Washington Post OpEd: "Ethanol Hype"

There's a fantastic op-ed on ethanol in today's Washington Post that pretty much sums it all upon this issue.  "Ethanol Hype: Corn Can't Solve Our Problem" is exactly what I've been arguing for a long time now.  I'm really glad to see an ecologist (and member of the National Academy of Sciences) and an economist from the University of Minnesota make such a strong case against not just corn-based ethanol, but also soybean and Brazilian sugarcane from newly cleared lands.  Here are the main points:

*"Lost in the ethanol-induced euphoria, however, is the fact that three of our most fundamental needs -- food, energy, and a livable and sustainable environment -- are now in direct conflict."

*"Our most fertile lands are already dedicated to food production."

*"If every one of the 70 million acres on which corn was grown in 2006 was used for ethanol, the amount produced would displace only 12 percent of the U.S. gasoline market."

*"The destruction of rainforests and other ecosystems to make new farmland would threaten the continued existence of countless animal and plant species and would increase the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

*"...it takes a lot of "old" fossil energy to make it: diesel to run tractors, natural gas to make fertilizer and, of course, fuel to run the refineries that convert corn to ethanol."

*Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is good, EXCEPT "that isn't the case for sugar-cane ethanol or soybean biodiesel from Brazil's newly cleared lands, including tropical forests and savannas...[which] releases immense amounts of greenhouse gases into the air, because much of the material in the plants and soil is broken down into carbon dioxide."

*"There are biofuel crops that can be grown with much less energy and chemicals than the food crops we currently use for biofuels...[and] can be grown on our less fertile land, especially land that has been degraded by farming."

There is so much misinformation about ethanol out there, it is great to see an article like this by two people who obviously know what they're talking about.  Now, can we stop wasting our time and money on ethanol idiocy and get with a crash program for increased energy efficiency and renewables - as Al Gore recommended the other day - that actually work (wind, solar, geothermal, cellolosic ethanol in cases where it is economical and environmentally friendly)?  Oh, and can we please stop using food needed for a poor, hungry world to instead feed our cars and SUV's?  All while actually HARMING the environment (see Washington Post article)?  If that's not immoral, I don't know what is.

•  A comment on Raising Kaine

  Thanks, Lowell. I couldn't agree more. As a sometimes farmer, I have been dismayed with the [ethanol] issue from the beginning. My farm journals say we would have to go from 80 million acres in corn to 200 million. This would be of course corporate farming. It would destroy forest land, particularly in Brazil and South America where it is being hyped. And if Americans stop using MIddle East oil, it does not help the environment. The oil will still be used, but by someone else - China, most likely, and will ease their way into negotiating for it. Thus ethanol will add to the damage to the environment by 200 million acres and the turning of Rain Forest into corn fields. This was an old Republican novelty idea from George Bush Sr. admin.

  by lowkell on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 04:41:04 AM PDT

  •  Why they bother with ethanol

    is a mystery to me. Natural gas is the cleanest fuel there is, with only some heat and water vapor as the residue. Cars and trucks can run on it. Schwann's Foods has a whole fleet of refrigerated trucks that run on it nationwide. And we have an ample supply too. Under West Virginia is enough natural gas to meet the energy needs of the US for 200 years. And the gas there is so pure right out of the ground that people in WV use it literally right out of the well. All it takes is a slightly different valve on the burner unit and you can use raw gas to fuel or power whatever you need. That cuts the processing costs by a whole hell of a lot, I would guess. If they want to be efficient in the use of corn, feed it to cows, collect the methane they produce from it and use that. That way you get double use out of the corn, grows food and provides energy. Makes as much sense, if not more, than the ethanol idea. But  natural gas is the way to go. We have plenty of it already. All we have to do is get it out of the ground. And given the number of capped gas wells in WV, that won't be hard at all.

    by Demfem on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:48:02 AM PDT

    •  Natural gas produces more than heat and water....

      It also produces carbon dioxide.

      And it's not like we've got enormous untapped sources of natural gas just waiting to be used, if we'd just decide to take advantage of it. Natural gas has been used for a long time for heating, and electrical generation.

      If your goal is to prevent smog, soot, and acid rain, then natural gas is a reasonable alternative. If your goal is to prevent global warming, then it's not much better than gasoline.

      by bartman on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:14:11 AM PDT

      •  Actually it is better than gasoline

        the main problem is i doubt we have 200 years of it left.  If Canadian exports to us decline for any reason the U.S. will see blackouts.

        by TJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:31:16 AM PDT

      •  Dead right

        The combustion of all hydrocarbons produces heat, water and carbon dioxide. That includes all alcohols, yes, including ethanol.

        We need an alternate source to hydrocarbon based fuel souces, period.

        by stitchmd on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 02:31:02 PM PDT

        •  Some biologically-produced hydrocarbons...

          are actually carbon-negative when you consider the whole cycle, i.e., the plants take more CO2 out of he atmosphere while growing than the amount released into the atmosphere while burning the fuel made from the plants.

          You can make a pretty efficient carbon-negative cycle based on a variety of plants, including grasses. Corn, however, is NOT conducive to carbon-negative fuel production.

          To summarize, as an environmentally safe alternative, I suggest that producers of corn should switch to production of porn.

          by kalmoth on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 03:20:34 PM PDT

          •  ...

            almost forgot - the last suggestion would utilize the currently underused natural ass supplies.

            by kalmoth on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 03:21:57 PM PDT

          •  Well,

            given the position we are in, we need to be better than carbon neutral, we need to be carbon negative. And growing things which sequester carbon dioxide only to use them to regenerate the carbon isn't going to help. It's better than using the carbon sources that have been sequestered for millions of years, for sure, but it's not the answer, particularly if the growing of such sources creates more ecologic damage.

            Since this is a late entry, there is a current rec'd diary on the orangutan population. That's only one example.

            by stitchmd on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:51:31 PM PDT

            •  Did you READ my post? n/t

              by kalmoth on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:28:42 PM PDT

              •  I read your post

                but I admit I did not read the linked article. Will try to get to it and perhaps get back to you. Will also pass it along to spouse who is active in sustainability issues, because we just had a discussion on this very thing yesterday.

