3 ms·

Or we could use corn plants and sunlight to capture atmospheric CO2 and convert it into easily produced, transported, and consumed liquid fuel that's already la

Or we could use corn plants and sunlight to capture atmospheric CO2 and convert it into easily produced, transported, and consumed liquid fuel that's already largely compatible with existing infrastructure. What ever happened to ethanol anyway? It seemed like it was about to be a thing ~10 years ago -- a similar position to electric cars today -- and then it vanished without a trace. Did it die or was it murdered?

lucb1e 7y ago
> we could use plants to put CO2 into easily stored liquid fuel that's largely compatible with existing infrastructure Are you suggesting we spend resources to get CO2 out of the air and then burn them, releasing it again? We could capture it again (which is easier when there is a high concentration, such as at the exhaust of any such plant), but that seems like double the effort. You probably have a reason why this is a good idea or you wouldn't be suggesting it, so I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  The argument that capturing a CO2 molecule (by growing corn) and then releasing it (by burning EtOH in a car) is fundamentally different from not capturing it in the first place is alien to me. AFAIK atmospheric CO2 molecules are fungible. Would you mind explaining? "Flex fuel" cars were very much a thing, mass production of ethanol as fuel was very much a thing, and it was supposedly at nearly price-parity with gasoline. No dreaming necessary. Something happened, though. Saudi oil price cuts? The great recession? Subsidy politics? Some combination of those? I'd love to hear from someone who knows more.
  - danans 7y ago
    There are significant petroleum derived inputs to corn farming, which combined with the low energy yield of corn ethanol, result in it not being a net carbon zero energy source at all: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2006/07/05/0604600103.DC1/04600Table1.NEW.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiRipz2q-jjAhVTu54KHZyhAvsQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1bVi11h4YRYP7s-d9DjTst https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2006/07/05/060460010...
thinkcontext 7y ago
What are you talking about? In the US ethanol production is up 20+% over the last ten years. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32152 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32152 Corn ethanol is not a very good way to reduce co2 emissions. It only yields about 1.5 units of energy per unit of energy invested vs 7 for Brazilian sugar cane ethanol. In the US it's a farm subsidy program ( in Germany their big corn subsidy is turning it into methane). The reason you think it disappeared is that everyone now realizes it's justifications don't make sense but farm states are too important to take a subsidy away from.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  That makes sense. Thanks!

lucb1e 7y ago

> we could use plants to put CO2 into easily stored liquid fuel that's largely compatible with existing infrastructure Are you suggesting we spend resources to get CO2 out of the air and then burn them, releasing it again? We could capture it again (which is easier when there is a high concentration, such as at the exhaust of any such plant), but that seems like double the effort. You probably have a reason why this is a good idea or you wouldn't be suggesting it, so I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

jjoonathan 7y ago
The argument that capturing a CO2 molecule (by growing corn) and then releasing it (by burning EtOH in a car) is fundamentally different from not capturing it in the first place is alien to me. AFAIK atmospheric CO2 molecules are fungible. Would you mind explaining? "Flex fuel" cars were very much a thing, mass production of ethanol as fuel was very much a thing, and it was supposedly at nearly price-parity with gasoline. No dreaming necessary. Something happened, though. Saudi oil price cuts? The great recession? Subsidy politics? Some combination of those? I'd love to hear from someone who knows more.
- danans 7y ago
  There are significant petroleum derived inputs to corn farming, which combined with the low energy yield of corn ethanol, result in it not being a net carbon zero energy source at all: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2006/07/05/0604600103.DC1/04600Table1.NEW.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiRipz2q-jjAhVTu54KHZyhAvsQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1bVi11h4YRYP7s-d9DjTst https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2006/07/05/060460010...

thinkcontext 7y ago

What are you talking about? In the US ethanol production is up 20+% over the last ten years. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32152 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32152 Corn ethanol is not a very good way to reduce co2 emissions. It only yields about 1.5 units of energy per unit of energy invested vs 7 for Brazilian sugar cane ethanol. In the US it's a farm subsidy program ( in Germany their big corn subsidy is turning it into methane). The reason you think it disappeared is that everyone now realizes it's justifications don't make sense but farm states are too important to take a subsidy away from.

jjoonathan 7y ago
That makes sense. Thanks!