What is Digg?158 Comments
- nwoantibody, on 04/16/2008, -11/+58With all those ***** food riots how about making some plants we can eat!
- thechr0nic, on 04/16/2008, -14/+41so, since ethanol releases more CO2 per mile driven then petroleum, on top of the fact that its consumption raises the price of food worldwide... why would ANYONE support it? The much larger and more important question to ask is: why would any government subsidize it with tax dollars?
http://www.intota.com/docs/ethanol-pollution.asp - br0ck, on 04/16/2008, -2/+26Ethanol releases CO2 that was already in the air. Burning gasoline release CO2 that was sequestered millions of years ago.
Of course, the current corn-based ethanol is only 1 to 1 efficient, but cellulose based ethanol from switchgrass is already at 540% more energy returned that required to grow and the genetic engineering method from the article could make that percentage even higher since extracting the ethanol from the cellulose would become much cheaper. - caintrain, on 04/16/2008, -1/+23No.....it's using the wasted stems and leaves from the corn that is usually chopped up and thrown out of the back of the harvester. This new process would take the "waste" part of the corn and turn it into a biofuel. The corn would be used for food, and the stalks would be used for fuel, how is that a bad idea?
- greensky, on 04/16/2008, -1/+15Re: carbon... The CO2 released when burning ethanol (except for any fossil fuels used in its production) was taken out of the atmosphere and is just being returned. CO2 released from burning coal/oil was stored for millions of years so it is technically adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
- wjlaw100, on 04/16/2008, -5/+17I thought I read somewhere that Ethanol is only cheap due to Government Subsidies, NOT that its a good source for energy.
- br0ck, on 04/16/2008, -2/+14Actually, the biggest reasons food prices are rising are increased demand and because oil prices have gone up massively increasing the cost of farming and shipping food. Corn-based ethanol is definitely a factor, but it's minor compared to those two. So, using a method like suggested in the article would actually provide 5 to 8 times more ethanol on the same amount of land for much less money -- reducing fuel prices and reducing the amount of land required. Win-win.
- EelfinnTy, on 04/16/2008, -3/+14Read the article don't just post...
FTA "Today, nearly all fuel ethanol in the United States is produced from corn kernels. To meet the required increase, researchers are turning to other sources, such as cellulose, a complex carbohydrate found in all plants. Corn leaves and stems, prairie grasses, and wood chips are leading candidates for supplies of cellulose.
This process will allow us eat the corn and create ethanol from the leaves and stocks. - Joe_rigby, on 04/16/2008, -14/+25Use crops for food, not fuel.
- groo68, on 04/16/2008, -1/+11We have a surplus of food these days, it's just not distributed right.
- djdole, on 04/16/2008, -1/+11STOP TRYING TO BE SCIENCE, RELIGION!
- tak84, on 04/16/2008, -2/+12Wait.. the government doesn't know what's best for its people or the world?
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -5/+15"Cornell University study says no to biofuels - ignores hemp"
"In July 2005, Cornell University published a study saying that it is not economical to produce ethanol or biodiesel from corn and other crops. The study confirmed what other studies have shown in the past. The vegetable sources that are currently (legally) available are insuficient. Hemp is the only proven source for economical biomass fuels, a biomass source which was completely ignored by the Cornell study. "
http://www.hemp4fuel.com/ - A2TrueBlue, on 04/16/2008, -2/+11That's kinda the idea of this study. If we can make the stalk and leaves of corn able to break down their own cellulose then we can use that part of the plant for ethanol instead of the corn cob. Meaning we can use the cob for its normal use -- food.
"But that's genetically modifying our food", you say. This enzyme that they are putting in this corn comes from the cow's stomach. So we can use this genetically modified corn cob as feed (the enzyme supposedly is only in the stalk and not the cob but we all know ***** happens) and not worry about the enzymes doing any damage....it already is present naturally in the cow. From there we can concentrate on corn without the enzyme being used in the human food chain as opposed to being processed into ethanol.
The only major drawback that I can see to this right now is that if genetically modified corn could be completely used (food AND ethanol production) then there might be a push to replace the entire normal corn crop (food OR ethanol production) with this genetically modified version, something I am not too thrilled about.