                There are still a lot of questions, however, and even if it is carbon negative, there is still the issue of large amounts of land use required which also has environmental impact.

                There are no easy solutions.

                by stitchmd on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:29:05 AM PDT

    •  My understanding

      is that natural gas has peaked or is about too as well...so I don't think that can be substituted for oil.

      by PLS on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:15:17 AM PDT

      •  The vast majority of natural gas reserves

        are found in Russia and...you guessed it, IRAN!  No thanks.

        by lowkell on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:38:08 AM PDT

      •  Yes and no.

        About 35% of the world's known natgas reserves are in Russia and another 20% are in Iran.  Very little of these reserves has been developed (tapped).  There are also potentially unknown reserves in the Central Asian Republics, though it's doubted that these are comparatively significant.  Venezuela also has fairly significant reserves, mostly tapped already.  Hugo Chavez has been after Putin for years to form a natgas version of OPEC to include Iran.

        Beyond the obvious geopolitical problems involved with the West acquiring this gas, there are apparently technical and economic issues slowing development of these reserves.  Both Russia and Iran have recently been cozying up with China to get the technical assistance for development of their reserves, Iran having, a couple years ago, negotiated a deal worth around $60 billion.

        Then there are distribution problems - not enough pipelines from the gas fields to ports and most of the best pipeline routes would cross "disputed" territory, like Afghanistan.  Further, even if the reserves were to be tapped and these pipelines built, the facilities for liquefying/storing the gas at outbound ports for tanker transport aren't yet built, and there aren't nearly enough parallel facilities at the potential receiving ports.

        That said, if every bit of known natgas was tapped and all the required distribution facilities were built, the reserves would probably not last all that much longer (a couple decades?) than what is projected for oil.

        by sxwarren on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:10:44 AM PDT

    •  Natural Gas has peaked in North America ...

      and there has been a risk that, in high demand, we could have a collapse of the system that would threaten not just electricity but home heating/hot water heating.

      And, fertilizer manufacturing has been moving offshore due to uncertain and rising natural gas.

      And, NG is a CO2 emitter.

      And, ...

      by A Siegel on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:31:42 AM PDT

      •  I am not up to date on

        Natural Gas supplies in America.

        But I remember that in the past the oil industry used to just it at the wells as a waste product.

        Are they still doing it?

        Are they burning in other parts of the world? They are all about restricting supplies and not about providing great quanities at cheap prices.

        by EasyRider on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:00:35 AM PDT

        •  There are gas flares ...

          for example in Russia, Persian Gulf, West African coast that are, more and more, being diverted for use.

          Issue is that Natural Gas is far (FAR) more a regional supply issue than oil. Oil is basically a fungible good as a worldwide commodity. NG is less a global product, with LNG changing that somewhat.

          Note, I wrote that NA has passed peak natural gas. There are indications that this is the case elsewhere as well.  

          Best book out there: High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis:

          Blackouts, rising gas prices, changes to the Clean Air Act, proposals to open wilderness and protected offshore areas to gas drilling, and increasing dependence on natural gas for electricity generation. What do all these developments have in common, and why should we care?

          In this timely expose, author Julian Darley takes a hard-hitting look at natural gas as an energy source that rapidly went from nuisance to crutch. Darley outlines the implications of our increased dependence on this energy source and why it has the potential to cause serious environmental, political, and economic consequences. In High Noon for Natural Gas readers can expect to find a critical analysis of government policy on energy, as well as a meticulously researched warning about our next potentially catastrophic energy crisis.

          Did you know that:

          • Natural Gas (NG) is the second most important energy source after oil;
          • In the U.S. alone, NG is used to supply 20% of all electricity and 60% of all home heating;
          • NG is absolutely critical to the manufacture of agricultural fertilizers;
          • In the U.S. the NG supply is at critically low levels, and early in 2003 we came within days of blackouts and heating shutdowns;
          • Matt Simmons, the world’s foremost private energy banker, is now warning that economic growth in the U.S. is under threat due to the looming NG crisis?

          Note, re the fertilizer, this is why one of the proposed concept pieces from Energize America focuses on non-NG based production of fertilizer using renewable energy sources (wind power) as the key input.

          by A Siegel on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:36:47 AM PDT

          •  Great stuff, Adam.

            You really know what you're talking about on energy issues, no doubt about it.  And I say that as someone who worked at the Energy Information Administration for 17+ years.  Good work!

            By the way, Iran may not turn out to be much of a natural gas exporter, because it needs the gas for "reinjection" at existing oil fields, plus power production for its rapidly growing population.  This is probably part of the reason why they're looking at nuclear power, despite having the second-largest natural gas reserves in the world.  Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense economically for Iran to consider nuclear when they're flaring off large volumes of natural gas every day.

            by lowkell on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:49:30 AM PDT

            •  Thank you ...

              for the kind comment ... bit by bit ... learning new things every day ...

              By the way, re fossil fuel producing countries -- many greatly undervalue the fossil fuels in their own economies ("subsidize") which makes it much harder to go with energy efficient choices. Why spend extra money on a hybrid vehicle if you pay 20 cents or so a gallon for fuel.

              Same with "free" electricity.

              Iran has this problem and, as per the nuclear power, is trying to produce itself out of the problem with growing population and even faster growing energy demands.  "Efficiency" is a hard sell there.

              by A Siegel on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 09:56:25 AM PDT

              •  Funny

                that we would say that when we subsidise a trillion a year military, uncounted funds for "covert" operations, prop up tyrants around the world and are currently spending american and iraqi blood to support our system to maintain "cheap" energy.

                If only for a second we could see ourselves as the rest of the world sees us.

                by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:51:30 AM PDT

          •  Excellent post

            Have you seen those commercials, or maybe they're regional to California, where you see things half lit up, a big pot of water on a stove and only half of it is boiling, etc.

