Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels(lithub.com)
lithub.com
Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels
https://lithub.com/how-big-agriculture-mislead-the-public-about-the-benefits-of-biofuels/
255 comments
Sugarcane requires a LOT of water - so you need around 2000-2860 litres of water for every litre of ethanol.
Is that a lot? We would need some other examples to compare--specifically corn.
Assuming all this about Brazilian ethanol is true, the real question for me is scale. The US consumes an enormous amount of gasoline every year compared to just about any other country. That’s what I’m curious about.
Brazilian current ethanol production is 2/3 of the US
At what rate do they produce degraded pasture land? Is it renewable?
Brazil is a big place, and growing sugarcane properly actually regenerates the soil, such as if no or low till techniques are used (which are popular in Brazil).
I don’t believe there’s any evidence to suggest sugarcane regenerates soil. In fact I can only find evidence to the contrary.
even a simple rotation like corn -> soybeans can aid some bacteria recover, thus a better soil lifespan (high productive areas with proper management (beyond rotation, like some rest and proper fertilization can last ~ 120 years being abused all the year long)
probably hundreds of years if erosion wasn't a thing [0]
but "regenerating" as the OP types is probably about actively managing land recover while planting some sugarcane in between the process. now. if the harvest will be profitable for making biofuel is probably another talk
[0] just a guess
probably hundreds of years if erosion wasn't a thing [0]
but "regenerating" as the OP types is probably about actively managing land recover while planting some sugarcane in between the process. now. if the harvest will be profitable for making biofuel is probably another talk
[0] just a guess
the crux of ag soil "energy" is just nitrates and stuff. some plants like beans and lentils recharge nitrogen in the soil (hence the old native american trinity or whatever, corn, beans, and some other plant). fertilizer, that's just nitrates. poop and pee (natural fertilizer).. yup, nitrates.
Basic reason would tell us, unless we're using a nitrogen-fixing plant like beans, unless we're using fertilizer, the plant's gonna suck up nitrates from the soil, get harvested, and now there's less nitrates in the soil. Weakening the soil quality thusly. Pretty straightforward.
Biologically you could then go on to argue micronutrients along the same lines, with poop and pee more likely to contain those things, since aminals also are eurkaryotes so probably depend on some of the same
Basic reason would tell us, unless we're using a nitrogen-fixing plant like beans, unless we're using fertilizer, the plant's gonna suck up nitrates from the soil, get harvested, and now there's less nitrates in the soil. Weakening the soil quality thusly. Pretty straightforward.
Biologically you could then go on to argue micronutrients along the same lines, with poop and pee more likely to contain those things, since aminals also are eurkaryotes so probably depend on some of the same
Indeed, but high intensity agriculture at a scale to feed earth's population consumes more nitrogen than can be obtained through crop rotation.
Farming basically never replenishes soil unless youre very carefully rotating mixed crops and animals through the area.
> Sugarcane is mostly grown on degraded pastureland far from the Amazon.
I vaguely recall campaigns against turning Amazon into pastureland via slash and burn.
I vaguely recall campaigns against turning Amazon into pastureland via slash and burn.
blame meat.
highly productive areas on sugarcane aren't in Amazon [0]
[0] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bruno-Santos-52/publica...
highly productive areas on sugarcane aren't in Amazon [0]
[0] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bruno-Santos-52/publica...
> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine? The carbon absorbed in the field wouldn’t change; neither would the carbon emitted from the car. If the only difference was that producing ethanol emitted much more carbon than producing gasoline, where were ethanol’s benefits?
Where the carbon comes from matters.
When you burn gasoline all of the carbon emitted is carbon that until we took the petroleum it was in out of the ground had been out of the atmosphere for millions of years.
When using gasoline on an ongoing basis the result is a large net increase in atmosphere carbon from burning the gasoline, plus whatever similarly old carbon is emitted during the processing of the petroleum into gasoline.
When you burn ethanol that was made from corn all of the carbon emitted is carbon that was in the atmosphere until the corn took it out of the atmosphere to use in photosynthesis.
When using ethanol from corn on an ongoing basis there is no increase in atmospheric carbon from burning the ethanol. There is just an increase from whatever old carbon is emitted in the process of growing the corn and turning it into ethanol.
Where the carbon comes from matters.
When you burn gasoline all of the carbon emitted is carbon that until we took the petroleum it was in out of the ground had been out of the atmosphere for millions of years.
When using gasoline on an ongoing basis the result is a large net increase in atmosphere carbon from burning the gasoline, plus whatever similarly old carbon is emitted during the processing of the petroleum into gasoline.
When you burn ethanol that was made from corn all of the carbon emitted is carbon that was in the atmosphere until the corn took it out of the atmosphere to use in photosynthesis.
When using ethanol from corn on an ongoing basis there is no increase in atmospheric carbon from burning the ethanol. There is just an increase from whatever old carbon is emitted in the process of growing the corn and turning it into ethanol.
It's explained in the article. People aren't going to starve to fill their gas tank so you need to grow more corn to offset that used for biofuel. To do that can require destroying other carbon sinks (wetlands are the example given, sometimes dried and then burned) to turn them into fields.
But in any case, carbon from the ground is used to fertilize the fields to grow the corn. For every unit of energy produced by corn using carbon sequestered from the air, it matters how much carbon from oil buried underground is released in the atmosphere to produce that unit of energy. If it's greater than or equal to the amount offset by not burning gasoline, it's a net loss.
All of these factors have to be included in lifecycle assessments, which are the tool to use for deciding if a proposed policy is going to lead to lower atmospheric carbon in the future, rather than simplistic models. Selling someone a simplistic model instead of an LCA is basically lying.
But in any case, carbon from the ground is used to fertilize the fields to grow the corn. For every unit of energy produced by corn using carbon sequestered from the air, it matters how much carbon from oil buried underground is released in the atmosphere to produce that unit of energy. If it's greater than or equal to the amount offset by not burning gasoline, it's a net loss.
All of these factors have to be included in lifecycle assessments, which are the tool to use for deciding if a proposed policy is going to lead to lower atmospheric carbon in the future, rather than simplistic models. Selling someone a simplistic model instead of an LCA is basically lying.
> It's explained in the article. People aren't going to starve to fill their gas tank so you need to grow more corn to offset that used for biofuel. To do that can require destroying other carbon sinks (wetlands are the example given, sometimes dried and then burned) to turn them into fields.
The key point is that biofuel replaces fossil fuel. Meaning, instead of having a system that inputs carbon into the environment, you have a system that recycles carbon already in the environment.
It's impossible to argue against this is a significant and unequivocal improvement.
The points you raised were about corn-based biofuel. Surely you are old enough to hear the comotion about switchgrass, and how it would be the primary crop driving biofuels. I feel like framing biofuels as a corn-based crop is a red herring.
> All of these factors have to be included in lifecycle assessments, (...)
Yes, including those from fossil fuels.
The key point is that biofuel replaces fossil fuel. Meaning, instead of having a system that inputs carbon into the environment, you have a system that recycles carbon already in the environment.
It's impossible to argue against this is a significant and unequivocal improvement.
The points you raised were about corn-based biofuel. Surely you are old enough to hear the comotion about switchgrass, and how it would be the primary crop driving biofuels. I feel like framing biofuels as a corn-based crop is a red herring.
> All of these factors have to be included in lifecycle assessments, (...)
Yes, including those from fossil fuels.
Please reread tbe comment you replied to and address its points. It has already countered the "but it's replacing fossil fuels!" point.
> Please reread tbe comment you replied to and address its points. It has already countered the "but it's replacing fossil fuels!" point.
It doesn't counter it. At best, it plays on a fallacy that burying the lead only leaves the red herring as argument.
But corn-based biofuel is a red herring. Try to understand it.
Your blend of argument is the same type of strategy used to denigrate electric cars, where complaining that the fact that electricity can be generated from coal is this major gotcha. It isn't. It's one of many ways to generate it. There are others, and the end result is always better for the environment.
It doesn't counter it. At best, it plays on a fallacy that burying the lead only leaves the red herring as argument.
But corn-based biofuel is a red herring. Try to understand it.
Your blend of argument is the same type of strategy used to denigrate electric cars, where complaining that the fact that electricity can be generated from coal is this major gotcha. It isn't. It's one of many ways to generate it. There are others, and the end result is always better for the environment.
I dont have a dog in the fight. I literally have no idea or opinion if biofuel is better environmentally and to what extent. Just wanted to learn from the points.
> Surely you are old enough to hear the comotion about switchgrass
I hadn't heard "switchgrass" since GWB mentioned it in his State of the Union years ago. Did it end up becoming a significant source of biofuel?
I hadn't heard "switchgrass" since GWB mentioned it in his State of the Union years ago. Did it end up becoming a significant source of biofuel?
No. My company did some work in that area.
It works fine in the lab, but there's a lot of engineering that needs to be done in order to scale it up to industrial levels. Some failures are going to happen along the way, and failures at that scale break companies.
That engineering only gets done is there's money in it - and oil's been cheap bar some temporary upsets. So the pilot plants were shut down or converted to biodiesel, which is much less risky.
Once the economics change again, you'll see movement in that area (assuming EV doesn't completely take over).
It works fine in the lab, but there's a lot of engineering that needs to be done in order to scale it up to industrial levels. Some failures are going to happen along the way, and failures at that scale break companies.
That engineering only gets done is there's money in it - and oil's been cheap bar some temporary upsets. So the pilot plants were shut down or converted to biodiesel, which is much less risky.
Once the economics change again, you'll see movement in that area (assuming EV doesn't completely take over).
"People aren't going to starve to fill their gas tank so you need to grow more corn to offset that used for biofuel. To do that can require destroying other carbon sinks (wetlands are the example given, sometimes dried and then burned) to turn them into fields"
This doesn't make any sense to me. With petrol, you are transferring carbon from a store to the atmosphere every time you use it for energy. With a wetland, you only destroy it once (thus releasing carbon from the store) the first time you use it to produce corn. Every time after that you're capturing carbon (in corn) and then releasing it again (when burning the biofuel).
Yes, it's an oversimplified analogy (there are many more subtleties such as the amount of carbon in wetland vs corn, the carbon requirements of the production and retail process of petrol vs biofuel, etc.). But even if we made the model more complex, it's still fundamentally two entirely different scenarios. One is just a continuous release from carbon stores while the other aims to restructure a carbon store so that it can release and capture in a cycle.
This doesn't make any sense to me. With petrol, you are transferring carbon from a store to the atmosphere every time you use it for energy. With a wetland, you only destroy it once (thus releasing carbon from the store) the first time you use it to produce corn. Every time after that you're capturing carbon (in corn) and then releasing it again (when burning the biofuel).
