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

251–260 of 264 posts

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

#251

Post by ttyprintk »

mdp2021 wrote: post #98
ch4s3 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention all of the fuel used to move around the fertilizer, tractors, finished corn, the energy used to grid/heat/ferment/distill into ethanol, and then to truck around the ethanol. It's actually almost hilariously indirect and inefficient when you think about it.

Well all the final products (contextually, material fuels or just energy) have a production history: to call one of them inefficient you need to compare production processes. Diesel fuel does not come ready from "diesel springs".

I’d like to see a comparison where the quantity of natural gas burned to fix nitrogen is instead converted to ethanol, using the Saudis process.

The bone of contention among researchers seems to be: whether the inclusion of biomass in its production has any discernible benefit.

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

#252

Post by dragontamer »

throw_away1525 wrote: post #245
dragontamer wrote: post #199

Of course its Dr. Lark again. He's been contradicting USDA for years. There's something like 12+ PH.ds who are working in this field and create papers consistently. 11 of them agree, and then Dr. Lark comes out and disagrees. Every couple of years, Dr. Lark comes out with a new set of studies that contradicts everyone else. And then the news organizations / hacker news around here focuses on what Dr. Lark says rather…

Honest questions from a totally ignorant cynic: Who is funding who here? Is Dr. Lark being funded by the fossil fuel industry? Are the 11 other scientists being funded by 'big corn' or the USDA itself? Does the USDA/'big corn' have a revolving door situation where the USDA scientists have come from and maintain ties to industry?

That's just not the point of this at all.

Dr. Lark's contribution, is that he has correctly identified holes in everyone else's research on a somewhat consistent basis. Sometimes you need an outsider to see the flaws in your methodology.

Dr. Lark in particular brought up the issue of land use changes: how forests get cut down, release a lot of carbon, and then farmland is made over the forests. He has legitimate points, and releases calculations and research to show how it changes the biofuels numbers.

Yes, its exaggerated at times and then the counter-points come out, but the push back-and-forth is necessary to advance the field. And we actually have technology that answers questions that Dr. Lark poses. IIRC, Argonne National Labs took satellite photos over the USA, measured how many forests got converted into farms using AIs, and ran the numbers.

The discussion going on is very high level and sophisticated, modern, and high tech. This is a field (and discussion) to be proud of as an American.

---------

What I'm cynical about is how the media treats these discussions. They want to invent problems where there are no problems. Instead of pointing out what most of the researchers agree on, today's media focuses on what the singular, most extreme member of a group disagrees with everyone else about.

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

#253

Post by philistine »

sangnoir wrote: post #233
philistine wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Selecting a head of government through the electoral college is less democratic than one elected person from every riding deciding who is the leader collectively.

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

#254

Post by frankreyes »

bluGill wrote: post #129
frankreyes wrote: post #66

Because farming equipment runs on gasoline.

Not since the mid 1960s at the latest. Sometimes hobby farms have gasoline tractors. Many farms still have a working tractor from the 1950s they use for small tasks. There is some random lawnmower sized equipment with a gas engine. Overall though diesel is much cheaper to run in the real world and so no "real farm" uses gasoline for much farming.

Sorry not a native English speaker, when I said gasoline I meant petroleum derived liquid fuel such as gasoline or diesel or aviation fuel or kerosene.

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

#255

Post by frankreyes »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #104
frankreyes wrote: post #66

Because farming equipment runs on gasoline.

Depends on the farm. My farm ran on all diesel.

Sorry not a native English speaker, when I said gasoline I meant petroleum derived liquid fuel such as gasoline or diesel or aviation fuel or kerosene.

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

#256

Post by fuzzfactor »

fsckboy wrote: post #152
throwaway5752 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be the highest rated response to the parent because it's overwhelmingly used as a low octane fuel booster additive, not a fuel. If you have 85 gasoline and need to get it to 87, you blend it with an appropriate quantity of ethanol (octane rating 108.6, thanks for the correction). Reference: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html

pure ethanol according to wikipedia has an octane rating of 108 on the scale that's normally referred to. 100 is the octane of a particular isomer of the hydrocarbon C8H18 which is called... octane! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating#Examples and for people not familiar with the subject, the purpose of an octane booster is to make your fuel less explosive (even though the point of your fuel is to be exploded…

Molecular models are like tinkertoys.

Carbons are the little black spheres with 4 equidistant holes, and hydrogens are the smaller white ones with a single hole.

And you've got all the little somewhat-flexible rods to act as chemical bonds and connect the different carbon and hydrogen atoms in any combination you like.

Octane is a generic name for most any combination you can legitimately make out of C8H18. Any of these is referred to as an octane isomer.

If you put all 8 carbons in a straight row and "saturate" the remaing holes with the 18 hydrogens, this straight-chain form in particular is referred to as Octane proper, or more descriptively to avoid confusion, normal-octane since it is a straight-chain isomer.

This normal- or n-octane is not the stuff that burns with a very good antiknock rating at all.

The one particular branched-chain C8H18 isomer having the proper name 2,2,4-trimethylpentane is the one that serves as a calibration fluid for laboratory antinock determination. Even though there are many other branched-chain C8H18 isomers possible, this one is the most commonly obtainable and carries the generic name "Iso-octane".

Runs smooth as butter.

Goes well with vintage MTBE.

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

#257

Post by fuzzfactor »

fabianbumberger wrote: post #144
throwaway5752 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be the highest rated response to the parent because it's overwhelmingly used as a low octane fuel booster additive, not a fuel. If you have 85 gasoline and need to get it to 87, you blend it with an appropriate quantity of ethanol (octane rating 108.6, thanks for the correction). Reference: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html

Yeah, gas producers like it as cheap octane booster.

Actually most of the time it costs more for oil companies to purchase the ethanol than it would for them to use smother burning hydrocarbons which they already have access to in larger quantities.

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

#258

Post by fuzzfactor »

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.

This was a problem when ethanol first appeared in large percentages for a few years until proper materials were included in engineering specifications for things like fuel pumps & hoses.

Some conventional wisdom about not putting alcohol into your gasoline does go way back to the Model T days, it was widely regarded as safest just to not do it, since you can't be sure how much water is in the alcohol.

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

#259

Post by WaitWaitWha »

frankreyes wrote: post #255
WaitWaitWha wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the farm. My farm ran on all diesel.

Sorry not a native English speaker, when I said gasoline I meant petroleum derived liquid fuel such as gasoline or diesel or aviation fuel or kerosene.

No worries; nor am I. I think in English speaking nations "petroleum" or "petroleum derivative" would work as an umbrella term.

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

#260

Post by PaulHoule »

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…

Ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil is not so bad.
Post reply on HN