            Here's the jist: Some energy company wants to build new "clean energy plants" using... guess what? Natural gas!

            Funny, I haven't seen those ads in the past couple months though...

            Another pair of ads I wish I could show to my relocalization group is the plastics/chemical mfr ads where things start shrinking/evaporating in the woman's home and at the doctor's office... all the oil-based stuff disappears. I want to play those and say "THIS is what is happening to oil, and this is what things will be like after the oil is gone. No more green plastic doggie bones... Fido will have to chew on (GASP) a REAL bone!"

            Yes... natural gas is at or past peak in North America, and the US imports HALF of Canada's supply every year. Plus, gas wells are not like oil wells -- they go empty pretty much immediately, there is no slow decline. So once it's gone, it's gone. You can't pump harder or get more out with water.

            I really wish people would watch The End of Suburbia, which goes over a lot of this stuff.

            by willers on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:32:24 AM PDT

            •  Natural gas

              is astonishingly clean as compared to coal and oil.
              Stop watching oil company commercials and jumping on board the suicide train. Its' unhealthy for the rest of us.

              by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:55:15 AM PDT

              •  Yes ... absolutely true

                ... that it is much cleaner ...

                Yet, that does not get into the issue of peak natural gas, pricing uncertainty, etc ...

                Willers is right about watching End of Suburbia ...

                by A Siegel on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:59:12 AM PDT

                •  Our whole production system

                  is screwed frankly. The "Just in time" religion has massively increased our energy useage and inefficiency for one thing.

                  And like many here i dont think natural gas is a final solution. But it can be a temporary stall while we switch to the only truely renewable solar.. aka biofuel. And maybe next century space based or new science based technologies.

                  by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:08:24 AM PDT

              •  What are you talking about?

                Where did I say anything about the cleanliness of natural gas versus oil? They ALL suck -- oil, natural gas, coal, ethanol, biodiesel... I'm certainly no friend of any of them.

                The commericials I'm talking about were produced by the natural gas and plastics industries. Did you even read what I wrote?

                As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't make an attempt to live self-sufficiently and sustainably is on the suicide train, not me.

                by willers on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:09:22 AM PDT

                •  My friend

                  you dont live self sufficiently. Or sustainably. You're not even within miles of doing so. Our world is interdependant to a level that almost noone understands.

                  To produce that solar panel you may use it required perhaps ten cross country trips on a big truck. To produce the packaging maybe five. To produce the information and advertising required several industries dedicated to doing just that. All requiring material and massive energy supplies. The raw materials and some components likely made their way here via city sized ocean tankers. To produce the tankers, trucks, enerty supplies that run them, required other even larger, more energy and material dependant industres. All those industries required multiple large infrastructure projects  which again... you get the idea.

                  Our system is more complex and organic than you can imagine. And the more high tech and value added ironically the more energy and industrial infrastructure it required.

                  To live by your ideal would require us to go back to a pre-civilisation state. Would you really like to live in a world without medicine, education, communication etc etc etc? Do you really want to think about even what it takes to allow you to sit typing on a high tech plastic and metal system that sends information across a huge high tech international system to communicate via DKOS?

                  A simple example. Bottled water. Rather than the incredibly efficient system that delivers water to your tap. Do you happen to drink water transported in diesel using plastic and metal trucks out of oil-based plastic containers that required multiple trips in same labelled with paper labels that again required the same?

                  We cant go backwards and become hunter/gatherer/farmers. That would require the death of most of the worlds population. We can only continually seek new, better, more efficient, more healthy, more life friendly solutions to our new and old problems.

                  by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 12:16:23 PM PDT

                  •  Bless your heart

                    I don't use solar. I don't use bottled water.

                    I was just out planting potatoes using a very old grape hoe. If, by some mysterious circumstance, my computer and internet connection were to evaporate into the ether, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. I'd miss it, sure... but my life would go on just fine. I'd read a book or spin wool or something (yes, I also have sheep).

                    The problem with your argument is this:

                    To live by your ideal would require us to go back to a pre-civilisation state. Would you really like to live in a world without medicine, education, communication etc etc etc?

                    What do you consider "pre-civilization"? Ancient Rome, Greece or Egypt? Nope, pretty civilized. The Native American nations? I hope you don't consider them "uncivilized"... them's fightin' words. The Aztecs? The Celts? Babylonians? The Chinese? The Japanese?

                    Hmmm... Perhaps there's a fundamental problem with what you personally consider to be "civilization."

                    Do you know nothing of herbal medicines and other natural treatments? Do you believe that education would suddenly cease to exist and the knowledge accumulated up to this point would be forgotten? Are you really saying that communication between human beings would suddenly stop?

                    No, medicine and communication wouldn't be as good as they are today, but they would still be there. We aren't all going to step into a time machine and come out naked and dirty and grunt at each other.

                    OTOH, if you think the world can magically continue the way it has been since the industrial revolution, you need to smell the organic shade grown coffee (which I don't drink, BTW).

                    As James Howard Kunstler says, "We have to make other arrangements."

                    We're replacing our propane stove and dryer with an antique wood cookstove and clothesline. We already heat our home with wood, most of which we cut ourselves. We're going to change out our electric well pump for a mechanical pump (already found one at a yard sale) and windmill. I get 90% of my clothing from yard sales and thrift stores. We don't drive to town more than once every two weeks or so. We grow and cook a lot of our own food. I use herbal medicines and home-made soaps. We are getting rid of our flush toilets and will be moving to the Humanure system. I sew my clothing on a 100+ year old treadle sewing machine.

                    Half the time, if there's an outage during the day, I don't even notice the power's gone off.

                    My husband and I founded a local chapter of Relocalize.net to try and bring people together as a community on a local scale. Our first meeting was the showing of The End of Suburbia.

                    I think I have a better idea than most how interconnected our modern society is. And I think I'm doing a better job than most at working to remove myself from it.

