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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 248 posts

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

#201

Post by thinkcontext »

invalidator wrote: post #5

This article misses a key point: Ethanol is used to oxygenate the fuel, which reduces carbon monoxide and soot emissions. It replaced MTBE in that role. It was never intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Producing it requires more energy than it provides, and this was known long before it was introduced. It might be possible to power the production with renewable energy, but that's just extra steps for powerin…

We produce way more ethanol than is necessary for fuel oxygenation. Indeed GWB sold the RFS as a way to lessen dependence on foreign oil.

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

#202

Post by colordrops »

lobocinza wrote: post #66
colordrops wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make sense. More and more electric is being generated renewably. It's not some far fetched pie in the sky thing either - I fully charge my car using solar cells on the top of my roof. My daily driving is carbon neutral. Lithium mining isn't great for the environment, but it's certainly much less of a problem than co2 emmisions.

> Lithium mining isn't great for the environment, but it's certainly much less of a problem than CO2 emissions. Was it measured?

I've seen thousands of papers regarding extreme climate change from CO2 emissions. I've seen nothing that indicates lithium mining does anything but local damage. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

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

#203

Post by thinkcontext »

evancoop wrote: post #103

How many products are subsidized on one and and regulated on the other? Corn is subsidized in production, but then when those subsidies yield health-hindering quantities of cheap sweetener (corn syrup), we attempt to regulate its application and consumption. Now, we'll subsidize growth again, but then regulate the greenhouse emissions on the other. It is one thing for government regulation to address externalities (g…

Incredibly, ethanol is subsidized more than once. Corn itself is subsidized and then there's a credit to blenders. And on top of that fuel sellers are required to sell a certain amount.

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

#204

Post by credit_guy »

phil21 wrote: post #147
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I just watched that video and it supports what the original commenter stated. The bill introduced many things, some efficiency regulations and investments in new tech were aimed at climate change. When he introduces ethanol, he specifically calls out diversification of energy supplies and reduction of imports and not carbon.

I agree. I can't speak to how this was marketed/pitched at a national level, but in my (midwestern) state it was a huge deal so even as a kid I paid attention to it. I don't remember much of a climate pitch at all. Everyone immediately pointed out that it cost more energy than it produced. The pitch to the public where I lived at the time was national security (energy independence), and of course the demand it would…

> it cost more energy than it produced

How can that be? Are you including the solar energy? Well, in that case, every process out there has a less than 100% efficiency, so the claim may be true, but also vacuous.

If you don't include the solar energy, then are you saying that all the energy used to make the fertilizers, to plow the fields, then harvest them, then brew the corn and distill it, is less than the energy content of the ethanol produced? I heard this type of argument before, but I find it really difficult to believe. For example the study [1] claims you need 140 gallons of fossil fuel to plant/harvest/process one acre of corn that will produce 328 gallons of ethanol. Ethanol is less energy dense than crude oil (30 MJ/kg vs 42), but overall, 328 gallons of ethanol has about 67% more energy than 140 gallons of crude.

[1] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/08/ethanol-corn-faulte...

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

#205

Post by thinkcontext »

lobocinza wrote: post #59

What about Brazilian cane-based ethanol? The sugar conversion efficiency, I'm not certain this is the right term, is significantly higher than that of corn or beet but logistics deficiencies in the country may make it more expensive and less green.

The term you are looking for is Energy Return On Investment (EROI). This is the amount of useful energy you get divided by the amount of energy you spent to get it. The figure I've seen most often for ethanol from corn is 1.25 (though some people argue its less than one), which is not very good. When made from Brazilian sugarcane its 8 which is amazing.

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

#206

Post by xyzzy21 »

Well yes. Because more energy is consumed (EROEI) with corn - all the diesel, pesticides, fertilizer, etc. inputs - than with simply using the gasoline/petroleum.

The exact same analysis is true for electricity generated from a nat gas fired generator vs. simply using the nat gas directly, especially for heating. This is why "banning nat gas for new construction" is so ignorant and stupid!

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

#207

Post by thinkcontext »

trhway wrote: post #23

i always thought that ethanol from corn is just a primer, just to jump start the ethanol usage in ICE while the efficient production tech - like ethanol/methanol from biomass - bamboo grows really fast - gets developed. We didn't get that tech and instead got EVs. Not bad. For the synthetic fuel which will still be needed by the hard-to-electrify industries like for example aviation - SpaceX anyway will have to devel…

That was how GWB sold it but, as you say, it never happened. Now its an entrenched subsidy program and is basically unkillable.

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

#208

Post by stjohnswarts »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…

A huge and good compromise would be to end the ethanol subsidies and only give it for human and cattle food. Anything else has to get by on what the market will bear.

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

#209

Post by stjohnswarts »

dpeck wrote: post #88
akvadrako wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iowa doesn't have a primary at all, but a caucus. New Hampshire has the first primary. It's a state law.

Outside of a relatively minuscule number of people who view politics/elections as sport no one cares and they’re treated the same on the national stage.

Sure but most people don't understand how truly awful the caucus system is so it's worth repeating from time to time.

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

#210

Post by mikestew »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #197
plater wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. By reducing the size and weight of the cars we use gives more than relying on magic new innovations. We use 2000kg cars to drive around a If we with the snap of a finger replaced all the coal and oil and gas we use with wind and solar power plants I'm not convinced that would be much better. Not maybe worse, but not better. Wind mills everywhere, solar plants covering huge areas of land and a lot of metals a…

Modern safety requirements on vehicle essentially put a lower bound on vehicle weight. There are requirements both for the passengers of the vehicle and pedestrians. For example, you can't even make a car without a rear view camera now and sell it in the US. Why? Is looking out the back window really that challenging?

Why? Is looking out the back window really that challenging?

Apparently, otherwise children wouldn't keep getting run over and we wouldn't need backup cameras.

Post reply on HN