C. E. White wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 1:23 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>> Gill wrote:
>>>> That's because the overall specific energy of E10 is less than
>>>> pure
>>>> gasoline. This is why going to biofuels is a horrible idea, IMO.
>>>> We
>>>> use up our top soil
>>> Using proper farming techniques, top soil will last forever.
>> It just won't stay in the same place. Erosion from farms is far
>> worse than from land development activities. Top soil can be
>> depleted to the point it can't grow much which is why farmers so
>> much fertilizer to their land.
>
> Care to sight some back up for this. I suppose it might be true on a
> total tonnage basis, but probably not on a per unit of land basis. My
> farm has been in constant cultivation for over 300 years. I would
> argue we add fertilizer to replace the nutrients removed when we
> harvest crops. Some crops remove more nutrient than others. One of the
> nice things about ethanol production is that it does not actually
> increase the nutrient drain. Ethanol is carbon (from CO2) and hydrogen
> (from H2O). After you make the ethanol, the dried mash can be used as
> a high quality animal feed. The animal waste can be used as fertilizer
> to return the nutrients to the soil (well except for those that are
> used to make the meat and milk products humans consume).

The very fact that the farmer has to add fertilizer to the soil means
the methods he deploys to grow crops depletes the topsoil of nutrients.
What happens to his crops if no fertilizer is added? The other
component is that typical modern farming techniques cause erosion on a
massive scale. Promoting biofuels just creates more tillable land and
more erosion and more demand for fertilizer. IMO, biofuels use more
energy than is practical for the amount of fuel produced. There are
much better energy sources like geothermal, tides, ocean currents, solar
etc. that have much better efficiency and MUCH LESS impact on the
environment. After all, one of the main points of using alternative
energy is to create less impact on the environment.

>>>> to fill our tanks and at the same time increase the cost of food
>>>> substantially.
>>> No it won't. It'll promote farming, which in turn will keep our
>>> top
>>> soil from being paved over/ruined. To cut your food costs, just
>>> cut
>>> out the convenience -- i.e. eating out, packaged meals, etc.
>> It has already increased food prices world wide. The UN's food
>> budget is going through the roof because of the demand of biofuels.
>>
>> http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10167
>
> The real problem is the increase in consumption of meat in developing
> countries. And despite all the whining in that article, food prices
> are not at "historic highs" if you correct them for inflation. In
> fact, they are barely above depression era prices when corrected for
> inflation. My Father was selling corn for over $3.50 a bushel in 1975.
> I got that much for the first time this year. Given that almost
> everything I buy cost three times as much now as it did in 1975, I am
> not even close to making the kind of money from farming that my Father
> did (despite farming almost twice as many acres and using half as much
> labor).

Our standard of living is higher now than in the depression or even
1975. If food prices climb substantially then our standard of living
declines. IMO, this is the real issue. Sure most of us can buy higher
priced food but then we have to drop something else off our wish list.
This will ripple through the economy and could have catastrophic
effects. Plus, poor people that barely make ends meet are the hardest
hit by increasing food prices. Having biofuels in my tank isn't worth
more people going hungry because the price of bread is too high for them
to buy it.