                    So perhaps before you assume to know who I am and how I live, you should ask me. If you admire me so much, I'd appreciate being actually shown a little more respect in the future.

                    by willers on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 02:57:29 PM PDT

                    •  Most people arent like you

                      and i dont even think you are. Yes you live more self sufficiently than most. But most people Cannot live like you do. They have no choice. There are five BILLION people on the planet. You cannot support that many people with subsistance agriculture. You cannot give each of them a small farm. They will not do without medicine, manufactured clothing, transportation etc etc.

                      Yes i do consider ancient rome and native american cultures uncivilised. No medicine. Rome had public sewage but only for the rich. Rome was a slave society.. most "romans" lives were hell. Native americans mostly lived a subsistance existance. Some tribes did well but most were what we'd consider dirt poor.

                      I dont think you know what life you're asking people to go back to. And i dont think you realise what a hell on earth our lives would be if we did. Just consider sanitation alone. Shall we have ten percent of each community digging trenches to bury the waste (which can no longer be processed as there is no real industry to support processing plants)? And who lives without their tiny parcel of land and the garden that partially feeds them to do so?

                      by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:04:36 PM PDT

                      •  i live very close to the way willers does

                        a lot of us do. some of us - like willers and farmerchuck - are pretty far along. others - like me - have been doing it a few years, but still have a lot to learn.

                        of course, i'm also doing essentially reclamation work on my acreage, so i have that to contend with in addition to the rest of it.

                        i'm learning how to make cheese while we, um, speak. :-) my first batch is a maybe-maybe not, so i'm reading about paneer and am going ahead and trying it tonight. given my homemade yogurt and yogurt cheese blow the commercial crap out of the water, i figure my homemade cheeses ought to, as well.

                        and like willers, other than a gas powered mower because not only do i have five acres to mow but much of it is very steep, i also use hand tools - or my hands - for making gardens and planting and weeding. it's no big deal.

                        besides, while the rest of America is going on power walks or dragging out their treadmills or joining gyms or simply bemoaning their fat asses while sitting on the sofa in front of the boob tube, we're gardening. we don't need gyms. we're just doing what human bodies were made to do.

                        i'm not yet to the point of completely sustaining myself on what i grow, but since i've gotten here, i've gotten lots of fruit going - including grapes (harvested my first last year) and elderberries (which i'm going to try and make my first wine with this year) and raspberries and blueberries and strawberries - and i'll be planting fair sized pecan trees and fingers crossed peaches this fall.

                        and yes, i may be female and i may be short, but i can plant trees taller than me all by my little bitty self.

                        but etc etc etc and long way around to say, it's hardly subsistence living. and i'm surrounded by people who are feeding themselves - raising their own cattle and/or goats, even deer in a few cases, giant gardens, etc.

                        and they're eating a lot better than most urbanites i know.

                        they do bug control with free range chickens and turkeys and guineas.

                        and who needs petroleum based fertilizers when you have animal poop from your own critters? goat poop is the best, imo, although a lot of people i know keep their chickens in chicken tractors which they move from spot to spot in the garden, and they swear their chicken poop blows that goat poop away.

                        i have a well, too. i need to replace to pump. i'll probably be going with a manual simply because we get outages here, due to ice storms and tornadoes - and having had to depend on town water which bit the dust for over a week in January (along with everyone's electricity), i'd prefer not to go that way again.

                        i'm busy, yea. i'm busy as hell. most people who are trying to do what willers and i are doing are really busy.

                        but so?

                        and having lived in San Francisco for a number of years and Manhattan for one or two, i do believe i know urban civilization. it's fine. but this is, imo, more civilized.

                        besides, when you grow your own tomatoes and watermelons and make your own cheese and bread and prefer a book to the latest whambam movie, who the hell needs to drive?

                        by cookiebear on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:51:34 PM PDT

                •  Oh and ps

                  I actually truely admire people like you (the Ed Begley ideal?) deeply. You at least TRY to solve the worlds problems by taking the first step in your own lives.

                  "You people" brought us recycling, the environmental movement, er... biofuels (lol), solar power, electric cars, etc etc etc etc

                  by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:31:27 PM PDT

    •  clean

      Saying natural gas is clean is proof evidence that you've never walked a gas field before.  Natural gas is not clean.

      by seamus on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:53:17 AM PDT

      •  Gas is cleaner than coal

        but that doesn't mean it's "clean."  It's also very expensive and not particularly "fungible."  Getting natural gas from where it's located (Siberia and Iran, mainly) to markets (the industrialized countries, plus increasingly China) is expensive, environmentally damaging, difficult, and geopolitically problematic. It's definitely not the way we want to go.

        by lowkell on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:00:05 AM PDT

        •  It's located in West Virginia, which is

          right in the country. No treaties, no pipelines from other countries needed. And there is a lot of it up there. Capped gas wells all over the place. I used to run my house off my gas well, right out of the ground. It gave me free energy to run my furnace/ac and stove. And it wasn't imported from anywhere. Before you go off on a rant about where the gas is, look in your own back yard. Or read the part of the comment where I said that the gas is in WEST VIRGINIA. And it is not gas that is a byproduct of an oil well, either.

          by Demfem on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:16:17 AM PDT

          •  yes

            it is located here.  and it's dirty as sin.  Damaging local water supplies, aquifers, and fragmenting wildlife habitat.  I am in your backyard and have walked thousands of wells (mostly in western Pennsylvania).  The oil & gas companies here have already acknowledged to me that we're running out.  Re-tapping old capped wells can only bring out some additional gas because of new technologies, but the resource remains very limited.  Remember, the cycle of a new well is typically at most 20-30 years.  A re-tapped well?  Not typically that much.  not to mention that tapping into old fields often results in blown out wells.

