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

41–50 of 155 posts

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#41

Post by snowwrestler »

IgorPartola wrote: post #29

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 neg…

From the perspective of global warming, all that matters is the net contribution of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels to the atmosphere.

The reason oil companies object to the Renewable Fuel Standard is that it results in lower net usage of oil. If it resulted in higher net oil usage, they wouldn't oppose it. So that answers your question.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#42

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

ufo wrote: post #36
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.

I'm not a car expert but I remember hearing somewhere that it depends on how the engine is manufactured. Here in Brazil the car engines are engineered to withstand high alcohol contents and there are even cars with "flex-fuel" technology that can handle any mixture from 100% gasoline to 100% ethanol.

For some odd reason the manufacturer of my lawn mower warns me not to use more than 10% Ethanol content fuel, or else my warranty is void. I'll assume it was to save about a dollar or two on gaskets and o-rings.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#43

Post by leetrout »

imsofuture wrote: post #37

Plus, ethanol is bad in cold weather climates. As I understand it, it can phase separate and put a bunch of water in your tank (basically).

I live far below the Mason-Dixon line and I can't comment on ethanol in colder climates but I can tell you that I treat any ethanol gasoline for my small single cylinder engines in the can when I fill it up since we have such high humidity in the South in the summer and the ethanol will increase the moisture content in the fuel.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#44

Post by bane »

IgorPartola wrote: post #29

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 neg…

> does the production of corn ethanol really increase food prices?

It might be hard to determine. But here's an anecdote, the price of short ribs has dramatically gone up. My wife is Korean, so short ribs (galbi) are a favorite dish. We used to be able to buy several pounds of ribs, a huge pile of them, for $20-30. They were so cheap, and there were so many of them, and the way they were packaged was in such large packages, that it would take us several meals to get through them. It used to be a regular thing for us to go get some ribs, grab a few friends and spend a lazy afternoon in the park cooking Korean bbq and we'd all go home stuffed. We used to even buy it when we were much less well off it was such a cheap and satisfying meal.

Only a decade later, $30-40 buys you enough for a couple people, if we eat a side of rice and other food with it.

As a result, galbi has turned into a rare treat, despite us being much better-off financially, it's so expensive compared other foods that it's just not worth it anymore. Even restaurants we frequent will have a menu of $10-12 meals and then galbi (1 person's service) will be something like $18-20.

My understanding is that over 90% of cows are fed mostly with corn feed, so if corn goes up, the price of cows go up.

We're also starting to see some minor kickback against HFCS. The story is that it's bad for health, but my personal theory is that companies are trying to rework supply chains around other sugar sources in the event corn subsidies disappear. "Mexican Coke" and "Throwback Pepsi" are regulars at my local stores. Sold at a slightly higher price than the HFCS varieties.

I haven't read this yet, but it appears to look at some of these relationships. http://www.card.iastate.edu/policy_briefs/display.aspx?id=11...

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#45

Post by qq66 »

bane wrote: post #44
IgorPartola wrote: post #29

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 neg…

> does the production of corn ethanol really increase food prices? It might be hard to determine. But here's an anecdote, the price of short ribs has dramatically gone up. My wife is Korean, so short ribs (galbi) are a favorite dish. We used to be able to buy several pounds of ribs, a huge pile of them, for $20-30. They were so cheap, and there were so many of them, and the way they were packaged was in such large pa…

Beef prices have gone up a LOT in recent years, but ethanol-related corn price increases is only a part of the reason.

Slightly increased domestic demand due to economic recovery, as well as very large increases in foreign demand due to economic development, combined with the fact that supply was trimmed back during the recession, are also big parts of the equation.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#46

Post by 001sky »

lutorm wrote: post #22
maratd wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

cattle food is going into the food-system as a subsidy for human food... ie it is making high-quality proteing cheaper....

on the other hand, ethanol just makes people food more expensive....and it sucks as a fuel anyway (engineering reasons)...

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#47

Post by sliverstorm »

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

There are uses for (some) ethanol in gasoline. It boosts octane and decreases CO production (smog) by increasing fuel oxygenation, for starters.

Oxygenated fuel is fuel with extra oxygen that is released during combustion. Nitromethane is an especially dramatic example:

The oxygen content of nitromethane enables it to burn with much less atmospheric oxygen... The amount of air required to burn 1 kg (2.2 lb) of gasoline is 14.7 kg (32 lb), but only 1.7 kg (3.7 lb) of air is required for 1 kg of nitromethane

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#48

Post by cpwright »

ufo wrote: post #36
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.

I'm not a car expert but I remember hearing somewhere that it depends on how the engine is manufactured. Here in Brazil the car engines are engineered to withstand high alcohol contents and there are even cars with "flex-fuel" technology that can handle any mixture from 100% gasoline to 100% ethanol.

Flex Fuel Vehicles are a thing in the United States too; but only up to 85% ethanol. One of my vehicles will run on E85, but since it would cost more and is not as available as regular gasoline, there is no real reason to use it.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#49

Post by PythonicAlpha »

The whole ethanol story is a weird one. In the EU ethanol was (and still is) promoted as "environment friendly".

Facts are against it. There are plenty of studies, that ethanol is doing more harm to environment than it helps. The reason is, that conventional thinking that "corn growing reduces CO2" is just to simple. You must take into account all factors and also damages that are made by the ethanol production. And it is a fact, that rain forests and other natural plants are displaced by corn farms for ethanol. So conventional thinking "great we have more plants and CO2 is reduced" is just plainly wrong. This thinking was misguiding and misused by the ethanol lobbies.

It would be better to stay on normal gasoline and at the same time reduce the gasoline usage of cars and factories in mid-term. In long term, we should go for better energy sources (preferably solar and wind energy).

So, the environment is no valid reason for the ethanol promotion. What is the only (valid) reason to do so?: To get less dependent from the oil-countries. (so politics again)

But the best way would be to get rid of this environment-costly energy source for real environment-friendly ones.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#50

Post by PythonicAlpha »

mrbabbage wrote: post #16

Further reading for the interested: - "All studies indicated that current corn ethanol technologies are much less petroleum-intensive than gasoline but have greenhouse gas emissions similar to those of gasoline. However, many important environmental effects of biofuel production are poorly understood. New metrics that measure specific resource inputs are developed, but further research into environmental metrics is n…

Thank you for making all the citations! I made my post (with similar subject, but without citations) before I saw yours.
Post reply on HN