Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

241–248 of 248 posts

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

#241

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…

We produce way more ethanol than is necessary for fuel oxygenation. Indeed GWB sold the RFS as a way to lessen dependence on foreign oil.

Actually it was Gray Davis the disgraced ex-governor of CA who got the ball rolling first.

He took the money from the cornfield lobbyists back to CA to study contaimination of the water supply by MTBE from leaking underground gasoline storage tanks.

MTBE is not nearly as toxic as gasoline hydrocarbons, which naturally include hydrocarbons like benzene which is a significant part of crude oil to begin with. Pure MTBE has undergone therapeutic studies also in gram amounts to no ill effect, but it does have a characteristic sweet sharp ether odor which is so much easier to smell in faint amounts than the hydrocarbons.

As such MTBE had actually been detected by residents in some CA water wells where gasoline had possibly been leaking for years and nobody knew until after the Clean Air Act of 1990 required oxygenated gasoline, after which MTBE became the oil companies' choice.

MTBE had been established as an octane booster in the early 1980's but not many oil companies had a chemical unit to make it. They consumed all they made, usually in their premium gasoline. It really did bring back a certain driving pleasure that you only get as your octane approaches 100. Being an oxygenate though you did get fewer miles-per-gallon but not nearly as bad as ethanol. Either way these were cleaner-burning additives to conventional gasoline.

Anyway in 1987 CA company Atlantic Richfield (now part of BP) went commercial with their advanced engineering process, built a big unit and started making more MTBE than they needed themselves. Others followed suit, some startups. Lots of MTBE was made from refinery gases like butylene, combined with purchased methanol and there were constant shipments of MTBE as a commodity of its own. The methanol was made from natural gas as raw material so ultimately the source of all gasoline was still oil & gas wells.

Ethanol didn't have much of a seat at the table, or shall we say a position at the feeding trough. Ethanol was always an alternative EPA oxygenate when the 1990 regulations started requiring oxygenates, however it was not as cost-effective, often requiring subsidies but their lobbyists were fierce out of necessity.

API could be considered asleep at the wheel by comparison, they've always been raking in the bucks, well they have subsidies they don't even need so there is that.

MTBE plants just cranked it up for the occasion.

Eventually gasoline leaking into an aquifer becomes easier to detect than ever.

A comprehensive examination was made of the CA water supply by leading experts and MTBE was found in a number of water wells, but amounting to only a very small fraction of a percent of the water supply and then only an extreme trace amount. The final verdict from the experts was that there really was no significant threat to health from the MTBE overall in California water. This is more of an anti-pollution government than you usually see, and they really tried to find something much more damning but that was it.

Davis mandated Ethanol anyway and banned MTBE in the process. A couple other states ended up following suit, and then the whole US with the nationwide RFS. Ag lobby is like no other.

Davis was recalled for other reasons but that made the way for Schwarzenegger.

Ethanol "helpfully" makes it so people are far less likely to complain about any gasoline leaking into their local water, so less action needs to be taken there, and it supports the corn industry which was Davis' main objective anyway. Smoke & mirrors are well-practiced government tools for obscuring financial shenanigans in plain sight, the same approach can be applied to environmental discrepancy.

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

#242
post #224
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?

Good luck getting the first two passed into law, at least in the US. "Encourage couples..." will get no traction. We still have a ton of littering, and all the religious groups in the US (the Quiver Full movement etc) will love that. Cutting trade based on a country's birth rate and adding tariffs based on EI etc will be extremely problematic.

Sure anything can be done "democratically." But politics is the art of the possible...

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

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks like a great book! Getting back to refreshing my dormant German, have any other good books like this? - Thanks!

If you're looking for similar books with realistic depictions of agriculture: No, that was a lucky find in the library. In case you just want to practice German with media for children, I always recommend "Die Sendung mit der Maus" [1]. It's a mix of short animated stories with "how it's made" features, where they go filming in factories etc. [1] https://www.wdrmaus.de/aktuelle-sendung/

Thanks for the resource! I will definitely check it out.

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

#244
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The people who want to open a dairy farm that's kind to the cows comes to mind. Then they realize that cows need to be milked 2x a day, every day, forever.

"forever"

Or until they stop producing and need to become beef in order to make room for the next generation of milk producers.

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

#245
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well a lot of conventional farms that are hyperoptimized barely make enough money to get by. It is quite weird how we can't maintain something as basic as food security with a market based economy.

Depends on what you mean by food security. We're guarenteed to have enough food without crop subsidies. We would just import a lot more than we export. The government seems that as a national security risk.

And rightly so. You can't immediately switch to domestic supply in case of supply issues and utter chaos is just 2 meals away.

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iowa. Former Iowans here. The nation's politics have screwed Iowa, with it being the first primary state all manner of overt attempts of political favoritism occurs in there. The economy is screwed left, right, and sideways with all the attempts at political favoritism. And the intellectual mind there is equally turned around with large helpings of religious infringement on world views, and a material amount of corpo…

The nation's politics have screwed Iowa Iowa's own laws have screwed Iowa. State law mandates the caucus occur at least eight days prior to any other state's proceedings (similarly, NH law mandates they be the first primary election). The DNC and RNC might also like it that way, but both states are complicit.

As if these states exist independently; come on, you know political operatives and dollars from every state, and every wealthy anyone anywhere on the planet flow into these states trying to influence American elections.

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

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a substitute for lead in gasoline. There might be other reasons too.

You can have high octane gasoline without lead. Suggesting that ethanol replaced lead is facetious. It's also an absurd notion. Leaded gasoline to this still poisons the air of all 50 states in the form of 100LL avgas. Suggesting that a wasteful farming practice is saving us from lead is like shooting one foot off and the exclaiming that you "saved" your other foot.

> You can have high octane gasoline without lead. Suggesting that ethanol replaced lead is facetious.

I'm no expert on fuel mixtures but currently it does even if there better/worse alternatives.

> Suggesting that a wasteful farming practice is saving us from lead is like shooting one foot off and the exclaiming that you "saved" your other foot.

You are making an nonsensical generalization from a single study. This isn't black on white. Not all ethanol are corn ethanol and this is an industry that sees operational improvement year by year.

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

#248
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either party cannot afford to voluntarily give up so many electoral votes. If I understand it correctly, the # of electoral votes these states have give them enormous sway within the parties.

That's not how it works. The parties have passed a rule that if California or Texas has one of the first primaries they get changed to 1 electoral vote (well, one delegate, which is the equivalent except there are 10x as many delegates as electors) to decide on the party's nominee. So they would lose what influence they have. The influence of big states within the party because of electoral votes is pretty small. The…

The thing is that this system can be abused in either direction. To promote the candidate that the party leadership wants or to hijack the law and force an important delegate state to lose their influence.

Imagine if South Carolina was pushed to this one delegate system in 2020. Bernie Sanders was nearly the nominee and South Carolina began his death spiral. If South Carolina was taken out of play by activists in the state, then either the party would have to forgo its own rules or accept that Bernie would have continued his massive momentum coming out of Nevada.

Likewise if on Super Tuesday Buttigieg and Klobachar would not have dropped out at (supposedly) Obama's instance and backed Biden, then Bernie would have emerged much stronger. One way they could have blunted his momentum is if they saw polling early enough that Bernie was going to take a big state like California, we can't rule out the California machine pushing itself to lose the electoral votes in an effort to stop Bernie and then maybe change back its timeline after the election.

Post reply on HN