            We've seen an explosion in gas wells in the last year which only means that the gas will empty out sooner.  We're already having to use our technologies to dig 2-3 miles deep for the Trenton Black River.  But that will fade too.  Believe me, the gas isn't there for any length of time and it isn't clean.

            by seamus on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:24:46 AM PDT

            •  The gas wells I am referring to are not in gas

              fields, they are on farms and homesteads scattered throughout West Virginia. Everyone of my neighbors had at least one capped well on their farms or property. They don't make a mess, they don't smell, and the mountains are full of them. The gas can provide a stop-gap measure to keep our energy needs met while we develop other cleaner technologies. I am not saying gas is the only answer, but I am saying we have enough to get us through until we find a better way. And without depending on the Middle East for oil. And it may give off CO2, but does it give off as much as gasoline and diesel? Does it also give off all the other stuff they do?? No, it doesn't. So, it's not a perfect solution, but it is a cleaner fuel, which we have in abundance, which we can use until we get clean energy technology developed and working nationally.

              by Demfem on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:39:40 AM PDT

              •  Demfem, quit pushing and save it for yourself

                The U.S. gas consumption would suck Pa dry in a week or so.  It wouldn't last long enough to make it worthwhile to collect it.

                by TJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:36:06 AM PDT

                •  WV has more than PA has.. LOL but hey

                  whatever you want to think is fine with me. This is America, and everyone has the right to be wrong.. :D

                  by Demfem on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:05:49 AM PDT

              •  actually

                your farms are in gas fields.  It is the same thing here.  Surface properties themselves have limited relationship to the boundaries of gas fields.  If you have wells on your farm, your are most likely in a gas field.  They don't just randomly plop wells down.  

                West Virginia isn't more abundant in gas than PA.  They are both being hit hard and we do not have enough to sustain our natural gas demand.  Period.

                by seamus on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:45:20 AM PDT

            •  Bottom line: It's a finite resource.

              Re-tapping old capped wells can only bring out some additional gas because of new technologies, but the resource remains very limited.

              This is like sticking more straws into the same glass of soda -- you don't have any more soda to begin with, and you only drain it faster.

              by willers on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:34:56 AM PDT

              •  To be precise, its like buying a box of ...

                ... longer straws, when you have a carton of bottles that were not finished using the older, shorter straws.

                Getting more of the gas from the fields does not create more gas in the field.

                by BruceMcF on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:29:45 PM PDT

          •  Gas in PA

            A friend has put together a nice gas consulting business. It turns out that you can hit gas literally everywhere in SW PA, and many people are able to get free energy AND pay off their homes for the cost of the well (<$50K) and a pipe sticking out of the ground.</p>

            Many municipalities are able to heat their buildings just by drilling a well some place out back.

            by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:35:16 AM PDT

          •  World Proven Natural Gas Reserves

            Courtesy of the US Energy Information Administration:

            TOTAL: 6,043.7 trillion cubic feet (Tcf)
            Russia: 1,680.0 Tcf (28% of world total)
            Iran: 940.0 Tcf (16%)
            Qatar: 910.0 Tcf (15%)
            Saudi: 235.0 Tcf (4%)
            UAE: 212.1 Tcf (4%)

            That's 67% of the world's proven natural gas reserves in 5 countries.  No rant, just the facts.

            by lowkell on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:38:08 AM PDT

    •  Better idea for what to do with corn

      Don't feed it to cows--it makes them sick. Cows should be eating grass. Feed the corn to people, build communities so that the people can WALK where they need to go, or ride bicycles--this saves energy AND improves health.

      by Alice in Florida on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:05:04 AM PDT

      •  Better yet,

        stop feeding the cows, period. 4% of greenhouse gases are emitted from bovine orifices. And that doesn't count all of the upstream and downstream production.

        Reducing the American beef habit is the single most important thing we can do to end world hunger and reduce carbon emissions. Unlike transportation or electricity, beef is completely unnecessary, and we could flip the switch immediately.

        by peacemonger on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 09:01:17 AM PDT

        •  diversity

          Beef has the nice advantage though, that it does not generate monocultures as wheat or soy beans do. Bovine pastures are a great source of biodiversity in cultured landscapes, and I would not be happy to see them all go away.

          by foreign noise on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 09:58:10 AM PDT

        •  That

          is a positively nutty statement.

          Reducing the American beef habit is the single most important thing we can do to end world hunger and reduce carbon emissions

          The capitalist economic system is the mechanism ensuring persistant world hunger. We have produced food surpluses for a very long time and the singular goal of the federal ag system is to keep production down. And carbon emissions come from that little hot rod you drive my friend. And your insistance on getting a new one every  couple years. And your intense need to drink exactly the same water produced out of your tap from a plastic bottle produced and shipped thousands of miles from you and then filled, boxed, palleted, shipped again, unboxed, unpalletted, those wastes shipped again.. etc etc etc etc.

          People would be STUNNED at the level of waste their "healthy" or "ecological/new age" habits produce.

          by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:01:10 AM PDT

          •  Not my tap

            that's the 2nd time you've mentioned bottled water being the same as what comes out of my tap.  You don't know my tap!  If I could I'd send you some of the super-hard sulfury Satan's piss that comes out of my well and you could see (and taste and smell) for yourself.  I couldn't live here without bottled water.

            by Turquine on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:26:57 PM PDT

        •  as it turns out,

          new diets and medications for cattle reduce the problem rather drastically. I know of research in NZ and in Germany on this, and since I don't follow this subject intensively, there are probably other projects I don't know of.

          Sorry that you can't use global warming as an excuse to force veganism on the rest of us, but reality is like that sometimes.

          I'm not sure what the carbon balance is on barbecues, though given that charcoal is made from wood, it can't be all that far off carbon-neutral.

          The bad news. . . we'll probably be spending $1 or so more per pound on meat sooner or later when laws requiring these diets and medications are passed.

          by alizard on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 12:06:08 PM PDT

          •  Will it stop them from farting?

            Because I'm sick of all these farting cows polluting the atmosphere and causing global warming.

            by Turquine on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:20:42 PM PDT

            •  that's the idea...

              though if you want a more entertaining solution, you can reduce the greenhouse activity of cow farts by a factor of 26 by simply igniting them. Start a digicam first so you can share the fun with the rest of us.

