http://www.atlantawatershortage.com/(via Watercrunch) The National Academy of Sciences has just published a report titled “Water Implications of Biofuel Production in the United States“. The summary from the Watercrunch article:
The report basically states that if the projected increases in the use of corn for ethanol production occur, the harm to water quality could be considerable, and water supply problems at the regional and local levels could also escalate.
The Oil Drum has a much more in-depth look at the report, with many more charts and some great discussions. Their summary suggests that Ethanol might not be the right solution to the oil problem. From their site:
We CAN increase our internal production of transportation liquids. In addition to ethanol and biodiesel, we can use coal-to-liquids via Fischer Tropsch; we can drill the Arctic or Alaska Wildlife Refuge; we can expand land to dedicated energy crops, etc. A joint study of the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture concludes that the United States could produce 60 billion gallons of ethanol by 2030 through a combination of grain and cellulosic feedstocks, enough to replace 30% of projected U.S. gasoline demand. Scientists and policymakers should be asking them ‘at what cost’? When they reply XX billions, the comeback should be ‘we didn’t mean in $ terms-what are the costs in other scarce inputs needed by society?’. In robbing Peter to pay Paul, we have to realize that Paul is pretty insatiable. Who will we rob after Peter?
We have oil problems, so we’ll use more water to fix them. Then the water problems become more severe. What do we do next to try to fix those? It could be an ugly cycle.
-----------------
whatever happens will be beyond ugly