Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Ethanol subsidies a poor investment economically

Great idea, lets just stop farming altogether, that's the way to reduce CO2 problems, sure no problem, let's get right on it!

What are you going to do to support all the people who make their living from farming? That includes elevator operators, and the cereal industry, clear down to your local grocer. And what are you going to substitute for the food farmers grow? Are we really ready for Soylent Green? Even that had to be raised for the grain in it.

yuck !!! I wonder how many humans would a growing human need to
devour before the age of thirty?

that is if thirty was the age limit.

5-6 30 year old humans per year per growing human maybe?

I dont think this would be a sustainable solution.

Hillbilly, it is farming (done certain ways) that will reduce CO2 levels over the next 40-50 years. Emission reductions won't help in the short term, but only after that several decades has elapsed.

Bio-oriented Farming is our only hope, so please look for the new opportunities to get paid for soil-based management of CO2 sequestration.
===

Allow me to quote Senator Dick Lugar (Republican, Indiana)
Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Hearing on Global Climate Change; Feb., 2009.
[after speaking about the virtues of GMO's--in a climatically challenged world, Senator Lugar spoke about the pricing of carbon, and trading carbon as a commodity]


See, even Republicans see this is important! Especially note his comment, bolded below....

He goes on to point out:


This new Copenhagen Treaty needs to be a focus of our economic recovery--integrated into the overall strategy of creating jobs by moderating our climate and restoring the productivity of our environment--saving our food and water resources.
...or something along those lines....

Cheers!
~

My experience as an old northcentral Missouri farmer is that farm folk will only accept anything new if dragged kicking and screaming into it.

The best way to drag farmers is economically. If they see they can make money--and spend more time drinking coffee instead of actually farming--they will come along. I don't know exactly how to do that. I'm just saying that's probably what will have to be done.

Also, about the only difference between northcentral Missouri and southeastern Nebraska (where I have a bunch of relatives) is that farming seems to be profitable in Nebraska.

--lylwik

check it out ...



I have read that a 200 ft x 200 ft ... acre of corn will
evoporate 4,000 gallons of water each day...

thats a lot of water , why not put a bubble of transparant plastic sheeting over that corn and capture that water ... the economic plus in doing this would be both the water that can be used over and over again , and the energy used to pump the water from hundreds of feet below ground , and most of the machinery needed to pump the water as the water can just trickel down strings located atop the inside of the balloon , the fact that you would avoid insects that are not wanted and could also allow polination by placing rented bee hives inside the bubbles , and to satisfy environmental concerns and probably get some funding to boot , the ethonol plants could supply the corn plants with C02 and
the C02 would stay in the bubbles...and in the ethonol plants.

Sounds like a great idea to me , mostly just a large greenhouse the size of a farm.

http://hrbp.com/Partners/Ethanol-Plants.html

Ethanol plants produce significant amounts of CO2 through the ethanol production process. The USA and Brazil produce more than 70% of the world's ethanol; the U.S. supply comes mainly from corn, while Brazil taps its abundant sugarcane crop.

lylwik:

there you go , you could show those nebraskans how to make corn to eat , the gas to cook it with , the gas to power your tractors
with , and save a little to bottle for yourself ... LOL

then you could invite some over for some corn cooked coffee
and corn critters.


and you could farm year round..

http://www.chaselink.co.uk/HTML%20files/Chase%20Garden%20Products/cgp-greensafe.html




http://cals.arizona.edu/ceac/research/SouthPoleChamber/Photo/Mars.htm

That seems kind of pricey.

The initial costs (which are high enough anyway in agriculture) would probably be so high that only corporate farmers could afford them. I don't think anything that replaces even more family farmers with corporate farmers would be good. But if we keep using our prime land for housing, we may need something like that.

I suppose a good thing about the housing downturn is that we might be able to preserve some good agricultural land. In the last 20 years, I have watched one of the top agricultural areas in the country (northern Colorado) disappear under tract houses and shopping centers. I hope to be able to persuade someone in a position of authority that houses can be built in other places. Wish me luck.

Sorry about getting off topic.