              Warning: the farmers and the cows themselves might take exception to this.

              by alizard on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 02:35:33 PM PDT

    •  I don't know that there's all that much there,

      but you're probably not exaggerating much about the purity.  There are a lot of private, backyard oil wells in the area around Weirton/Steubenville/Mingo Junction (just west of Pittsburgh) that produce "crude" that is nearly as clear and sweet as what you put in your car. And the area, once internationally known for its superior steel production, has an "interesting" local culture as well, beyond being the birthplace of Dean Martin and where a significant part of The Deerhunter was filmed.  The rural folks there are intensely private and in absolutely no hurry to pump their reserves out.

      by sxwarren on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:27:40 AM PDT

    •  Agree

      If we are depending on biofuels to solve all of our problems with oil, then we are in big trouble. First, E100 or E85 gets crappy mpg because a gallon of E100/85 contains a lot less energy than a gallon of oil. Second, there is simply not enough cropland or water to grow enough corn, soy, etc. to replace even a significant slice of the liquid fuels that we get from oil. Third, while agribusiness would love the pickup in corn and soy demand, just about everybody else would feel the negative effects of higher food prices. I could go on but you get the idea. Personally, I feel electricity is the way to go as a alternative transportation fuel via PHEVs and eventually electric cars.

      by phasmatis on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:45:20 AM PDT

      •  Post facts

        not oilco created bs.

        I drive a truck that is 83 feet long and fully loaded weighs 80,000 pounds. It gets 6.5 to 7.2mpg. If converted to biofuels it would.. get 6.5 to 7.2mpg. IF converted to say.. gasoline... it wouldnt even be able to pull the load and would likely get along the lines of 4mpg or less.

        And get out of your little inner city apartment and see the country your talking about before you make grandiose pronouncements about land use. Visit rural Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, KAnsas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Missouri etc etc etc.

        Guess what folks the whole country ISNT just like your little citified urban hole.

        by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:05:39 AM PDT

        •  what are you talking about?

          With respect to biofuel based on biomass grown by conventional agriculture methods,  phasmatis is 100% correct, and I don't think you'll find anyone who's knowledgable on alternative energy around here that disagrees.

          The laws of nature are the same whether you live in a Manhattan apartment or can walk to the edge of one's property and contemplate the rear end of a cow 50 yards away. (the place I lived in before this one... rural with not much of a view)

          Known facts like crop yields per acre, process efficiencies , and the number of acres available for agriculture in the US can be looked up by anyone with an Internet connect, and no amount of ADM propaganda or romantic BS about "The American Farmer" can change it.

          The EROEI of ethanol based on mechanized ag biomass is about 1.5:1 plus or minus (numerous studies mostly funded by USDA)... while the energy balance invented by Big Oil researchers like Pimental is negative, the truth says that "you can't do it that way", 1.5:1 isn't good enough.

          Cellulosic ethanol is a lot better, or will be once there are plants in full production, but once one tries to scale it up by having farmers farming things like switchgrass, we're not talking 90 cents/gallon wholesale anymore, the cost more than doubles, then one gets into the "not enough land" problem. I regard it as a transitional technology.

          Algae-based biomass, however, probably can be scaled up because it does a far better job of converting solar energy to usable product; it doesn't waste energy on things leaves, flowers, stalks, roots that the plant can use but your diesel engine can't.

          The main reason why ethanol is pushed so hard is that ADM can spend lots of money buying public opinion, but their agenda is siphoning our tax dollars into their bank accounts via subsidy.

          by alizard on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 12:23:00 PM PDT

          •  YAWN

            Aint ignorance bliss. You obviously know nothing about biofuel other than what you've read in a few pretty much ripped apart "studies" by a couple of loons with a calculator who a: knew nothing about agriculture b: knew nothing about potential biofuel c: had seen neither any of the potential biofuel tech methods nor the  land they claimed didnt exist. In fact the most "famous" study, the one everyone quotes from was done by a couple morons with a calculator sitting in some hole using google apparently.

            Algae biomass is :get this knucklehead: one of the many potential solutions. And :also get this knucklehead: It will also have economic and ecological costs. How about devoting thousands of miles of ocean floor to aquaculture, with the incident polllution, ecological destruction etc. NAaaaaah that wont have an effect on anything!!! MUCH better to dump pollutants in um.. WATER in the system that is the BASE point for the rest of our ecology than um.. say.. farm land that has lain fallow for decades!!!!! Because.. well you havent ever been more than 50 miles from an urban center but BOY YOU KNOW about the land in america!

            DEAR GOD do you IDIOTS not READ? Do you not understand f*cking SCIENCE and ECONOMICS?

            Here it is for you SIMPLY. WE have FOUR CHOICES:

            1. FOSSIL FUELS - and massive pollution , war, economic collapses and eventually.. oblivion.

            2. Nuclear - and eventually MASSIVE global health and biological crises that are permanent and nonfixable.

            3. BIOFUELS- CURRENTLY PRODUCEABLE ONES. Soy,corn,kelp and ANYTHING ELSE we can think to try. We dont have TIME to wait on some "cool hippy weird plant number 27" or the decades to create and implement production, processing and acceptance of that. But then the ECOLOGY, ECONOMICS, HUMAN HEALTH and the survival arent as important as your Sandal wearin hippy ass volvo drivin designer vegetable solutona are they.

            4. Space - whch would require the destruction of the classist space agency we have and the cool high paying do nothing jobs it creates for a certain subclass. It would require the next step in human advancement - the industrialisation of space. And that means the slide rule boys would no longer be in charge. Kossacks would take up arms to stop it.

            So as i see it we have ONE choice. Biofuels. LOts of them. Try everything. And the great thing about economic systems bubba : If corn is less efficient than wheat grass or soy or whatever hippyass solution you have an erection for it will go bye bye! If you think ADM or anyone else will stick with corn when they could go to solution X and cut their overhead by y% making MORE Profit you simply know nothing nothing nothing about economics. And if you think an engine CARES whether the viscuous liquid in its fuel tank comes from soy or corn or dandelions you obviously know nothing about science.

