Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

#41

Post by civilian »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #37
lutorm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to defend corn ethanol, but I do think this debate is misguided. The problem is not the corn ethanol , the problem is the corn . Corn is an indirect way of converting oil into sugar. It is just as inefficient at making food as it is at making fuel (though that's less obvious because the end product doesn't have the same units.) There's a great article in an old issue of Harper's called "The oil we eat"…

> If the real concern is feeding people, you eat vegetarian. It is counter intuitive, but this statement is not exactly a fact. The corn->protein process via chickens is actually quite efficient. I'll give some sample numbers: 1 acre corn -> 150 bushels corn -> 10,000 lbs of corn -> 4000 lbs of chicken -> 1500 lbs of protein. 1 acre of peanuts -> 3000 pounds of peanuts -> 750 lbs of protein. So the corn->chicken proc…

Awesome analysis, but [Citation Wanted]. (I also sent this user an email.) Hopefully he'll also add it here.

Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

#42

Post by olentangy »

NatW wrote: post #31

The article and its implications is worth reading in its entirety. Corn-based ethanol is a farm subsidy, an inefficient energy solution, and it's bad for the environment (corn is grown as a monoculture) and its growth takes up a lot of water. Corn just grown for ethanol (with 10% in our gas) takes up 115,800 square miles -- or more than the entire state of Arizona! Imagine other things we could do with that land. Wit…

> its growth takes up a lot of water

I'm sure there are a few places that irrigate corn, but here in Ohio the water that grows the corn falls from the sky.

Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

#43

Post by younata »

ck2 wrote: post #20

Corn welfare must END (and I am very liberal/progressive if that matters). But considering it's Iowa we are talking about, most politicians if they want to be president won't touch it with a 10-foot pole. Ethanol is destroying small engines (generators, lawn mowers, etc) and most definitely reduces mpg by 10% a gallon of ethanol costs approximately 17 percent less than that of a gallon of gasoline That is why gas dis…

> Ethanol is destroying small engines (generators, lawn mowers, etc) and most definitely reduces mpg by 10%

Yes it does. I took a trip cross country (florida to california) this past may. Ethanol infested gas killed MPG by at best 10%, at worst 20%. It wasn't even that much cheaper, too.

Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

#44

Post by cma »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #37
lutorm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to defend corn ethanol, but I do think this debate is misguided. The problem is not the corn ethanol , the problem is the corn . Corn is an indirect way of converting oil into sugar. It is just as inefficient at making food as it is at making fuel (though that's less obvious because the end product doesn't have the same units.) There's a great article in an old issue of Harper's called "The oil we eat"…

> If the real concern is feeding people, you eat vegetarian. It is counter intuitive, but this statement is not exactly a fact. The corn->protein process via chickens is actually quite efficient. I'll give some sample numbers: 1 acre corn -> 150 bushels corn -> 10,000 lbs of corn -> 4000 lbs of chicken -> 1500 lbs of protein. 1 acre of peanuts -> 3000 pounds of peanuts -> 750 lbs of protein. So the corn->chicken proc…

So deceptive. For every 8 grams of protein in some peanuts, there are an additional 6 grams of carbs and 14 grams of fat, for a total of 170 calories.

Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

#45

Post by lutorm »

sigzero wrote: post #35
lutorm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they will require tuning? I guess this is one benefit of the cat requirement for cars, the lambda sensor takes care of that problem.

A potentially serious problem with ethanol is that it can be incompatible with older rubber compounds. Also in higher concentrations it can cause corrosion to steel and aluminum that is a part of older motorcycle fuel systems.

I know that US regulations for cars have required ethanol-resistant materials for fuel for quite a long time, like several decades IIRC. Do you know if motorcycles are exempt from those regulations? If not, it seems the issue should be the same as with (ie no more serious than) old cars.

Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

#46

Post by ericd »

hirenj wrote: post #12
shareme wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem, land that is ready to grow such crops is finite in supply not infinite..ie same land that corn was used..which will also impact food supplies..

Biofuel researcher here: The nice thing about switchgrass is that it's a much hardier plant, meaning that you can get it to grow on marginal lands, which means land that wouldn't otherwise be used for crops. Getting people to grow anything for biofuels is a bit of a double-edged sword, as you want the feedstock to be as cheap as possible, but you also want it to be profitable for the farmers to actually produce so th…

If the stuff is efficient enough as a source for gasoline replacement generation to be worth making gasoline from, subsidies shouldn't be necessary to ensure a sufficient stock. If it requires subsidies, that indicates a big problem with that plan. Unless the main goal is to reduce foreign oil independence. But I'm skeptical that that goal is remotely feasible with biofuels without making serious compromises in food-generating land. We should be spending this effort and funding on improving battery tech and creating business models that make electric vehicles appealing (swappable leased batteries, for example), as well as improving nuclear power tech to feed those vehicles.

EDIT: Algae seems like it could be promising, assuming we could find a way to mass farm it without disturbing ocean food cycles.

Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

#47

Post by lutorm »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #37
lutorm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to defend corn ethanol, but I do think this debate is misguided. The problem is not the corn ethanol , the problem is the corn . Corn is an indirect way of converting oil into sugar. It is just as inefficient at making food as it is at making fuel (though that's less obvious because the end product doesn't have the same units.) There's a great article in an old issue of Harper's called "The oil we eat"…

> If the real concern is feeding people, you eat vegetarian. It is counter intuitive, but this statement is not exactly a fact. The corn->protein process via chickens is actually quite efficient. I'll give some sample numbers: 1 acre corn -> 150 bushels corn -> 10,000 lbs of corn -> 4000 lbs of chicken -> 1500 lbs of protein. 1 acre of peanuts -> 3000 pounds of peanuts -> 750 lbs of protein. So the corn->chicken proc…

Well, like I said above, eating industrial corn was not what I was referring to. Corn->chicken still relies on corn, so even if the loss is less than for corn->beef (corned beef? ;-) it will be no better than eating corn. And you just quoted the areal intensity, not the energy intensity which is what matters.

Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

#48

Post by starwed »

ck2 wrote: post #20

Corn welfare must END (and I am very liberal/progressive if that matters). But considering it's Iowa we are talking about, most politicians if they want to be president won't touch it with a 10-foot pole. Ethanol is destroying small engines (generators, lawn mowers, etc) and most definitely reduces mpg by 10% a gallon of ethanol costs approximately 17 percent less than that of a gallon of gasoline That is why gas dis…

> Let's get INDEPENDENT scientists not funded by the oil industry or government to write an article and I'll trust it.

Err... who the hell do you think would fund such a study? I doubt there is any bias from taking government money.

Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

#49

Post by jcampbell1 »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #37
lutorm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to defend corn ethanol, but I do think this debate is misguided. The problem is not the corn ethanol , the problem is the corn . Corn is an indirect way of converting oil into sugar. It is just as inefficient at making food as it is at making fuel (though that's less obvious because the end product doesn't have the same units.) There's a great article in an old issue of Harper's called "The oil we eat"…

> If the real concern is feeding people, you eat vegetarian. It is counter intuitive, but this statement is not exactly a fact. The corn->protein process via chickens is actually quite efficient. I'll give some sample numbers: 1 acre corn -> 150 bushels corn -> 10,000 lbs of corn -> 4000 lbs of chicken -> 1500 lbs of protein. 1 acre of peanuts -> 3000 pounds of peanuts -> 750 lbs of protein. So the corn->chicken proc…

Well, I can't edit my comment, but I wrote it from estimates in my head, and there are some serious problems. The first is something I knew, and that you can't raise chickens on corn, but rather soy, which are substitutable, but soy has a much lower yield per acre. Feeding corn to animals just makes them fat, which is not what you want.

I have looked up some of this stuff, and doing the analysis a different way, gives a different answer.

According to wikipedia, a chicken is 33% efficient at turning food protein into meat protein. Soy is the protein used in all commercial animal feeds. So if the vegetarian food has a higher protein acreage yield than 1/3 of soy, then chicken is less efficient.

So soy give 40 bushels per acre, 60 pounds per bushel, and 36% protein. = 950 lbs of protein -> 316 pounds of chicken protein. A better yield for peanuts is probably 2500 lbs per acre, and 25% protein, so 625 lbs of protein. Peanuts and soy are both better than chicken for protein efficiency, though chicken is not all that bad.

Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

#50

Post by sliverstorm »

ck2 wrote: post #20

Corn welfare must END (and I am very liberal/progressive if that matters). But considering it's Iowa we are talking about, most politicians if they want to be president won't touch it with a 10-foot pole. Ethanol is destroying small engines (generators, lawn mowers, etc) and most definitely reduces mpg by 10% a gallon of ethanol costs approximately 17 percent less than that of a gallon of gasoline That is why gas dis…

Ethanol is destroying small engines

Not because ethanol is bad, but because they weren't designed for it

most definitely reduces mpg by 10%

This is because it has lower energy density. But before you make a big deal, it has a higher octane rating, so cars designed to run on high-ethanol can run leaner/more compression, and recover economy.

it allows them to dilute the less profitable gasoline (to 'cut' it)

Despite your paranoia, there are good reasons to add some ethanol. As I mentioned, it is a cheap octane booster, which is good for your engine. Additionally, being an alcohol, it absorbs water. This helps prevent rust and therefore sediment build-up in gas station holding tanks and the gas tank of your car.

Ethanol is a very good fuel. It is quite safe, relatively harmless as fuels go, burns very clean, has respectable energy density... Economics of producing it aside, it is perhaps one of the best fuels for small heat engines. It just doesn't look good when compared to gasoline, because gasoline is freakishly energy-dense, and all modern gasoline engines were designed to run on gasoline, giving gasoline the "home field advantage".

Post reply on HN