Yes, it's an oversimplified analogy (there are many more subtleties such as the amount of carbon in wetland vs corn, the carbon requirements of the production and retail process of petrol vs biofuel, etc.). But even if we made the model more complex, it's still fundamentally two entirely different scenarios. One is just a continuous release from carbon stores while the other aims to restructure a carbon store so that it can release and capture in a cycle.
I think the idea is that the wetland or forest or whatever is a carbon sink in the sense that they have a net negative effect on carbon in the atmosphere each year. Growing corn and then burning it would at best be net zero if no further atmospheric carbon were produced by the production processes, fertilizers etc., which it is. So the differences between the two scenarios is net negative versus net positive atmospheric carbon each year.
A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.
The world is more complicated than a 17th century lab experiment in combustion.
Forests sequester carbon through forest fires producing charcoal. Humans could actually cut down old trees, dry them, and convert them to charcoal later used for soil enrichment.
Wetlands capture carbon by incorporating wood from dead trees in anoxic conditions.
> When plant productivity exceeds decomposition, net soil carbon accumulation occurs. This process eventually leads to the formation of deep peat deposits, which can accumulate for thousands of years.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44246-024-00135-y (first search result for wetland carbon sink)
Forests sequester carbon through forest fires producing charcoal. Humans could actually cut down old trees, dry them, and convert them to charcoal later used for soil enrichment.
Wetlands capture carbon by incorporating wood from dead trees in anoxic conditions.
> When plant productivity exceeds decomposition, net soil carbon accumulation occurs. This process eventually leads to the formation of deep peat deposits, which can accumulate for thousands of years.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44246-024-00135-y (first search result for wetland carbon sink)
> Forests sequester carbon through forest fires producing charcoal
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but the carbon in the charcoal resulting from forest fires isn't sequestered any more than the same carbon in the forest when in its un-burned state. The only difference is that, once you have a forest fire, a lot of the carbon is also just released into the atmosphere as CO2 in smoke.
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but the carbon in the charcoal resulting from forest fires isn't sequestered any more than the same carbon in the forest when in its un-burned state. The only difference is that, once you have a forest fire, a lot of the carbon is also just released into the atmosphere as CO2 in smoke.
His point is charcoal doesn't decompose. It's very long term sequestered once it gets into the soil.
Dead trees and other plants in a mature forest are decomposed and in that process, carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
His point is charcoal doesn't decompose which is why we find soil with 5000 year old charcoal in it. It's basically permanently sequestered.
Is it something that commonly happens in forests? I think mature forests today are approximately carbon neutral.
It does sometimes in forests that burn. And generally, forests keep building up soil, it's disturbances and things like erosion (sometimes worsened by fires) that counter this buildup. But mature forests tend to do a lot better at resisting erosion and catastrophic (erosion-causing) fires.
Forests do not infinitely accumulate soil. When we dig into the ground in a mature forest, the layer with organic remnants is not particularly thick. Dead organic decomposes and returns back above the ground.
Bwahaha, this is so ridiculous.
Show me the megatons/year of charcoal being produced by the worlds forests eh?
We could process them yes, but we can also just make them into timber - or burn them for energy. Or just bury them somewhere under a bunch of clay. Oh, and now we’re back to this thread.
Show me the megatons/year of charcoal being produced by the worlds forests eh?
We could process them yes, but we can also just make them into timber - or burn them for energy. Or just bury them somewhere under a bunch of clay. Oh, and now we’re back to this thread.
It's as ridiculous as the comparison of the most recent 12k years of the holocene to the age of plant life on the Earth.
As for using lumber for timber, when eventually disposed it would have to be turned into charcoal rather than burned for energy or let decompose in conditions that don't sequester carbon.
You also missed the point about using charcoal for soil enrichment.
As for using lumber for timber, when eventually disposed it would have to be turned into charcoal rather than burned for energy or let decompose in conditions that don't sequester carbon.
You also missed the point about using charcoal for soil enrichment.
There is zero chance this makes a difference at the scales required. That is my point. Or are you proposing somehow making billions of tons of lumber into charcoal a year, and stopping it from further decay?
There isn’t enough room. Let alone equipment.
and it sure isn’t what happens naturally.
There isn’t enough room. Let alone equipment.
and it sure isn’t what happens naturally.
The parent comment I'm responding to is literally:
> A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.
To which I'm stating that forests and wetlands are not carbon-neutral but carbon-negative.
Then you miss the parent comment's context and start in an inflammatory way:
> Bwahaha, this is so ridiculous.
And take it somewhere else (move the goalpost) - from whether forests are carbon neutral or not to how effective charcoal creation is at carbon capture, in our human timescale.
Meanwhile the only practical point wrt. charcoal creation from forests was:
> Humans could actually cut down old trees, dry them, and convert them to charcoal later used for soil enrichment.
Which doesn't propose an effective carbon capture solution. At most it's something like emission reduction - the key phrase is old trees. And soil enrichment.
Recommendation: don't argue against points people didn't make.
> A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.
To which I'm stating that forests and wetlands are not carbon-neutral but carbon-negative.
Then you miss the parent comment's context and start in an inflammatory way:
> Bwahaha, this is so ridiculous.
And take it somewhere else (move the goalpost) - from whether forests are carbon neutral or not to how effective charcoal creation is at carbon capture, in our human timescale.
Meanwhile the only practical point wrt. charcoal creation from forests was:
> Humans could actually cut down old trees, dry them, and convert them to charcoal later used for soil enrichment.
Which doesn't propose an effective carbon capture solution. At most it's something like emission reduction - the key phrase is old trees. And soil enrichment.
Recommendation: don't argue against points people didn't make.
Sounds like you might want to actually read the thread? Unless there is a geological process involved (very rare, and obvious when there is), long term forests and wetlands are carbon neutral - or they would be sitting on massive quantities of carbon. The vast majority are clearly not.
I was responding to as single comment. I do not have a responsibility to respond to the whole thread. I'm going to include it again, in full:
> A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.
Highlight: *In a long-term equilibrium*. The comment literally talks about long time periods...
> A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.
Highlight: *In a long-term equilibrium*. The comment literally talks about long time periods...
Most of the land in question isn't a mature ecosystem in equilibrium, and if it is there are other arguments against turning that into cornfields. But let's say the worst case is that it's carbon neutral.
The point is that biofuel production isn't carbon neutral. Maybe it could be theoretically, but in practice it takes energy inputs in the production process like in the fertilizers, processing of crop into fuel, and transport/distribution, which makes it net positive for atmospheric carbon.
The point is that biofuel production isn't carbon neutral. Maybe it could be theoretically, but in practice it takes energy inputs in the production process like in the fertilizers, processing of crop into fuel, and transport/distribution, which makes it net positive for atmospheric carbon.
I don't think that's true - my understanding is a forest produces soil continuously, and that's a carbon sink
Soil too eventually reaches an equilibrium where carbon injection and carbon oxidation are in balance.
If what you thought was true, imagine a forest sitting there for millions of years. Where would this permanently sequestered carbon be going? Soils do not become unboundedly thick.
If what you thought was true, imagine a forest sitting there for millions of years. Where would this permanently sequestered carbon be going? Soils do not become unboundedly thick.
hmmm ... but forests don't actually sit there for millions of years, right? and either way soils get eroded and ultimately end up on the ocean floor
https://ijw.org/wild-carbon-storage-in-old-forests/
https://ijw.org/wild-carbon-storage-in-old-forests/
Well, that's what oil and coal are. Oil is formed from marine biomass, and coal is formed from plants.
The rate at which these are formed over time is very very small. Almost all carbon fixed by photosynthesis is oxidized over a much shorter time scale.
Coal no longer forms, oil is still forming but far slower than the rate consumed.
This was true in the carboniferous period, when the organisms able to metabolize the lignin in trees haven't evolved yet, so the dead trees ended up as coal.
Except that industrial-scale agriculture in general requires quite a bit of exogenous petrochemical inputs—not just the fuel to power the machines that do the work, but also the fertilizer.
The energy for fertilizer is mostly in the nitrogen fertilizer. The energy input here is to make hydrogen for the Haber-Bosch process. This hydrogen can come from renewable sources ("green hydrogen"), and this would be an excellent way to counter long term variability in renewable output.
That the hydrogen currently comes from natural gas is no argument it must come from natural gas, any more than cars currently using petroleum derived fuels would imply they must use petroleum derived fuels.
That the hydrogen currently comes from natural gas is no argument it must come from natural gas, any more than cars currently using petroleum derived fuels would imply they must use petroleum derived fuels.
Still far less carbon than used for gasoline
One of the things that concerns me most after studying agriculture for a couple of years is that people may definitely starve to fill other people’s gas tank. A lack of arable land is imminent and high income people at the gas pump, or eating meat (same economics) may well outspend those who don’t have enough food. Part of food inflation is attributed to biofuels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
Hasn’t happened in Brazil at all, where food is quite affordable, and they’re a gigantic food exporter too.
the book cited in the article mentioned food riots in several developing countries (Mexico, Pakistan) on p.71 - prices would be affected either by displacing the crop in some of those countries or reducing exports from those that grow them
To be fair, it seems there are already regulations, both in the US and worldwide, that take into account LCA in some way.
But yes, looks like the subsidies/etc mentioned in the article are not as accurate.
But yes, looks like the subsidies/etc mentioned in the article are not as accurate.
>Where the carbon comes from matters.
Your underlying assumption is carbon is required. We could use the same land for solar panels. 40 million acres are used to grow corn for ethanol subsidies (out of 93m total). If we use these 40m acres for solar, Annual Energy Production (in watt-hours): 52,272 terawatt-hours (TWh)
To put that in context: The total electricity consumption of the U.S. is about 4,000 TWh/year. The energy generated from 40 million acres of solar panels could theoretically meet U.S. electricity demand more than 13 times over.
But, we'll need a lot less energy when we use solar/wind. We only need a third of the energy we use today, > 65% of the energy is wasted. So, solar panels on the same land used for ethanol production (and subsidized -- which is a lose-lose-lose idea) can produce 39x times US electricity demand (assuming ChatGPT calculation is correct).
When we produce this much electricity from solar, without fossil fuels, we'll also save 40% of water withdrawals. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, electric power generators are the largest source of U.S. water withdrawals and account for about 40% of total water withdrawals in the United States:https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37453
To put that in context: The total electricity consumption of the U.S. is about 4,000 TWh/year. The energy generated from 40 million acres of solar panels could theoretically meet U.S. electricity demand more than 13 times over.
But, we'll need a lot less energy when we use solar/wind. We only need a third of the energy we use today, > 65% of the energy is wasted. So, solar panels on the same land used for ethanol production (and subsidized -- which is a lose-lose-lose idea) can produce 39x times US electricity demand (assuming ChatGPT calculation is correct).
