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

81–90 of 155 posts

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#81

Post by freebullets »

cpwright wrote: post #48
ufo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do people actually use it? Is there ever a reason to use it? It costs 5% less but is 25% less efficient.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#82

Post by maratd »

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.

> There isn't enough grass to 'let the cows eat' while sustaining affordability for lower income people.

I'm pretty sure there's no shortage of grass. If we turn some of those corn fields into grazing fields, there would be even more grass.

The reason they use corn is because it fattens up the cow much faster and to a far greater degree.

So yeah, switching to grass will increase the price of beef on a per pound basis. Label the meat. Let people choose. Stick a "fed with corn" or "fed with grass" sticker on it. I'll happily pay twice as much knowing the animal didn't eat crap.

We already do this with eggs. Lots of labeling. There's no reason we can't extend this to poultry and beef.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#83

Post by cplease »

maratd wrote: post #82
hueving wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There isn't enough grass to 'let the cows eat' while sustaining affordability for lower income people. I'm pretty sure there's no shortage of grass. If we turn some of those corn fields into grazing fields, there would be even more grass. The reason they use corn is because it fattens up the cow much faster and to a far greater degree. So yeah, switching to grass will increase the price of beef on a per pound basis…

> I'm pretty sure there's no shortage of grass.

Then you should check your confidence level, because you're wrong. Most of the available USA grazing territory is already cow-burnt, and that's before you get things like the extreme droughts of recent years causing mass cattle slaughter and die-offs. And mind you all but a rounding error of these cattle are finished on grain feedlots.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#84

Post by cplease »

eastbayjake wrote: post #35
pedalpete wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm hopeful that normalized relations with Cuba will be the end of our crazy corn subsidies. If you want to make ethanol, sugarcane is 7x more energy efficient in producing ethanol compared to corn, and you can produce twice as much ethanol from an acre of sugarcane as an acre of corn[1]. And if you want to sweeten food and beverages, the same energy efficiency applies to cane sugar harvesting: you can get more sugar…

Very unlikely. The USA sugar policy is older than the corn policy, why would trade with Cuba change that just because it's one of their agricultural products?

Cuba is not even in the top ten cane producers, and more to the point, the USA alone produces over 15 times as much cane as Cuba. Brazil, which has bilateral free trade agreements with the USA, produces well over 400 times as much cane as Cuba.

What leads you to believe that lifting some sanctions against Cuba would do anything to change US sugar policy?

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#85

Post by ars »

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.

It's sort of both.

Ethanol does absorb water from the air.

But that's how it works as a gas-line antifreeze: It absorbs undesired water from the fuel line and mixes with it so that you can burn it.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#86

Post by Kalium »

curun1r wrote: post #62
hueving wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actuall…

> There was a time when people didn't eat meat with every meal.

Yeah. There was also a time when 8-year-olds did a full day's work in the mines and malnourishment was the norm.

You should think about the complexity involved in eating a healthy vegetarian diet before you start being dismissive of it. Meat is easier in some significant ways.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#87

Post by philwelch »

jmspring wrote: post #34

Vaguely unrelated, but petroleum politics, especially between the US And Europe are weird. I've got a diesel VW, I get roughly 40MPG, and my car has 3 catalytic converters in it. I live in California. Last year, my wife and I rented a diesel 7 series while in Europe (a minor upgrade to the car we had reserved). 70% of our driving was non-Autobahn, but still a lot in the 120kph range, with some traffic. 30% Autobahn,…

Europe also seems to have less driving than California on account of actually having transit.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#88

Post by malandrew »

curun1r wrote: post #62
hueving wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actuall…

I would imagine that the antibiotics in cattle issue is far more closely related to factory farming in confined quarters than anything to do with what kind of food they are primarily eating.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#89

Post by stbtrax »

littletimmy wrote: post #60
hueving wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Pardon the pun, but your complaints are incredibly rarified. No one's having a steak party, they're eating burgers and tacos in between their long shifts because of lack of fresh produce and time to cook it.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#90

Post by eru »

pbreit wrote: post #70
eru wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you agree at all on having a government, then it needs some funding. And now, why should the government touch and move around more flows of money than are strictly necessary to fund it?

More money touched and redirected just leads to more corruption and rent-seeking.

If you want the government to have less money, let's just reduce eg the `sin tax on honest work' aka the income tax.

Post reply on HN