4 ms·

Interestingly enough, many rural communities in the Midwest have been soundly rejecting wind farms, and some have voted down solar farms. The real problem with

Interestingly enough, many rural communities in the Midwest have been soundly rejecting wind farms, and some have voted down solar farms. The real problem with agriculture these days have been caused by subsidizing industrial production of basically two crops, corn and beans. Farms were smaller a generation ago, and produced more diverse kinds of crops as well -- actual food crops. For example, much of the corn goes straight to ethanol plants these days.

btilly 8y ago
For example, much of the corn goes straight to ethanol plants these days. Ethanol that causes wear and tear on cars while producing approximately the same energy that was used in fossil fuels to produce the ethanol. Worse yet are the sugar tariffs. We would be better off if we got rid of the tariff then paid each person involved in growing sugarcane to not work. As https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/18/if-us-sugar-tariffs-make-americans-poorer-then-donald-trumps-tariffs-will-make-americans-what/#5fc77a7d2ec4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/18/if-us-su... says, this policy would be estimated to make the USA approximately $1 billion per year richer. Government intervention frequently results in perverse incentives that produce nonsensical results.
- gascan 8y ago
  Is there a fuel oxygenate you'd prefer to ethanol? Ethanol isn't great on it's own, but added to gasoline in small amounts, it reduces emissions & smog.
  - btilly 8y ago
    Do you have a citation? Because that is exactly the opposite of what a quick search that I did just found. According to https://www.nature.com/news/ethanol-fuels-ozone-pollution-1.15111 https://www.nature.com/news/ethanol-fuels-ozone-pollution-1.... there are contradictory theories, but experimental evidence says that it increases smog. According to https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reduce-air-pollution-do-not-rely-on-ethanol/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reduce-air-pollut... even ethanol in the quantities used in the USA is worse for public health than straight gasoline without anything added.
    - gascan 8y ago
      Your own sources offer a good perspective, if one takes the time to read them. Ethanol has been promoted as a ‘green’ fuel because its combustion tends to produce lower emissions of carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons and NOx than petrol. But the impact on air quality of a wholesale transition from petrol to ethanol has been difficult to assess, with different atmospheric chemistry models predicting a variety of consequences. [...] air-quality campaigners should not start advocating for petrol instead of ethanol quite yet. Increased petrol burning clearly raised levels of NOx, which also poses direct health concerns, and it probably boosted the amount of particulate matter in the air, something the study did not look at. And because every city has its own unique air chemistry, a similar fuel switch might produce very different results in London or Los Angeles. Nevertheless, says Salvo, the findings illustrate that “ethanol is not a panacea”. So, maybe I'm wrong in claiming it reduces smog, due to an ozone increase at the same time as NOx is decreased. The important point though, is why ethanol is interesting in the first place. It's not supposed to be a petrol replacement, it's an additive to modify the combustion. Specifically, by increasing the oxygen available in the combustion chamber for more complete combustion- aka a fuel oxygenate. The second link, FWIW, specifically addresses "ethanol as fuel", which is different from "ethanol as additive to improve emissions of petrol". "Fueling the automobile fleet primarily with ethanol rather than gasoline might increase air pollution" Environmental engineer Mark Jacobson of Stanford University used a computer model to assess how the air pollution in the U.S. would react if vehicles remained primarily fueled by gasoline in 2020 or if the fleet transferred to a fuel that was a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, so-called E85.
      - btilly 8y ago
        The reason why ethanol was originally interesting was stories of how Brazil reduced its fossil fuel usage by switching to ethanol. They did..but growing plants for ethanol makes more sense in the tropics than it does in a temperate landscape. The reason why it remains politically interesting is that you can't become President without doing well in the Iowa primary, and Iowa is full of corn farmers whose income benefits directly from our ethanol policies. So every Presidential nominee from both parties have been vocally been for ethanol for some time now. And most major candidates as well. (Ted Cruz managed to get away with opposing ethanol, but I can't think of another.)
- redler 8y ago
  Wear and tear aside, ethanol also has lower energy density than gasoline. The consumer is paying at least the same cost per unit for mixed fuel and getting worse mileage.

