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

U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 264 posts

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#161

Post by HDThoreaun »

koolba wrote: post #69
labrador wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which is why the Democratic Party changed it under cover of starting with "a more diverse state" Iowa no longer first; Democrats reorder the presidential primary calendar for 2024 https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/1...

> which is why the Democratic Party changed it under cover of starting with "a more diverse state" It wasn’t because they care about offending farmers or removing ethanol subsidies, it was so that Biden can lock down some early primary wins in 2024 with States with a higher percentage of black voters.

If Biden runs he won't be challenged in the primary. There's no reason for him to fix it.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#162

Post by marktangotango »

benp84 wrote: post #150
cashsterling wrote: post #37

As others mentioned, this is not a new finding. There is a lot of academic and industrial/economic analysis on this subject. Ethanol from corn was never a good idea economically for anyone other than corn farmers. It is also bad environmentally and places additional competitive demand on our food supply (choice and competition between corn going into food or fuel supply). Similar analysis has been done on other crop…

I was under the impression that corn ethanol was effectively solar energy because corn turns sunlight and carbon into biomass then we burn the biomass back to atmospheric carbon. Isn't that the fundamentals? Is there a big, basic reason it doesn't work or is it lots of little side effects? Thanks for weighing in.

The fundamental reason is producing ethanol from corn requires quite a lot of energy; for cooking the mash and distilling the final product. If the cycle was entirely ethanol "all the way down" it could be carbon nuetral although using ethanol for production would detract from the "total efficiency". Invariably other fuels are used in production.

I went through the math a few years ago from the perspective of "micro power plants" for powering BTC mining. Coal is the winner from a cost perspective; but terribly dirty obviously. And capital intensive. Burning corn as fuel to a high efficiency boiler is actually more efficient than ethanol.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#163

Post by mgkimsal »

Scoundreller wrote: post #153
mgkimsal wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been tracking my flex-fuel usage - mostly E85 fillips - for a while now, tracking price and MPG. At least with the prices I've been getting, I typically get around 15% less MPG, but the price is between 10-15% cheaper. My 'cents per mile' price has generally remained the same over the last year or so I've been tracking (been tracking longer than a year, but have been using E85 more regularly in the last year). N…

So then do you fill up with E0 or E10 so you can fill up less frequently?

Last... year or so I've been getting E85 when possible/convenient, and defaulting to regular 87 octane when E85 isn't available. Those tend to be the only reliably available options - haven't seen E10 around here. Last 6 months have been about 80% E85 and 20% 87 regular.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#164

Post by dragonwriter »

georgyo wrote: post #141
dragonwriter wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2024 changes, inasmuch as they are about specific elections and not the general long-term arc of the party, are about 2028 more than 2024. No one is expecting a significantly contested nominating contest when the party has an incumbent President seeking reelection.

Incumbents do have an advantage, but I wouldn't say they aren't expecting a significant contested election. Trump was the incumbent, and it was a pretty aggressively contested.

> Incumbents do have an advantage, but I wouldn’t say they aren’t expecting a significant contested election

I’ve clarified the grandparent: I was referring to the nominating contest (the aggregate of primary elections and caucuses that are addressed by the schedule change being discussed), not the general election.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#165

Post by tristan957 »

bilsbie wrote: post #147

It’s unreal how much ethanol lowers your gas milage too! Experienced my local station switch to 10% and saw my milage go from 28 to 24. Pretty positive no other factors changed.

This site might help you.

https://www.pure-gas.org/

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#166

Post by Scoundreller »

greedo wrote: post #158
Scoundreller wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethanol is great for gas stations too. Your tank doesn’t go as far so you need to visit them more often. Dunno how the complaints about ethanol = bad because it’s hygroscopic really are. Yeah, 100% ethanol will pull in atmospheric h2o, but in a gasoline+ethanol mix? If anything, a small bit of ethanol helps “break the phase” and at least runs any moisture through your engine instead of a separate layer which is surel…

Ethanol gas is terrible for most car engines and fuel systems.

You saying the manufacturers haven’t adapted anything for cars to run on E10 in the first place?

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#167

Post by dragonwriter »

fsckboy wrote: post #143
labrador wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that's all that it's about? I'd say it's about a lot of things since Democrats have been unhappy about starting in Iowa for a long time.

everybody is jumping down GP's throat here by focusing on the word "Biden". him saying they're doing it to lock in Biden (their mainstream/establishment frontrunner) in large early primaries in 2024 (the next election) is not really different from saying they're doing it to lock in their mainstream/establishment frontrunner in large early primaries in future elections to avoid the kind of "self destructive" interneci…

> him saying they’re doing it to lock in Biden (their mainstream/establishment frontrunner) in large early primaries in 2024 (the next election) is not really different from saying they’re doing it to lock in their mainstream/establishment frontrunner in large early primaries in future elections

Yes, it is.

Because it refers to specific geographic strengths that Biden had as a candidate, not strengths that are uniformly typical of establishment-preferred Democratic candidates.

(Now if, instead of referring to Biden’s particular and unique strengths that correlate with the change, they had said that it was to lock in estanlishment candidates by moving some larger, more expensive states to campaign in forward, and that that establishment support was more key in campaigning in those states – a weak but at least superficially plausible argument – that would be different. But “states with a higner percentage of black voters” are…a different thing.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#168

Post by HDThoreaun »

bennysonething wrote: post #46

I still don't understand why we're still doing bio fuels. We've known for decades that they are a disaster. Am I missing something, is there evidence to the contrary? For now I can't see how we can just stop fossil fuels without starving half the world (as we need them for fertilizer production). Never mind cement, plastics and steel.

We're doing it to pump corn prices. Also energy independence from pre fracking days.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#169

Post by philistine »

dragonwriter wrote: post #127
TremendousJudge wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. If you're going to change it, why don't do the primary on the same day like any other country?

> If you’re going to change it, why don’t do the primary on the same day like any other country? It is not true that “every other country” has parties select their presidential (or nearest equivalent, whether as head of state or head of government, other countries frequently divorcing those roles) candidate by simultaneous national elections. Sometimes, they don’t even (in a legal sense) choose a candidate at all , t…

You're on to something there. Keep digging. Perhaps you'll come to the truth of the matter that the USA's political system is undemocratic to no end.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#170

Post by r00fus »

The only way this gets resolved is when political parties stop pretending that Iowa is somehow representative of their voters and shift the primary schedule to put it farther behind other states.

Democrats especially shouldn’t put up with Iowa considering how it hasn’t voted D anytime recently. Not to mention the completely FUBAR 2020 primary.

Make GA or NH first contest.

Then a lot less pressure for this losing ethanol boondoggle.

Post reply on HN