Kudos to Moo-U, keep up the good work. - justjoehere, on 04/16/2008, -0/+9Let's not forget the subsidies to NOT grow crops (in order to stabilize crop prices)
- EelfinnTy, on 04/16/2008, -3/+11Can i digg you twice. Apparently most people don't realize Cellulosic ethanol doesn't use corn.
- br0ck, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7The energy comes from the sun! "Switchgrass grown for biofuel production produced 540 percent more energy than needed to grow, harvest and process it into cellulosic ethanol, according to estimates from a large on-farm study by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/08010 ...
- duderdude, on 04/16/2008, -4/+11Corn is not in any way natural. It did not exist before humans, and it will cease to exist after humans. Genetically modified versions are no more harmful to the environment than regular varieties of corn, and they have to pass the same health regulations as regular corn. Scientist are working on many varieties of corn that are better for the environment as they need fewer nutrients, less water, less herbicide/pesticide, and less ground soil tilling.
- EelfinnTy, on 04/16/2008, -1/+8That's kind of the point. They will be using corn leaves and stems just like they would the switch grass you are suggesting.
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/16/2008, -1/+8YEAH...stop cross-pollinating and selectively breeding crops too! Only Mother Nature is allowed to grow crops!
Genetically modifying crops is in the same vein as selective breeding, only it involves looking deeper into how crops grow. There is nothing wrong with it. Now patenting crops...that's a different story... - lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -3/+10Especially U.S. America, hell we are trying to burn it with oil....
- sonaboy, on 04/16/2008, -3/+9the strawman argument about "food competing with fuel for demand" will be exposed for being ridiculous. does everyone actually think we're operating at maximum capacity for farms? I seem to remember thousands of farms that were the lynchpin of small town business being closed down during the Reagan years. That land hasn't gone away. Ethanol and biofuel might just be the industries to revitalize small agricultural communities that have been struggling for decades.
but big oil an all the neo-con apologists never want to talk about that though. it's easier for them to just cry about how Al Gore is a big mean liar, instead of actually THINKING about how biofuel can launch a national industry that would supply millions of jobs. - pianomahnn, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7Have you ever used medicine?
- skidooer, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Currently, the wasted stalk breaks down and is returned to the soil as fertilizer. The absence of that will require more external fertilizer application which in turn requires a lot of oil to produce and apply.
- Logicexe, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6Where do you get the figure about ethanol releasing more CO2 than traditional fossil fuels? Does it include the CO2 emissions created by the production and transportation of the corn itself, as well as the transportation and transformation of the Ethanol? Did they account for all the CO2 released when refining oil, transporting the oil and transporting the gasoline?
Unless you're factoring in all that it's really a useless figure since the CO2 released by ethanol was just extracted from our current atmosphere. The entire process would be CO2 neutral. You really have to include all the CO2 emissions from oil well to exhaust for gasoline but for ethanol you only need to include the CO2 released in its production (which unfortunately uses lots of fossil fuels).
As for this affecting food prices, I completely agree with you. It's stupid to try and turn our food into fuel. However, this could be a good step towards developing a strain of either switch grass or kudzu that don't require "agriculture grade" soil to thrive and can break themselves down into cellulose. That's the important part of the story, that's the part I'm eager to hear about. - nlevend, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6I doubt that the problem with food riots stems from the production of ethanol, which is actually produced from field corn, which is not the same as the corn that you would eat. Field corn is an industrial product that's fed to livestock and, as mentioned, is used to produce ethanol (a process that is actually costing us more money than, say, using sugar to produce ethanol, see Brazil, but because of lobbyists like the corn lobby *cough* ***** *cough*, which mostly represents large corporations that make a ***** ton of money from ethanol, we don't have as much access to this cheaper commodity.).
/end rant
Although in the end, corn ethanol production could eventually push farmers to move from grain fed stock to free range stock, which is better for the environment, the animals' health, and our own health. - buckrogers1965, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Yeah, and PCB's are good for you!
