permaculture

[Harmon Seaver <hseaver@gmail.com>]

Marimike6@cs.com wrote:
> Harmon writes "Don't you just have to wonder who is behind this massive 
> barrage of
> dis-information about biofuels causing food prices to go up and food
> shortages? Once again, NO FOOD IS LOST in the production of ethanol,
> there not only is just as much food left over after the sugars and
> starches are extracted in the form of alcohol, but it is much more
> nutritious food, healthier for livestock to eat, they average 17% higher
> weight gain and and gain it faster and don't get sick like they do with
> eating too much grain."
> 
> Yup. Spent mash is useful stuff... and that fact is just about ethanol's 
> only 
> saving grace. When we consider only the fuel side of the equation, 
> ethanol's 
> just a gimmick that's not quite as good as gasoline and quite a bit more 
> expensive. Although with the actual costs carefully hidden. Plus, the use 
> of 
> natural gas in the distilling process is just another area of consumption 
> we don't 
> need right now.
> 

     See -- that's just more of the disinformation campaign being waged
against ethanol. The truth is just exactly the opposite -- ethanol is a
much superior fuel to gasoline, in every way. It burns much cooler and
cleaner, so that engines running on ethanol can run 3x as long before
needing a rebuild. It is much higher octane and contains it's own
oxygenators so you can run a much higher compression ratio and get far
more power and efficiency. If you use synthetic oil, your oil stays so
clean it can last almost forever. And because it burns so much cleaner,
there is almost no air pollution compared to gasoline. In fact, if you
live in a state with mandatory emission testing, the testers will think
their equipment is broken. And if there are any mishaps, like a tanker
overturning, there is no catastrophe for the environment like there is
for gasoline.
    And as for price -- where the heck do you get the idea that it's
more expensive? I just paid $2.54 a gallon yesterday for E85 -- and it
wouldn't be that much if I could buy 100% ethanol. I don't know what you
mean by "actual costs carefully hidden" -- if you mean subsidies, that's
absurd nonsense since gasoline is heavily subsidized. If we got rid of
all the oil companies susbidies, gas would be at least $15 @ gallon
right now.
    Furthermore, ethanol doesn't need any subsidies to be competitive --
all those subsidies are about the subsidies for industrial agriculture
-- all of which should be done away with ASAP. Any farmer who can't make
it without gov't help should have his land confiscated and given to
homesteaders. Even the natural gas for distilling is a total
red-herring, the plants should be using digestors for the "light
stillage" to get there distillation fuel, just like they should be using
gas-absorbtion refrigeration to cool and condense the distillates
instead of pumping ground water.
    But that's all stuff that can be easily worked out.




> Here's a good article on the virtues of distiller's grain:
> 
> http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx2036.pdf
> 
> But I don't think the waste of perfectly good corn by conversion into fuel 
> was the only focus of the article I cited. Mostly, it was about the 
> convergence 
> of our fuel needs, water needs and food needs, worldwide. And as price is 
> the 
> best indicator of scarcity and demand, I think it sheds some light on just 
> how 
> we're now hitting the wall at top speed. The article does cover quite a bit 
> more ground than the couple of paragraphs I excerpted, and is worth reading 
> in 
> its entirety.
> 
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/JD04Dk01.html 
> 
> One major point expressed is the fact that as the world becomes more 
> affluent, a market is emerging for several billion Chinese and Indians to 
> start eating 
> meat-- for the first time ever. And there is that famous conversion factor 
> to 
> consider, where ten kilos of grain equals one kilo of meat. Maybe grain 
> producing acreage, worldwide, can still be increased a bit... but in the 
> long run 
> the numbers don't add up.
> 
> But, to address your point that once the fuel fraction is distilled off 
> there 
> remains a high grade animal feed, I would suggest that there is still a 
> diversion of calories from food use. One can't subtract all the caloric 
> value that 
> goes into the ethanol and still have on hand the same number of calories to 
> be 
> used for feeding animals.
> 
> It would be interesting to see the breakdown of a ton of corn, when (a) fed 
> to cattle and (b) distilled, the ethanol subtracted and the remainder fed 
> to 
> cattle. In light of the number of arable acres on earth and the anticipated 
> number of people with jobs and money, what I take away is the need to start 
> weaning people from beef, pork and poultry... in just the same way we're 
> trying to 
> wean them away from vehicular travel. Either that or we have to reduce the 
> number of people.   

   Yes, I agree -- but it probably ain't going to happen until the whole
thing collapses of it's own weight, and then population reduction will
be severe and traumatic.
    I went to an interesting talk the other night by Derrick Jensen,
author of Endgame and many other good books. http://www.derrickjensen.org/
    The major focus of the discussion was about how best to help
precipitate and facilitate the coming collapse, and especially the
destruction of capitalism and the fascist state. 8-)





> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Google command to search archives:
> site:https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture searchstring
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Harmon Seaver