--lylwik

Paul,
I like your idea of recycling the evaporated water from corn crops. There is one small detail you may have missed from your introductory Biology courses. Corn is a grass and it is wind pollinated. Honey bees would starve to death in a corn field, as there would be no nectar for them to collect. Ditto with wheat, barley, rye and sorghum. Without the wind to spread its pollen, none of these crops will grow and set seed. Buckwheat, alfalfa and soybeans, now, they are another matter. They require bees to pollinate them. They are also less intensive users of water than corn or the other major seed grains. You win a few, you lose a few.

thanks!



I didnt know that , thanks again !

so I guess you could just turn a fan or two on at the ends of the rows and let the wind do its job and this way you wouldnt be waiting for the wind , or worry about too much or too little wind.

Im not into biology very much I have mostly stuck to mechanics
but I still think about things such as this , and I wonder that if the weather keeps getting more and more extreme than what farmers and the crops they grow are used to if they will need to farm in isolated structures such as the bubbles pictured at the top of my thread.

Ah, someone who's been on a farm in the last 40 years.

Thanks, Amaranth.

Also, a friend of mine who has done some posting around here reminded me that those bubbles might not do well in high wind or dust storms or hail or tornadoes or . . . .

--lylwik

Those bubbles would not stand up to a good wind around here. Plus it would take hundreds, if not thousands, to cover the average acreage around here. Corn fields in the Midwest are enormous. And why turn on a fan, which costs electricity, when if you just leave the corn exposed and let the wind blow it does it for free? Also, those bubbles appear to be somewhat opaque, and that would reduce the sunlight striking the leaves and make for less photosynthesis, to which the plants would respond by putting more energy into bigger leaves and less left over for making seed. So not a good idea overall.

your right it would take alot of these to replace the acreage currently used , but I can see how you could grow crops in multi level structures , in other words you could have 10 - 20 acres of farm in a 10-20 level multi leveled structure
that only occupies 1 acre of land that could be built basicaly anywhere on earth even in the middle of cities , and given the ecconomic cost advantages of transportation of crops , watering crops , etc this type of thing does make sence even if only on a large corporate level.

plus... we would no longer need to worry about drought.

there are many advantages in farming this way and this would
insist on the advancement of science and engineering.


opaque !
I was talking about the type of structure , of course the following shows that.





!! solar powered fans !!

!! wind power when its blowing !!

there are ways around everything that could be thought of , and
the cities would have new industries that would pop up to support these farms.

the plants could even grow in pots , reducing the need for tractors and the fuel they burn.

there are too many positives to name , but this being a science forum I suppose that any proposed advancements in science should not be discussed here.

A 10- to 20-story cornfield? Really? Are we that desperate?

Also, why can't people learn spelling and punctuation (and basic proofreading) before they start writing things that will be read by other people?

I'm just asking. I'm pretty new to this stuff and seems to me that there's a language at play here that's sort of like the English language I've been using for 60 years or so, but it's spelled more randomly and punctuated more infrequently.

I'm off topic again. Sorry.

--lylwik

i thinkse itud be a goud idear ;

speakin about spellin back than when we was scoolin the word then waz the proper word. the spellin waz mch better : I ave noticed how people have forgotten the meaning of the word [then], and this can be found in abundance here in the scienceagogo furumz.

ie...

well I had rather do this then that.

the word than should have been used rather than the word then.

I notice things like this and I just dont mention them.

because I can still get the proposed meaning from what the person
has written , and this is supposed to be a science forum , not a grammar forum.


but it does seem to be more of a biatching forum.

Proper spelling and punctuation are elements of style, and it always makes a better impression when you spell correctly and use proper punctuation. Misspelled words and wrong use of punctuation leaves a bad impression, as though the writer was too ignorant or illiterate to do better. Certain errors can be expected, and for those for whom English is a second or third language, we have to take that into consideration. But misspellings and improper verbs and loose or nonexistent punctuation tend to say, "I don't care about being understood" and the risk of just ignoring those posts is increased. This forum is what you make of it. Please try to put your best foot forward and use correct spelling and punctuation when posting.

#29851





I agree.

When you use a question mark to denote that a sentence is a question , you dont also need to use a period.

"busted"?.



comma splice



When using a semicolon you should use the semicolon between sentences , not in the same sentence.

Example: This could be a complete sentence; this could be another one.



