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

51–60 of 155 posts

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#51

Post by hueving »

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).

There isn't enough grass to 'let the cows eat' while sustaining affordability for lower income people. That's why they switched to corn, much better density of calories.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#52

Post by joezydeco »

cmurf wrote: post #27
joezydeco wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's the term I've been looking for. Thanks.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#53

Post by hueving »

pbreit wrote: post #39
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).

The opposite: ethanol serves as a gas-line antifreeze.

Ethonal free gasoline doesn't freeze easily either so that isn't relevant.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#54

Post by shard972 »

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.

Then why on earth is the Australian government making us put this shit in our cars unless we want to buy 100% premium fuel.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#55

Post by adventured »

pedalpete wrote: post #5
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

I've always wondered about this argument in an environment suffering from an obesity epidemic, often blamed on another corn product, high-fructose corn syrup. Having lived in many different countries, the cost of food in the US is incredibly low. I assume (and have heard) this is mostly a result of subsidies to farmers. All the while, US exports of 'corn based products', which I assume is also corn, has continued to…

Between 1950 and 2000, corn production per acre in the US increased nearly 300%. Population increased 86%.

Subsidies do play a role, however American farm productivity is among the highest of any country and has skyrocketed in the last 50 to 60 years. This is due to technology, organization structure, and a geography favorable to nearly every type of farming. Few countries have all of those things, along with the world's largest consumer and capital markets.

Three million US farmers produce so much food they can feed not only all 320 million Americans, but also export a vast amount of food.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#56

Post by sigzero »

guscost wrote: post #7
swah wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Brazil, the amount of mandatory ethanol in gas was raised to 27%, to stimulate ethanol producers.

If the rumors are true, that mix could also eat through an otherwise reasonably efficient four-cylinder in record time, which would be a shame.

Not to mention motorcycles...yeesh.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#57

Post by zaroth »

qq66 wrote: post #45
bane wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I had read a couple years ago that drought was making feed prohibitively expensive, leading to a culling of stock which lowered prices temporarily, and now we are in for an extended run of higher priced beef.

E.g http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-21/peter-luge...

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#58

Post by HNaTTY »

lutorm wrote: post #32
Qwertious wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "uses more fuel than it produces" argument is a bit of a red herring. Gasoline also "uses more fuel than it produces", because it takes a substantial amount of fuel to bring one gallon of gas out of the ground, refine it, and truck it out to the pump.

That doesn't make any sense.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#59

Post by molecule »

End subsidized food burning:

> Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_Sta...

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#60

Post by littletimmy »

hueving wrote: post #51
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).

There isn't enough grass to 'let the cows eat' while sustaining affordability for lower income people. That's why they switched to corn, much better density of calories.

It is not absolutely essential that lower income people eat beef. More importantly, the state should not be allowed to waste tax payer money on the ridiculous idea that lower income people must have beef to eat.

Why on earth should my tax dollars go to a steak party?

Post reply on HN