Live data from Hacker News

End the Ethanol Rip-Off

nytimes.com

141–150 of 155 posts

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#141

Does anyone know what the relative cost of MTBE is vs. ethanol? One of the reasons ethanol is added to gasoline is to increase the octane rating. We used to use MTBE instead. I'm curious if the argument against ethanol continues to bear out when considering alternative octane boosters.

This characterizes MTBE production costs:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/special/pdf/mtbecost.pdf

It uses oil and natural gas feedstocks, so goes up and down with them. I guess it is somewhat cheaper to produce than ethanol, something like 1/2 the cost when the various input costs make the comparison the worst, and similar at other times (this is just a ballpark guess, not based on any careful analysis).

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the greenhouse footprint of cattle farming. You can't really feed more people -- at least in the US -- because we already consume food in quantities that are arguably toxic. But you could turn the corn fields over to other kinds of crops. Disclaimer: I eat meat, maybe 1/4 to 1/2 pound a week.

It's hard to say what the footprint of cattle farming really is. Each side ( and oh boy are there sides ) cherry picks their own figures. I know that in Texas, the biggest reason people let family land that could be used for cow-farming go is taxation - there are Land Trusts that allow you to keep nominal control of the land while agreeing never to use it productively again, to get a tax abatement. Also, the lyrics t…

>>It's hard to say what the footprint of cattle farming really is.

It is hard to say for certain, but we can get a pretty good idea based on the inputs required to raise cattle. Water, grain, antibiotics, petroleum based fuels to plant, harvest and transport the grain, petroleum based fertilizers to aid in growing the grain, and herbicides and pesticides to kill unwanted organisms (I'm sure I missed something).

Not to mention a few of the by-products such as manure and chemical run-off, methane emissions, and soil erosion (from conventional agriculture practices).

The above describes a CAFO, which is where the majority of beef comes from. Managed intensive rotational grazing would be my preferred alternative, but there still wouldn't be enough land available to keep up with our consumption.

>>And the biggest receivers of any sort of subsidy - precious California water included - are veggie farmers.

Can you please site some of the sources that you are using to determine that vegetable farmers are receiving more subsidies than any other industry? I assume you meant "the biggest receivers of any sort of Agriculture subsidy", but I still don't think that is right.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

That's not correct. In a pure-ethanol economy, the total emissions will be CO2 from:

- Deforestation for the creation of corn fields. This includes the process of cutting down trees (gas powered machines, transport, etc.) and loss of trees that will no longer produce O2/absorb CO2

- Planting

- Fertilizers. This one is huge as creation of fertilizers is nasty business and fairly energy intensive.

- Harvesting

- Transport

- Fermentation

- Disposal of byproducts

- Transport again to the pump

- Combustion

- Other effects, such as having to manufacture more engines as they would wear out quicker and recycling of more worn out engines.

This would partially offset by the fact that the corn is absorbing CO2.

As I mentioned above (twice), fossil fuels have similarly complex sources of emissions (drilling/fracking, transport, refining, transport again, combustion).

The question to answer is this: if you sum up the totals for both methods, which is more efficient. I guarantee you, both still will produce net positive CO2 emissions. The only question is which will produce less net CO2 from all the sources.

Lastly, I should mention that theoretically, there is also a benefit of reducing other nasty emissions from fossil fuels such as sulfur. We could probably produce cleaner ethanol than gasoline. But none of that will matter if we spew so much CO2 into the air that we suffocate before we can measure these secondary pollutants properly.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#144

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…

Corn subsidies will end when electric vehicles begin to put a dent in gasoline consumption in the US.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#145

As someone who runs E85 because it's essentially race gas for about $1.25 a gallon, I'm conflicted.

Which gets you what exactly? You can do racy things with an engine running on 87 octane with the two wheeled varieties more than capable of satisfying any speed lust.

