So "oil and water don't mix", as is often said. Oil/ gas with corn based additives DO mix with water, so it cannot be piped through a pipeline, thus making it be carried totally by truck, and making it's carbon footprint even worse.
U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
101–110 of 264 posts
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#102> The research, which was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy Can't imagine there's any conflict of interest there. > ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion. The nice thing about words like "likely" is that it leaves the door open for the other th…
The research article is located here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2101084119>; if you're interested in what "likely" means in this context, it may be beneficial to read through the article. My understanding is that the "likely" comes from it being an estimate using models, as the research article states.
> Substituting our empirically derived domestic emissions for those modeled in the RFS RIA would raise ethanol’s projected life cycle GHG emissions for 2022 to 115.7 g CO2e MJ−1—a value 24% above baseline gasoline (93.1 g CO2e MJ−1). The RIA estimate, however, includes improvements in feedstock and ethanol production efficiency that were projected to occur by 2022, such that the GHG intensity of ethanol produced at earlier time periods and over the life of the RFS to date is likely much higher [...].
My understanding is that they took the model used in the RFS RIA (when the RFS was first introduced), and plugged in what they've seen over the past few years to that model. Take that with what you will.
> And we're to assume that, without the production of fuel ethanol, the same land wouldn't be tilled and used for other crops?
With the increase in demand for corn for fuel usage, more fields are needed to plant the corn. Because the corn is for fuel, not food, food wouldn't have been planted in place of the corn had there not been fuel demand.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The corn will be grown either way. Citation needed
That was not a quote. No citation is possible. Is there a reason for this bad faith participation?
I am not the poster you are replying to but calling that post “bad faith participation” surprised me. Stopping ethanol production will lower demand for corn so it is conceivable that this would reduce the marginal value in producing corn and cause some amount of corn production to become worth less than the alternatives (like planting different crops or less intense farming of corn field, etc.)
To me at least, not being an agricultural economist, the statement that the corn would be grown anyway wasn’t obvious on the surface; I too would have liked to have seen some further justification for the claim.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#104Because farming equipment runs on gasoline.
Depends on the farm. My farm ran on all diesel.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention all of the fuel used to move around the fertilizer, tractors, finished corn, the energy used to grid/heat/ferment/distill into ethanol, and then to truck around the ethanol. It's actually almost hilariously indirect and inefficient when you think about it.
Well all the final products (contextually, material fuels or just energy) have a production history: to call one of them inefficient you need to compare production processes. Diesel fuel does not come ready from "diesel springs".
What I mean is that to turn fuel into fuel with corn as an intermediary is inherently inefficient vs using the original diesel or gasoline directly.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which is why the Democratic Party changed it under cover of starting with "a more diverse state" It wasn’t because they care about offending farmers or removing ethanol subsidies, it was so that Biden can lock down some early primary wins in 2024 with States with a higher percentage of black voters.
If absolute fairness were the reason for change ALL parties that primary would do so by some algorithm that's transparent. E.G. 5 Primary waves (Tuesdays/weeks/months) sorted by the 10 states with the least population to the most population. Why? It's a better rough approximation for a representative sample over an increasingly large window of voters than the current process, and still keeps any benefit of ramping up…
I don't understand. If you're going to change it, why don't do the primary on the same day like any other country?
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iowa is losing that status this coming cycle, so things may begin to shift.
It's Probably losing it's place in the DNC primary, but Michigan which plants 2 million acres of corn will be 5th and Iowa still might be on Super Tuesday. If the RNC keeps the early caucus it might turn into a more partisan issue which might be worse.
> It's Probably losing it's place in the DNC primary,
The rule has already passed. It can defy the rule and keep its early date, but then it will lose half its delegates under the rule.
> Michigan which plants 2 million acres of corn will be 5th
Fifth isn't second, and two million acres of corn in a state with a $473B GDP is not the same significance as thirteen million acres in a state with a $180B GDP
> Iowa still might be on Super Tuesday.
Most of the country that isn’t on the early calendar is on Super Tuesday
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#108> The research, which was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy Can't imagine there's any conflict of interest there. > ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion. The nice thing about words like "likely" is that it leaves the door open for the other th…
> > The research, which was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy
> Can't imagine there's any conflict of interest there.
Pro-nuclear bias you figure? Does the DoE have another reason to dislike corn?
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find ethanol actually increases knocking in all of my engines. Switched to ethanol free years ago and I recall it made a difference in performance and mileage.
It will take time for the computer in the car to detect the ethanol and switch to a high ethanol fuel map. In the mean time, the engine is going to run pretty lean, since more ethanol is required than gasoline for the same volume of air. Running too lean usually causes the engine to buck and shake pretty badly. This, of course, assumes that the car is even capable of running higher ethanol blends. The performance ben…
Unless your car has a turbocharger or other means to run a higher compression ratio and thus take advantage of the higher octane of ethanol fuel. I've seen this done in lab and garage settings (they typically don't retain the ability to run regular gasoline), but I'm not aware of any commercially available engine that does. Race settings similar things as well, but they are trying to get power not fuel efficiency and so you can't get a fair fuel efficiency measure.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#110This would be better positioned as a crop surplus and/or crop waste to fuel initiative. The government could still encourage overproduction of staple crops to guard against food shortages while being a reliable buyer of the the surplus to make ethanol out of.