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, study finds

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 264 posts

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

#141

Post by georgyo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #132
koolba wrote: post #69

Earlier 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.

The 2024 changes, inasmuch as they are about specific elections and not the general long-term arc of the party, are about 2028 more than 2024. No one is expecting a significantly contested nominating contest when the party has an incumbent President seeking reelection.

Incumbents do have an advantage, but I wouldn't say they aren't expecting a significant contested election. Trump was the incumbent, and it was a pretty aggressively contested.

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

#142

Post by Scoundreller »

pengaru wrote: post #89
glitchc wrote: post #29

Earlier 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.

Just like if you try run a gasoline engine on alcohol without adjusting the fueling it'll be too lean and knock if it runs at all, you'll be too lean with sufficient ethanol in the gasoline without adjustment. But they're still higher octane fuels. E85 is specifically sought out for this purpose in the gearhead scene, so they can run high boost getting something alcohol-like at the pump.

Lots of anecdata of people running their regular vehicles on E85 without issues.

Lots of theoretical concerns “omg, you’re not following the owner’s manual, god is going to blow up your engine and kill 4 kittens”, but either nobody has blown an engine or hasn’t admitted to it.

https://youtu.be/scgtGxxgx6M

Plenty of parts of the world where E85 is substantially cheaper than E10 (e.g. France where it’s ~43% cheaper) where I’m sure lots of people are running it or various mixes.

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

#143

Post by fsckboy »

labrador wrote: post #83
koolba wrote: post #69

Earlier 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.

Are you sure that's all that it's about? I'd say it's about a lot of things since Democrats have been unhappy about starting in Iowa for a long time.

everybody is jumping down GP's throat here by focusing on the word "Biden".

him saying they're doing it to lock in Biden (their mainstream/establishment frontrunner) in large early primaries in 2024 (the next election) is not really different from saying they're doing it to lock in their mainstream/establishment frontrunner in large early primaries in future elections to avoid the kind of "self destructive" internecine primary battles with fringe candidates like Bernie Sanders--yes, he was very popular, but his views are to one side of the Democratic party which is to one side of the Republican party which makes his views part of the fringe in the uniform tapestry of views--which have taken place for many years.

Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying GP's analysis holds together as part of the larger analysis everybody here seems to be basing their thinking on.

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

#144

Post by fabianbumberger »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #120
hatsunearu wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethanol also is used as an octane booster. I'd rather take Ethanol than MTBE or TEL.

This should be the highest rated response to the parent because it's overwhelmingly used as a low octane fuel booster additive, not a fuel. If you have 85 gasoline and need to get it to 87, you blend it with an appropriate quantity of ethanol (octane rating 108.6, thanks for the correction). Reference: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html

Yeah, gas producers like it as cheap octane booster.

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

#145

Post by lloeki »

bluGill wrote: post #109
mywittyname wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'm not aware of any commercially available engine that does

Engines with knock sensors and advanced valve timing + phasing can do that. Source: mine does, stock '08 K20 engine, which has a very wide operational RPM range, so these things matter.

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

#146

Post by danaris »

ravenstine wrote: post #84
programmarchy wrote: post #8

Doesn’t it also wear down engines more quickly?

No, it does not. This myth will not die hard. It's not a total myth per se, because it once was and sometimes still can be true for engine components that are simply not designed to handle ethanol. Such is not the case for pretty much every car built after the year 2000, roughly speaking. Every soft component in modern cars is designed to handle at least 10% ethanol, and effectively handle 100% ethanol. Corrosion is…

Cars are not the only engines that use gasoline. Lawnmowers, weedwhackers (with added oil), and snowblowers, just to name three things in my garage that get E85 gas[1], all have some degree of problems with it.

[1] Because that's what's available around me, not because that's what they should be getting.

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

#148

Post by westurner »

jfengel wrote: post #53
cashsterling wrote: post #37

As others mentioned, this is not a new finding. There is a lot of academic and industrial/economic analysis on this subject. Ethanol from corn was never a good idea economically for anyone other than corn farmers. It is also bad environmentally and places additional competitive demand on our food supply (choice and competition between corn going into food or fuel supply). Similar analysis has been done on other crop…

Corn farmers from Iowa. Where they hold the first caucus of the interminable election season. No American politician or political party can afford to offend corn farmers. We should count ourselves lucky that our gasoline is only 10% corn.

Can Ethanol be sustainably produced from corn?

Which other crops have sufficient margin given commodity prices?

Can solar and goats and wind and IDK algae+co2 make up the difference?

Is solar laser weeding a more sustainable approach?

What rotations improve the compost and soil situation?

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

#149

Post by Scoundreller »

1letterunixname wrote: post #122
Scoundreller wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though lots of ethanol in Canadian gasoline too. Hard to find any without 10% ethanol, even in jurisdictions with limited corn growing. What caused that? Or do the US subsidies on corn make it cost effective for Canadians to burn ethanol? If so, where’s my cheap E85? I’d run it in my old Corolla and see what happens.

Here, let me Google that for you :) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/taxpayers-ontario-can... Go ahead: your old Corolla will become a dead Corolla. https://blog.raleighclassic.com/is-it-safe-to-use-ethanol-in...

[flagged]

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

#150

Post by benp84 »

cashsterling wrote: post #37

As others mentioned, this is not a new finding. There is a lot of academic and industrial/economic analysis on this subject. Ethanol from corn was never a good idea economically for anyone other than corn farmers. It is also bad environmentally and places additional competitive demand on our food supply (choice and competition between corn going into food or fuel supply). Similar analysis has been done on other crop…

I was under the impression that corn ethanol was effectively solar energy because corn turns sunlight and carbon into biomass then we burn the biomass back to atmospheric carbon. Isn't that the fundamentals? Is there a big, basic reason it doesn't work or is it lots of little side effects? Thanks for weighing in.
Post reply on HN