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

21–30 of 257 posts

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

#21

Post by mlyle »

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.

Yah. There's some reason for ethanol in the fuel mix. Having the ability to do it at some scale is good for security purposes, and it helps tailpipe emissions.

But that's a lot less corn-derived ethanol than we currently make/burn.

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

#23

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

Lobbyists are responsible for all of the harm that Americans at large come to. Eco damage, car crashes, toxic chemicals in food, the drug war, wars in the Middle East, lack of public housing, the world's most expensive health care, union-busting, even heart disease. If you can think of it and it hurts lots of Americans, lobbyists were behind it.

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

#24

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

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…

Farmers could make more money if we subsidized fresh vegetables rather than ethanol, and it would make us healthier.

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

#25

Post by joak »

Agriculture is bad for biodiversity. The raison d'être of agriculture is to favor few species over all others. The goal of agriculture is to reduce biodiversity.

Please keep agriculture for food.

Simple molecules like ethanol can be produced with electricity, water and air (CO2 capture). No need to sterilize a patch of land for that.

Besides I'm not sure ethanol is much needed, electric cars do not burn ethanol.

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

#26

Post by mikepavone »

ars wrote: post #17
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.

Most places growing corn don't have the right climate for sugar cane.

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

#27

Post by kwk1 »

somat wrote: post #18
lelandbatey wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> little of the corn grown in the US is for human consumption.

Yup, just as a point of reference, something like 70% of Illinois corn goes straight into Illinois hogs.

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

#28

Post by toomuchtodo »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #24
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…

Farmers could make more money if we subsidized fresh vegetables rather than ethanol, and it would make us healthier.

The purpose of the system is what it does. That would not enrich the people and orgs currently being enriched by the subsidies provided for biofuels. The US is farming ~60M acres just for ethanol and biodiesel.

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

#29

Post by unanonymousanon »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #23

Lobbyists are responsible for all of the harm that Americans at large come to. Eco damage, car crashes, toxic chemicals in food, the drug war, wars in the Middle East, lack of public housing, the world's most expensive health care, union-busting, even heart disease. If you can think of it and it hurts lots of Americans, lobbyists were behind it.

I think this takes too much responsibility off the politicians swayed by lobbyists and the corporations paying lobbyists. Don’t get me wrong, lobbyists have been middlemen in a lot of disastrous policy, but they’re not really the source of the problem.
Post reply on HN