6 ms·

Yes, but for environmental policies to gain traction, they need to appeal to people outside of cities. Ethanol is a way to get certain rural areas onboard, even

Yes, but for environmental policies to gain traction, they need to appeal to people outside of cities. Ethanol is a way to get certain rural areas onboard, even if in a modest way. Good policy? Probably not. Essential politics? Yes.

perfunctory 6y ago
On board of what? Farmers were never in the energy business, why do they need to get into it now.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  They are big consumers of energy, whether it be natural gas for heating or drying or diesel for machinery, so a carbon tax would hit them hard. They would be vocal opponents of such a thing.
  - perfunctory 6y ago
    By this logic everybody will be a vocal opponent of carbon tax. It's universal after all and hits everyone equally. But that's the whole point of a carbon tax - to move away from carbon.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      As long as the price farmers get goes up to cover their increased expenses, farmers should be fine with a carbon tax. Not sure consumers would be happy with food prices going up. That's why carbon taxes should be accompanied by an appropriate rebate. If the price of domestic food goes up countries will just start importing more food from countries without a carbon tax. That would really annoy farmers. So any carbon tax needs to be accompanied by carbon tariffs.
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      It hits everyone equally by use of carbon. It doesn't hit everyone equally overall. $100 a year is an annoyance, especially if rebated. $10,000 a year substantially changes farming economics.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Farmers have ALWAYS been in the energy business. While you do need some nutrients to build the body, the vast majority of the food you eat is used for energy.
Devils-Avocado 6y ago
Ethanol has no long-term future because the vehicle fleet is already shifting to using no fuel at all. John Deere already manufactures electric tractors and farmers can simply utilise replaceable battery packs, charged on-site using solar power.
- cogman10 6y ago
  Counterpoint, For land travel all electric vehicles make a TON of sense. However, for airline and oceanic travel, the energy density of a battery simply isn't high enough. Biofuels may be the only carbon neutral way to accommodate such forms of transport.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Counter-counterpoint: Photosynthesis is only 2-4% efficient (measuring solar input to biomatter). Solar panels are ~20% efficient. Making fuel directly from electricity and CO2 is probably (I didn't do the math) more efficient per acre than making fuel from plants. You can of course supplement this with Ethanol made from waste that you get as a byproduct of food production.
    - cogman10 6y ago
      It's not an energy efficiency problem, it's an energy density problem. Burning hydrocarbons peeks out at something like 40% efficiency. Yet we are only now getting to the point where EVs have the same range as ICE vehicles, even though the battery->motor conversion is something like 90% efficient. Why is that? Because the amount of energy that can be stored in batteries is MUCH lower than the amount of energy released from burning fuel. Transport needs to carry all of it's energy with it (or, have something like a 3rd rail to provide energy). That's the argument for biofuels in the future. Not that you can't replace 99% of transport with electricity, but rather some forms of transport require a lot of energy. We are JUST getting to the point where batteries have enough density to power a prop plane for ~ 1hour worth of flight. We are no where near the energy density where a cargo ship could sail from china to the US or for international flights. One alternative to biofuels is hydrogen from something like electrolysis. One thing I think we'll both agree on. Ethanol for cars/trucks is a terrible idea. EVs are the future there.
adrianN 6y ago
Pay the farmers to put up solar panels instead. You get a lot more energy that way. For example, replace all land used for "energy crops" in Germany with solar panels and you get about as much energy as Germany consumes in total.
- mattbk1 6y ago
  I like this, do you have any idea how I can compare revenue per acre?
  - dmurray 6y ago
    It must be reasonably close, since both solar fields and traditional crops exist in Germany. Of course both get subsidised to various extents, and the prices of energy, crops and labour all fluctuate - but you can guess they're equal within a factor of two.
jellicle 6y ago
The number of people employed in corn farming is insignificantly small. The number of those benefiting from ethanol is even smaller. It's basically a subsidy to a couple of large agribusiness companies. Nothing to do directly with people-first politics.
jlmorton 6y ago
It's not a good environmental policy on balance. It results in only about a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. It does substantially reduce air pollution compared to gasoline. But we have to devote large amounts of land usage to it, destroying natural habitats, and we pollute water with runoff. On balance, I would rather emit the CO2, until we can convert transportation fleets to electricity.

perfunctory 6y ago

On board of what? Farmers were never in the energy business, why do they need to get into it now.

