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

231–240 of 264 posts

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

#231

Post by BoorishBears »

ravenstine wrote: post #202
BoorishBears wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is it's complicated, because modern ICEs are complicated. > Most cars on the road today, including those that aren't Flex Fuel, can run somewhere between E30 and E50 with no problems whatsoever. That's straight up not true if we define "run" as "run as well as on E10" (granted I wish it was so I could save money on having to upgrade fueling for my cars). With the huge focus on MPG manufacturers generally ar…

> That's straight up not true if we define "run" as "run as well as on E10" (granted I wish it was so I could save money on having to upgrade fueling for my cars). Variances between vehicles will always be a factor. This doesn't mean that most of them won't run sufficiently or even well with a higher ethanol ratio. Your experience with your 4 Series is interesting, and you seem to know a lot about ICEs, but all the r…

It gets deeper and deeper into the whole nuance of this all: when I say "run as well as E10", I mean the ECU is now running at different timing than it would with E10, the injectors are running at a higher duty cycle across the RPM range.

But modern engines will happily run like that for a long with no outward issue (especially if you're not someone that strains them), so some might argue that it's "running just as well".

I strain my engine, so it's not what I'd consider running well.

(Also all that is about E20-E30. "technically it's running well" won't continue all the way until E50 when at E30 you're already seeing the ECU needing to cope in the logs, and that's across many cars, not just my 4 series) -

And when I say ethanol as a fuel is a farce, I mean zooming out at the whole exercise, not on a personal level. It's amazing in my tank, easily providing as much of a performance boost as much more drastic options like messing with emissions equipment. Even adjusting for energy, it is still cheaper than 91...

But again, zooming out, for most people the performance difference is negligible because for them it'd be E10 vs E0, not E10 vs E30+. And they're paying a lot of money into the ethanol system for this marginal benefit:

- Ethanol is heavily subsidized by taxpayers at production, at its "natural cost" the energy difference would make it more expensive gasoline: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ETH?state=US

- Ethanol is subsidized again when its blended into E85 instead of E10, but most consumers are only even able to get E10. Even the physical pump dispensing E85 gets an additional rebate!

- Because some of the subsides are only for fuel over 10% ethanol, E10 which most people have no choice in taking actually ends up more expensive than both E0 and E85! In times of need we end up dropping the E10 requirement because of that: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/biden-waiving-ethanol-rule-i...

- The food that they do need, regardless of what they drive, competes with biofuel for farmland which is absolutely insane:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/03/23/196198/ethanol-b... https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/exclusive-britai...

- And then as this article shows, we're not even getting an environment

So at the end of the day, regular people using E10 are seriously getting nothing positive from it, but paying into it in multiple ways.

Overall I'm happy I can fill up my tank with E85, but the machinery around it is the literal definition of a frace.

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

#232

Post by windexh8er »

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 don't have any credentials on the topic but I've tracked Ethanol inefficiencies for years in my vehicle. I tow often (between 3000-7000lbs) and my tow vehicle has the capability to run up to 15% ethanol. On average, over the last 7 years, I will lose on average 30% tow range and significant power loss at 10% ethanol. Ethanol has rarely ever been cost effective but it's also harder on engine components because of the less efficient power cycle and quicker buildup in the downpipe of the turbo system in my vehicle.

I monitor other engine vitals with an OBD reader while towing and my engine cycles through thermals faster when running Ethanol as well - the engine gets hotter faster because Ethanol burns hotter, but the BTU output is less - leaving me with that less efficient power cycle.

Overall Ethanol is a complete detriment to any and all IC operations. And don't even think about using Ethanol in any 2 stroke motor. Not only will it basically destroy your motor in record time but it's the worst type of fuel for fuel delivery systems that may not be used on a daily basis.

Ethanol and all the ridiculous subsidies tied to it are one of the biggest rackets out there. It's been known from the beginning that the only thing it's good for is wasting valuable crop land. If it were actually useful we wouldn't need to continue to subsidize corn production for its use decades later.

Ethanol is a joke.

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

#233

Post by sangnoir »

philistine wrote: post #169
dragonwriter wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How is the US worse than other countries where the majority-party apparatus selects the country's leader with no involvement of the electorate? Just look at the prime ministers the UK has cycled through to date with no elections.

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

#234

Post by ekiru »

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…

In Argentina, by law, the candidates for all national elections for all parties are selected by las PASO (mandatory simultaneous open primaries), which are national simultaneous elections. I don't know if there are many other such countries, but there's one.