            I get SO TIRED of having these arguments with vested willfully misinformed people who absolutely insist their hemp wearing solution is the Only possible one because OH MY GOD evil Industry might for the love of God be involved somehow!

            by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:16:18 PM PDT

            •  the 1.5 to 1 number I cite is

              FROM USDA FUNDED STUDIES BY BIOFUEL PROPONENTS... and my analysis of cellulosic biodiesel is based on Canadian government studies of iogen's work which you obviously not only have never read, but would very probably misunderstand if you did read them. Or you'd be screaming that iogen and the Canadian government is in cahoots with Big Oil.

              And if you had ever clicked to the energy and public policy page in my sig, you'd know that I'm a proponent of the NASA space-based solar power system, which Bush defunded the research on.

              All you've exposed is your ignorance and mathematical illiteracy, and the shininess of your tinfoil hat. You're as ignorant on what's going on with alternative energy in the real world as Kunstler is.

              Your best contribution to alternative energy discussion is dead silence while people with a clue say things worth reading.

              by alizard on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 02:28:56 PM PDT

              •  OH please

                go smoke your hemp shirt while you scream at everyone to use YOUR solution or die good god.

                by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:04:31 PM PDT

                •  thank you for your

                  negative contribution to the sum of human knowledge.

                  by alizard on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:54:45 PM PDT

          •  ARGH

            "then one gets into the "not enough land" problem"

            IF i hear this falsehood repeated once more by ignorant fools my head is going to explode. I just wish ONE of you people ever got more than 50 miles from your house or an airport so you'd have a CLUE what you're talking about.

            by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:17:48 PM PDT

            •  Can you use Excel?

              Numbers about crop yield per acre are available. Numbers describing how much agricultural land exists in the US are available. Numbers with respect to how much ethanol can be distilled from a bushel of corn and how much energy it takes are available.

              There is no conspiracy to hide them from you, the only barrier to entry is your inability to use google.

              If you don't like what existing studies by competent people show, crank the numbers above into a spreadsheet and prove that everyone is wrong.

              by alizard on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 02:33:15 PM PDT

              •  Conspiracy?

                Seriously get a grip. Ill let you get back to using google for your "scientific" reccomendations. Time to go talk to serious people.

                by cdreid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:06:15 PM PDT

                •   If you don't have numbers, it ain't science

                  So go talk to your scientifically illiterate buds about how our farmers can grow us out of energy trouble... the rest of us have grownup things to discuss.

                  by alizard on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:20:47 PM PDT

        •  My response

          After calling me a oil company hack for my post, please allow me the courtesy of a response.

          On ethanol's smaller energy punch as compared to oil, a couple of reputable sources :

          Harvard Journal

          But here’s the rub. Ethanol’s energy content is significantly less than gasoline’s. You need 1.5 gallons of ethanol to drive the same distance you go on a gallon of gasoline.

          Scientific American

          But there is less to ethanol than meets the eye. The first problem is that a standard barrel (42 gallons) of ethanol is worth about 28 gallons of gasoline because it contains only 80,000 British thermal units (Btu) of energy, versus about 119,000 for unleaded regular. If you fill your tank with E85,you will run dry about 33 percent sooner. Even if a gallon of ethanol were cheaper at the pump, drivers would have to buy many more gallons to go the same distance.

          On the statements that Ethanol can't come close to producing enough fuel to replace oil and will adversely effect food security , some more from the Scientific American :

          In the meantime, relying on ethanol from corn is an unsustainable strategy: agriculture will never be able to supply nearly enough crop, converting it does not combat global warming, and socially it can be seen as taking food off people’s plates. Backers defend corn ethanol as a bridge technology to cellulose ethanol, but for the moment it is a bridge to nowhere.

          As for biofuels being the only possible way to go as mentioned below by creid, I would respectfully disagree. Here is a link to some information about plug-in hybrids . This is just a little bit of info and if you are interested there is a tremendous amount of information out in the public domain.

          P.S. I live in a single family home in a rural area.

          by phasmatis on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 02:16:19 PM PDT

    •  Natural Gas cannot

      be used in our current car fleet; ethanol can be used today by the entire car fleet in concentration of 10 to 85% depending on the particular vehicle.

      by Sam I Am on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:55:48 AM PDT

      •  Cars can be converted to gas

        or gas can be converted by chemical reactions to usable liquids. Plenty of cars run on gas right now. The conversion technology is on the shelf.

        by FishOutofWater on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:13:44 AM PDT

        •  Natural gas is superbly efficient in

          heating homes and commercial buildings.  It should be reserved for that purpose.

          by Sam I Am on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:18:40 PM PDT

      •  However

        The fact that ethanol has a certain degree of vehicle compatibility is not dispositive of the other reasons why ethanol is a bad, bad idea.

        FYI, in Australia, starting before the US did, they moved to ethanol in a very big way, and then had to hastily back it on down. Ethanol blends in the 20% range turn out to cause severe premature engine wear. Mostly due to the fact that ethanol washes oil films off of the inside cylinder walls of the engine.

        No lubrication for the piston rings? Kiss that motor goodbye.

        by marquer on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:32:23 PM PDT

      •  Any car can run on 100% natural gas after a ...

        ... gas conversion. Almost no car sold in the US can run on E100.

        That's not the problem, the problem is that natural gas is another non-renewable resource, produced in dwindling amounts in this country, and therefore not part of the path to Energy Independence full stop, let alone sustainable energy independence.

        by BruceMcF on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:36:44 PM PDT

    •  natural gas vs. hydrogen gas

      Hm, it sounds like you have gotten natural gas mixed up with hydrogen. Hydrogen (H2) combines with oxygen (O2) to make water vapor (H2O), but natural gas consists mainly of methane (CH4) and ethane (C2H6) and does produce carbon dioxide when burnt, though 30% less than oil.

