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

211–220 of 257 posts

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

#211

Post by owebmaster »

no_wizard wrote: post #172
voxleone wrote: post #165

While it's true that Big Ag in the U.S. has oversold corn ethanol as a climate-friendly alternative, it's important to distinguish between types of biofuels. Not all ethanol is created equal. Take Brazil, for example. Their ethanol program is fundamentally different. It's based on sugarcane, not corn, and it has a spectacular EROI (Energy Return on Investment) of about 8:1. That means for every unit of energy put int…

Assuming all this about Brazilian ethanol is true, the real question for me is scale. The US consumes an enormous amount of gasoline every year compared to just about any other country. That’s what I’m curious about.

Brazilian current ethanol production is 2/3 of the US

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

#212

Post by 9rx »

sukhavati wrote: post #110

I always thought that trading precious topsoil for motive power when oil does just fine was an insane premise. Too bad not enough people recognize this for what it is. Biomass is another issue that I find grossly inappropriate.

It's not completely insane when you remember that we also grow the crops for food, and exactly matching food requirements with production yield is impossible, so there will be times of gross excesses (especially with corn, which can produce _way_ more than you could have ever dreamed of if the weather is just right). Turning excess product back into usable energy instead leaving it in a pile to rot can be worthwhile.

The problem is that humans don't understand moderation. They heard it makes sense at some small scale and automatically assume it would be even better if we scale it up massively. Now — if you look at the comments here — they heard it doesn't work at massive scale, and take from it that it doesn't ever make sense...

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

#213

Post by luqtas »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #178
trollbridge wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brazil is a big place, and growing sugarcane properly actually regenerates the soil, such as if no or low till techniques are used (which are popular in Brazil).

I don’t believe there’s any evidence to suggest sugarcane regenerates soil. In fact I can only find evidence to the contrary.

even a simple rotation like corn -> soybeans can aid some bacteria recover, thus a better soil lifespan (high productive areas with proper management (beyond rotation, like some rest and proper fertilization can last ~ 120 years being abused all the year long)

probably hundreds of years if erosion wasn't a thing [0]

but "regenerating" as the OP types is probably about actively managing land recover while planting some sugarcane in between the process. now. if the harvest will be profitable for making biofuel is probably another talk

[0] just a guess

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

#214

Post by tjwebbnorfolk »

adrianN wrote: post #57
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.

It is my understanding that environmentalists never pushed for biofuels at scale. Biofuels make sense at a very limited scale where you use waste to produce fuel, eg pressing sawdust into wood pellets, or making biogas from manure.

Yes of course biofuels make sense on a limited scale in certain applications. Pellet stoves are a good example.

But I don't think I've seen many Environmentalist(TM) proposals that were anything less than a wholesale replacement of "fossil fuels" (and other "extractive industries") for all things everywhere.

I miss the good old days when they just wanted to save the whales, before they came to believe they were saving the whole goddamn planet from certain doom.

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

#215

Post by pkphilip »

voxleone wrote: post #165

While it's true that Big Ag in the U.S. has oversold corn ethanol as a climate-friendly alternative, it's important to distinguish between types of biofuels. Not all ethanol is created equal. Take Brazil, for example. Their ethanol program is fundamentally different. It's based on sugarcane, not corn, and it has a spectacular EROI (Energy Return on Investment) of about 8:1. That means for every unit of energy put int…

Sugarcane requires a LOT of water - so you need around 2000-2860 litres of water for every litre of ethanol.

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

#216

Post by passwordoops »

9rx wrote: post #176
lazide wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the implementation detail that makes the whole thing a scam, yes. None of that is fundamental to bio-fuels, but rather a property of it being cheaper to do it that way in our current fossil fuel economy, and people not being interested in looking all that closely because they don’t really care.

What is not factored into the above is how much is going to be grown anyway. Corn yield in particular can quickly surprise you. Even if you try to only grow enough for food, there will be years where you still have way more than you can handle. That is why we started producing corn-based ethanol. It wasn't intended to see people grow corn for it, but rather clean up the unmanageable excesses realized in the due cours…

The other issue is people seeing corn for ethanol (especially subsidized) can be waaaay more profitable and deciding to switch crops. Not only do you lose a potentially valuable food crop. But it's replaced by one of the nutrient and GHG intensive crops around

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

#217

Post by HDThoreaun »

raverbashing wrote: post #195
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What crops are those, and do they grow in the same climates and soils as corn does at the moment?

Sugarcane, but I think in terms of total plant weight vs yield even sugar beets beat corn

I live in the corn belt and can assure you that sugarcane does not grow here

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

#218

Post by 9rx »

passwordoops wrote: post #216
9rx wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is not factored into the above is how much is going to be grown anyway. Corn yield in particular can quickly surprise you. Even if you try to only grow enough for food, there will be years where you still have way more than you can handle. That is why we started producing corn-based ethanol. It wasn't intended to see people grow corn for it, but rather clean up the unmanageable excesses realized in the due cours…

The other issue is people seeing corn for ethanol (especially subsidized) can be waaaay more profitable and deciding to switch crops. Not only do you lose a potentially valuable food crop. But it's replaced by one of the nutrient and GHG intensive crops around

> can be waaaay more profitable

As a corn grower myself, I wouldn't go that far. Ethanol production is really only profitable when corn isn't profitable to grow. In other words, when you have ethanol plants champing at the bit to buy your corn, you are wishing you hadn't grown it in the first place! It can be a profitable crop, but only on the backs of food buyers who are much less price sensitive.

Ethanol does serve as a helpful buffer to step in when corn would be otherwise worthless, where the alternative is to let you see it rot, minimizing the losses — But if you are counting on ethanol to make you rich... Good luck!

Granted, there was that strange period around the early 2010s, in reaction to the early-to-mid 2000s where corn was being left to rot, where the US government was paying ethanol producers to produce ethanol. If you are posting from a time machine from that time, I get what you are saying. But those days are long behind us now.

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

#219

Post by HDThoreaun »

knappe wrote: post #45
voxelghost wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's labeled 'renewable energy' (not electricity), if wood pellets are sourced from sustainable renewable forest growth. What is your argument?

That it isn't sustainable. As Eating the Earth points out, by growing trees to then cut them down again we're not accounting for the cost of using that same forested land for anything else, like a forest which is a great carbon sink. Instead burning wood pellets is considered renewable until you consider the cost of using that land for something else in which case it isn't a renewal resource.

Opportunity cost has nothing to do with whether something is renewable

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

#220

Post by HDThoreaun »

9rx wrote: post #201
AngryData wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed, but we also need to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Crop subsidization is the only alternative to the granary system, which while decent still resulted in repeated famines for thousands of years basically everywhere, while no country that has decent crop subsidization ever has famine. Crop subsidization in general makes granaries 90% obso…

> Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed Crop subsidies, since the 2014 reforms at least, are "fair" to all crops. That does mean that the most grown crops (which in the US is corn, by a large margin) receive the most subsidies, but is that truly poor application and distribution?

Yes, they just explained way. The goal isnt fairness, its preventing famine.
Post reply on HN