4 ms·

Yeah, and the sad thing this is definitely not news. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11053-005-4679-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s110

Yeah, and the sad thing this is definitely not news. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11053-005-4679-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11053-005-4679-8 Don't even need the article, the abstract says exactly the same as this result from 17 years later. What are we doing...? Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower, March 2005 "Ethanol production using corn grain required 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced." The only difference is that now switchgrass, which was known 17 years ago to have this advantage over corn if cellulosic ethanol is working, has this advantage over corn now that cellulosic ethanol is working... If you make cellulosic corn ethanol, by the way, that 29% doesn't apply either. It's an apples and oranges to compare sugar based corn ethanol to cellulosic based switchgrass ethanol.

bumby 3y ago
I think a lot of this discussion is missing the context of the problem. The problem is not simply "What makes the best biofuel option?" but multi-dimensional. Corn subsidies were created as part of a national security measure. Corn is somewhat unique in that it can be both food and fuel, both of which contribute to national security. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. This creates a glut of corn, so what do we do with it? Ethanol was part of that answer. So the question isn't "What makes the best biofuel?" but what do we do with the glut of corn? If your answer is to stop subsidizing it to avoid the glut in the first place, then you need an answer to the national/food security problem.
- neltnerb 3y ago
  For some additional critical context here, switchgrass can be grown in "marginal" soil that is too salty or otherwise can't handle food crops well. In this case it really doesn't need to be a trade-off, and we've known that for decades too. It barely even needs fertilizer because it contains little nitrogen. Thus, this simply isn't surprising, we should obviously do this if cellulosic ethanol works well enough now.
  - bumby 3y ago
    Yes, there's other comments here addressing the marginal soil aspect. My understanding is that marginal soil that is used for agriculture is generally used for cattle grazing. So I'm not sure that there's a free lunch here. People aren't generally buying plots of marginal soil for agricultural purposes, but maybe this changes that.
    - neltnerb 3y ago
      I'm out of the loop, I don't know much about grazing pastures. But some grasses, grown intentionally, grow extremely fast (giganteus miscanthus was the big one at the time I was researching actively). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus_%C3%97_giganteus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus_%C3%97_giganteus I'm certain there are better ones now, this is very dated information about the details. But from the Wikipedia there's some exciting stuff to me: "Miscanthus is unusually efficient at turning solar radiation into biomass, and its water use efficiency is among the highest of any crop. It has twice the water use efficiency of its fellow C4 plant maize, twice the efficiency as the C3 energy crop willow (Salix viminalis), and four times the efficiency as the C3 plant wheat." and check out just how tolerant this species is -- "Miscanthus × giganteus is either moderately or highly tolerant of heat, drought, flooding, salinity (below 100 mM), and cool soil temperatures (down to −3.4°C, or 25°F). This robustness makes it possible to establish relatively high-yielding miscanthus fields on marginal land, for instance in coastal areas, damp habitats, grasslands, abandoned milling sites, forest edges, streamsides, foothills and mountain slopes. 99% of Europe's saline, marginal lands can be used for M. × giganteus plantations, with only an expected maximum yield loss of 11%." It's pretty amazing, and is already grown for fuels according to the wikipedia page so it's not like it's a novel concept.
- droopyEyelids 3y ago
  You’re right but this context is lacking from most citizen’s understanding of corn, and especially from ethanol marketing. And in a way, isnt the way our farming is a national security tool kind of a secret? Like, “merchants of grain” is a niche book thats borderline conspiracy territory, and politicians dont talk about farmers as national security. https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Grain-Profits-Companies-Center/dp/0595142109 https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Grain-Profits-Companies-Cen...
  - bumby 3y ago
    I don't think it's a secret, but rather something that most people don't have the inclination to dive into. The use of subsidies for national security is displayed on federal websites and in Congressional bills.
    - neltnerb 3y ago
      Definitely not a secret, totally agree that food security and making sure that our farmers stay in the black are the actual reasons for the corn ethanol thing. Plus Iowa has a senator and early primaries, I don't think you should discount the straight up "federal government gives my state a bunch of money for this, let's not touch it."
      - bumby 3y ago
        Of definitely the latter as well. The congressional bill I saw was sponsored by an IA congressman, for obvious reasons.