When we produce this much electricity from solar, without fossil fuels, we'll also save 40% of water withdrawals. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, electric power generators are the largest source of U.S. water withdrawals and account for about 40% of total water withdrawals in the United States:https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37453
Just one question: can you eat photovoltaic cells?
Corn is edible, and I’d be more than happy to eat cornmeal for years in the event of a global war that stopped food imports/exports. This is precisely the reason for agricultural subsidies, to ensure our nation can feed itself if all agricultural trade is cut off. We’d grind up field corn and eat cornmeal instead of starving to death with plenty of electricity but no food.
Corn is edible, and I’d be more than happy to eat cornmeal for years in the event of a global war that stopped food imports/exports. This is precisely the reason for agricultural subsidies, to ensure our nation can feed itself if all agricultural trade is cut off. We’d grind up field corn and eat cornmeal instead of starving to death with plenty of electricity but no food.
Ethanol corn is not the food corn, to be clear. It is bred to have as little sugar and as much starch as possible. It's inedible, unless you're a pig that likes corn byproduct or drinking corn oil. And, in the event of global war, I think we could end our enormous agriculture exports and be more concerned with a nuclear war than if we can eat corn for every meal.
If this was about that, we would grow something else. This is about agricultural lobbiests bribing congress to steal unfathomable sums of wealth from the public through subsidy.
If this was about that, we would grow something else. This is about agricultural lobbiests bribing congress to steal unfathomable sums of wealth from the public through subsidy.
You can grind field corn into cornmeal, that’s what they use for tortilla chips, tortillas, etc
Lobbying can have much higher returns than the 4-6% yield from renting farmland to operators, it’s about food security, not handouts.
Lobbying can have much higher returns than the 4-6% yield from renting farmland to operators, it’s about food security, not handouts.
If a global war can stop food imports/exports, you are very close to a civilization collapse if dependent on fossil fuels. Once the oil supply is cut off (which happens long before food), everything stops. You'd be better off relying on solar panels and having energy security, which is the most critical thing to have. Fossil fuel-based power plants can be bombed, but solar panels all over the country can never be bombed. And, there is already an overabundance of food production, specifically corn, soybeans, and milk, in the US.
That being said, growing corn for fuel ethanol is stupid.
Other crops are more efficient
(Unless we find a way of turning the whole plant into fuel)
Other crops are more efficient
(Unless we find a way of turning the whole plant into fuel)
The trouble with corn is that its yield band is huge. Get a good growing year and suddenly you have twice as much as you need — and more than you can store, leaving it out to rot. Recapturing that energy as fuel instead of disappearing waste heat is a win and what corn-based ethanol was introduced for.
The trouble with humans is that they aren't very good at moderation. As soon as they see a little opportunity to do something good they take it to the extreme, to the point that it is no longer good.
The trouble with humans is that they aren't very good at moderation. As soon as they see a little opportunity to do something good they take it to the extreme, to the point that it is no longer good.
The other problem is that the equipment to turn corn into ethanol isn't free, either to buy or to maintain. It's not economical to leave it idle during poor yield years.
> It's not economical to leave it idle during poor yield years.
Poor yield implies high prices. It is not economical for anything but to leave it idle. And, as you'd expect, when corn was expensive a few years ago many ethanol plants did shut down.
For a short while around 2010, following a massive glut of corn through the early 2000s, the US government was paying ethanol producers to produce when corn was otherwise too expensive to work economically in an effort to jumpstart the industry. But those days are long behind us.
Poor yield implies high prices. It is not economical for anything but to leave it idle. And, as you'd expect, when corn was expensive a few years ago many ethanol plants did shut down.
For a short while around 2010, following a massive glut of corn through the early 2000s, the US government was paying ethanol producers to produce when corn was otherwise too expensive to work economically in an effort to jumpstart the industry. But those days are long behind us.
What crops are those, and do they grow in the same climates and soils as corn does at the moment?
Sugarbeets would probably be the best for easy usage in non-tropical areas. I would think most sweet crops would beat corn though, corn by itself isn't that efficient because of how much energy goes into growing the stalk. But it is one of the most robust with a huge range of soils and climates which lends to its prevalence
Sugarcane, but I think in terms of total plant weight vs yield even sugar beets beat corn
I live in the corn belt and can assure you that sugarcane does not grow here
that sugar does not grow there does not change the fact that corn is very inefficient for biofuel
Field corn can also be made into cornmeal, which we can eat. Which is exactly why we subsidize corn growers.
We don’t grow corn specifically to make ethanol, we grow corn because we can eat it if we lose all food imports. I’d much rather eat cornmeal for years than sugar beets.
Turning excess corn into ethanol happens to be better than burying it or throwing it away.
We don’t grow corn specifically to make ethanol, we grow corn because we can eat it if we lose all food imports. I’d much rather eat cornmeal for years than sugar beets.
Turning excess corn into ethanol happens to be better than burying it or throwing it away.
Yes, that is indeed what was sold to us 30+ years ago. This background context is in the article; The rest of the article is about how that was a lie.
By about 20 years ago we understood that this was nonsense, that farm equipment and transportation infrastructure for corn cultivation chugs diesel, that somewhere between half, all, or twice (depending on study) the fossil fuels saved by corn ethanol would be burned to produce it.
Corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel suck. Sugarcane ethanol works with high EROI. WVO biodiesel is almost pure profit. There were suggestions that cellulosic ethanol (switchgrass, miscanthus) and algal biodiesel could be productive enough to be worthwhile, but they have not taken over, and subsidy has been directed consistently to boosting existing corn producers in order to win the Iowa Caucus.
By about 20 years ago we understood that this was nonsense, that farm equipment and transportation infrastructure for corn cultivation chugs diesel, that somewhere between half, all, or twice (depending on study) the fossil fuels saved by corn ethanol would be burned to produce it.
Corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel suck. Sugarcane ethanol works with high EROI. WVO biodiesel is almost pure profit. There were suggestions that cellulosic ethanol (switchgrass, miscanthus) and algal biodiesel could be productive enough to be worthwhile, but they have not taken over, and subsidy has been directed consistently to boosting existing corn producers in order to win the Iowa Caucus.
if it's half, then corn ethanol is totally worthwhile, right?
Not necessarily.
If it's half, it may be worthwhile on an energy basis in a narrowly defined sense. But there are far-reaching secondary energy costs beyond this explicit accounting. How do you account for the fuel burned in the jetski that your combine operator uses in his free time, or the cost of forging the steel that went into his combine blades? We live in a global economy and in this sort of analysis, there are probably hidden emissions not noted in the study that make 2:1 EROI insufficient.
There are non-EROI issues as well. What happens if we devote all our land to biofuel production? People starve. What happens if we devote all our land to 10:1 biofuel production and it doesn't cover 1% of current demand?
We have crops with higher Energy Return on Investment, just none (so far) that are economical to produce in Iowa in order to win the Iowa caucus.
Brazillian sugarcane ethanol is perhaps 5:1.
Daytime, immediate-use solar is something like 30:1. Less when you factor in batteries.
Wind turbines around 20:1.
Hydropower is maybe 100:1.
Oil varies enormously. Used to be, sweet light Saudi crude from the Ghawar field might break 100:1. Most fields globally more like 10:1-20:1. Alberta heavy oil sands are something like 5:1. If you dip all the way down into ultraheavy kerogen fuels, solid at room temperature and demanding lots of processing, there are certainly deposits that are less than 1:1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
There was a bit of an obsession in the mid 2000's with the concept of a global "peak oil" production, limited by supply-side constraints involving all the low-hanging fruit effectively being picked. While this is often dismissed as neo-malthusianism catastrophism, most of the ideas involved are unscheduled eventualities rather than some defined apocalypse. It introduced a lot of people too young for the 1970's OPEC embargo to the concept of energy scarcity, and effectively ironed out a great deal of the discourse using a fairly active forum.
http://theoildrum.com/node/9249
The major errors of that community's consensus were:
A) The particular shape of the Hubbard Peak bell curve is somebody's fit, not related to fundamentals, and extrapolating sigmoid / logistic curves have both huge error bars when the reasoning is sound, and little merit if the reasoning is not fundamentally sound. You simply can't predict a peak well in advance based on inflection points of this wide of a variety of sources, central limit theorem be damned.
B) Natural resource reserve estimates are both highly subjective and something that suffers from game-theoretic problems. If a speculator 'knows' that the ridge on the horizon is probably full of gold, but has an incentive to work the claim he already started a few miles away, he has no reason to report it. The same applies to countries and companies. Honest reserves estimates are also always quoted in terms of "Economically extractable at current prices", but prices can change and dramatically shift the number.
C) While the underlying fracking and injection technologies to expand the horizons of what constitutes an extractable reserve date to the 60's, they were not ubiquitous or as readily controllable until recently.
D) There is more than enough long-tail low-payoff hydrocarbon fuel out there for us to boil the planet in a CO2 oven, unfortunately.
If it's half, it may be worthwhile on an energy basis in a narrowly defined sense. But there are far-reaching secondary energy costs beyond this explicit accounting. How do you account for the fuel burned in the jetski that your combine operator uses in his free time, or the cost of forging the steel that went into his combine blades? We live in a global economy and in this sort of analysis, there are probably hidden emissions not noted in the study that make 2:1 EROI insufficient.
There are non-EROI issues as well. What happens if we devote all our land to biofuel production? People starve. What happens if we devote all our land to 10:1 biofuel production and it doesn't cover 1% of current demand?
We have crops with higher Energy Return on Investment, just none (so far) that are economical to produce in Iowa in order to win the Iowa caucus.
Brazillian sugarcane ethanol is perhaps 5:1.
Daytime, immediate-use solar is something like 30:1. Less when you factor in batteries.
Wind turbines around 20:1.
Hydropower is maybe 100:1.
Oil varies enormously. Used to be, sweet light Saudi crude from the Ghawar field might break 100:1. Most fields globally more like 10:1-20:1. Alberta heavy oil sands are something like 5:1. If you dip all the way down into ultraheavy kerogen fuels, solid at room temperature and demanding lots of processing, there are certainly deposits that are less than 1:1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
There was a bit of an obsession in the mid 2000's with the concept of a global "peak oil" production, limited by supply-side constraints involving all the low-hanging fruit effectively being picked. While this is often dismissed as neo-malthusianism catastrophism, most of the ideas involved are unscheduled eventualities rather than some defined apocalypse. It introduced a lot of people too young for the 1970's OPEC embargo to the concept of energy scarcity, and effectively ironed out a great deal of the discourse using a fairly active forum.
http://theoildrum.com/node/9249
The major errors of that community's consensus were:
A) The particular shape of the Hubbard Peak bell curve is somebody's fit, not related to fundamentals, and extrapolating sigmoid / logistic curves have both huge error bars when the reasoning is sound, and little merit if the reasoning is not fundamentally sound. You simply can't predict a peak well in advance based on inflection points of this wide of a variety of sources, central limit theorem be damned.
