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

41–50 of 257 posts

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

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine? The carbon absorbed in the field wouldn’t change; neither would the carbon emitted from the car.

It would be worse because is food is also fuel. Whether motor vehicle fuel or animal fuel, the corn goes through pretty similar chemical change. Obviously, burning just the produce of fields that uptake as much carbon as their produce releases is better, in net carbon terms, than doing that plus burning fossil fuels.

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

#43

Post by knappe »

in_cahoots wrote: post #7

I read the whole article and I still don't see how Big Ag misled anyone. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems that the author is trying to differentiate between growing corn for food vs growing the same corn for ethanol. I assume the entire reason the lobby exists is that farmers want to grow corn for food and ethanol. But the researcher lost interest before proving anything around there. Maybe ethanol is actually…

This is an excerpt from Eating the Earth. The entire point of the book is that when we consider land use, we're not accounting for other uses for that same land (or how other land would be used) because the land, prior to Searchinger's work in the field all calculations did not consider this factor. Even after Searchinger published their work showing the flaws on land use, it was often ignored.

If you find the excerpt underwhelming, go read the book. I will warn you that in some ways it feels more like a memoir of Searchinger's life than a book on land use considerations, but, despite that, it still does a great job of showing how land use is still not being accounted for in all situations.

I finished Eating the Earth last week and found it rather interesting to read.

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

#44

Post by jayd16 »

tzs wrote: post #40

> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine? The carbon absorbed in the field wouldn’t change; neither would the carbon emitted from the car. If the only difference was that producing ethanol emitted much more carbon than producing gasoline, where were ethanol’s benefits? Where…

Yeah, seems like they're forgetting the part where they need to bury the corn in bedrock to keep the carbon sequestered.

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

#45

Post by knappe »

voxelghost wrote: post #38
sien wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU does something impressively crazy burning 23 million tonnes of wood pellets in 2021. https://unece.org/media/press/372591 It's labeled as 'renewable' electricity.

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.

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

#46

Post by lazide »

jayd16 wrote: post #44
tzs wrote: post #40

> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine? The carbon absorbed in the field wouldn’t change; neither would the carbon emitted from the car. If the only difference was that producing ethanol emitted much more carbon than producing gasoline, where were ethanol’s benefits? Where…

Yeah, seems like they're forgetting the part where they need to bury the corn in bedrock to keep the carbon sequestered.

No they aren’t.

Biofuels in use, keep atmospheric carbon neutral.

Fossil fuels increase atmospheric carbon.

Now, if we did make biofuels and reinject them into the ground, yes it would reduce atmospheric carbon.

But neutral is strictly better than increasing, regardless yes?

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

#47

Post by lazide »

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.

That makes no sense with the definition of ‘renewable’.

Trees grow again. They are renewed.

What is this junk?

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

#48

Post by eptcyka »

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.

Burning wood pellets is carbon neutral. Any forrest is a great carbon sink until it matures and it saturates, i.e. growth reaches replacement equilibrium and old trees/growth decay, releasing the CO2.

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

#49

Post by rini17 »

voxelghost wrote: post #38
sien wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU does something impressively crazy burning 23 million tonnes of wood pellets in 2021. https://unece.org/media/press/372591 It's labeled as 'renewable' electricity.

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

It requires stringent checking of the source. Which was shown does not happen or with only slap on the wrist.

https://spectator.sme.sk/culture-and-lifestyle/c/new-documen...

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

#50

Post by rini17 »

lazide wrote: post #47
knappe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That makes no sense with the definition of ‘renewable’. Trees grow again. They are renewed. What is this junk?

The soil gets depleted when biomass is consistently taken away. It might be possible to avoid it but that's cost center.
Post reply on HN