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

131–140 of 155 posts

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#131

Post by joshuapants »

IgorPartola wrote: post #113
snowwrestler wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, that isn't all that matters. I outlined the other factors that matter in my original comment. Wouldn't you agree that fracking also contributes to global warming? Or that fermenting corn does? What matters is the net total. If all that mattered was CO2 from oil, it would be an easy problem: get rid of oil, use ethanol. Thing is CO2 is the same, whether it comes from oil, ethanol, coal burning power plants, or cow…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if for example we only used pure ethanol as fuel, carbon would still be emitted, but it would also be offset by the carbon absorbed by growing the next round of fuel crops. It seems like such a situation would be either carbon-neutral or close to it.

Especially if we develop (through GMOs or ordinary selective breeding) crops specifically for fuel purposes to make the whole process more efficient.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#132

Post by superflit »

swah wrote: post #124
dataker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brazil uses sugar cane, so the process is more efficient than in the US

What about the environmental impact comparting to the US method?

It is drastic. My sister worked in one of the farms...

The crop is not good? It went spoiled?

Well light this matches and watch it burn.. yes literally

The cities nearby suffer a lot with respiratory problems specially kids.

But you will not see that on News the companies pay a lot to "promote" their eco images

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#133

Post by maxerickson »

malandrew wrote: post #88
curun1r wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a class of antibiotics (ionophores) that are used in cattle feed specifically to manage issues with grain feeding. They reduce incidence of "bloat", and increase feed efficiency. They are also used with other feeds, but the purpose is still to manage digestion issues.

I think there is more use of other antibiotics to treat sickness in feedlots though.

(as an aside, this pdf has an amazing and disturbing illustration of severe bloat on the third page: https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/jas/p... Warning: it shows material ejecting from a medical opening in a rumen.)

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#134

Post by maxerickson »

modoc wrote: post #117
lutorm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As the owner of 3 ducatis, a snow blower, and a generator... when ethanol gas sits around for a while it does awful awful things:( Fuel stabilizers help a little, but the only way to REALLY make things work is to either run the engines at LEAST once a week all year, or to fully drain everything, and then deal with another sort of hassle when you need the generator running immediately.. While my car runs the ethenoliz…

Using ethanol as an oxidizer instead of MTBE looks like pretty much a no brainer. I guess the blend is being maxed out instead of just using the appropriate amount needed for emissions control, but the use of ethanol doesn't just come down to subsidies.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#135

Post by maxerickson »

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,…

The EU generally does not have cleaner air than the US, despite more stringent regulations. Population density is a major factor.

Diesel regulations are roughly equal (Europe got there earlier though): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#136

Post by commandar »

modoc wrote: post #118
lutorm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

If E85 has ~40% less energy in it per volume/weight, then you'd need to be pushing ~40% MORE fuel in the same timeframe to break even on power, right? So you'd need the octane jump from 91/93 to to 94-96 to allow you to run enough extra boost to burn 40% more fuel per cycle. Assuming your turbo/supercharger can deliver 40% more pressure without a big drop in efficiency. And you need your fuel injectors and fuel pump…

It generally requires an upgrade to the fuel system, yes. There's been a lot of discussion of this in the tuner community, but the very short version is that it works and works well if making power is your goal.

There's a good primer here: http://www.iwsti.com/forums/3016597-post3.html

tl;dr - E85 does have lower energy per unit of volume than pump gas, but the significantly higher octane rating and evaporative cooling effect of ethanol mean higher boost and compression levels, more than making up for the difference.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#137

Post by rayiner »

microtonal wrote: post #101
Kalium wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You should think about the complexity involved in eating a healthy vegetarian diet before you start being dismissive of it. Lets not blow the difficulty of being a vegetarian out of proportion. Eating a healthy vegan diet is still difficult. Eating a healthy vegetarian diet is not. There are plenty of cook books describing varied and balanced vegetarian meals. There are plenty of restaurants that serve good vegetaria…

And there's plenty of people who live in places where it's impossible to get any fresh vegetables, much less enough of a variety to provide all the amino acids necessary for someone who isn't eating meat.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#138

Post by dataker »

swah wrote: post #124
dataker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brazil uses sugar cane, so the process is more efficient than in the US

What about the environmental impact comparting to the US method?

It has similar issues, such as using fertilizers and water usage. At the same time, one of the main issues is deforestation in the Amazon and field burning before harvest.

Still, it probably still makes sense to use it. For example, its energy balance(ethanol/energy for its production) is ~8-10 whereas in the US is ~1-2.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#139

Post by dataker »

superflit wrote: post #132
swah wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the environmental impact comparting to the US method?

It is drastic. My sister worked in one of the farms... The crop is not good? It went spoiled? Well light this matches and watch it burn.. yes literally The cities nearby suffer a lot with respiratory problems specially kids. But you will not see that on News the companies pay a lot to "promote" their eco images

They actually burn it to avoid harm to the workers and use its ash to fertilize their land. However, mechanization has reduced the need to burn fields and pollution has gradually been decreased.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#140

Post by snowwrestler »

eru wrote: post #66
snowwrestler wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right but that's not the effect that the RFS has. Ethanol directly supplants oil, without affecting total supply or demand for liquid fuel, so it does not allow oil companies to raise their price per volume. Again: that's why they oppose it.
Post reply on HN