B) Natural resource reserve estimates are both highly subjective and something that suffers from game-theoretic problems. If a speculator 'knows' that the ridge on the horizon is probably full of gold, but has an incentive to work the claim he already started a few miles away, he has no reason to report it. The same applies to countries and companies. Honest reserves estimates are also always quoted in terms of "Economically extractable at current prices", but prices can change and dramatically shift the number.
C) While the underlying fracking and injection technologies to expand the horizons of what constitutes an extractable reserve date to the 60's, they were not ubiquitous or as readily controllable until recently.
D) There is more than enough long-tail low-payoff hydrocarbon fuel out there for us to boil the planet in a CO2 oven, unfortunately.
Ultimately what matters is the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Biofuels could help or hinder that effort. It all depends on the wider system.
Yeah, seems like they're forgetting the part where they need to bury the corn in bedrock to keep the carbon sequestered.
No they aren’t.
Biofuels in use, keep atmospheric carbon neutral.
Fossil fuels increase atmospheric carbon.
Now, if we did make biofuels and reinject them into the ground, yes it would reduce atmospheric carbon.
But neutral is strictly better than increasing, regardless yes?
Biofuels in use, keep atmospheric carbon neutral.
Fossil fuels increase atmospheric carbon.
Now, if we did make biofuels and reinject them into the ground, yes it would reduce atmospheric carbon.
But neutral is strictly better than increasing, regardless yes?
"Biofuels in use, keep atmospheric carbon neutral."
No they do not. The accounting generally doesn't take into account the full emissions of agriculture, which for corn is particularly carbon intense. Not to mention the downstream pollution impacts of over fertilization, such as coastal dead zones
No they do not. The accounting generally doesn't take into account the full emissions of agriculture, which for corn is particularly carbon intense. Not to mention the downstream pollution impacts of over fertilization, such as coastal dead zones
This is the salient point that is glossed over without so much as blinking.
To get 1J of biofuel-based fuel, how many J of fossil fuel is burned? If it’s like 0.9J then you really have to ask how much carbon is released when turning carbon sinks into farmland, because it will take many many crop cycles to recoup that from biofuels.
To get 1J of biofuel-based fuel, how many J of fossil fuel is burned? If it’s like 0.9J then you really have to ask how much carbon is released when turning carbon sinks into farmland, because it will take many many crop cycles to recoup that from biofuels.
That is the implementation detail that makes the whole thing a scam, yes. None of that is fundamental to bio-fuels, but rather a property of it being cheaper to do it that way in our current fossil fuel economy, and people not being interested in looking all that closely because they don’t really care.
What is not factored into the above is how much is going to be grown anyway. Corn yield in particular can quickly surprise you. Even if you try to only grow enough for food, there will be years where you still have way more than you can handle.
That is why we started producing corn-based ethanol. It wasn't intended to see people grow corn for it, but rather clean up the unmanageable excesses realized in the due course of growing it for food-based reasons that otherwise would have been left out to rot. In that vein, J is insignificant as it is spent either way.
The problem is that humans aren't very good at moderation. A little ethanol production is quite sensible, but once humans get it into their head something might be sensible in small doses they have to take it to a ridiculous extreme... You see that in everything.
That is why we started producing corn-based ethanol. It wasn't intended to see people grow corn for it, but rather clean up the unmanageable excesses realized in the due course of growing it for food-based reasons that otherwise would have been left out to rot. In that vein, J is insignificant as it is spent either way.
The problem is that humans aren't very good at moderation. A little ethanol production is quite sensible, but once humans get it into their head something might be sensible in small doses they have to take it to a ridiculous extreme... You see that in everything.
The other issue is people seeing corn for ethanol (especially subsidized) can be waaaay more profitable and deciding to switch crops. Not only do you lose a potentially valuable food crop. But it's replaced by one of the nutrient and GHG intensive crops around
> can be waaaay more profitable
As a corn grower myself, I wouldn't go that far. Ethanol production is really only profitable when corn isn't profitable to grow. In other words, when you have ethanol plants champing at the bit to buy your corn, you are wishing you hadn't grown it in the first place! It can be a profitable crop, but only on the backs of food buyers who are much less price sensitive.
Ethanol does serve as a helpful buffer to step in when corn would be otherwise worthless, where the alternative is to let you see it rot, minimizing the losses — But if you are counting on ethanol to make you rich... Good luck!
Granted, there was that strange period around the early 2010s, in reaction to the early-to-mid 2000s where corn was being left to rot, where the US government was paying ethanol producers to produce ethanol. If you are posting from a time machine from that time, I get what you are saying. But those days are long behind us now.
As a corn grower myself, I wouldn't go that far. Ethanol production is really only profitable when corn isn't profitable to grow. In other words, when you have ethanol plants champing at the bit to buy your corn, you are wishing you hadn't grown it in the first place! It can be a profitable crop, but only on the backs of food buyers who are much less price sensitive.
Ethanol does serve as a helpful buffer to step in when corn would be otherwise worthless, where the alternative is to let you see it rot, minimizing the losses — But if you are counting on ethanol to make you rich... Good luck!
Granted, there was that strange period around the early 2010s, in reaction to the early-to-mid 2000s where corn was being left to rot, where the US government was paying ethanol producers to produce ethanol. If you are posting from a time machine from that time, I get what you are saying. But those days are long behind us now.
[deleted]
You're misinterpreting what was meant to be a humorous comparison for illustration purposes. If you mine the fossil fuels, you have to bury the corn to keep the atmospheric carbon neutral.
What I'm not saying is you need to bury the corn to use biofuels.
What I'm not saying is you need to bury the corn to use biofuels.
i think there may have been some confusion about the parent comment
you are both agreeing that where the fuels come from matters. If you want to burn fossil fuels in a manner to keep atmospheric carbon neutral using the approach specified in
> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine?
then the correct approach would be
> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for *burying in the ground* and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine?
unless i am misunderstanding these two comments? some clarity would be great!
you are both agreeing that where the fuels come from matters. If you want to burn fossil fuels in a manner to keep atmospheric carbon neutral using the approach specified in
> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine?
then the correct approach would be
> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for *burying in the ground* and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine?
unless i am misunderstanding these two comments? some clarity would be great!
If we could grow the same amount of corn (to offset the carbon in the gasoline) and bury it where it would not rot/decompose (turned that carbon into now fossil carbon), then turn around and burn fossil fuel gasoline, then from a carbon neutral perspective, yes that would ‘balance the scales’.
It also seems quite silly and a lot of work, doesn’t it? Especially if you can do the same thing by turning the corn into ethanol, and leave the fossil fuels out of it? (* of course current agriculture uses a lot of fossil fuels itself, so the math isn’t that simple. For it to actually work, we’d need to ensure the entire vertical was fossil fuel free)
Of course, it’s a lot more direct and effective to use electric vehicles, near as I can tell.
It also seems quite silly and a lot of work, doesn’t it? Especially if you can do the same thing by turning the corn into ethanol, and leave the fossil fuels out of it? (* of course current agriculture uses a lot of fossil fuels itself, so the math isn’t that simple. For it to actually work, we’d need to ensure the entire vertical was fossil fuel free)
Of course, it’s a lot more direct and effective to use electric vehicles, near as I can tell.
Yes, it wasn't a serious suggestion. It was meant to be so ridiculous so as to illustrate the point, but I guess no one got it.
This is such an off-base critique that it seems like deliberate trolling. The biofuel renewable carbon cycle takes carbon from the air, and burns the carbon once it's in the form of ethanol. It stops taking carbon from the ground and putting it into the sky.
The problem in corn's case, the reason none of this works, is you need to burn lots of fuel to produce corn. LOTS of fuel. Enough that you could barely (in some studies) or not even (in others) produce more fuel than you burned.
If you electrify your farming you don't have this problem. A far-future use-case is that we have eliminated 95% of fossil fuel use, and use solar-battery-powered tractors, trucks, and combines to harvest biofuels in order to fuel long-haul aviation and certain other legacy hardware that proved difficult to electrify.
The problem in corn's case, the reason none of this works, is you need to burn lots of fuel to produce corn. LOTS of fuel. Enough that you could barely (in some studies) or not even (in others) produce more fuel than you burned.
If you electrify your farming you don't have this problem. A far-future use-case is that we have eliminated 95% of fossil fuel use, and use solar-battery-powered tractors, trucks, and combines to harvest biofuels in order to fuel long-haul aviation and certain other legacy hardware that proved difficult to electrify.
I was trying to illustrate that growing corn and burning fossil fuels means you need to bury the corn to keep atmospheric carbon neutral.
It was just meant to be a humorous hyperbole in agreement with the parent but seems like folks didn't get it.
It was just meant to be a humorous hyperbole in agreement with the parent but seems like folks didn't get it.
So fuel would basically become a corn based battery. (Ideally something more efficient than corn would be grown though)
I read the whole article and I still don't see how Big Ag misled anyone. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems that the author is trying to differentiate between growing corn for food vs growing the same corn for ethanol. I assume the entire reason the lobby exists is that farmers want to grow corn for food and ethanol. But the researcher lost interest before proving anything around there. Maybe ethanol is actually worse, but I didn't see any evidence in this article.
Instead, this article is a master class in the red herring fallacy. Every person on the 'wrong' side of the issue has their sordid past and connections exposed, whether it's their association with Wall Street or the fact that they're a sex offender. Nevermind the science, the author just assumes that because the reader (presumably) has a certain political persuasion denigrating the other side will serve as a convincing argument.
Instead, this article is a master class in the red herring fallacy. Every person on the 'wrong' side of the issue has their sordid past and connections exposed, whether it's their association with Wall Street or the fact that they're a sex offender. Nevermind the science, the author just assumes that because the reader (presumably) has a certain political persuasion denigrating the other side will serve as a convincing argument.
This is an excerpt from Eating the Earth. The entire point of the book is that when we consider land use, we're not accounting for other uses for that same land (or how other land would be used) because the land, prior to Searchinger's work in the field all calculations did not consider this factor. Even after Searchinger published their work showing the flaws on land use, it was often ignored.
If you find the excerpt underwhelming, go read the book. I will warn you that in some ways it feels more like a memoir of Searchinger's life than a book on land use considerations, but, despite that, it still does a great job of showing how land use is still not being accounted for in all situations.
I finished Eating the Earth last week and found it rather interesting to read.
If you find the excerpt underwhelming, go read the book. I will warn you that in some ways it feels more like a memoir of Searchinger's life than a book on land use considerations, but, despite that, it still does a great job of showing how land use is still not being accounted for in all situations.
