Skip to main content

Food Versus Energy?

Today's Washington Post presents an op-ed by Timothy Searchinger titled, "How Biofuels Contribute to the Food Crisis". His main point is that the portion of crops devoted to biofuels has grown more rapidly than agricultural production in recent years. As a result, any stress on food production, e.g., drought in China or floods in Australia, leads to shortages or inflation in food for humans. Additionally, rapid economic development in China and elsewhere is increasing demand for meat, further stressing the world agricultural system and increasing the demand for water and energy.

Mr. Searchinger offers a hopeful outlook that the competition between food and energy production can be resolved through adjustments in policy and market responses. From our perspective, his article highlights the beauty of getting energy from a rock (uranium), and gives us another reason why China has 13 operating nuclear power plants and more than 25 under construction. The choice needn't be food versus energy; it can be food and energy.

Pictured: Uranium ore, USGS photo.


Kit P said…
After listening to anti-nukes for 40 years, the anti-ethanol debate sounds very similar. If it takes wild leaps of logic to define a crisis, I suggest that no crisis exists. One of the many reasons the fleet of US nukes are so productive is that we find the root cause of problems and fix them.

US farmers are very productive with the ability to saturate the world food supply. Processing some of the energy out corn or soy animal feed is a food and energy option while critics want to frame the debate as a food or energy choice. Much in the same way nuke critics want to debate energy or safety, instead of energy and safety.
There's no logical reason to use cropland to produce fuels like ethanol. The US produces enough urban and rural biowaste to produce a significant amount of carbon neutral methanol, gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel.

And if the US builds several hundred nuclear power plants over the next 20 to 30 years dedicated towards producing hydrogen, the waste carbon dioxide (80%) from urban and rural biowaste combined with that hydrogen could produce enough carbon neutral fuel (gasoline, methanol, diesel fuel, jet fuel, dimethyl ether) to completely replace the use of fossil fuels for transportation in America.

There's no logical reason why America can't become-- completely- free from the fossil fuel economy within the next 20 to 30 years through the mass production of nuclear power plants and the utilization of urban and rural biowaste.
Anonymous said…
if the US builds several hundred nuclear power plants over the next 20 to 30 years dedicated towards producing hydrogen

Several hundred in the next 30 years? Have any independent analyses (not counting Lyndon Larouche) suggested this is even feasible?
Anonymous said…
"Have any independent analyses ... suggested this is even feasible?"

I don't know. I'm pretty sure the plants won't be built, partly because these days, nine out of ten people wring their hands and call for studies, leaving one in ten to actually do something useful. It used to be the other way 'round. Decline of the West.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…