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

End the Ethanol Rip-Off

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 155 posts

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#21

Post by TylerE »

post_break wrote: post #15

As someone who runs E85 because it's essentially race gas for about $1.25 a gallon, I'm conflicted.

E85 is SO far from "essentially race gas". It has much LOWER energy density than non-ethanol gas.

It takes 1.39 gallons of E85 to have the same energy as 1 gallon of conventional dino juice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

The only way to get more power with E85 is to have some sort of extreme engine running INSANE amounts of turbo boost, like the Koenesegg CCXR. In a normal street car any level of octane high enough to keep the engine from pre-detonating is more than sufficient - there is no boost in power.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#22

Post by lutorm »

maratd wrote: post #19
lutorm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of corn produced in the United States is used for cattle feed (and the rest for things like HFCS.) If you think it's crazy to burn edible food in a car, it's about as crazy to use it to fuel cow metabolism. You could feed way more people if you ate the corn, but as it turns out, U.S. industrial corn production is pretty much for anything but eating.

> You could feed way more people if you ate the corn We're already eating too much corn, no thank you. If you check the label on the packaged goods you buy, corn is pretty much in all of them in one form or another. We should grow less corn, let the cows eat grass, and have people eat people food (which might occasionally include a corn on the cob).

I agree with all those points. All I'm saying is that if you argue that using corn ethanol as fuel is bad because it's "burning food", then you have to confront all the other ways in which the agricultural system is not really about making food.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#23

Post by D_Alex »

guscost wrote: post #2

I'm surprised and happy to see this in the Times. It's a good idea to avoid ethanol gas, on principle if for no other reason. Processing edible food to burn in your car (with all the implied market consequences) is kinda crazy. Here's a good resource if you're looking for ethanol-free gas in the US and Canada: http://pure-gas.org

> It's a good idea to avoid ethanol gas, on principle if for no other reason. Processing edible food to burn in your car (with all the implied market consequences) is kinda crazy.

OTOH, ten years ago, the prices for farm products were so low that farmers in countries with no farm subsidies could not make ends meet. The biofuel industry has at least had the benefit of making the lot of farmers in such countries - who by the way were among the poorest people in these countries - a bit less dismal.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#24

Post by lutorm »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #18
soylentcola wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that it's essentially impossible to find non-ethanol fuel nearby to put in my motorcycle. It's not exactly the best thing for carbureted engines. I understand that I'm in the minority and I wouldn't expect an otherwise sensible policy to change on behalf of people who commute on motorcycles and scooters but I wouldn't complain if it became easier to avoid.

Not good for plastic gas tanks either.

Since ethanol has been a part of fuel for many decades, the vast majority of auto parts today are fine with ethanol. There are exceptions, like the Ducati gas tanks, but by and large ethanol is not a problem in any fuel-injected vehicle.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#25

Post by [deleted] »

joezydeco wrote: post #10
guscost wrote: post #2

I'm surprised and happy to see this in the Times. It's a good idea to avoid ethanol gas, on principle if for no other reason. Processing edible food to burn in your car (with all the implied market consequences) is kinda crazy. Here's a good resource if you're looking for ethanol-free gas in the US and Canada: http://pure-gas.org

How much petroleum is used to produce ethanol, from seed to harvest to processing? The answer seems to vary depending on which side of the ethanol/no-ethanol fence you ask. It's hard to find real numbers.

[deleted]

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#26

Post by Qwertious »

analog31 wrote: post #3

A chemist told me that ethanol is actually cheaper to produce directly from petroleum, than via corn. I'm not sure he meant oil or natural gas. The ethanol subsidies are strictly for corn based.

I've heard that ethanol production actually uses more fuel than it produces, so you'd be better off just not producing it and using the fuel directly.

On the other hand, it allows oil companies to pretend they're doing something about climate change (without changing any of their infrastructure) and it gives farmers more money, so you'd have to take on the oil lobby AND the farming lobby to get rid of it.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#27

Post by cmurf »

joezydeco wrote: post #10
guscost wrote: post #2

I'm surprised and happy to see this in the Times. It's a good idea to avoid ethanol gas, on principle if for no other reason. Processing edible food to burn in your car (with all the implied market consequences) is kinda crazy. Here's a good resource if you're looking for ethanol-free gas in the US and Canada: http://pure-gas.org

How much petroleum is used to produce ethanol, from seed to harvest to processing? The answer seems to vary depending on which side of the ethanol/no-ethanol fence you ask. It's hard to find real numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#28

Post by lutorm »

TylerE wrote: post #21
post_break wrote: post #15

As someone who runs E85 because it's essentially race gas for about $1.25 a gallon, I'm conflicted.

E85 is SO far from "essentially race gas". It has much LOWER energy density than non-ethanol gas. It takes 1.39 gallons of E85 to have the same energy as 1 gallon of conventional dino juice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent The only way to get more power with E85 is to have some sort of extreme engine running INSANE amounts of turbo boost, like the Koenesegg CCXR. In a normal street car any lev…

"Race gas" is commonly understood to refer to octane number. E85 is 94-96 octane, according to wikipedia, which enables you to run higher compression or higher boost.

The fact that it has lower energy density just means you burn more of it, so your tank runs out faster. It has nothing to do with the power you can get out of the engine.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#29

Post by IgorPartola »

This article directly contradicts my understanding of some key points. For example, does the production of corn ethanol really increase food prices? I was under the impression that the US overproduces so much corn that the farmers were specifically getting tax credits to produce less of it.

Also, is growing and harvesting this corn (taking out the final burning of ethanol out of it for a moment) a net positive or negative in terms of carbon emissions? Is the fact that the corn is growing and absorbing carbon dioxide enough to offset the planting, fertilization, and harvesting? What about all that + conversion to ethanol + disposal of the conversion byproducts?

The real question is this: what is greater?

(a) CO2 emissions from planting, harvesting, transporting, converting, disposing of corn + CO2 emissions from burning the ethanol + CO2 and other emissions from having to recycle/downcycle/dispose of engines that die earlier because ethanol is bad for them.

or (b) CO2 emissions from drilling/fracking for oil, transport, refining, disposal of byproducts + CO2 emissions from burning gasoline.

If I accounted for all the factors, the questions of whether a > b or b > a should determine the policy.

There is of course a (c) CO2 emissions from mining and transporting coal/oil/natural gas to the power plant * loss factor for transporting the electricity + losses in charging systems + CO2 and other emissions from mining and processing lithium and manufacturing, transport, and recycling of lithium ion batteries.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#30

Post by guscost »

D_Alex wrote: post #23
guscost wrote: post #2

I'm surprised and happy to see this in the Times. It's a good idea to avoid ethanol gas, on principle if for no other reason. Processing edible food to burn in your car (with all the implied market consequences) is kinda crazy. Here's a good resource if you're looking for ethanol-free gas in the US and Canada: http://pure-gas.org

> It's a good idea to avoid ethanol gas, on principle if for no other reason. Processing edible food to burn in your car (with all the implied market consequences) is kinda crazy. OTOH, ten years ago, the prices for farm products were so low that farmers in countries with no farm subsidies could not make ends meet. The biofuel industry has at least had the benefit of making the lot of farmers in such countries - who…

That sounds like an argument for rolling back the farm subsidies, not adding more laws to balance them out.
Post reply on HN