I finished Eating the Earth last week and found it rather interesting to read.
> If you find the excerpt underwhelming, go read the book
... and be overwhelming underwhelmed?
... and be overwhelming underwhelmed?
The EU does something impressively crazy burning 23 million tonnes of wood pellets in 2021.
https://unece.org/media/press/372591
It's labeled as 'renewable' electricity.
https://unece.org/media/press/372591
It's labeled as 'renewable' electricity.
It's labeled 'renewable energy' (not electricity), if wood pellets are sourced from sustainable renewable forest growth.
What is your argument?
What is your argument?
It requires stringent checking of the source. Which was shown does not happen or with only slap on the wrist.
https://spectator.sme.sk/culture-and-lifestyle/c/new-documen...
https://spectator.sme.sk/culture-and-lifestyle/c/new-documen...
That it isn't sustainable. As Eating the Earth points out, by growing trees to then cut them down again we're not accounting for the cost of using that same forested land for anything else, like a forest which is a great carbon sink. Instead burning wood pellets is considered renewable until you consider the cost of using that land for something else in which case it isn't a renewal resource.
The word renewable has a specific meaning (the source renews). Just because something is renewable, doesn't mean it's climate-friendly and/or sustainable.
Burning pellets as Bioenergy is renewable - it's just not sustainable[1] or climate-friendly.
[1] not sustainable in large scale use.
Burning pellets as Bioenergy is renewable - it's just not sustainable[1] or climate-friendly.
[1] not sustainable in large scale use.
Burning wood pellets is carbon neutral. Any forrest is a great carbon sink until it matures and it saturates, i.e. growth reaches replacement equilibrium and old trees/growth decay, releasing the CO2.
This is not taking in to account the fossil fuel usage for growing wood, transporting it and processing it to pellets.
Biofuels rarely make sense, unless we can get the biomass as a side-flow from some other process. And that kind of flows are quite limited compared to our energy needs.
Biofuels rarely make sense, unless we can get the biomass as a side-flow from some other process. And that kind of flows are quite limited compared to our energy needs.
It depends on the time and spatial scale. And how much replanting is happening.
That makes no sense with the definition of ‘renewable’.
Trees grow again. They are renewed.
What is this junk?
Trees grow again. They are renewed.
What is this junk?
The soil is degraded, washed away on clear-cut forests, and even old-growth protected forests are being relabeled unprotected to provide energy for the industry all over Eastern-Europe. The resulting flash floods, the water of which is harder to retain on the lowlands are worsening the droughts and the effects of climate change.
Ah, end eventually trees will not regrow, because they need soil for that. And water. Modern forestry is far from renewable. Only externalities having a longer time-frame to kick in are conveniently ignored by the decision makers and the masses willing to see only the upsides.
Ah, end eventually trees will not regrow, because they need soil for that. And water. Modern forestry is far from renewable. Only externalities having a longer time-frame to kick in are conveniently ignored by the decision makers and the masses willing to see only the upsides.
In the US that is not how it has been done in a very, very long time. At this point all US timberland is multi-generation new growth; and is doing just fine.
It makes perfect sense.
Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest. The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's argument states that more forests will be grown to be cut down if burning wood pellets (that are shipped from North America to the EU) is considered renewable and that means you're now cutting down even more forests to clear land for growing more trees. The land used is not free; it could have instead stayed a forest and remained a carbon sink. When you compare wood pellets using for generating energy and compare it to other forms of energy generation it no longer holds up as a renewable resource after you take into account the land that could have been kept instead as a forest and carbon sink.
Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest. The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's argument states that more forests will be grown to be cut down if burning wood pellets (that are shipped from North America to the EU) is considered renewable and that means you're now cutting down even more forests to clear land for growing more trees. The land used is not free; it could have instead stayed a forest and remained a carbon sink. When you compare wood pellets using for generating energy and compare it to other forms of energy generation it no longer holds up as a renewable resource after you take into account the land that could have been kept instead as a forest and carbon sink.
Forests are not long term carbon sinks. They flatline rather quickly.
This is obvious to anyone who has spent much time in a forest, because if this wasn’t the case, forests would be sitting on thousands of feet of sequestered carbon. Instead of a few feet (typically) of non-mineral soil.
Forests also (typically) go through cycles of burning.
The highest rate of carbon sequestration is when a forest is in the 3-25 year old range, because that is when the bulk of the actual growth is occurring.
Renewable doesn’t mean ‘indefinite carbon sink’. Renewable means ‘renews’.
This entire discussion is incredibly ridiculous.
This is obvious to anyone who has spent much time in a forest, because if this wasn’t the case, forests would be sitting on thousands of feet of sequestered carbon. Instead of a few feet (typically) of non-mineral soil.
Forests also (typically) go through cycles of burning.
The highest rate of carbon sequestration is when a forest is in the 3-25 year old range, because that is when the bulk of the actual growth is occurring.
Renewable doesn’t mean ‘indefinite carbon sink’. Renewable means ‘renews’.
This entire discussion is incredibly ridiculous.
Look dude, read the papers or read the book. I don't have much more to offer you. This isn't just about the forest itself but about the land used to grow the forest.
"In the Carbon Costs of Global Wood Harvests, published in Nature in 2023, WRI researchers using a biophysical model estimated that annual wood harvests over the next few decades will emit 3.5-4.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. That is more than 3 times the world’s current annual average aviation emissions. These wood-harvest emissions occur because the great majority of carbon stored in trees is released to the atmosphere after harvest when roots and slash decompose; as most wood is burned directly for heat or electricity or for energy at sawmills or paper mills; and when discarded paper products, furniture and other wood products decompose or burn. Another recent paper in Nature found that the word’s remaining forests have lost even more carbon, primarily due to harvesting wood, than was lost historically by converting forests to agriculture (other studies have found similar results1). Based on these analyses, a natural climate solution would involve harvesting less wood and letting more forests regrow. This would store more carbon as well as enhance forest biodiversity."[0]
[0]https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emis...
And the original paper that introduced the idea of land use https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861
"In the Carbon Costs of Global Wood Harvests, published in Nature in 2023, WRI researchers using a biophysical model estimated that annual wood harvests over the next few decades will emit 3.5-4.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. That is more than 3 times the world’s current annual average aviation emissions. These wood-harvest emissions occur because the great majority of carbon stored in trees is released to the atmosphere after harvest when roots and slash decompose; as most wood is burned directly for heat or electricity or for energy at sawmills or paper mills; and when discarded paper products, furniture and other wood products decompose or burn. Another recent paper in Nature found that the word’s remaining forests have lost even more carbon, primarily due to harvesting wood, than was lost historically by converting forests to agriculture (other studies have found similar results1). Based on these analyses, a natural climate solution would involve harvesting less wood and letting more forests regrow. This would store more carbon as well as enhance forest biodiversity."[0]
[0]https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emis...
And the original paper that introduced the idea of land use https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861
So I see what you’re saying. You’re talking about the whole system. Take land and then plant trees, the trees sequester carbon as they grow, some of them fall to the forest floor continuing to sequester carbon. But, I think the issue with your argument is, this process isn’t indefinite. The natural cycle is that these trees will decay, fall, rot (releasing carbon naturally) or natural forest fires will burn them anyways (releasing carbon naturally). Then more trees will take their places and sequester carbon, ad infinitum in the cycle that has taken place for the last 2 billion years since the Paleoproterozoic era.
But I see no difference between humans speeding this cycle by planting quick growth trees, cutting them down, releasing their stored carbon, planting more. It’s the same thing being sequestered and released continuously.
But I see no difference between humans speeding this cycle by planting quick growth trees, cutting them down, releasing their stored carbon, planting more. It’s the same thing being sequestered and released continuously.
The planet isn't infinite: by running the cycle more quickly, you knock the "baseline" atmospheric carbon up a few more ppm. This has knock-on effects.
Even if we converted all arable land in the United States to forest, best case we would take many years to sequester even a single years fossil carbon emissions. And we’d all starve to death in the process.
Any co2 released by harvesting a forest, is very shortly taken back up again by the forest regrowing. Within a lifetime for sure.
Trees are nice, I get it. But this is all in the noise.
Any co2 released by harvesting a forest, is very shortly taken back up again by the forest regrowing. Within a lifetime for sure.
Trees are nice, I get it. But this is all in the noise.
Where do these numbers come from?
Go look at the article about the effects of the introduction of wolves back in yellowstone that was frontpage yesterday.
That f'ing with one species.
Now imagine the impact of f'ing with the forest itself.
Could the capacity to sequester carbon be affected by second or third order effects?
That f'ing with one species.
Now imagine the impact of f'ing with the forest itself.
Could the capacity to sequester carbon be affected by second or third order effects?
Modeling a forest like a spring is a better model than a petrochemical reservoir. (Though a water reservoir is not a terrible analogy if forest fires == a dam breaking! And overflows or evaporation == rotting.)
The (very common) thinking that forests are ‘sinks’ (aka it goes in one way and stays) or like a petrochemical reservoir (we can put it in, or take it out - but it stays there once in, or out) are a big part of the confusion.
On a geological timescale, carbon being stored in a forest is a temporary and rather rare circumstance. Some global percentage will always be in vegetation (see carbon cycle), but any given atom will move around a lot.
Harvesting forests and burning them, takes carbon that was in the atmosphere, then in wood, then puts it back in the atmosphere. Total carbon in the atmosphere was only temporarily out of it in this situation.
If we wanted to permanently take it out of the atmosphere, we’d need to bury all those trees (deep enough where they won’t decompose and/or the decomposition products won’t make it into the atmosphere!). Turning it into furniture or building products is a more useful, but shorter term solution.
One idea-logically most pure solution would be to puree them and inject them into old depleted oil fields, eh?
Because otherwise those trees will just burn, die and decompose, etc. - it’s inevitable.
Ideally they would be replaced in a shortish timeframe by new trees or growth, roughly locking up the same amount of carbon. But that doesn’t always happen.
And people aren’t allowed to clear cut forests in the US (generally) anymore. Most (all?) US timberland is multi-generational new growth now at this point, and is harvested using as realistically healthy a process as possible. If we had battery powered industrial equipment, it would be even better.
I’ve read the papers, and I’ve done the math many times.
The amount of carbon being released by burning the trees, is roughly the same amount as was taken out by them growing. That’s the nature of it. When they regrow,they’ll take more out.
That is the nature of being renewable. Unlike fossil fuels, where chances are no more will replace it naturally.
Complaining about someone cutting down the trees, specifically from a ‘renewable’/‘total carbon’ perspective is silly in this context. The carbon released isn’t even fossil carbon, and will be back in the trees soon enough - less than a lifetime!
And I’ve done the math - even if we turned all of the arable land in North America into forests, based on the USDA data from National Forests, it would take 4-10ish years worth of growth to temporary store 1 years worth of fossil carbon being released just by the US right now.
