A Conundrum for The Left
November 21st, 2007 | by Craig |What’s the acceptable line for biofuels if they involve GM crops?
A new alternative-fuel partnership could mean a Montana growing boom for camelina, an oilseed used to make biodiesel fuel, three of Montana’s top political leaders said Tuesday.
The other partner in Sustainable Oils is Targeted Growth Inc. of Seattle, a biotechnology firm that uses genetics and other fields to develop higher yields in various crops, including camelina, corn, canola and soybeans.
Further:
Bafalis also praised Baucus’ work as Senate Finance Committee chairman to create and maintain tax credits and fuel standards that encourage development of biodiesel fuel.
Growing enough camelina crop to produce 100 million gallons of biodiesel fuel could take as many as 1 million acres.
The million acres is just mentioned in passing, but that’s a pretty big number. According to the DOE, the US uses around 4.2 million barrels of diesel fuel (in various forms) a month. At 55 gallons per barrel, that’s 231 million gallons per month, or 2.8 billion gallons a year, which would take (assuming one harvest per year) about 280 million acres. Give or take. Now I’m the first to admit that these numbers are probably pretty rough — 80 grit at best — and further, there are folks who are actually involved in agriculture, who could give even better figures.
I don’t know about you, but those numbers look pretty daunting to me. Considering that there are between 400 and 500 million arable acres in the US, you have to choose how much of that acreage you want to use for fuel production, and how much for other silly stuff, like, say for example, food.
Throw in the subsidies, and if a farmer can get more for camelina than he can for wheat or barley . . . well, I know which way I’d go.
Let’s face it: biofuels, while attractive in theory, are less than practical. If we’re serious about decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, let’s put our money into something that is actually economically feasible, instead of pie-in-the-sky schemes.
What would you rather have? $4.00/gal gasoline or $10.00/gal milk?
9 Responses to “A Conundrum for The Left”
By Wulfgar on Nov 21, 2007 | Reply
‘Don’t have time for a lengthy reply, other than to suggest two things:
1) The costs of gasoline at the pump is miniscule when one compares it to the overall cost of oil dependency, and
2) That’s a HUGE* problem for the right and the left.
By Mark Tokarski on Nov 21, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, well, you’re right. Got that? You’re right.
By Craig on Nov 21, 2007 | Reply
I’m not sure whether to faint or ask you if you are being serious.
So I’ll just close one eye and fart.
By Mark Tokarski on Nov 22, 2007 | Reply
I read it and found myself in agreement.
By Craig on Nov 22, 2007 | Reply
That’s what I thought, but I also thought it worth verifying.
By Mark Tokarski on Nov 22, 2007 | Reply
You’re right about a lot of stuff.
By Gman on Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
Mark T, does this mean you agree that it’s bad public policy for the gov’t to interfere in energy markets?
By Sarpy Sam on Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
I sit and rant and rave about this all the time and can’t draw a single comment. You put up one post about it and get a few. Go figure.
By Mark Tokarski on Nov 25, 2007 | Reply
Government usually undertakes those projects for which there is no immediate return and which require large investments. That’s why most of what you see around you, including the computer you are working on, started with government research. So yes, there is a role for government in doing the basic research and subsidizing alternative fuels. Otherwise id don’t get done.