Every performance sports bike I've owned (capable of 15K rpms) requires high octane fuel because of the compression they run at (~11:1). 87 octane fuel in a race engine?? No. No. No.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#146
post #21

As someone who runs E85 because it's essentially race gas for about $1.25 a gallon, I'm conflicted.

E85 is SO far from "essentially race gas". It has much LOWER energy density than non-ethanol gas. It takes 1.39 gallons of E85 to have the same energy as 1 gallon of conventional dino juice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent The only way to get more power with E85 is to have some sort of extreme engine running INSANE amounts of turbo boost, like the Koenesegg CCXR. In a normal street car any lev…

Running 8psi and high compression I go from 260hp at the wheels to over 300. 20mpg 93 octane vs 18 on e85.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US is not one of those places, I would hope.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US is not one of those places, I would hope.

It definitely is. http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defi....

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#149
post #129
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The best way to explain it is by analogy. Diesel engines originally were developed to burn peanut oil. So lets run the peanut farm on locally grown peanut oil. Lets say the tractors and trucks take 100 barrels of peanut oil per year to run. Oh fertilizers and poisons and all that petroleum derived stuff take oil too, but whatever, we'll imagine the total energy cost of running a farm is 100 barrel equivalent of peanu…

We would net conserve crude petroleum if we shut down ethanol production today.

Correct, this is the real question, whose answer is debated and depends severely on the production mechanism.

Re: End the Ethanol Rip-Off

#150
I'm surprised no one has commented on the amount of fresh water we use to produce ethanol, particularly ethanol derived from corn.

Water is needed to grow the corn and also in processing it.

"The amount of water it takes to produce ethanol varies according to how much irrigation is needed for the corn, particularly since row crop agriculture for corn is the most water consuming stage of ethanol production. In Ohio, because of sufficient rainfall, only 1% of the corn is irrigated while in Nebraska 72% of the crop is irrigated. It takes 19 gallons of water to produce a bushel of corn in Region 5, 38 gallons in Region 6, and 865 gallons in Region 7. The Baker Institute estimates that producing the corn to meet the ethanol mandate for 2015 will require 2.9 trillion gallons of water.

Most of this irrigation water is drawn from groundwater aquifers in a region that is already water stressed. Conflicts over water allotments have occurred in Kansas and Nebraska, and the Ogallala Aquifer, which lies under the Great Plains and supplies 30% of the nation’s groundwater for irrigation, is in danger of running dry.

Growing corn also requires a great deal of fertilizer, and extensive use of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides is having severe impacts on water quality now. Fertilizer laden runoff into streams in the Midwest makes its way to the Mississippi River, and eventually contributes to the eutrophication (when algae bloom, then die, depleting the area of oxygen and suffocating plants and animals) in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2010, this dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico was estimated to be almost 8000 square miles and it continues to grow. 2.39 million additional tons of nitrogen fertilizer will be needed to meet the 2015 mandate.

Easily erodible and less productive land set aside by the conservation reserve program, that paid farmers to retire inferior land, is now being pressed back into service due to the lure of high corn prices. This land will likely need additional fertilizer and irrigation to be productive, which will result in more polluted runoff and water consumption.

Although biofuels are promoted because they are said to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, some scientists argue that when the life cycle of ethanol production is compared to that of conventional gasoline, there may be no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at all. More corn is being planted on more land fertilized with nitrogen, resulting in additional air and water pollution from nitrous oxide, a chemical 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

Processing corn to make ethanol requires substantial amounts of water for the grinding, liquefaction, fermentation, separation and drying procedures. Over the last ten years, however, some of the nation’s 200 biorefineries have been able to reduce water use from 6.8 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol to 3 gallons by boosting the efficiency of their equipment. South Dakota based Poet,the world’s largest ethanol producer is aiming to cut its overall water intake by 22% by 2014, and use only 2.33 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol produced. This would reduce its annual water use by 1 billion gallons."

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/03/21/ethanol%E2%80%99s-im...

Post reply on HN