btilly 8y ago

For example, much of the corn goes straight to ethanol plants these days. Ethanol that causes wear and tear on cars while producing approximately the same energy that was used in fossil fuels to produce the ethanol. Worse yet are the sugar tariffs. We would be better off if we got rid of the tariff then paid each person involved in growing sugarcane to not work. As https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/18/if-us-sugar-tariffs-make-americans-poorer-then-donald-trumps-tariffs-will-make-americans-what/#5fc77a7d2ec4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/18/if-us-su... says, this policy would be estimated to make the USA approximately $1 billion per year richer. Government intervention frequently results in perverse incentives that produce nonsensical results.

gascan 8y ago
Is there a fuel oxygenate you'd prefer to ethanol? Ethanol isn't great on it's own, but added to gasoline in small amounts, it reduces emissions & smog.
- btilly 8y ago
  Do you have a citation? Because that is exactly the opposite of what a quick search that I did just found. According to https://www.nature.com/news/ethanol-fuels-ozone-pollution-1.15111 https://www.nature.com/news/ethanol-fuels-ozone-pollution-1.... there are contradictory theories, but experimental evidence says that it increases smog. According to https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reduce-air-pollution-do-not-rely-on-ethanol/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reduce-air-pollut... even ethanol in the quantities used in the USA is worse for public health than straight gasoline without anything added.
  - gascan 8y ago
    Your own sources offer a good perspective, if one takes the time to read them. Ethanol has been promoted as a ‘green’ fuel because its combustion tends to produce lower emissions of carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons and NOx than petrol. But the impact on air quality of a wholesale transition from petrol to ethanol has been difficult to assess, with different atmospheric chemistry models predicting a variety of consequences. [...] air-quality campaigners should not start advocating for petrol instead of ethanol quite yet. Increased petrol burning clearly raised levels of NOx, which also poses direct health concerns, and it probably boosted the amount of particulate matter in the air, something the study did not look at. And because every city has its own unique air chemistry, a similar fuel switch might produce very different results in London or Los Angeles. Nevertheless, says Salvo, the findings illustrate that “ethanol is not a panacea”. So, maybe I'm wrong in claiming it reduces smog, due to an ozone increase at the same time as NOx is decreased. The important point though, is why ethanol is interesting in the first place. It's not supposed to be a petrol replacement, it's an additive to modify the combustion. Specifically, by increasing the oxygen available in the combustion chamber for more complete combustion- aka a fuel oxygenate. The second link, FWIW, specifically addresses "ethanol as fuel", which is different from "ethanol as additive to improve emissions of petrol". "Fueling the automobile fleet primarily with ethanol rather than gasoline might increase air pollution" Environmental engineer Mark Jacobson of Stanford University used a computer model to assess how the air pollution in the U.S. would react if vehicles remained primarily fueled by gasoline in 2020 or if the fleet transferred to a fuel that was a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, so-called E85.
    - btilly 8y ago
      The reason why ethanol was originally interesting was stories of how Brazil reduced its fossil fuel usage by switching to ethanol. They did..but growing plants for ethanol makes more sense in the tropics than it does in a temperate landscape. The reason why it remains politically interesting is that you can't become President without doing well in the Iowa primary, and Iowa is full of corn farmers whose income benefits directly from our ethanol policies. So every Presidential nominee from both parties have been vocally been for ethanol for some time now. And most major candidates as well. (Ted Cruz managed to get away with opposing ethanol, but I can't think of another.)
redler 8y ago
Wear and tear aside, ethanol also has lower energy density than gasoline. The consumer is paying at least the same cost per unit for mixed fuel and getting worse mileage.