Every year.
And to even try that, we’d all starve, because we turned all our crop land into forests too.
Worry about the massive quantities of fossil carbon still getting sucked out of the ground. That is what is feeding the impending disaster.
Unless people are salting the earth and stopping further growth (which generally is already forbidden in the US!), cutting down and burning a forest is a temporary nudge in the accounting that will self correct.
Generally most of it will get used in lumber though, which means it should net decrease atmospheric carbon until it rots or burns in a fire. If landfilled, it could go thousands of years.
In summary - the math doesn’t actually check out when you look at it over realistic timescales, and this is more an ideological thing than an actual real thing. I love trees. But they aren’t going to save us from this mess, no matter how hard core we go.
The (very common) thinking that forests are ‘sinks’ (aka it goes in one way and stays) or like a petrochemical reservoir (we can put it in, or take it out - but it stays there once in, or out) are a big part of the confusion.
On a geological timescale, carbon being stored in a forest is a temporary and rather rare circumstance. Some global percentage will always be in vegetation (see carbon cycle), but any given atom will move around a lot.
Harvesting forests and burning them, takes carbon that was in the atmosphere, then in wood, then puts it back in the atmosphere. Total carbon in the atmosphere was only temporarily out of it in this situation.
If we wanted to permanently take it out of the atmosphere, we’d need to bury all those trees (deep enough where they won’t decompose and/or the decomposition products won’t make it into the atmosphere!). Turning it into furniture or building products is a more useful, but shorter term solution.
One idea-logically most pure solution would be to puree them and inject them into old depleted oil fields, eh?
Because otherwise those trees will just burn, die and decompose, etc. - it’s inevitable.
Ideally they would be replaced in a shortish timeframe by new trees or growth, roughly locking up the same amount of carbon. But that doesn’t always happen.
And people aren’t allowed to clear cut forests in the US (generally) anymore. Most (all?) US timberland is multi-generational new growth now at this point, and is harvested using as realistically healthy a process as possible. If we had battery powered industrial equipment, it would be even better.
I’ve read the papers, and I’ve done the math many times.
The amount of carbon being released by burning the trees, is roughly the same amount as was taken out by them growing. That’s the nature of it. When they regrow,they’ll take more out.
That is the nature of being renewable. Unlike fossil fuels, where chances are no more will replace it naturally.
Complaining about someone cutting down the trees, specifically from a ‘renewable’/‘total carbon’ perspective is silly in this context. The carbon released isn’t even fossil carbon, and will be back in the trees soon enough - less than a lifetime!
And I’ve done the math - even if we turned all of the arable land in North America into forests, based on the USDA data from National Forests, it would take 4-10ish years worth of growth to temporary store 1 years worth of fossil carbon being released just by the US right now.
Every year.
And to even try that, we’d all starve, because we turned all our crop land into forests too.
Worry about the massive quantities of fossil carbon still getting sucked out of the ground. That is what is feeding the impending disaster.
Unless people are salting the earth and stopping further growth (which generally is already forbidden in the US!), cutting down and burning a forest is a temporary nudge in the accounting that will self correct.
Generally most of it will get used in lumber though, which means it should net decrease atmospheric carbon until it rots or burns in a fire. If landfilled, it could go thousands of years.
In summary - the math doesn’t actually check out when you look at it over realistic timescales, and this is more an ideological thing than an actual real thing. I love trees. But they aren’t going to save us from this mess, no matter how hard core we go.
Sinks is about flows. The question is about reservoirs. Forests are a long term carbon reservoir. Yes, it's possible to regrow it and let it stay that way. But we don't do that if we regularly chop it down for wood pellets. If we regularly do that, then the carbon in it will spend more of its time in the atmosphere and cause trouble, even if it wasn't pumped from a fossil reservoir.
This is why you can't ignore land use changes in carbon budgets. It's a sound argument, it's not ridiculous at all.
This is why you can't ignore land use changes in carbon budgets. It's a sound argument, it's not ridiculous at all.
I disagree, wood pellets are more expensive than oil for energy, especially if only counting the production cost of oil w/o the tax. So even the first time an old forest is cut, when the land changes, it already displaces oil use. At greater expense even, so demand would be reduce the amount energy produced further.
Furthermore Europe can also choose to replant non-forest land or replant permanently afterwards.
Furthermore Europe can also choose to replant non-forest land or replant permanently afterwards.
The soil they create, if they stay alive and are able to retain the soil layer, is gradually washed away (and locally replenished) and is fertilizing the lowlands.
Even fast growing trees need 10-20 years to start storing significant amounts of carbon and old-growth forests can sequester it for hundreds of years.
The challenge is that old growth forests, while retaining carbon, don’t pull much net carbon from the atmosphere. Their ‘spring’ is nearly fully compressed.
They are really beautiful and important, but they aren’t doing much when it comes to reducing atmospheric carbon anymore.
As ugly as it is, chopping them down (as long as we can stop the wood from rotting/burning/etc) and then having new trees grow in their place does more actual atmospheric carbon reduction.
They are really beautiful and important, but they aren’t doing much when it comes to reducing atmospheric carbon anymore.
As ugly as it is, chopping them down (as long as we can stop the wood from rotting/burning/etc) and then having new trees grow in their place does more actual atmospheric carbon reduction.
The soil gets depleted when biomass is consistently taken away. It might be possible to avoid it but that's cost center.
Carbon comes from the atmosphere in this scenario.
Crops can be rotated.
Trees can be non-clear cut when harvested.
None of this changes the definition of renewable.
Crops can be rotated.
Trees can be non-clear cut when harvested.
None of this changes the definition of renewable.
In practice we want forest soil not eroded away after clear cut logging, but also not depleted nutrients like phosphorus, nor prone to wildfires[note], nor trees damaged by acid rain etc. Definition of "sustainable" in the law alone is not sufficient to cover all this and never will be, some discretion and responsibility is required.
[note] depends on the biome, part of said discretion
[note] depends on the biome, part of said discretion
So do fish when they are harvested from the ocean. But that doesn't mean it is sustainable.
Opportunity cost has nothing to do with whether something is renewable
Because is bs, pure and simple. Typical Brussels re-inventing the definition of words in order to push their political objectives.
I would agree if you'd be talking about branding gas as sustainable, which Germany actually tried before the war in Ukraine and the sabotage of the Northstream pipeline. But in this context, it's pure hogwash. Burning wood pellets is actually sustainable and renewable and has been a net win for Eastern European counrties that joined the EU, mainly because little to no sawdust is discarded into rivers and streams any longer. I remember the 2000s and before, when we hiked through the mountains: wherever there was a wood processing plant, there were also overflowing heaps of sawdust. None of that is a reality any longer, all of it is pelletized, sold and burned.
The issue with Eastern European woods is that they're being razed - for pellets, furniture, you name it. And rarely replaced. So yes in some places you'll have new growth, but most places there's soil washing and flash floods and destroyed habitats and all that. Is that renewable? Hardly.
[deleted]
There's a whole lot of buildings that were designed with a coal furnace in the basement which heats water, and all aparments getting a bunch of water radiators. A switch from that to, say, a typical American forced air system is a huge expense, and it might not be all that easy to design a system that is well balanced anyway given the small space for said ducts.
So when a building association finds themselves having to replace the old furnace, given that getting a new coal furnace is now illegal, the pellets are seen as the reasonable, if not wonderful alternative.
So when a building association finds themselves having to replace the old furnace, given that getting a new coal furnace is now illegal, the pellets are seen as the reasonable, if not wonderful alternative.
What do you think the furniture industry does with the wood byproducts such as sawdust and bark?
adds glue to it and creates more "wooden" furniture from it
IKEA. We should burn discarded ikea (wooden) furniture too.
Corn and most ag subsidies are using taxpayer money for corporate welfare for mostly mega farming consortia with a smattering of medium and smaller farmers, who also can't exist in the rigged market without welfare. 5% of all US land, not just arable land, ALL land is used for mostly cow corn. It's absolute insanity.
And then there's the federal US sugar cartel keeping prices artificially (no pun intended) high.
And then there's the federal US sugar cartel keeping prices artificially (no pun intended) high.
Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed, but we also need to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Crop subsidization is the only alternative to the granary system, which while decent still resulted in repeated famines for thousands of years basically everywhere, while no country that has decent crop subsidization ever has famine. Crop subsidization in general makes granaries 90% obsolete because you always aim to over produce crops and so even in bad years you still produce enough food despite the unexpectedly low yields. It also makes food prices WAY more stable so that a bad July doesn't cause wheat prices to double because there isn't enough to satisfy demand. It is really the only way to ensure you always produce extra food in a capitalist economy because otherwise margins are only like 2% while crop yields can swing 30% even without extraordinary weather events or storm damage.
I do want to note though that corn is possibly one of the least useful crops to subsidize, it is one of the most robust and predictable food crops we grow, which is why so much of it is grown despite a large fraction of it's energy going into worthless stalk. More delicate crops that have larger and less predictable yield swings, like wheat, or something with delicate fruits that can't be stored long, likely deserve the majority of subsidization money that currently goes towards corn.
I do want to note though that corn is possibly one of the least useful crops to subsidize, it is one of the most robust and predictable food crops we grow, which is why so much of it is grown despite a large fraction of it's energy going into worthless stalk. More delicate crops that have larger and less predictable yield swings, like wheat, or something with delicate fruits that can't be stored long, likely deserve the majority of subsidization money that currently goes towards corn.
The problem is, you almost always end up with a massive amount of overproduction. That either ends up diverted into fuel production, which raises ethical concerns on one side and prolongs the use of fossil fuels because it's "effectively free" and so stops people from switching over to electric mobility on the other side.
And on top of that, many Western countries routinely dump their overproduction on Africa, where as a result of all that free aid, local food production industry has all but vanished. Up until the '00s, Simbabwe was known as "Africa's corn chamber" - that is long gone now.
And on top of that, many Western countries routinely dump their overproduction on Africa, where as a result of all that free aid, local food production industry has all but vanished. Up until the '00s, Simbabwe was known as "Africa's corn chamber" - that is long gone now.
Grain overproduction is also a significant driver of climate change. Fossil fuels, meat, and GMO monocultures aren't ecologically sustainable in current form, they continue because of capture of factions of governments by corrupt lobbying interests who threaten elected officials into driving more cash and favorable regulations their way.
People need to stop pointing the finger at food production, with such massive blinders on. Food "overproduction", are you actually serious? Are people so removed from farming, and food production, that they think it's a simple thing?
Plant X food, get X food?
Absolutely not! Even with irrigation, there are years with drought, yes even in the West. There are years that are too cloudy, or too sunny (yes, too sunny is a thing). There are years with locusts, and no insecticide doesn't completely solve that. And regardless of global warming or not, some seasons have always been worse for hurricanes, tornadoes, and some events at harvest time can wipe out crops entirely!
