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

221–230 of 248 posts

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

#221

Post by lobocinza »

thinkcontext wrote: post #205
lobocinza wrote: post #59

What about Brazilian cane-based ethanol? The sugar conversion efficiency, I'm not certain this is the right term, is significantly higher than that of corn or beet but logistics deficiencies in the country may make it more expensive and less green.

The term you are looking for is Energy Return On Investment (EROI). This is the amount of useful energy you get divided by the amount of energy you spent to get it. The figure I've seen most often for ethanol from corn is 1.25 (though some people argue its less than one), which is not very good. When made from Brazilian sugarcane its 8 which is amazing.

Thanks.

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

#222

Post by Retric »

greedo wrote: post #212
Retric wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> incompetence It’s not that people are completely incompetent it’s that some people are better at getting subsidies vs growing food. Essentially subsidies add a parallel skill set which becomes valuable but reduces the impact of being an inefficient farmer. I don’t have hard data, but have been told about people who are better at one side or the other. > Any data to back this up. The freezing thing was actually from…

That's because it makes no sense. The US consumes around 12 billion bushels of corn per year. Yes, some of that may be wasteful (corn syrup etc). But trying to store 24 billion bushels of corn without loss is simply impossible. Each bushel is roughly 1.25 cubic feet, so 2 years would be 30B cf. Imagine a storage unit 2 miles long, 2 miles wide, and 300 feet tall.

The point is to feed people not cows or cars, so your estimate is significantly off base.

A bushel of corn is 56 pounds. Assuming a very high 1lb of corn per person per day only gives 2 * 365 * 330 million / 56 * 1.25 = 5.4 billion cubic feet.

Which still sounds insane except AT&T Stadium in Dallas is 0.1 billion cubic feet and cost only 1.3 billion to construct while including all sorts of stuff we don’t need. So roughly one building that size per state. Even if it was almost that expensive vs a more realistic 1/10th, the cost of corn + ethical subsides would hit that in roughly a decade and we would could then spend a 1 billion a year cooling the things while saving money.

PS: Having just one building would look cool but would be a massive single point of failure. Also, you can store dry corn for quite a while even in non cryogenic conditions.

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

#223

Post by landemva »

pibechorro wrote: post #99
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…

Subcidies are 90% of the reason our country is turning to shit. It leads to corruption, massive distortions and zombie companies that only exist as parasites on tax payers. From the ballooning student debt, to the ridiculous military industry, to prisons being at record numbers, etc. We need a lean and efficient economy which functions "as is", a true and fair free market. Politics should have close to no impact on i…

Subsidies are the symptom. The reason is fed govt ability to create unlimited spending. The reason for that is 3rd central bank known as 'Federal Reserve' which manipulates interest rate on govt debt issuance.

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

#224

Post by aklemm »

greedo wrote: post #215
aklemm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fewer people is the answer. Is there a way to humanely, ethically, and justly limit the population? Conventionally, talking heads seem to indicate the right way forward is to use tech and industrial agriculture to support 20bn+ on the planet. Seems totally doable, but at the cost of losing the natural environment as well as more natural food sources altogether. Anyway, I say get us back to around 5bn people and keep…

Trying to limit the world's population is impossible. It would require an authoritarian world government and that's not going to happen.

Remove tax deductions for more than two kids per couple. Tax the suburbs more highly. Encourage couples to only have two kids just like we encourage people not to litter. Trade less with countries with high birth rates and raise fees on those countries’ environmental impact. All that could be done democratically, no?

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

#225

Post by aklemm »

rhino369 wrote: post #140
aklemm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fewer people is the answer. Is there a way to humanely, ethically, and justly limit the population? Conventionally, talking heads seem to indicate the right way forward is to use tech and industrial agriculture to support 20bn+ on the planet. Seems totally doable, but at the cost of losing the natural environment as well as more natural food sources altogether. Anyway, I say get us back to around 5bn people and keep…

You would said 500 million people 200 years ago. Malthusians in 200 years will say 50 billion.

Is this helpful? I mean, we’ve already passed the point of too much natural habitat lost and too much industrial ag needed, so I think a number less then our current population is reasonable.

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

#226

Post by colordrops »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #209
dpeck wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside of a relatively minuscule number of people who view politics/elections as sport no one cares and they’re treated the same on the national stage.

Sure but most people don't understand how truly awful the caucus system is so it's worth repeating from time to time.

Might want to mention why it's awful then. It's much easier to manipulate for one.

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

#227

Post by credit_guy »

seiferteric wrote: post #220
credit_guy wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it cost more energy than it produced How can that be? Are you including the solar energy? Well, in that case, every process out there has a less than 100% efficiency, so the claim may be true, but also vacuous. If you don't include the solar energy, then are you saying that all the energy used to make the fertilizers, to plow the fields, then harvest them, then brew the corn and distill it, is less than the energy…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol#Uses Wikipedia claims its about 1.5:1, terrible compared to other sources of energy.

Yes, but wikipedia provides zero evidence for the number. If you follow the link (7), you'll see they only talk about the EROI for oil and gas. The claim about the 1.5:1 EROI for ethanol is unsubstantiated. In any case, my back of the envelope was 1.67:1, which is not that far. Saying that 1.5:1, or even 1.67:1 is pathetic is one thing, saying that you put more energy into getting ethanol than you get out is still quite the wrong.

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

#228

Post by PolygonSheep »

aklemm wrote: post #224
greedo wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to limit the world's population is impossible. It would require an authoritarian world government and that's not going to happen.

Remove tax deductions for more than two kids per couple. Tax the suburbs more highly. Encourage couples to only have two kids just like we encourage people not to litter. Trade less with countries with high birth rates and raise fees on those countries’ environmental impact. All that could be done democratically, no?

Punitive taxation and restricting trade with Africa wouldn't be a good look...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...

(Not to say it's only Africa by any means, but you do have to go quite a ways down the list before you hit a non-African country).

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

#229

Post by smegger001 »

walnutclosefarm wrote: post #124
mrfusion wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is a law in Iowa that sets the date of our party caucuses earlier than the earliest primary. Our primaries are not first, rather it's the party caucuses here that are held as the first selection event in the Presidential race. I am a rare Iowan in that I recognize that this system is dumb, and bad for the country. It's great for me - I have had the privilege of hearing in person in a small group setting every D…

I wonder what they would do if another state were to set state law specifying the same, or better still one week before Iowa. Would they both just keep moving their primary/caucuses back until it is set immediate after the inauguration of the last election or would the supreme court tell then both to knock it off and set the dates for everyone.

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

#230

Post by aklemm »

PolygonSheep wrote: post #228
aklemm wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remove tax deductions for more than two kids per couple. Tax the suburbs more highly. Encourage couples to only have two kids just like we encourage people not to litter. Trade less with countries with high birth rates and raise fees on those countries’ environmental impact. All that could be done democratically, no?

Punitive taxation and restricting trade with Africa wouldn't be a good look... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... (Not to say it's only Africa by any means, but you do have to go quite a ways down the list before you hit a non-African country).

Sure, but would it be worth it? I suspect yes; the alternative is continued population growth leaving very little natural world on the entire planet and all of us eating an industrially farmed diet.
Post reply on HN