5 ms·

In defence of ethanol, producing it from plants and then burning it as fuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions vs extracting, refining and burning dino juice.

raverbashing 4y ago
Yes but corn is one of the worse sources for alcohol production
- CraigJPerry 4y ago
  I don’t know the story, what’s bad about it? My understanding so far is that the corn used for ethanol isn’t the kind you eat (sweetcorn) it’s a cheaper to produce and more hardy plant but consequently can only really be used for cattle feed and ethanol production. Ages ago i read something that said in the US, corn was the optimal source but in other parts of the world, sugar cane could result in a more energy efficient process for ethanol.
  - qeternity 4y ago
    > but consequently can only really be used for cattle feed Spoiler: most agriculture goes to supporting industrial livestock farming. It doesn’t change the economics. The ethanol mandate is horribly stupid.
    - CraigJPerry 4y ago
      I’m open to that, I was looking for more information rather than a pre-determined opinion though :-)
      - qeternity 4y ago
        Sure fair enough. It’s more nuanced than someone will be able to write in a succinct HN comment. Without debating the merits of carbon intensity, the ethanol mandate is far too small to make any appreciable impact on emissions. But it is large enough to have a very appreciable impact on food costs.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    Field corn is used to make corn flour. Most people probably eat way more corn chips and similar than sweet corn. And then there is corn syrup, but we probably shouldn't eat more of that.
    - CraigJPerry 4y ago
      That makes sense. It’s not something that would solve itself then if that’s true - i don’t know that my demand for fuel is driving up the cost of my corn based foods and vice versa. I’m not deciding to drive less miles or take alternative transport because i want cheaper food - because i don’t know that connection exists. Tricky problem.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thinkcontext 4y ago
This is disputed. The GAO issued a report that cited research which claimed its worse when taking land use effects into account. In regards to your other question about why its a bad way to produce alcohol, from an EROI perspective, a frequently cited figure is its around 1.5:1 (invest one unit of energy, get 1.5 back). Making it from Brazilian sugar cane on the other hand is 8:1. Whatever the exact numbers are, the benefits are pretty modest if there are any. Its an agricultural subsidy program.
- CraigJPerry 4y ago
  >> This is disputed Credibly disputed? We’re talking about “big oil” here, you’ll forgive me if my first reaction is to imagine a pre-completed study with all the right conclusions and a big fat cheque hidden under page 3, being shopped around academia looking for someone willing to sign their name to it :-) From a layman’s point of view the claim just smells weird. On one hand, we take carbon out of the atmosphere over millennia, compressing it tightly under the surface of the earth for even more years until it turns to a thick sludge. Then very quickly, in comparative seconds to the millennia of oil deposits formation, we release all that into the atmosphere again. And it’s alleged that causes less greenhouse gas emission than the other idea: extract carbon floating around in the atmosphere today (i.e. grow a plant of some sort today), process it then instead of shipping it across the world from the oil wells to the consumers, instead just distribute it locally where it is grown and processed.
  - thinkcontext 4y ago
    The same of course goes the other way, Big Ag definitely is able to put its hand on the Department of Ag. The report I referred to is from GAO, which is much more independent than USDA. I couldn't find the GAO report I mentioned but I found a more recent one published this year by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the more prestigious journals in the world. In their abstract in addition to mentioning US ethanol raised corn prices by 30% and other crop prices by 20% they say it > ... caused enough domestic land use change emissions such that the carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher. Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2101084119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2101084119

raverbashing 4y ago

Yes but corn is one of the worse sources for alcohol production

CraigJPerry 4y ago
I don’t know the story, what’s bad about it? My understanding so far is that the corn used for ethanol isn’t the kind you eat (sweetcorn) it’s a cheaper to produce and more hardy plant but consequently can only really be used for cattle feed and ethanol production. Ages ago i read something that said in the US, corn was the optimal source but in other parts of the world, sugar cane could result in a more energy efficient process for ethanol.
- qeternity 4y ago
  > but consequently can only really be used for cattle feed Spoiler: most agriculture goes to supporting industrial livestock farming. It doesn’t change the economics. The ethanol mandate is horribly stupid.
  - CraigJPerry 4y ago
    I’m open to that, I was looking for more information rather than a pre-determined opinion though :-)
    - qeternity 4y ago
      Sure fair enough. It’s more nuanced than someone will be able to write in a succinct HN comment. Without debating the merits of carbon intensity, the ethanol mandate is far too small to make any appreciable impact on emissions. But it is large enough to have a very appreciable impact on food costs.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  Field corn is used to make corn flour. Most people probably eat way more corn chips and similar than sweet corn. And then there is corn syrup, but we probably shouldn't eat more of that.
  - CraigJPerry 4y ago
    That makes sense. It’s not something that would solve itself then if that’s true - i don’t know that my demand for fuel is driving up the cost of my corn based foods and vice versa. I’m not deciding to drive less miles or take alternative transport because i want cheaper food - because i don’t know that connection exists. Tricky problem.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

thinkcontext 4y ago

This is disputed. The GAO issued a report that cited research which claimed its worse when taking land use effects into account. In regards to your other question about why its a bad way to produce alcohol, from an EROI perspective, a frequently cited figure is its around 1.5:1 (invest one unit of energy, get 1.5 back). Making it from Brazilian sugar cane on the other hand is 8:1. Whatever the exact numbers are, the benefits are pretty modest if there are any. Its an agricultural subsidy program.

CraigJPerry 4y ago
>> This is disputed Credibly disputed? We’re talking about “big oil” here, you’ll forgive me if my first reaction is to imagine a pre-completed study with all the right conclusions and a big fat cheque hidden under page 3, being shopped around academia looking for someone willing to sign their name to it :-) From a layman’s point of view the claim just smells weird. On one hand, we take carbon out of the atmosphere over millennia, compressing it tightly under the surface of the earth for even more years until it turns to a thick sludge. Then very quickly, in comparative seconds to the millennia of oil deposits formation, we release all that into the atmosphere again. And it’s alleged that causes less greenhouse gas emission than the other idea: extract carbon floating around in the atmosphere today (i.e. grow a plant of some sort today), process it then instead of shipping it across the world from the oil wells to the consumers, instead just distribute it locally where it is grown and processed.
- thinkcontext 4y ago
  The same of course goes the other way, Big Ag definitely is able to put its hand on the Department of Ag. The report I referred to is from GAO, which is much more independent than USDA. I couldn't find the GAO report I mentioned but I found a more recent one published this year by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the more prestigious journals in the world. In their abstract in addition to mentioning US ethanol raised corn prices by 30% and other crop prices by 20% they say it > ... caused enough domestic land use change emissions such that the carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher. Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2101084119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2101084119