3 ms·

AFAIK the argument is that the CO2 is produces during combustion was captured from the atmosphere while the plant was growing, so it's neutral in terms of CO2 e

by simias 9y ago

AFAIK the argument is that the CO2 is produces during combustion was captured from the atmosphere while the plant was growing, so it's neutral in terms of CO2 emissions (not taking into account other sources of CO2 emissions during the fabrication of the ethanol). Fossil fuels on the other end take carbon that was sleeping in the ground and leave it in the atmosphere after combustion. At least that's what I hear over here in Europe, maybe motivations are different in the US.

wahern 9y ago
It takes a lot of energy to cultivate corn and produce ethanol. Think of all the trucks, tractors, and other machinery involved; and energy-intensive fertilizers like ammonia. In many cases it take's more energy (i.e. fossil fuel energy) than you can recover, and even when there's a net gain it's far too little compared to the alternatives. See vanderZwan's post below.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
But if autarch is right, that it uses more energy to produce then it generates, is that energy to produce it carbon neutral? If not, then using ethanol as fuel is not carbon neutral, because of the carbon of the energy used to produce the ethanol.
yourapostasy 9y ago
> At least that's what I hear over here in Europe, maybe motivations are different in the US. The real reason corn-based ethanol is politically supported in the US is because of an artifact of the US federal political process. Iowa is the first state to hold caucuses [1], to a first approximation explanation. This exerts an effect similar to first mover advantage: their outcomes have a disproportionate effect upon other states' primaries [2] (linked article gives a better, more nuanced explanation than a glib "they're first"). Not coincidentally for this topic, Iowa grows a lot of corn [3], the most of any state in the US, and more than all of Mexico combined. The two major parties are terrified of pissing off Iowa voters who personally depend upon the corn economy in Iowa. So corn-based ethanol stays encrusted into the US federal political landscape, until an Alexander-like politician cuts it in half, Gordian Knot-mythos-like [4]. Either that, or until Iowa's shortsighted monocropping causes them to irretrievably lose their topsoil, and they can't grow anything at scale, and removing the subsidies becomes moot; at the macro scale, they're eroding their topsoil with no end in sight. I SWAG a few more decades before we reach an inflection point, where input costs to prop up poor topsoil corn growing start to negate the subsidies' artificial boost. That's going to really suck for our food supply system, if it comes down to that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses [2] https://people.howstuffworks.com/iowa-caucus.htm https://people.howstuffworks.com/iowa-caucus.htm [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot

by simias 9y ago

wahern 9y ago

It takes a lot of energy to cultivate corn and produce ethanol. Think of all the trucks, tractors, and other machinery involved; and energy-intensive fertilizers like ammonia. In many cases it take's more energy (i.e. fossil fuel energy) than you can recover, and even when there's a net gain it's far too little compared to the alternatives. See vanderZwan's post below.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

But if autarch is right, that it uses more energy to produce then it generates, is that energy to produce it carbon neutral? If not, then using ethanol as fuel is not carbon neutral, because of the carbon of the energy used to produce the ethanol.

yourapostasy 9y ago

> At least that's what I hear over here in Europe, maybe motivations are different in the US. The real reason corn-based ethanol is politically supported in the US is because of an artifact of the US federal political process. Iowa is the first state to hold caucuses [1], to a first approximation explanation. This exerts an effect similar to first mover advantage: their outcomes have a disproportionate effect upon other states' primaries [2] (linked article gives a better, more nuanced explanation than a glib "they're first"). Not coincidentally for this topic, Iowa grows a lot of corn [3], the most of any state in the US, and more than all of Mexico combined. The two major parties are terrified of pissing off Iowa voters who personally depend upon the corn economy in Iowa. So corn-based ethanol stays encrusted into the US federal political landscape, until an Alexander-like politician cuts it in half, Gordian Knot-mythos-like [4]. Either that, or until Iowa's shortsighted monocropping causes them to irretrievably lose their topsoil, and they can't grow anything at scale, and removing the subsidies becomes moot; at the macro scale, they're eroding their topsoil with no end in sight. I SWAG a few more decades before we reach an inflection point, where input costs to prop up poor topsoil corn growing start to negate the subsidies' artificial boost. That's going to really suck for our food supply system, if it comes down to that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses [2] https://people.howstuffworks.com/iowa-caucus.htm https://people.howstuffworks.com/iowa-caucus.htm [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot