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

U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 248 posts

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#111

Post by foobarian »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…

I feel like this is where inflation can be pretty helpful. Just like it's near impossible to retire legacy production code, it seems pretty politically difficult to roll back these subsidies. But simply waiting for the inflation to make them irrelevant might be a lot easier.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#112

Post by smoyer »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…

Ethanol is not a terribly good fuel and causes lots of problems in engines which have seals that weren't designed for it. Engines are also prone to knocking as the energy profile of (enhanced) fuels is different.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#114

Post by acdha »

invalidator wrote: post #5

This article misses a key point: Ethanol is used to oxygenate the fuel, which reduces carbon monoxide and soot emissions. It replaced MTBE in that role. It was never intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Producing it requires more energy than it provides, and this was known long before it was introduced. It might be possible to power the production with renewable energy, but that's just extra steps for powerin…

> It was never intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It didn't work but it was advertised as part of an effort reduce oil usage and especially to reduce dependency on OPEC following the fuel shock in the 1970s. Growing up in the 1980s, the “brighter future” vision was that someday you'd drive a synthetic-fuel vehicle which used no oil at all.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#115

Post by abainbridge »

smoyer wrote: post #112
jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…

Ethanol is not a terribly good fuel and causes lots of problems in engines which have seals that weren't designed for it. Engines are also prone to knocking as the energy profile of (enhanced) fuels is different.

I thought Ethanol has a very high octane rating (~110-120 RON) and therefore would reduce knocking compared to regular 85-95 RON fuels. I'm sure it has plenty of other problems though.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#116

Post by gruez »

mrfusion wrote: post #91
njarboe wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iowa has the first primary every year in the US[1]. Iowa produces more corn than any state[2] while being 32nd in population. Corn is very important to people in Iowa and as long as the first two facts remain the same, corn will continue to be highly subsidized and supported in other ways by the US government. [1] https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2024-primary-sche... [2] https://www.cropprophet.com/us-corn-…

Why doesn’t another state move its primary up? It seems like an easy way to get more influence?

I vaguely remember a state trying that, and getting smacked by the federal government in retaliation.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#117

Post by giantg2 »

dahfizz wrote: post #110
giantg2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but if I remember correctly, actual farm operations were profitable, right? The marketing is just extra, or what it evolved into. Don't get me wrong - small farms are a lot of work. For the most part, at least one member of the family has to have an outside job with benefits just due to healthcare costs. But it can make some money. I hope to have a small farm as a "retirement" plan. It would mostly be an apiary…

> I assume the biggest draw is the lifestyle ideals. A lot of people who have never physically worked a day in their life like the idea of hard labor. After a week of hard labor, they would decide to take up woodworking instead.

I think it depends on what we consider hard labor too. With all the mechanization today, hard labor has changed. Now it might be considered hard labor to run a log splitter and stack the wood, when in the past you'd be swinging a maul too. Like my grandpa used to plow field with a horse drawn plow, but now you just start up a tractor. So it evolves, and exactly what type of farming it is determines how physical it might be (although any of it is more physical than sitting in front of a screen all day).

Hehe reminds me of a volunteer day I set up for our team. They wanted to work on a farm that's part of the food bank. We spent maybe a half a day picking greens and squash. Most of them couldn't believe how "physical" it was - commenting about it being a workout or being tired.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#118

Post by gruez »

Retric wrote: post #68
lobocinza wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farming is an efficient market due to the sheer number of competing agents, that drives the price to be close to the cost. Markets are cyclic. When demand is higher than supply, prices go up, companies profit more and there's incentive for investment. Within time supply exceeds demand and prices go down, so companies barely make enough to pay off and those which are inefficient go broken and are sold, hopefully, to b…

What separates poor farmers from say poor food truck owners? The issue with farm subsidies is they don’t actually change profitability long term, they simply result in over production. It’s vastly more efficient to build up a long term storage of surplus say 2 years of corn per American stored at -40C which should last ~100 years. Then let huge swaths of American farmers go bankrupt as you scale back production. This…

> What separates poor farmers from say poor food truck owners?

If all food trucks and restaurants disappeared off the face of the earth, people would mostly be able to feed themselves. The same is not true for farms.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#119

Post by ModernMech »

mrfusion wrote: post #91
njarboe wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iowa has the first primary every year in the US[1]. Iowa produces more corn than any state[2] while being 32nd in population. Corn is very important to people in Iowa and as long as the first two facts remain the same, corn will continue to be highly subsidized and supported in other ways by the US government. [1] https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2024-primary-sche... [2] https://www.cropprophet.com/us-corn-…

Why doesn’t another state move its primary up? It seems like an easy way to get more influence?

I don't know about the Republicans, but as far as Democrats go it's actually a rule:

  Rule 12 Timing of the Delegate Selection Process 

  No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in March or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 29 days before the first Tuesday in March; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 21 days before the first Tuesday in March; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 10 days before the first Tuesday in March; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 3 days before the first Tuesday in March.
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2020-Delega...

This is what created "Super Tuesday", which is evidence of a race to the bottom that has gone as far down as it can go. It also shows that 4 states were carved out probably as favors (does anyone know more here?). In order to change this, probably a bunch of people who are being treated favorably now will get upset at losing their privilege, and no one in leadership wants to crack that egg. Seeing as that South Carolina, one of the favored states anointed to hold a primary before before Super Tuesday, played such a decisive role in the nomination of Joe Biden, I think the practice of keeping these states first is going to continue for the foreseeable future.

Jim Clyburn of S. Carolina is widely credited of resuscitating Joe Biden's candidacy after his sad start in IA, NH, and NV. He placed a distant 4th in IA, 5th in NH, and Bernie blew out NV with 40% of the vote. At that point, Clyburn endorsed Biden, and Biden ended up winning SC. Then a bunch of candidates dropped out of the race before Super Tuesday (some who were doing much better than Biden overall) and support coalesced behind Biden.

If anything, the slow roll of IA, NH, SC and NV allows the party to calibrate the primary process. If things start going a way they don't like, they can make quick changes like asking a bunch of candidates to drop out of the race (I'm not saying Bernie would have won had they not done this, I'm just pointing out it was obviously done, and what enabled them to do this was the fact that all primaries are not held on the same day).

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline

#120

Post by brnt »

njarboe wrote: post #19
jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…

Iowa has the first primary every year in the US[1]. Iowa produces more corn than any state[2] while being 32nd in population. Corn is very important to people in Iowa and as long as the first two facts remain the same, corn will continue to be highly subsidized and supported in other ways by the US government. [1] https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2024-primary-sche... [2] https://www.cropprophet.com/us-corn-…

It would be good for Americans to understand how their layered elections work out into something quite undemocratic. Designed to be so [1] in fact. Things don't need to be this way, and to set the country up for bad incentives this way, but it requires understanding who exactly is fighting and benefiting from the current set up.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Money_(book) Yes, it's a book. Highly worth the time it takes to read to make the point in full.

Post reply on HN