5 ms·

Brazillian Ethanol is made with Sugar Cane, not corn. And it is reasonably efficient, much better than corn ethanol that is just stupid. To make corn ethanol y

Brazillian Ethanol is made with Sugar Cane, not corn. And it is reasonably efficient, much better than corn ethanol that is just stupid. To make corn ethanol you get an energy loss actually, the energy usage to grow and process the corn, for example to power the tractors and so on, is bigger than the energy you can get burning it. US government solution for this is spetacularly boneheaded too. So USA has so much corn because it has corn subsidies. This is the reason for USA using the terrible for health corn syrup too instead of sugar from cane. Then USA government decided to give ethanol subsidies to incentive green fuels. Result is people make corn ethanol, get 2 subsidies, pollute a bit and cause a net energy loss. So USA government decided solution was give a even bigger subsidy to sugar cane ethanol. Result is Brazillians make sugar cane ethanol, sell to US companies, those companies collect the subsidy from it, buy corn ethanol that has 2 subsidies on that thus is extra cheap, sell back to Brazillians. So now you have USA government giving 3 subsidies that result in people making a ton of corn ethanol, causing energy loss, and shipping it to Brazil, while Brazillians ship cane ethanol back, the shipping in question being done with Diesel ships. Sometimes I wonder what the fuck is wrong with USA government to think that such decisions are good idea, wasting a ton of taxpayer money on energy losing production process and encouraging Diesel-based ocean shipping all in the name of "green". It is not MY tax money though (I am Brazillian) so it is not like I can do anything about it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
greenthrow 4y ago
Sugar cane ethanol still has incredible energy losses. Processing it into ethanol is an energy loss. Transporting it is a huge energy loss. And burning it is the worst. ICE engines are at best 28% efficient. That's a 70% loss.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  You're too focused on 'efficiency' here. The two processes are so wildly different that a 70% loss at certain stages isn't a big deal. A solar panel loses more than 70% of the power that hits it. But that doesn't disqualify it at all. And plants lose a ridiculous percent of energy right at the photosynthesis stage, but they'd still beat solar panels if solar panel prices went back a few decades.
  - greenthrow 4y ago
    Photosynthesis is way, way less efficient than solar panels, even oned a few decades back. I'm focused on efficiency because that's one very important metric when we are talking about how to power the world. Ethanol is a scam.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > Photosynthesis is way, way less efficient than solar panels, even oned a few decades back. It is. But solar panels used to be so expensive that photosynthesis was much cheaper, despite the differences. > I'm focused on efficiency because that's one very important metric when we are talking about how to power the world. But a factor of 3 is not very much when you look at the entire process. The costs can very so wildly, and the existing steps lose so much energy, that the particular number you're pointing to isn't a big deal. > Ethanol is a scam. Depends on how you make it, where you intend to use it, and how much you're willing to tax carbon emissions. If fossil fuels are $2 a liter, my best estimate is that cars will switch to batteries but airplanes will buy biofuel.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

greenthrow 4y ago

Sugar cane ethanol still has incredible energy losses. Processing it into ethanol is an energy loss. Transporting it is a huge energy loss. And burning it is the worst. ICE engines are at best 28% efficient. That's a 70% loss.

Dylan16807 4y ago
You're too focused on 'efficiency' here. The two processes are so wildly different that a 70% loss at certain stages isn't a big deal. A solar panel loses more than 70% of the power that hits it. But that doesn't disqualify it at all. And plants lose a ridiculous percent of energy right at the photosynthesis stage, but they'd still beat solar panels if solar panel prices went back a few decades.
- greenthrow 4y ago
  Photosynthesis is way, way less efficient than solar panels, even oned a few decades back. I'm focused on efficiency because that's one very important metric when we are talking about how to power the world. Ethanol is a scam.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Photosynthesis is way, way less efficient than solar panels, even oned a few decades back. It is. But solar panels used to be so expensive that photosynthesis was much cheaper, despite the differences. > I'm focused on efficiency because that's one very important metric when we are talking about how to power the world. But a factor of 3 is not very much when you look at the entire process. The costs can very so wildly, and the existing steps lose so much energy, that the particular number you're pointing to isn't a big deal. > Ethanol is a scam. Depends on how you make it, where you intend to use it, and how much you're willing to tax carbon emissions. If fossil fuels are $2 a liter, my best estimate is that cars will switch to batteries but airplanes will buy biofuel.