bumby 3y ago

I think a lot of this discussion is missing the context of the problem. The problem is not simply "What makes the best biofuel option?" but multi-dimensional. Corn subsidies were created as part of a national security measure. Corn is somewhat unique in that it can be both food and fuel, both of which contribute to national security. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. This creates a glut of corn, so what do we do with it? Ethanol was part of that answer. So the question isn't "What makes the best biofuel?" but what do we do with the glut of corn? If your answer is to stop subsidizing it to avoid the glut in the first place, then you need an answer to the national/food security problem.

neltnerb 3y ago
For some additional critical context here, switchgrass can be grown in "marginal" soil that is too salty or otherwise can't handle food crops well. In this case it really doesn't need to be a trade-off, and we've known that for decades too. It barely even needs fertilizer because it contains little nitrogen. Thus, this simply isn't surprising, we should obviously do this if cellulosic ethanol works well enough now.
- bumby 3y ago
  Yes, there's other comments here addressing the marginal soil aspect. My understanding is that marginal soil that is used for agriculture is generally used for cattle grazing. So I'm not sure that there's a free lunch here. People aren't generally buying plots of marginal soil for agricultural purposes, but maybe this changes that.
  - neltnerb 3y ago
    I'm out of the loop, I don't know much about grazing pastures. But some grasses, grown intentionally, grow extremely fast (giganteus miscanthus was the big one at the time I was researching actively). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus_%C3%97_giganteus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus_%C3%97_giganteus I'm certain there are better ones now, this is very dated information about the details. But from the Wikipedia there's some exciting stuff to me: "Miscanthus is unusually efficient at turning solar radiation into biomass, and its water use efficiency is among the highest of any crop. It has twice the water use efficiency of its fellow C4 plant maize, twice the efficiency as the C3 energy crop willow (Salix viminalis), and four times the efficiency as the C3 plant wheat." and check out just how tolerant this species is -- "Miscanthus × giganteus is either moderately or highly tolerant of heat, drought, flooding, salinity (below 100 mM), and cool soil temperatures (down to −3.4°C, or 25°F). This robustness makes it possible to establish relatively high-yielding miscanthus fields on marginal land, for instance in coastal areas, damp habitats, grasslands, abandoned milling sites, forest edges, streamsides, foothills and mountain slopes. 99% of Europe's saline, marginal lands can be used for M. × giganteus plantations, with only an expected maximum yield loss of 11%." It's pretty amazing, and is already grown for fuels according to the wikipedia page so it's not like it's a novel concept.
droopyEyelids 3y ago
You’re right but this context is lacking from most citizen’s understanding of corn, and especially from ethanol marketing. And in a way, isnt the way our farming is a national security tool kind of a secret? Like, “merchants of grain” is a niche book thats borderline conspiracy territory, and politicians dont talk about farmers as national security. https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Grain-Profits-Companies-Center/dp/0595142109 https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Grain-Profits-Companies-Cen...
- bumby 3y ago
  I don't think it's a secret, but rather something that most people don't have the inclination to dive into. The use of subsidies for national security is displayed on federal websites and in Congressional bills.
  - neltnerb 3y ago
    Definitely not a secret, totally agree that food security and making sure that our farmers stay in the black are the actual reasons for the corn ethanol thing. Plus Iowa has a senator and early primaries, I don't think you should discount the straight up "federal government gives my state a bunch of money for this, let's not touch it."
    - bumby 3y ago
      Of definitely the latter as well. The congressional bill I saw was sponsored by an IA congressman, for obvious reasons.