Outside of all of the above, few nations feed themselves on their own output. External food production can wither and vanish in an instant, whether through war, or inclement weather too.
You must overproduce to ensure a continuity of food supply. It's the same reason that fallow farmland must be a thing, too. There must be extra, there must be a safety net.
Only people who have never starved, never been truly hungry would espouse such things.
Plant X food, get X food?
Absolutely not! Even with irrigation, there are years with drought, yes even in the West. There are years that are too cloudy, or too sunny (yes, too sunny is a thing). There are years with locusts, and no insecticide doesn't completely solve that. And regardless of global warming or not, some seasons have always been worse for hurricanes, tornadoes, and some events at harvest time can wipe out crops entirely!
Outside of all of the above, few nations feed themselves on their own output. External food production can wither and vanish in an instant, whether through war, or inclement weather too.
You must overproduce to ensure a continuity of food supply. It's the same reason that fallow farmland must be a thing, too. There must be extra, there must be a safety net.
Only people who have never starved, never been truly hungry would espouse such things.
We saw what happens when you use just-in-time manufacturing and keep minimal stock of material when covid collapsed supply chains a few years ago. Imagine if that was our food supply instead. The over production is the price we pay for food security.
> and some events at harvest time can wipe out crops entirely!
And that swings both ways. Last year, with the stars aligning just right, the corn yields around here were ~100 bushels per acre higher than even our most optimistic pre-harvest estimates. That is an incredible amount of unexpected extra product. Corn especially has a huge, unpredictable yield band.
Which, of course, is exactly why we started producing corn-based ethanol. To buffer the periods of uncontrollable excess — where the previous alternative was to see it rot away.
And that swings both ways. Last year, with the stars aligning just right, the corn yields around here were ~100 bushels per acre higher than even our most optimistic pre-harvest estimates. That is an incredible amount of unexpected extra product. Corn especially has a huge, unpredictable yield band.
Which, of course, is exactly why we started producing corn-based ethanol. To buffer the periods of uncontrollable excess — where the previous alternative was to see it rot away.
I agree, but we have to take care that getting rid of excess production (i.e. post reserve building/maintenance) is not going to fuck up supply chains in other countries, like it did in Africa.
> Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed
Crop subsidies, since the 2014 reforms at least, are "fair" to all crops. That does mean that the most grown crops (which in the US is corn, by a large margin) receive the most subsidies, but is that truly poor application and distribution?
Crop subsidies, since the 2014 reforms at least, are "fair" to all crops. That does mean that the most grown crops (which in the US is corn, by a large margin) receive the most subsidies, but is that truly poor application and distribution?
Yes, they just explained way. The goal isnt fairness, its preventing famine.
The goal isn't fairness, but it is fair[1]. There is nothing in the crop subsidies that would compel you to grow, say, corn over a vegetable.
Corn does receive the lion's share of the subsidies, but that's because we grow way more corn, because that's what the consumer chooses to buy (either directly or indirectly [e.g. meat]).
Corn does receive the lion's share of the subsidies, but that's because we grow way more corn, because that's what the consumer chooses to buy (either directly or indirectly [e.g. meat]).
Right, and part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies(vast majority of corn is going to animals, they eat whatever is cheapest). The subsidies lead to too much corn growth which means they are poorly applied, even if they are fair.
> part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies
That would imply that subsidies give reason to produce corn over a vegetable, which isn't the case. The subsidies are "fair" — even when that isn't the goal.
You are right that corn is cheap, but that's a result of technology and the nature of what it is. It requires almost no human effort to produce. Stuff like vegetables, on the other hand, remain incredibly labor intensive even on the most technically advanced farms. It is a much harder problem to solve.
As compared to virtually every other food, grain is significantly simpler to handle in almost every way from seeding right to storage and distribution. And corn benefits from being insanely high yielding compared to other grains.
That would imply that subsidies give reason to produce corn over a vegetable, which isn't the case. The subsidies are "fair" — even when that isn't the goal.
You are right that corn is cheap, but that's a result of technology and the nature of what it is. It requires almost no human effort to produce. Stuff like vegetables, on the other hand, remain incredibly labor intensive even on the most technically advanced farms. It is a much harder problem to solve.
As compared to virtually every other food, grain is significantly simpler to handle in almost every way from seeding right to storage and distribution. And corn benefits from being insanely high yielding compared to other grains.
Unfortunately farmers everywhere get subsidies: A lot of European farming would collapse and be replaced by farming done in the southern hemisphere if there weren't subsidies.
As for too much corn, it's a purely economical plan: There's rotation with soybeans in most of the midwest because corn-corn-sobeans is more profitable and treats the land better. Your typical farmer would change to anything else that makes more money per acre, especially if it needs fewer treatments.
As for the total acreage, corn is the second highest in land coverage. There's a worse one: Lawn grass. It just sits there, requires a bunch of maintenance, and produces no economic output. It's often also mandatory: My county's minimal ratios mean 75% of my property has to be well maintained lawn
As for too much corn, it's a purely economical plan: There's rotation with soybeans in most of the midwest because corn-corn-sobeans is more profitable and treats the land better. Your typical farmer would change to anything else that makes more money per acre, especially if it needs fewer treatments.
As for the total acreage, corn is the second highest in land coverage. There's a worse one: Lawn grass. It just sits there, requires a bunch of maintenance, and produces no economic output. It's often also mandatory: My county's minimal ratios mean 75% of my property has to be well maintained lawn
> Your typical farmer would change to anything else that makes more money per acre
As a grain farmer, I would want cooler tech first (which, granted, would follow if the money was there). I chose grain farming because it has the best toys.
As a grain farmer, I would want cooler tech first (which, granted, would follow if the money was there). I chose grain farming because it has the best toys.
[deleted]
The corn varieties grown for industrial ethanol production are mutually exclusive with the corn varieties grown for human consumption; you cannot use one for the other. They might as well be corn vs soy beans.
Fun fact: corn farmers almost always rotate with soybeans to replenish the nitrogen in the soil.
Also, most corn (and soybeans) is for animal food anyway. Very little of the corn grown in the US is for human consumption.
My understanding(not a corn farmer but have watched a show by one on youtube) is the farmer will harvest the corn then dry and store it, selling over the course of a year or two, the ethanol plant is sort of the fallback option when they need to get rid if it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSB-8dn3CkI
Personally, I am in the rapeseed bandwagon. Ethanol is not a very good fuel, better to be growing bio-diesel
Also, most corn (and soybeans) is for animal food anyway. Very little of the corn grown in the US is for human consumption.
My understanding(not a corn farmer but have watched a show by one on youtube) is the farmer will harvest the corn then dry and store it, selling over the course of a year or two, the ethanol plant is sort of the fallback option when they need to get rid if it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSB-8dn3CkI
Personally, I am in the rapeseed bandwagon. Ethanol is not a very good fuel, better to be growing bio-diesel
> little of the corn grown in the US is for human consumption.
Yup, just as a point of reference, something like 70% of Illinois corn goes straight into Illinois hogs.
Yup, just as a point of reference, something like 70% of Illinois corn goes straight into Illinois hogs.
> The corn varieties grown for industrial ethanol production are mutually exclusive with the corn varieties grown for human consumption
Not exactly. You wouldn't normally eat "industrial ethanol corn" off the cob, which is what you are probably trying to suggest, but it is often used in other corn-based food like tortilla chips, and, of course, its most infamous use: High-fructose corn syrup.
Not exactly. You wouldn't normally eat "industrial ethanol corn" off the cob, which is what you are probably trying to suggest, but it is often used in other corn-based food like tortilla chips, and, of course, its most infamous use: High-fructose corn syrup.
I assumed something similar. But the author presents this as some sort of trump card, as if the agriculture industry was suggesting farmers grow corn for ethanol instead of for food. And then the researcher lost interest before he could be proven right. Maybe he actually was right, but there's no evidence here.
I believe they grow field corn for animal feed as well as for ethanol. Technically some processed foods also use field corn. While there are a number of varieties of field corn, I don't believe any are exclusive to ethanol production and could be used in other capacities.
> I believe they grow field corn for animal feed as well as for ethanol.
I grow corn. I grow it to be sold. Whatever the buyer decides to do with it — be that feed it to animals, turn it into tortilla chips, make sweeteners, create plastic for 3D printers, produce ethanol, or even burn it in their furnace — is up to them.
I grow corn. I grow it to be sold. Whatever the buyer decides to do with it — be that feed it to animals, turn it into tortilla chips, make sweeteners, create plastic for 3D printers, produce ethanol, or even burn it in their furnace — is up to them.
There are some loose numbers tosed around like agricultural ethanol being 2x the carbon emissions of big oil.
While not circled around to properly destroying a wetland for farming, is also destroying a far more permanent carbon sink than a farm.
-----
IMO the article is tripping over itself to tell a story and cares about that story far more than factual information.
It could even help for some types of people, even if it's likely painful for the people reading from here.
While not circled around to properly destroying a wetland for farming, is also destroying a far more permanent carbon sink than a farm.
-----
IMO the article is tripping over itself to tell a story and cares about that story far more than factual information.
It could even help for some types of people, even if it's likely painful for the people reading from here.
It's also not the same corn varieties for different uses. Most of what we'd feed humans would be sweet corn, and that's not ideal for ethanol, or animal feed. If you look at total acreage planted, sweet corn is just 1% of the total crop.
Yeah, the details are scattered through the article, so you've got to pay close attention. It says that the LCA that the industry produced ignored the carbon intensivity of draining wetland, creating more farmland, and fertilizing it. When that's accounted for (last 2 paragraphs, the bit of hagiography on Searchinger), biofuels isn't a climate policy anymore. Using an LCA that ignores the carbon emissions you're creating, misleads people, whether done on purpose or not.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1151861
"These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1151861
"These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years"
For years I saw saturation ads for the Archer-Daniels-Midland Corporation on PBS, I found out years that this is the prime beneficiary of the ethanol program.
Farmers growing corn for ethanol are growing broke despite subsidies. The program is an environmental disaster because people in the Mississippi River basin should be growing anything except corn because corn is a crop that requires huge imports of nitrogen fertilizer which burns fuel and leaches into the environment and creates a huge dead spot in the Gulf of Mexico.
Farmers make much better money from agrivoltaics, if they can convert 10-20% of their land they can produce a huge amount of energy and spare the fertilizer, it is not a one-way trip, the solar cells can be removed in the future and in the meantime it supports a more diverse ecosystem. People have no idea what a win-win it is.
