3 ms·

I think we just need to view ethanol as a carbon-neutralish mechanism for stabilizing the grain markets so that we don't have to do more drastic measures like

I think we just need to view ethanol as a carbon-neutralish mechanism for stabilizing the grain markets so that we don't have to do more drastic measures like dumping.

sandworm101 6y ago
If ethanol is carbon-neutral. There are many who believe it not to be, that it takes more carbon output to grow/refine ethanol than it saves. The real question is, if we ran every tractor, processing and fertilizer plant on pure ethanol, would there be any ethanol left to sell?
- tengbretson 6y ago
  That's kind of my point – that it doesn't even need to fully balance the scales to be better than the alternative. In order to guard against food shortages in bad years we incentivize over-production in all years. If this over-production has to happen regardless (meaning the energy inputs are a sunk cost regardless), then why not recoup as much of it as a fuel as possible instead of dumping it in a hole somewhere?
AdamN 6y ago
Definitely not carbon neutral: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/12/02/5-reasons-agricultures-greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-usually-underestimated/?sh=5da29b256ac8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/12/02/5-reason...
- tengbretson 6y ago
  A lot of the points in this article are misleading or only look for gaps in one direction. For starters, as far as lost sequestration goes, even with the grain removed from the equation, a dense field of corn produces a similar amount or more biomass than the same field would laying fallow. Another point that is constantly brought up is the methane emissions of cows. Cows do not produce methane in a vacuum, they produce it by digesting grain, so the comparison must be made relative to that same amount of grain being digested elsewhere or decomposing on its own. Their point about the need to adopt things like silvopasture, no-till, or crop rotation sound great, they but fail to acknowledge that in vast portions of the US they are already the norm, not the exception.

I think we just need to view ethanol as a carbon-neutralish mechanism for stabilizing the grain markets so that we don't have to do more drastic measures like dumping.

sandworm101 6y ago

If ethanol is carbon-neutral. There are many who believe it not to be, that it takes more carbon output to grow/refine ethanol than it saves. The real question is, if we ran every tractor, processing and fertilizer plant on pure ethanol, would there be any ethanol left to sell?

tengbretson 6y ago
That's kind of my point – that it doesn't even need to fully balance the scales to be better than the alternative. In order to guard against food shortages in bad years we incentivize over-production in all years. If this over-production has to happen regardless (meaning the energy inputs are a sunk cost regardless), then why not recoup as much of it as a fuel as possible instead of dumping it in a hole somewhere?

AdamN 6y ago

Definitely not carbon neutral: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/12/02/5-reasons-agricultures-greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-usually-underestimated/?sh=5da29b256ac8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/12/02/5-reason...

tengbretson 6y ago
A lot of the points in this article are misleading or only look for gaps in one direction. For starters, as far as lost sequestration goes, even with the grain removed from the equation, a dense field of corn produces a similar amount or more biomass than the same field would laying fallow. Another point that is constantly brought up is the methane emissions of cows. Cows do not produce methane in a vacuum, they produce it by digesting grain, so the comparison must be made relative to that same amount of grain being digested elsewhere or decomposing on its own. Their point about the need to adopt things like silvopasture, no-till, or crop rotation sound great, they but fail to acknowledge that in vast portions of the US they are already the norm, not the exception.