- duderdude, on 04/16/2008, -2/+6For all those people bashing ethanol.. Current ethanol production is based on using the kernels of corn (the part we eat) to produce ethanol, it is expensive, a waste of food, and an overall net-energy loss. However, this technology and several others are working towards the ultimate goal of celluosic ethanol, i.e. retrieving ethanol from all parts of the plant. If celluosic ethanol ever becomes a reality, it will have a net energy increase and we can use kernels for food/live-stock feed, while only using the rest of the plant for energy production.
- smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -4/+8Remember Monsanto cross-pollination suits? I wonder what would happen if they involved pollen from this strain... Lets hope it doesn't make good crops inedible as well as expose privately owned farms to ludicrous lawsuits...
- sonofagunn, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Dear stinkypyper,
Please RTFA article before making sarcastic letters to the scientific community suggesting that the scientists who specialize in this area aren't as smart as you.
Cheers.
/ the article mentions stalks and leaves
// specifically mentions they don't modify the reproductive parts
/// mentions it could be applied to other plants such as switchgrass - Logicexe, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4RTFA
The new strain allows them to use the WASTED part of the plant for food. We can eat the corn and use the stalk for fuel. This is a good step forward. - earlycj5, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Currently most ethanol is made from starches, not cellulose.
- mechnoch, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Now, I disagree with your statement that "anthropogenic CO2 warming theory" is "100% false". True, the solar change factor argument seems compelling, but I still find it hard to believe that all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere has 0% effect on global climate. I dugg you up because you seem to advocate cellulosic ethanol for all the *other* right reasons. It's refreshing to see others that realize that it's not just about 'global warming', it's about energy independence!
- skidooer, on 04/16/2008, -5/+91. Look at the state farming was in two years ago, before ethanol became all the rage. Most farmers were getting ready to get out of the business because they were losing money every year. The price of food was going to go up no matter what.
2. Corn-based ethanol is an important stepping stone. People are afraid of progress and without using something they are comfortable with, such as corn mixed with gasoline, we will be stuck with the status-quo forever.
Now that farmers see that money can be made from plant-based fuels, they'll be more willing to grow more viable crops. Now that the car-buying public see that plant-based fuels are available they will be more willing to buy a car designed to run on plant-based fuels. That would never happen without the ethanol bump. - earlycj5, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4RTFA? Nope, guess not by your comment.
- sonofagunn, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Creating ethanol only needs the glucose from the stalks/leaves. The waste product of cellulosic ethanol production could probably be used as fertilizer. I don't know for sure, this is just a hunch since the other minerals and whatnot aren't in the final ethanol product.
- skidooer, on 04/16/2008, -0/+33. Crops have finally just reached the cost of production. Why should the struggling farmer continue to subsidize third world countries?
- orangefly, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3i just went with mr. fusion....
- bmdhacks, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3One concern that I haven't seen addressed is the fact that the current method of chewing up the stems, leaves, etc of the corn and shooting it back onto the field acts as a method of fertilization. If instead we save all of that material to generate ethanol, we may risk depleting the land of necessary resources for sustainable farming.
- mechnoch, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4You know, fossil fuels are only cheap in this country because of government subsidies! Ever seen the price of gas in Europe?
- earlycj5, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Third corn ethanol is made from the starches in the kernel, not cellulose.
- beckerist, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Which is ironic considering that Cornell is in a VERY...um...ahem "hemp heavy" town... hehehe
Go Ithaca! - smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4They've done that to more than just one farmer's crops. They've sued several farmers for the same thing even here in the U.S. and won, even in supreme court.
They had to sell their farms and/or pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars - leszek, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4life finds a way ...
- martoq, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4I other news, big oil has just bought the patents to crops designed to break down its own cellulose.
- curtisag, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3The price of bourbon doesn't come from corn, it's the production and aging process that creates the majority of the cost.
- cgm1985, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3fail
- 0Degrees, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3I don't give a ***** what Cornell says. I know many rich farmers that are investing heavily in switch grass crops because they know it will make money.
When it comes to agriculture, I'll listen to the farmers who livelihood depend on what they are saying (in this case). That said, I do agree that hemp should be researched more; however, I doubt it would be even nearly as good as switch grass which grows ten feet tall in a matter of a month and can be harvested multiple times yearly. - Buddhaismybuddy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2I'll stick to natural foods thanks.
- breckinshire, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3I'd rather have been rickrolled.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 156 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is