It cost money , not electricity.
when if you , should be replaced with , when you can.
does it , should have been left out.

ie.


If you dont like painting your barn red , why do you keep using red paint?

I'm sure there are many more errors on your part throughout the forum , but I will not continue this childish behavior.

Resorting to correcting someones grammar when faced with
opposing views in a discussion , does not tilt the discussion
in your favor , but lessens the value of your input into the discussion.

I'm very sorry to have caused this diversion from something I think is really important: the growth and use of ethanol.

I don't know how ethanol production works now or how it can be improved in the future. I would love to see us use the whole plant in developing fuels. Which technologies and which plants are amenable to that kind of development?

What about Switchgrass? Does it work that way?

I really want to know about these things.

Thanks.

--lylwik

lylwik

My main problem with this forum is the consistent negative attitude towards those who have or express their ideas.

You will find that expressing an idea on this forum , will lead
to the wolf pack surrounding , and attacking from all sides.




It is important to expand the use of a fuel such as ethanol.




The reason I posted the idea about the plastic bubbles , was to sudgest , what I thought to be an improvement in farming , and ethanol production.



I'm not into biology , sorry.

You would need to direct these questions to those here
who are.

Paul,

I'm really sorry I became part of the wolfpack. I'll try to do better in the future.

Now, I have the farmland in north Missouri and would like to use it to produce ethanol. I'm interested in switchgrass, or any crop in which the whole plant and not just the head is used. Even when I was growing up on the farm in the '50's, using only that little bit of a plant seemed inefficient. I kept my mouth shut then.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks.

--lylwik (learning slowly)

lylwik

You might want to see if you can grow sugar beets in your zone.







I would think that by burning any unused parts of the plant
the ashes could be used as fertilizer.

also this would avoid alot of methane release due to decomposition.





http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sep06/ethanol.htm



then you might want to look into these web sites.

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=2751

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/energy.htm

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5441


if you grow sugar beets or a small plant you should be able to
make ( M ) shaped structures to place every 10 - 20 feet in a row, you can then cover the plants with plastic sheeting , then place strips of wood or metal on top of the plastic sheeting where the ( V ) part of the ( M ) is to hold the sheeting down.

this should work , and there might be funding available to test it.

this should capture the evaporated water and direct it back onto the plants.


try a row.

Any other suggestions, anyone?

--lylwik

===


The "M" idea is a neat one, but I don't think it'd work well with tall plants like corn.

Also, about the bubble idea for trapping water....
I don't think you'll ever get down to the dew point temperature (where water will condense) with a heat trapping bubble. Maybe when the temp. got up to 120 F water would start condensing on the plastic, but this would be a whole different ecosystem for the plants and soils affected. Just think of the new pests and diseases that would opportunistically proliferate in that new "climate."

As temperatures cool during the night, some unique system might be utilized to enhance the capture of dew; but overall I think we need to avoid large, resource-intensive, "unnatural" systems.
===

...btw: semicolons separate dependant and independant clauses within a sentence, not two complete "sentences."
I rarely know if I'm using it correctly, but that is the definition that I learned.
Spelling and punctuation make expression of ideas more universally understandable, but a more creative writing of the language can often help reveal the context and import of an idea.
...or words to that effect. So while I appreciate the effort and effect demonstrated by a well written post, I also appreciate the diversity that develops. It's all good, but each still is what it is.
===

...bot....
Gosh, done on a large enough scale, using bubbles to trap transpired water might even start affecting the weather for areas "downwind" from the bubbled areas. Global dehumidification might result.

I still think we need to get more water up on the dry lands and desert margins, but I think there must be some way to use all these newly generated icebergs to help out with the re-greening of the lands.

Then we can start growing lots of biomass for CO2 sequestration, ethanol production, bio-oil production, bio-char production, food production, etc.

Speaking of biology, plants need oxygen too:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_oxygen_needed_for_photosynthesis
"Plants of course do need some oxygen for the same reason that we do. They use oxygen in respiration - the process in which food is 'burned' to release energy. However photosynthesis produces more oxygen than the plant uses up in respiration, so the excess is removed from the plant into the atmosphere."

...and as an example of the cycles that plants go through--having evolved enmeshed in daily (and other) cycles--here is an abstract about the complexity of cycles in the "simplest" of organisms.