MattGaiser 6y ago
They are big consumers of energy, whether it be natural gas for heating or drying or diesel for machinery, so a carbon tax would hit them hard. They would be vocal opponents of such a thing.
- perfunctory 6y ago
  By this logic everybody will be a vocal opponent of carbon tax. It's universal after all and hits everyone equally. But that's the whole point of a carbon tax - to move away from carbon.
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    As long as the price farmers get goes up to cover their increased expenses, farmers should be fine with a carbon tax. Not sure consumers would be happy with food prices going up. That's why carbon taxes should be accompanied by an appropriate rebate. If the price of domestic food goes up countries will just start importing more food from countries without a carbon tax. That would really annoy farmers. So any carbon tax needs to be accompanied by carbon tariffs.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    It hits everyone equally by use of carbon. It doesn't hit everyone equally overall. $100 a year is an annoyance, especially if rebated. $10,000 a year substantially changes farming economics.
bluGill 6y ago
Farmers have ALWAYS been in the energy business. While you do need some nutrients to build the body, the vast majority of the food you eat is used for energy.

Devils-Avocado 6y ago

Ethanol has no long-term future because the vehicle fleet is already shifting to using no fuel at all. John Deere already manufactures electric tractors and farmers can simply utilise replaceable battery packs, charged on-site using solar power.

cogman10 6y ago
Counterpoint, For land travel all electric vehicles make a TON of sense. However, for airline and oceanic travel, the energy density of a battery simply isn't high enough. Biofuels may be the only carbon neutral way to accommodate such forms of transport.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Counter-counterpoint: Photosynthesis is only 2-4% efficient (measuring solar input to biomatter). Solar panels are ~20% efficient. Making fuel directly from electricity and CO2 is probably (I didn't do the math) more efficient per acre than making fuel from plants. You can of course supplement this with Ethanol made from waste that you get as a byproduct of food production.
  - cogman10 6y ago
    It's not an energy efficiency problem, it's an energy density problem. Burning hydrocarbons peeks out at something like 40% efficiency. Yet we are only now getting to the point where EVs have the same range as ICE vehicles, even though the battery->motor conversion is something like 90% efficient. Why is that? Because the amount of energy that can be stored in batteries is MUCH lower than the amount of energy released from burning fuel. Transport needs to carry all of it's energy with it (or, have something like a 3rd rail to provide energy). That's the argument for biofuels in the future. Not that you can't replace 99% of transport with electricity, but rather some forms of transport require a lot of energy. We are JUST getting to the point where batteries have enough density to power a prop plane for ~ 1hour worth of flight. We are no where near the energy density where a cargo ship could sail from china to the US or for international flights. One alternative to biofuels is hydrogen from something like electrolysis. One thing I think we'll both agree on. Ethanol for cars/trucks is a terrible idea. EVs are the future there.

adrianN 6y ago

Pay the farmers to put up solar panels instead. You get a lot more energy that way. For example, replace all land used for "energy crops" in Germany with solar panels and you get about as much energy as Germany consumes in total.

mattbk1 6y ago
I like this, do you have any idea how I can compare revenue per acre?
- dmurray 6y ago
  It must be reasonably close, since both solar fields and traditional crops exist in Germany. Of course both get subsidised to various extents, and the prices of energy, crops and labour all fluctuate - but you can guess they're equal within a factor of two.

jellicle 6y ago

The number of people employed in corn farming is insignificantly small. The number of those benefiting from ethanol is even smaller. It's basically a subsidy to a couple of large agribusiness companies. Nothing to do directly with people-first politics.

jlmorton 6y ago

It's not a good environmental policy on balance. It results in only about a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. It does substantially reduce air pollution compared to gasoline. But we have to devote large amounts of land usage to it, destroying natural habitats, and we pollute water with runoff. On balance, I would rather emit the CO2, until we can convert transportation fleets to electricity.