uses lots and lots and lots of water to grow.

[olger]

"Over 50% of the grain in both Mexico and the US is fed to animals and most of what they eat goes right out their backside, which causes global warming."

Gastronomical Warming?

Global Gassing?

[Neil D]

"Over 50% of the grain in both Mexico and the US is fed to animals and most of what they eat goes right out their backside, which causes global warming."

Gastronomical Warming?

Global Gassing?

[Ahem], I guess I could say that THAT is a bunch of BS, but I might be in cultural foo-pah then!

[Neil D]

Quote:

However sugarcane uses lots and lots and lots of water to grow.

Which means a lot of C02 gets used up in the growing process. along with nitrogen and other minerals....

[bevin]

http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/ethanol.htm

We haven't discussed yet how the government subsidies are contributing to this issue...

It is one thing to pour funds into the development of a technology - that is smart. It is another to subsidise the deployment of an inefficient technology - that is stupid.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Sugarcane seems to be a much better choice for ethanol and if the tariff was done away with a lot of third-world countries would be able to grow sugarcane, refine it into ethanol and stimulate their economies while helping us lesson our dependence on the Middle East.

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: olger

"Over 50% of the grain in both Mexico and the US is fed to animals and most of what they eat goes right out their backside, which causes global warming."

Gastronomical Warming?

Global Gassing?

[Ahem], I guess I could say that THAT is a bunch of BS, but I might be in cultural foo-pah then!

Coming from a man who obviously loves his BIG MAC. :--)

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

Sugarcane seems to be a much better choice for ethanol and if the tariff was done away with a lot of third-world countries would be able to grow sugarcane, refine it into ethanol and stimulate their economies while helping us lesson our dependence on the Middle East.

Sugarcane is the best choice. It produces 8 times the energy it takes to produce it. Corn is not efficient. It produces the same amount of energy it takes to produce it. Not really a good trade there.

What about Sugar Beets. California grows lots of sugar beets.

Hawaii and Purto Rico are the only areas that can grow sugar cane in the USA.

[Dr. Shane]

OK, I have a question about sugarcane. Sugarcane takes a lot of water to grow. Our loving brother Neil here commented that means it uses a lot of CO2 in the process. However, sugarcane is burned in the field before being harvested. My question for you scientists out there is , how much carbon does the sugarcane release back into the environment when it is burned in the field? And is that a factor when considering if the ethanol produced from sugarcane actually helps fight global warming?

[Planey]

Quote:

how much carbon does the sugarcane release back into the environment when it is burned in the field?

From "Queensland Sugar Limited, Brisbane Australia.":

Quote:

The two most commonly used methods for harvesting sugar cane are green cane harvesting and burnt cane harvesting. The majority of sugar cane harvesting in Australia uses the green cane method which involves cutting the cane green allowing the leafy tops of the cane stalks to fall to the ground to act as a protective trash blanket. This becomes an organic mulch and considerably reduces the level of soil erosion while preserving soil nutrition for crop growth.

Australia being a backward fourth world country, I expect the rest of the world has long ago shifted to green cane harvesting.

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know much about it other than each year when they are burning the fields I have to clean the ashes out of my swimming pool.

[Bravus]

The other point with burning sugar cane is that it puts *back* carbon into the atmosphere that it took out of the atmosphere as it was growing, so it doesn't increase the total carbon in the air. Same with the ethanol fuel. Fossil fuels are essentially carbon that was captured from the atmosphere by living things a long time ago and sequestered underground. Burning them now adds 'new' carbon to the atmosphere. Biofuels like ethanol, on the other hand, take all their carbon from the atmosphere as they grow, through the process of photosynthesis, so what they return to the atmosphere does not cause a net increase in CO2 levels.

[Dr. Shane]

Here is what I found from LSU's Ag Center about sugarcane harvesting in Louisiana. They list several reasons why burning is more economical. It is PDF so here is the link >>> Louisiana Sugarcane Burning

I found this too. >>> THE IMPACT OF GREEN CANE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ON MANUAL AND MECHANICAL FARMING OPERATIONS

Quote:

Nevertheless, it is estimated that at present more than 50% of all sugarcane around the world is still burnt prior to harvesting. Burning the cane is seen as an effective way of maintaining high manual cutter and mechanical harvester outputs and to deliver cleaner cane to the mills. However, there are many disadvantages associated with burning, which include atmospheric pollution, and soil and water losses. Cut to crush delays in burnt cane have been recognized as one of the main causes of increased dextran levels in sugar.

[Bravus]

(still doesn't cause a net increase in atmospheric CO2, though) :)

[Dr. Shane]

I understand that and appreciate the explanation. We actually have illegal immigrants die in these fields when they burn them despite all the warnings. The advantages of burning have to be significant or it would have stopped due to the loss of human life that occasionally happens.