MOnster cane: 3 X the ethanol, better adapted to drought conditions, being deevloped in Japan.

[JohnWxy]

some have raised concerns as to possible increasingly dry conditions. While any climatic changes will be gradual (perhaps 40 to 50 years for significant change), seed compaines already have varieties of many plants (corn, soy bean, etc) developed for drier conditions. ALso, This recent development re sugar cane should be of interest and seemed to be worth reposting (if only for those who might have missed it the first time)..

The Japanese are developing a variety of sugar cane that produces 3 times as much ethanol and is more drought resistant than more typical varieties of sugar cane now being cultivated. IT also produces enough bagasse to power the ethanol production process.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38535/newsDate/18-Oct-2006/story.htm

Japan Brewer Pursues 'Monster Cane' Ethanol Dream
JAPAN: October 18, 2006

IE ISLAND, Japan - It is three metres tall and productive even in poor soil, it holds up in droughts and typhoons, and it yields twice as many stems as most sugarcane. No wonder they call it "Monster Cane".

This new variety of sugarcane, named for its size as much as its vigour, is grown on a test field on the tiny island of Ie in Japan's southernmost prefecture of Okinawa.
~~
~~
Asahi says the new cane variety can produce three times as much ethanol as other strains, and slightly more sugar. It also yields more bagasse, or crushed sugarcane refuse, which is burnt to generate the energy to run a sugar-ethanol plant.
~~
~~
The volume of bagasse from high-biomass sugarcane is more than enough to generate energy for the Asahi plant. Surplus bagasse is used as bedding for premium beef cattle on Ie Island, and as fertiliser after being mixed with animal excrement.

Asahi aims to put its technology into practical application after completing tests at the pilot plant in 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change and progress IS possible.

[NNadir]

1. Who told you that climate change will be gradual?

It is patent nonsense to assert, as you do, that "While any climatic changes will be gradual (perhaps 40 to 50 years for significant change), seed compaines (sic) already have varieties of many plants (corn, soy bean, etc) developed for drier conditions."

Let me guess. You made it up.

There is another obvious fallacy in your wiggling here: You are assuming that farmers will know if a drought is going to occur in the coming year when they plant their seeds. Maybe you are claiming that the key to the ethanol fantasy will come from reading the predictions in the Farmer's Almanac.

[NickB79]

2. Yeah, it hasn't been so gradual in Australia

Just a few years ago they were bringing in bumper crops. Now farmers are blowing their brains out in dispair.

[JohnWxy]

3. You and Chicken Little are confusing one event as an accurate indicator of a trend.

One pea fell on chicken-little's head and she thought the sky was falling. You look at one years data and assume every year into the future will continue the same way.

Annual fluctuations can be great (and go in both directions) but they do not by themselves make a trend. The CLimate models I'm referring to are forecasting climate changes over decades (like out to 2050 to 2100). However, weather forecasts over shorter periods are made and farmers DO try to anticipate the next growing seasons conditions using weather forecasts. They do make educated guesses as to the conditions for the next growing season. To do this they consult with Government and private forecasters. Seed companies also monitor these forecasts and as necessary try to have a adequate supply of the right seeds on hand for farmers to buy.

But the main point to be made here for you (and Chicken Little), is that one, or a few years data is not enough to predict a trend.

By the way, here is some data re the Corn crop of 2006:

http://cropwatch.unl.edu/archives/2006/crop25/harvest_report.htm

"U.S. corn production is forecast at 10.7 billion bushels, down 1% from October and 3% lower than 2005. Based on conditions as of November 1, yields are expected to average 151.2 bushels per acre, down 2.3 bushels from October but 3.3 bushels higher than last year. If realized, the yield would be the second largest on record."

[phantom power]

4. Do you *read* the posts in this forum?

The entire planet is going off the rails. Every continent. Every biome. The oceans too, for that matter. Nothing is normal.

But if it makes you feel better, you can name me after some children's book characters too.

[JohnWxy]

5. I guess it's just a case of whether you think it's worth it to try to do something about the

situation or if you prefer, to post 'doomsday' arguments and contending it's not worth trying. I think we should try to do something. I'm just kinda practical minded and not very interested in religious suasion - whether for the promise of heaven or the advent of hell.


IF you had read my posts you would know they are mostly about doing something about GLobal Warming.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Yes, we should do something.

One of the first things we need to do, sort of now-ish, is stop pretending we've got decades to solve the problems: Then perhaps we'll pull our thumbs out of our arses and actually get on with it.

[phantom power]

8. I know you want to help.

Here is where we differ: by my estimation, ethanol is going to "help" in about the same way as pissing on a burning barn helps put out the fire. Because what we need is a fire-hose. I view nuclear energy as that fire-hose.

And (running with this analogy) we all know that I'm vocally skeptical about how much of the barn we'll be able to save under any circumstances. That sort of gloomy speculation is arguably "unhelpful," but I consider it to be a valid part of the human dialog about what's happening to our planet. Sort of like how our knowledge of individual death is a gloomy, but important, part of our philosophy, art, religion, etc.

But back to the original topic: Energy plans based on agriculture ought to deal honestly with the very real possibility of a dry northern hemisphere, where just feeding ourselves may become a serious challenge. North America's "bread-basket" is in the middle of a drought that's already statistically unusual, and it shows no signs of stopping. All climate signs indicate that it could just go on and on, as part of the "new normal," in which case we will most definitely be looking like Australia soon enough.

I don't see why pointing that out makes me or anybody else a "chicken little." It takes a lot of land to grow even a useful fraction of the fuel we currently use. I'm not talking about preserving our current usage, I'm just talking about preserving 1/2 of it, or 1/4.

[NNadir]

9. Oh, like I thought. You made it up. Thanks too for the climate change denial.

It's hardly surprising that you throw a little bit of global climate change denial rhetoric into the equation, with the "natural fluctuations" nonsense and the "Chicken Little," rhetoric. By doing this, you obviate what you're all about.

The term is rhetorically unoriginal (as is the idea that ethanol will save the planet). Typical of those who lack the mental agility to think of something more original than "Chicken Little" is the great corn state Senator, Jim Inhofe, who like you denies climate change.

This is has no bearing on whether waving one's hands and saying that "drought is not a problem," demonstrates that it isn't a problem. It is a problem. Everybody on the planet except you and Jim Inhofe knows it's a problem. They certainly think that in Australia, and in the Sahel - not that you give a fuck about those places. I am not going to dignify your claim that drought is not a problem in the US with much more comment than to say that you don't know shit about the status of the Ogalalla reservoir either, being as intellectually lazy as you insist on being.

Here is a of some work someone known as a scientist, not that you know very much about what such people do, who is concerned about the impact of corn on this crop: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_115=196119

I have never thought that you were interested in what climate change is about, or that you know anything about the subject of energy and the environment, which is why you spend so much time waxing so romantic on 0.22 exajoules of highly subsidized ethanol energy, a trivial and ineffective means of addressing the problem of climate change.

There is no definitive proof that ethanol is in fact anything more than short term resource mining, mining the soil, mining the water, and mortgaging the future.

You are selling the planet, for money.

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Why should you get a drought next year?

Don't be so greedy. You haven't finished the last one yet.