      Hydrogen has a big long term potential in my opinion, but is dependent on a lot of technological solutions. It's potential lies in the fact that we can produce it, as opposed to oil and natural gas. A long term battery storage, possibly powered by solar cells in the desert...

      by foreign noise on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 09:55:32 AM PDT

  •  Not to mention

    in some Midwest locales, farmers have stopped rotating their crops, growing corn year after year instead. It is frightening to me that they'd so easily give up these practices, opting instead to pile on the fertilizers and pesticides.

    by yinn on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:43:24 AM PDT

    •  Frightening, but not surprising. (nt)

      by willers on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:36:33 AM PDT

  •  As Iowa Goes...

    Just one of the many reasons why the prospect of essentially eliminating the importance of the Iowa caucuses makes me happy is that we can finally have a relatively honest national discussion about ethanol.

    by GreenSooner on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:34:58 AM PDT

    •  When is that in prospect?

      The present events creating a "Tsunami Tuesday" have made Iowa all the more important.

      And no substantial improvement on that is yet in sight.

      by BruceMcF on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:38:52 PM PDT

  •  Amazing timing, lowkell.

    Just yesterday I was talking with an environmentalist friend of mine (who I finally got to register on DailyKos) about the dangers of corn-based ethanol, and I had only remembered reading some concerns about it somewhere before.  And then bam, like an hour after I got off the phone with him, you post your diary!  :-)

    by BruinKid on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:26:03 AM PDT

•  What I want to know

  Why can't ethanol be produced from the byproducts left from corn, the stalks, husks, leaves, etc... Same thing with wheat?  It's all short term, because isn't the real answer in fuel cells?

  by ljm on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 04:58:00 AM PDT

  •  It can, in theory.

    But the technology right now isn't quite there, at least not at economically competitive levels.

    by lowkell on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:00:46 AM PDT

  •  The so-called by-products of all plant

    growth left to their own devices become the soil in which future plants/crops are grown. If you take away everything for alternate use, and fail to let the 'by-products' return to the soil you are mining your soil, which is what corporate agriculture has been doing. In fact, all agriculture does this except for sustainable agriculture, which uses rotations in which restorative crops are grown to be turned back into the soil to replace what was mined by removing food crops in prior rotations. The deep dark loam on virgin forest floors used to be the tree leaves. If you never let the leaves fall to the forest floor and instead removed them, eventually there would be no nutrients left for the trees.

    We can't grow fuel to live our mobile lifestyle. Bicycles and horse-drawn buggies are more sustainable.

    by Halcyon on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:05:26 AM PDT

    •  Good point.

      Ruining the soil is not exactly a smart strategy, nor is requiring a massive increase in petroleum-based fertilizers to compensate for the loss of material that builds soil.

      by lowkell on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:06:37 AM PDT

      •  The point is not accurate

        Soils can be maintained in other ways than she describes. Organic matter does need to be cycled into soil to maintain soil productivity, but finite amounts of fuel can be withdrawn from soil while maintaining fertility. The real question is how much can we extract and still feed ourselves.

        by FishOutofWater on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:29:31 AM PDT

        •  And the answer is, more with perennial grasses ..

          ... than with annual grasses, on a sustainable basis, because the plants don't need to constantly reproduce the root systems.

          by BruceMcF on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:40:31 PM PDT

    •  Not true about the soil

      Plants get their cellulose from water and carbon dioxide.

      The soil is a source of other nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous, but the VAST majority of a plant's mass comes from the air, not from the soil.

      by bartman on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:16:57 AM PDT

      •  Good point

           and one that many people do not understand.

        by happy camper on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:18:24 AM PDT

      •  True, but

        ... the parts of the plant's biochemistry that are not the "vast majority" are still essential to its growth. Halcyon's main point-- that we can't perpetually mine the soil without taking measures to restore its fertility-- is still correct.

        That said, it is somehow amusing to realize that the forest trees outside my window are mostly made out of air.

        by DBunn on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:53:08 AM PDT

      •  Soil is a combination of ground up rock

        and organic matter. It's the organic component that ensures healthy soil for growing crops. Without the organic matter the productivity is vastly reduced (in absence of artificial fertilizer). Organic matter enables crops to endure drought or flood better due to its ability to absorb/drain better than depleted dirt. Also, available nitrogen is absent in depleted soil, whereas the restorative cropping replaces the nitrogen (assuming legumes are used). In any event, soil without organic matter doesn't grow much unless you artificially add chemical fertilizer made out of fossil fuels.

        You have to remember that agriculture was invented to take advantage of deep soils created by millions of years of buildup of organic matter from decaying vegetation, which grew, then decayed in situ, adding the C02 and H20 to the soil as cellulose, which gives it the quality that supports heavy cropping in the absence of artificial inputs. Once the oil & gas are no longer available to make synthetic fertilizer we will need healthy soil again to grow food in large enough quantities to feed our overpopulation.

        by Halcyon on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:09:41 AM PDT

        •  Developed soils have no ground up rock

          Desert soils have rock fragments, but in most soils the original rock has undergone chemical weathering to clay minerals or zeolites plus quartz. Phosphates and potash is adsorbed onto clay minerals or incorporated into secondary minerals. Nitrates are generated by soil bacteria by fixing atmospheric nitrogen.

          I have done computer modeling of uranium ore body weathering and compared the model results with actual weathering products so I speak from experience. The models performed well except for some problems with the thermodynamic constants for several exotic uranium minerals.

          by FishOutofWater on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:22:47 AM PDT

          •  Thanks for the scientific clarification.

            I was simplifying, as in 'animal, vegetable, mineral'. I meant only to point out that the vegetable content of the soil is as important as the mineral content, for agriculture, and that mining all vegetable content leaves behind a soil less capable of growing crops without petroleum/gas inputs, which defeats the point of corn ethanol, is unsustainable, and will make it harder to feed people in the future.

            by Halcyon on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:56:09 AM PDT

      •  but plants' roots live in

        decomposing cellulose. Most soil, absent organic matter, won't support a lot of plant growth without a tremendous amount of intervention.

        by HiBob on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:52:41 AM PDT

      •  The nitrogen comes from the air

        not the soil. Bacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen.

        by FishOutofWater on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:30:29 AM PDT