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

#235

Post by chuckwolfe »

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 have a weekend car that is supercharged. E85 is a lot cheaper than race fuel. It has a benefit in the more efficient forced induction engines as seen many foreign automobiles.

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

#236

Post by cashsterling »

tstrimple wrote: post #64
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…

> places additional competitive demand on our food supply (choice and competition between corn going into food or fuel supply). I'm not sure this is the case. The vast majority of corn is field corn grown for silage anyway. The ethanol extraction process leaves a mash which is then fed to cows. Given the soil conditions, corn and soybeans will likely remain the most profitable cash crops so unless subsidies are creat…

I have a part 1 and part 2 reply.

Part 1:

My statement you quoted above was super 'hand wavy', but it is a mass & energy balance situation.

Ethanol production from corn, corn stover, or whatever (you can tell I'm not a farmer), removes carbon & energy from the "farm field system" that would otherwise stay in/on the field, be tilled or decompose into soil, and end up in next years' corn (or the year after that, etc.). It makes the farming cycle less efficient from a carbon management perspective and, as others have mentioned, that means more fertilizer, etc. to make up for the carbon loss. Without increased fertilizer use and general land management... crop production would decline year over year as result of removing plant material for ethanol production.

Also... one could imagine corn breeding and propagation scenarios in a 'field corn' field where (a) silage is maximized for feeding cows and (b) a trade off between silage and stover is made to maximize overall profit.

So there does end up being a competition between (1) optimizing for efficient food production and soil management and (1) optimizing for maximum profit. The second option does diminish food production unless made up for by there means.

Still not a great explanation. I don't have any references to share but there are some good review articles out there that talk about this in detail.

Part 2:

I was "sort-of" conflating corn with other crops for biofuel production. I should not have done that. My statement that ethanol production from corn "places additional competitive demand on our food supply" might not be completely true in a high-impact sense. But ethanol production from corn does still impact food production and land-use as described in part 1.

In the case where a crop like switch grass is cultivated specifically for biofuel production... here we would definitely have a case where there is competition for use of arable land, a finite resource, between biofuel production and food production.

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

#237

Post by bb88 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #200
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 I think that has more to do with getting away from Iowa and New Hampshire since those states have shown a surprising level of support for candidates outside of the preferred establishment picks.

The preferred establishment picks still have to win. Biden didn't do well in Iowa in 2020, though potentially because Biden's Iowa campaign was run very poorly. [1]

On the other hand if a primary chooses a candidate that ultimately produces a winner in the general election, they probably should go first the next time. Iowa didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 1992. But as it was for Biden, it was after Iowa where Clinton got momentum (in Clinton's case Georgia). [2]

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/05/biden-campaign-staf...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_Party_presiden...

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

#238

Post by Drunk_Engineer »

duped wrote: post #207
LanceH wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the democratic party is upset that everyone wasn't going along with the superdelegates who really have the first votes. They want to choose their candidate and go through the motions of a primary.

It's been speculated the reason they shifted to SC was to favor President Biden's The one thing the Iowa caucus did was make it easier for grassroots candidates. If they hadn't bungled the caucus so badly in 2020 for example, Pete Buttigieg would have had a better shot at it like Obama in '08 (he won the caucus, but we didn't find out for weeks!).

Buttigieg "won" the caucus because of Iowa's calvinball rules for assigning delegates. Sanders actually had more votes.

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

#239

Post by mattdanger »

For those interested in learning more about the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), check out this podcast series.

https://aei.ag/corn-saves-america/

Cliffs:

  - Farmers were over producing corn and needed new markets.
  - Americans, sick of importing oil from conflict zones, desired a US produced fuel
  - Americans desired a renewable fuel source.
  - Brewers grain, a by-product of ethanol process could be marketed to dairy & beef producers as a less expensive feed source.

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

#240

Post by AtlasBarfed »

mjevans wrote: post #94
koolba wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 absolute fairness were the reason for change ALL parties that primary would do so by some algorithm that's transparent. E.G. 5 Primary waves (Tuesdays/weeks/months) sorted by the 10 states with the least population to the most population. Why? It's a better rough approximation for a representative sample over an increasingly large window of voters than the current process, and still keeps any benefit of ramping up…

I'll take any change over usurping Iowa (though IMO New Hampshire actually functions quite well historically as the first primary based on my recollections, I think the worst that happens is that a small state gets good roads), but going small population to large population kinda still "discriminates" against large urban centers.

I think an established rotation would be better, and at least a medium sized state rotating in the "first wave".

Post reply on HN