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

61–70 of 155 posts

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#61

Post by emiliobumachar »

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.

"there are even cars with 'flex-fuel'" is an understatement. They were 90% of small car sales and 23% of total circulating vehicles as of 2008, probably more now.

Reference in Portuguese: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2008/07/428265-veiculos...

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#62

Post by curun1r »

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.

And, as a result, we've created the nightmare situation where we fill the animals we eat with antibiotics since we feed them foods that they're not adapted to eat. Not only are we helping to create antibiotic-resistant superbugs but the antibiotics in food also reduce the beneficial gut bacteria that we need to be healthy.

There was a time when people didn't eat meat with every meal...many people believe it's actually healthier. If people can't afford to eat grass-fed meat with every meal, the simple answer is to not eat meat with every meal...poor people can eat vegetables too and will probably be healthier for it.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#63

Post by wtbob »

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).

> If you check the label on the packaged goods you buy, corn is pretty much in all of them in one form or another.

Well yeah: corn grows really well in the American Midwest; it's pretty cool that we're able to make so many products from it (kinda like the work George Washington Carver did with peanuts, which grow very well in the South).

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#64

Post by sjwright »

shard972 wrote: post #54
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.

Mate, many of our servos sell straight 91 RON fuel. Check your local Caltex, United or 7-Eleven.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2224794

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#65

Post by eru »

shard972 wrote: post #54
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.

I blame it on the people voting for the Australian governments.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#66

Post by eru »

snowwrestler wrote: post #41
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.

It's not quite as simple. Oil companies are interested in making money, not in your burning oil. If they could make more money with your burning less oil (eg by raising oil prices high enough without damaging demand too much), they'd go for it.

In this case, the conclusion might still hold. But the proper argument has one more step.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#67

Post by eru »

pbreit wrote: post #38

Sounds like the perfect tax: driving is discouraged, cash flows to production instead of the government and it's (slightly) environmentally-friendly. And if we're getting into the details, how do we allocate the trillions of dollars spent on the Middle East?

Why is cash flowing to people who can afford lawyers a good thing?

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#68

Post by troubled5 »

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #49

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…

Ethanol is "environment friendly" when compared to gasoline, the latter having no good environmental aspects making it a bit of a low standard to beat.

The fact that rain forests are destroyed for corn plantations is probably independent of ethanol consumption, the ethanol driven investment mostly just increasing the existing rate at which deforestation happens. Corn is not only used for ethanol after all.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#69

Post by upofadown »

hueving wrote: post #53
pbreit wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

The ethanol absorbs any water and stops it from separating out. If the water separates out it can freeze in the fuel line and cause a blockage.

In my part of Canada people were actually somewhat happy when the 10% ethanol showed up as it meant that you didn't have to add any fuel line antifreeze over the winter.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#70

Post by pbreit »

eru wrote: post #67
pbreit wrote: post #38

Sounds like the perfect tax: driving is discouraged, cash flows to production instead of the government and it's (slightly) environmentally-friendly. And if we're getting into the details, how do we allocate the trillions of dollars spent on the Middle East?

Why is cash flowing to people who can afford lawyers a good thing?

I think in general cash flowing to people/businesess who are working for it is better than it going to the government. In this case, the "subsidy" is exactly proportional to work performed.
Post reply on HN