While I think the genetic modification of life--to create a cellulose digester/ethanol producer--is a very creative idea, I worry about the consequences for a world also dependant on cellulose for its integrity.
Cellulose digesters currently live in the microclimate of the gut of ruminants; hopefully they won't be modified to start living in room conditions.
As with plastic digesting bacteria, I wonder how they know when the material has been "trashed" and is "ready" to be digested?
===

I think solar pyrolysis of cellulose might be a better route to pursue, over the production of cellulosic ethanol. This still leaves room for sugar-based ethanol, and is much more carbon negative, simple, and doesn't rely on genetic modification--and the ensueing "big-business" implementation models.

~

heres a video about growing foods indoors.
there is a vast array of posibilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipy1tF5DU-Y

samwik , I havent read all of your post yet , but will later today.

you do know that you can tie a plastic bag around a tree branch , and water will condense inside the bag.

you dont need 120 F temperatures.

it appears that the U.K. is not sucking the hind tit on this.
below is a link to a 220 acre greenhouse complex under construction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAGEhR_XukI

I forgot to mention that my farm is hilly with shallow topsoil that I'd like to keep. So row crops are pretty much out of the question.

Switchgrass intrigues me because from what I've read it prevents erosion and it seems to yield quite a bit of ethanol. I don't remember if I've mentioned this before, but much of my farm is currently in CRP. I'd rather be paid for creating something than be paid for creating nothing.

Has anyone grown switchgrass or seen it grown?

Oh, also, my part of Missouri is, I think, on the wrong side of the lime line for sugar beets and too far north for sugar cane, although sorghum grains seem to do well there and are, I believe, the current crop of choice for ethanol production. Amaranth?

--lylwik

lylwik

they are building refineries to process switchgrass , they might
already be built , might not.

unless you are just speculating for a future crop , you might want to keep the free subsidies until the infrastructure is in place.

they might let you grow the switchgrass as long as you dont
sell it , this way you could speculate wether or not the crop
would be a profitable one.

your county agent should be able to give you this information.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

this excerpt is from an article in the above link.
dated jan-08-2008 , so you might need to check on the whereabouts
of any refineries , and take the distance to wherever you would need to transport the switchgrass to into consideration.







once you harvest the crop , and before the next years growing season , would there be a possibility that burning the dead tops
of the grass would kill the root system?

according to the above excerpt you will need to fertilize the switchgrass , and it might be that some , if not all of the needed nitrogen can be had by doing a controlled burn of just the dead tops.

perhaps a few days after a good soaker.

Thanks, Paul. That's really helpful. (I have to admit that I've mostly scanned the material. It got me over-excited.)

Family oral history has it that the Iowa Indians who originally had my farm burned it off every fall. That, if I remember my agronomy, strengthens the root systems of grass and, I think, releases nutrients. I'm not sure, though.

The information in the "Scientific American" article, which I mostly read, reminds me of how all grasses and many other plants need to be maintained.

You've confirmed the feeling I've developed that switchgrass is right for my farm and probably for a lot of other farms and the country in general. Now, the problem may be the policy. That could be very tricky, but I'm working on it.

Also, does anyone notice in the picture from "Scientific American" the pure, simple, geometric beauty of what I would like to call the American steppes?

Again, thanks, Paul. That's exactly the kind of information I was looking for, and I think it really helps this thread and could eventually be reflected in the development of energy policy and agricultural policy internationally. Good work.

--lylwik

Thank you lylwik

For such a nice and positive reply.

The indians lived here a long , long time before we did.

and they were much more connected to nature.

they probably hunted on your property !

the reason they burned the grasses might have been to insure
that the animals they hunted had a proper , fattening food source.

and may have reduced the number of insects at the same time.

such as ticks and fleas , that would have infected the buffalo as they roamed , and the deer and the antelope * as they played ,
on the range.

If I have helped in any way , I am glad.




* There are no true antelope native to the Americas. The Pronghorn "Antelope" of the Great Plains belongs to family Antilocapridae, not Bovidae.

Now, to answer the original question, I personally don't believe much in subsidies. I'd prefer to practice diversified farming to cover the potential of a crop failure.

I'm going to stop at that for right now.

--lylwik