Food prices are up as corn prices have doubled to $4.50/bushel with the $0.51/gallon of ethanol subsidy. As the US is (soon to be was) a huge corn exporter, this is causing higher prices worldwide. Foreign Affairs in the May/June issue says that could lead to doubling the world hungry from 600 million to 1.2 billion. They hope that

relying more on sugar cane to produce ethanol in tropical countries would be more efficient than using corn and would not involve using a staple crop.

No, if sugar cane is more profitable than corn, it will also outcompete staples for land and labor until the price of staples is hungry high.

Scientific American makes the same mistake in the June issue:

[Jatropha, an oil crop] favors hot, dry conditions and hence an unlikely threat to rain forests. There is no trade-off between food and fuel either, because the oil is poisonous.

No, Jatropha will pull away farm equipment, labor and land from other crops driving up the price of every other crop.

Ethanol is an OK energy delivery system to convert solar energy, but if biofuels stay competitive with petroleum (via subsidies for now), all arable land will be converted to corn and other energy crops until the food crop prices are driven up enough to be competitive with the energy crops.

The only way to bring the corn price down is to either bring a multiple of the current acreage under cultivation (all US arable land devoted to corn would get us 12% of petroleum consumption) or reducing the corn/ethanol subsidy.

Or develop an ethanol source that is more energy dense like cellulosic ethanol.

We need something that can be used for feedstock that does not need prime farmland.

Sam,

[[[No, if sugar cane is more profitable than corn, it will also outcompete staples for land and labor until the price of staples is hungry high.]]]

The conditions required for sugar cane, and where it is grown, is very different then for Corn. And I don't expect many Iowa farmers will up and move to Brazil to produce sugar cane, and they sure won't be planting it in Iowa even though Sugar Cane ethanol yields are 5 times per acre what Corn is.

The land used for Sugar Cane is not well suited to staples like Rice, Corn, Wheat or other grains. And the technology for planting and harvesting is much different.

We need something that can be used for feedstock that does not need prime farmland.

How about petroleum?

The big problem isn't that food prices will be driven up. The price of delivered food remains dominated by post-farm costs for most consumers, certainly for almost all non-3rd-worlders.

Rather, the problem is that if biomass-derived ethanol is truly the cheapest source of transportation fuel, then essentially unlimited demand for biomass will eventually be created, much larger than the demand for food. Wave goodbye to wild ecosystems on any arable land on which farming isn't prohibited.

Hemp ---> Methanol

Gene-mod to eliminate the THC production and grow it like kudzu.

If cane is better than corn, it won't stop corn from being used for ethanol because energy demand far outstrips food demand.

My point was cane will crowd out bananas, plantains, cassava and yams and whatever else is a staple in those climates.

Cellulose ethanol won't be ready for prime time in the next 10 years according to Foreign Affairs. Again, if that actually works, we'll replant with cellulose crops instead of food until the price of food rises even higher than it did with corn being used for ethanol unless the ethanol subsidy is removed.

I want to add that the problem with 3rd world farmers (and farmers elsewhere, for that matter) is that there is too little demand for their product. So biomass ethanol would be a boon for them -- all the tropics (where biological productivity can be highest) can become an OPEC replacement.

Shame about those rain forests and tigers and things, though.

Shame about those rain forests and tigers and things, though.

Not to mention all the microbiological biodiversity, that could be a source of medicines, etc.

Someone needs to point out these downsides, to try to derail this rush to biofuels, when things like nukes are much better.

" in the next 10 years according to Foreign Affairs"

Is FA really a suitable authority on this question? It seems like there are journals closer to the biotech that would be more suitable.

I haven't read the article, and have no intention to do so. I am just wondering.

MG, re: cellulose ethanol,
It's moot. Cellulose ethanol will still cause high food prices because ethanol demand would still be high enough to keep using corn too and if not, to replant corn fields with cellulose crops.

Mr. Dinkin,

You may have been responding to someone else's post in this comment thread. I have, however posted in other threads about cellulosic ethanol.

I accept that some land geared towards feed / food corn might go toward ethanol production. It would be interesting to see a map of land suitable for (say) switchgrass that isn't economically suitable for corn.

I agree with the aggregate economics effects on food prices.

I do wonder about algae-based biodiesel, and other alternatives to fossil fuel or ethanol. It seems (without having bothered to investigate deeply) that there are quite a few different biofuel options under serious investigation.

Maybe the best investment is in multi-fuel vehicle / electrical powerplants?

MG:

Best investment is in lobbying Congress.

Sam,

Again different requirements. Look at south Florida and Louisiana where most of the U.S. sugar cane is produced. If you didn’t have the Sugar Cane it would just be swamp land. But what using Sugar Cane for ethanol will do is drive up the price for sugar, molasses and rum. But I would hardly call those staples :-)

Shame about those rain forests and tigers and things, though.
...
Not to mention all the microbiological biodiversity, that could be a source of medicines, etc.

Paul, Rand, I agree, this could easily turn into a nightmare.

I CALLED IT!

*dances*