Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 257 posts

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#11

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #4

We've known for decades that it requires more energy to produce corn ethanol than is delivered in the ethanol produced. A lot of the necessary inputs are petroleum-based. This is not news. What MIGHT be news is that the environmentalists who have been pushing biofuels as a "green" alternative to oil have finally figured out this basic physical fact.

Nah I've been wanting hybrids for over a decade.

It's just that agriculture conglomerates get what they want because everyone thinks farmers should get whatever they want

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#12

Post by lelandbatey »

in_cahoots wrote: post #7

I read the whole article and I still don't see how Big Ag misled anyone. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems that the author is trying to differentiate between growing corn for food vs growing the same corn for ethanol. I assume the entire reason the lobby exists is that farmers want to grow corn for food and ethanol. But the researcher lost interest before proving anything around there. Maybe ethanol is actually…

The corn varieties grown for industrial ethanol production are mutually exclusive with the corn varieties grown for human consumption; you cannot use one for the other. They might as well be corn vs soy beans.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#13

Post by kazinator »

> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine?

Because, doh, you would grow orders of magnitude more corn than you would just for food or feed.

Also, if you simply take away food corn, using all corn for nothing but biofuels, a substitute has to be found for food/feed uses of corn.

Food-versus-fuel reasoning about corn in the context of determining whether it is climate-friendly basically doesn't hold up. It leads to absurdities like contemplating whether biofuel from an inedible plant is better for the earth than biofuel from one that can instead be eaten.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#14

Post by in_cahoots »

lelandbatey wrote: post #12
in_cahoots wrote: post #7

I read the whole article and I still don't see how Big Ag misled anyone. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems that the author is trying to differentiate between growing corn for food vs growing the same corn for ethanol. I assume the entire reason the lobby exists is that farmers want to grow corn for food and ethanol. But the researcher lost interest before proving anything around there. Maybe ethanol is actually…

The corn varieties grown for industrial ethanol production are mutually exclusive with the corn varieties grown for human consumption; you cannot use one for the other. They might as well be corn vs soy beans.

I assumed something similar. But the author presents this as some sort of trump card, as if the agriculture industry was suggesting farmers grow corn for ethanol instead of for food. And then the researcher lost interest before he could be proven right. Maybe he actually was right, but there's no evidence here.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#15

Post by fsckboy »

Animats wrote: post #9

Even DOGE didn't dare go after ethanol subsidies.[1] Even the Cato Institute, which is classic conservative in position, is against them. [1] https://www.cato.org/commentary/trump-musk-doge-havent-gone-...

Cato Institute is big L Libertarian, not classic conservative

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#16

Post by giantg2 »

lelandbatey wrote: post #12
in_cahoots wrote: post #7

I read the whole article and I still don't see how Big Ag misled anyone. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems that the author is trying to differentiate between growing corn for food vs growing the same corn for ethanol. I assume the entire reason the lobby exists is that farmers want to grow corn for food and ethanol. But the researcher lost interest before proving anything around there. Maybe ethanol is actually…

The corn varieties grown for industrial ethanol production are mutually exclusive with the corn varieties grown for human consumption; you cannot use one for the other. They might as well be corn vs soy beans.

I believe they grow field corn for animal feed as well as for ethanol. Technically some processed foods also use field corn. While there are a number of varieties of field corn, I don't believe any are exclusive to ethanol production and could be used in other capacities.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#17

Post by ars »

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

For years I saw saturation ads for the Archer-Daniels-Midland Corporation on PBS, I found out years that this is the prime beneficiary of the ethanol program. Farmers growing corn for ethanol are growing broke despite subsidies. The program is an environmental disaster because people in the Mississippi River basin should be growing anything except corn because corn is a crop that requires huge imports of nitrogen fer…

They should switch to growing sugar cane. There's a high demand for sugar, plus sugar works even better than corn for ethanol.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#18

Post by somat »

lelandbatey wrote: post #12
in_cahoots wrote: post #7

I read the whole article and I still don't see how Big Ag misled anyone. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems that the author is trying to differentiate between growing corn for food vs growing the same corn for ethanol. I assume the entire reason the lobby exists is that farmers want to grow corn for food and ethanol. But the researcher lost interest before proving anything around there. Maybe ethanol is actually…

The corn varieties grown for industrial ethanol production are mutually exclusive with the corn varieties grown for human consumption; you cannot use one for the other. They might as well be corn vs soy beans.

Fun fact: corn farmers almost always rotate with soybeans to replenish the nitrogen in the soil.

Also, most corn (and soybeans) is for animal food anyway. Very little of the corn grown in the US is for human consumption.

My understanding(not a corn farmer but have watched a show by one on youtube) is the farmer will harvest the corn then dry and store it, selling over the course of a year or two, the ethanol plant is sort of the fallback option when they need to get rid if it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSB-8dn3CkI

Personally, I am in the rapeseed bandwagon. Ethanol is not a very good fuel, better to be growing bio-diesel

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#19

Post by [deleted] »

anonym29 wrote: post #6

I know the general public should never be expected to subsidize enthusiasts, but E85 - available in many places for under $3/gal - has many of the same performance characteristics as $20/gal race gas for performance automotive enthusiasts. I'm all for the peaceful and orderly dissolution of the entire US federal government, as involuntary taxation under implied threat of violence is theft, but until then, thanks for…

[deleted]

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#20

Post by graeme »

I remember when the corn subsidies were introduced. I don't recall seeing any favourable commentary. Nor do I remember anyone in real life discussing them or saying "gee I'm glad we're saying the environment with biofuels"

For anyone who had heard of them the program seemed pretty transparently a way to put a fig leaf on an extra subsidy. Big agriculture may not have spoken accurately about the programs but I doubt they succeeded in misleading anyone. Maybe in the states receiving subsidies, no firsthand experience of the marketing there.

Post reply on HN