Farmers growing corn for ethanol are growing broke despite subsidies. The program is an environmental disaster because people in the Mississippi River basin should be growing anything except corn because corn is a crop that requires huge imports of nitrogen fertilizer which burns fuel and leaches into the environment and creates a huge dead spot in the Gulf of Mexico.
Farmers make much better money from agrivoltaics, if they can convert 10-20% of their land they can produce a huge amount of energy and spare the fertilizer, it is not a one-way trip, the solar cells can be removed in the future and in the meantime it supports a more diverse ecosystem. People have no idea what a win-win it is.
Unless I'm going senile, I've done this calculation a few times and consistently I get that a solar farm produces 25-50 times more energy a year than corn.
But corn is _stored_ energy that can be used at any time. PV is energy ar the current moment. Seems like this 20x loss the cost of storage...
Interesting take though, I'm not saying that growing corn is best way to "produce stored energy", but in your comparison it's almost like direct competition to for PV + batteries of any sort.
Interesting take though, I'm not saying that growing corn is best way to "produce stored energy", but in your comparison it's almost like direct competition to for PV + batteries of any sort.
it's at the current moment, but somewhat constant and predictable. the sun is available all year round*.
Batteries.
Not nearly as energy dense. Useful for some applicatons but liquid chemical fuels deliver more energy when space or weight are factors - despite the inefficiency.
E-Fuels. Specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether for agricultural engines in California because with no C-C bonds it is a soot free diesel fuel.
Not that it can't work, but that looks like oil companies trying to kill what we have today with a promise of something better in the future so they can keep selling oil.
EVs make sense for passenger cars, not so much for heavy vehicles. People might still want to be driving classic cars in the future too. Hydrogen for any kind of vehicle looks dead in the water, though green hydrogen looks essential for chemical manufacturing. (Funny, as with carbon capture, some of the best economics are in the oil business; there is a huge hydrodesulfurization plant in Saudia Arabia that lower its Scope I carbon footprint significantly by using hydrogen from PV)
Battery storage looks practical to smooth out diurnal variation in power supply and demand but doesn't look so practical to smooth out seasonal variations, some kind of chemical storage could be the way.
Battery storage looks practical to smooth out diurnal variation in power supply and demand but doesn't look so practical to smooth out seasonal variations, some kind of chemical storage could be the way.
It's not surprising, really. Oil companies know green energy is going to supplant oil eventually, so at the same time they lobby against renewables they're also working to make sure they still have a place in the future energy economy. I'm not saying they aren't doing their share of greenwashing, but they legitimately are doing development in biofuels and hydrogen.
What use cases in agriculture are you referring to? I do not see space or weight being issues. Just see what happens to corn and ethanol.
You can eat corn if food imports aren’t available, but as far as I’m aware, photovoltaic cells are not edible.
Food security is the primary reason for corn overproduction and ethanol is what we do with the excess corn instead of let it rot.
Food security is the primary reason for corn overproduction and ethanol is what we do with the excess corn instead of let it rot.
I've read a few references to electrocatalysts where you use electricity to promote reactions potentially ones that are endothermic.
One wonders a bit, you take hydrogen and nitrogen to make ammonia. Then you spray that on a field and grow plants to turn it into protein. What if you skip the plant step and convert the ammonia to amino acids directly.
One wonders a bit, you take hydrogen and nitrogen to make ammonia. Then you spray that on a field and grow plants to turn it into protein. What if you skip the plant step and convert the ammonia to amino acids directly.
I think I've seen that too. Plants convert solar energy to chemical energy with an efficiency of a few percent. Solar cells are around 20% efficient, and do it year round, even in the winter.
Farmers could make more money if we subsidized fresh vegetables rather than ethanol, and it would make us healthier.
Certainly, but that would also indirectly de-subsidize the animal agricultural industry. People are addicted to their animal products, going so far as to pretend they're essential and not just a luxury.
Increased price would provide a clear message to these people.
Meat prices are way up in Europe due to various reasons (https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardBeef/Dashb...), but it doesn't seem to affect total consumption (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-meat-eu28), just a slight adjustment in what types of meat are eaten.
The purpose of the system is what it does. That would not enrich the people and orgs currently being enriched by the subsidies provided for biofuels. The US is farming ~60M acres just for ethanol and biodiesel.
People know what a loss it is for the oil companies, and will not tolerate that.
[deleted]
To be fair, almost no oil goes to produce electricity in US although it is still used heavily in developing countries.
He should have said fuel companies or even gas companies but that's not colloquial I guess
Here's a breakdown by sources (2023)
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Here's a breakdown by sources (2023)
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
They should switch to growing sugar cane. There's a high demand for sugar, plus sugar works even better than corn for ethanol.
Most places growing corn don't have the right climate for sugar cane.
Sugar beets is the primary source of domestic produced sugar in US/Canada
And the UK
Do you know how you harvest sugar cane? You *burn* it.
One (yet to be verified) insight I've had of late is that we make an implicit, paradoxical assumption about the unimpeded operation of the free market: that the rationality of market participants (a function of education), and their decision making (a function of information dissemination) somehow exists on a substrate unaffected by the market forces. In reality, not only are education and information (news) commoditized, but their supply is intermingled with the market dynamics of other products.
For example, say it costs a supplier X per year to safely eliminate a negative externality (e.g. local air pollution) that would otherwise cause a percentage of consumers to form a negative opinion of the brand and shift to competitors. Now say it costs Y to purchase a level of control of information flow (news, PR, which are naturally commoditized) that could mitigate said negative public opinion. If Y < X, an economically rational (but ethically unscrupulous) actor would choose the second avenue.
For example, say it costs a supplier X per year to safely eliminate a negative externality (e.g. local air pollution) that would otherwise cause a percentage of consumers to form a negative opinion of the brand and shift to competitors. Now say it costs Y to purchase a level of control of information flow (news, PR, which are naturally commoditized) that could mitigate said negative public opinion. If Y < X, an economically rational (but ethically unscrupulous) actor would choose the second avenue.
Which is what is happening right now.
Even DOGE didn't dare go after ethanol subsidies.[1] Even the Cato Institute, which is classic conservative in position, is against them.
[1] https://www.cato.org/commentary/trump-musk-doge-havent-gone-...
[1] https://www.cato.org/commentary/trump-musk-doge-havent-gone-...
Cato Institute is big L Libertarian, not classic conservative
your point being "classic" (1920s? 1950s?) conservative is "not being big L libertarian"? Because in the other reading of classic, "typical" or "pike", big L libertarian is (1980s-2000s) peak "conservative".
is the Cato institute without the novel anti human rights anti environment spicing?
is the Cato institute without the novel anti human rights anti environment spicing?
I remember when the corn subsidies were introduced. I don't recall seeing any favourable commentary. Nor do I remember anyone in real life discussing them or saying "gee I'm glad we're saying the environment with biofuels"
For anyone who had heard of them the program seemed pretty transparently a way to put a fig leaf on an extra subsidy. Big agriculture may not have spoken accurately about the programs but I doubt they succeeded in misleading anyone. Maybe in the states receiving subsidies, no firsthand experience of the marketing there.
For anyone who had heard of them the program seemed pretty transparently a way to put a fig leaf on an extra subsidy. Big agriculture may not have spoken accurately about the programs but I doubt they succeeded in misleading anyone. Maybe in the states receiving subsidies, no firsthand experience of the marketing there.
I had similar thoughts, although I'm a Brit, all coverage I've seen says it's environmentally largely useless but big ag has paid appropriate contributions to politicians to make it happen because money.
80% of UK’s waste oil would only power 0.6% of its flights
Using synthetic e-fuel for all USA domestic flights would use 85% of USA’s electricity generated.
Powering UK flights on plant-based biofuels would use >50% of its agricultural land
2⃣ UK waste oil is already spoken for, used in soap, cosmetics etc.
But it’s far short of what would be needed anyway.
Instead we will import ‘waste’ from places like Malaysia, which also happens to be a major palm oil producer (worse than diesel for warming).
3⃣ Synthetic e-fuels use lots of electricity.
Using renewables doesn’t make it ok.
That’s because, until we fully decarbonise, it diverts renewables from reducing the burning of gas & oil, worsening climate change.
4⃣ UK Gov isn’t pushing crop-based bio-fuels, but other nations are, like Singapore.
These have high emissions, because they lead to forest destruction. They also threaten food shortages, with warming already hitting crop yields—and ecosystem collapse.
Source: https://bsky.app/profile/sioldridge.bsky.social/post/3luwjfr...
Using synthetic e-fuel for all USA domestic flights would use 85% of USA’s electricity generated.
Powering UK flights on plant-based biofuels would use >50% of its agricultural land
2⃣ UK waste oil is already spoken for, used in soap, cosmetics etc.
But it’s far short of what would be needed anyway.
Instead we will import ‘waste’ from places like Malaysia, which also happens to be a major palm oil producer (worse than diesel for warming).
3⃣ Synthetic e-fuels use lots of electricity.
Using renewables doesn’t make it ok.
That’s because, until we fully decarbonise, it diverts renewables from reducing the burning of gas & oil, worsening climate change.
4⃣ UK Gov isn’t pushing crop-based bio-fuels, but other nations are, like Singapore.
These have high emissions, because they lead to forest destruction. They also threaten food shortages, with warming already hitting crop yields—and ecosystem collapse.
Source: https://bsky.app/profile/sioldridge.bsky.social/post/3luwjfr...
This why im still a huge advocate for building nuclear power. In order to synthesize this kind of stuff from air instead of wasting all our farmland on it to have carbon neutral liquid or gas fuels available, we need insane amounts of energy. For some things batteries and other tech are the better option to switch to, but petroleum is still king for many applications and farming it with plants is extremely land inefficient. So direct air synthesis using ass tons of energy which nuclear could provide is the clear and straight forward solution that doesn't require hand wavy future technology improvements or unrealistic ideas of using over half our farmland to grow fuels or covering significant percentages of the earth's surface with solar panels.
What if solar in the desert is cheaper and easier?
One of the main issues with switching to biofuel is it costs way more than regular. Mandating an expensive way to make it won't fix that.
One of the main issues with switching to biofuel is it costs way more than regular. Mandating an expensive way to make it won't fix that.
Should we set nuclear facilities all over the country?
You mean like an SMR? Yes, if they can be secured.
If we went for full size nuclear reactors, though, I doubt we would need more than half a dozen more in the UK.
If we went for full size nuclear reactors, though, I doubt we would need more than half a dozen more in the UK.
Who would pay for that? Should agriculture receive even more subsidies on top of the subsidies that nuclear power plants already receive?
Yes.
I've found this web site to be informative about what it would take to go fully renewable:
https://www.withouthotair.com/
A lot of the calculations are back of the envelope, but I guess provide a ballpark estimate.
https://www.withouthotair.com/
A lot of the calculations are back of the envelope, but I guess provide a ballpark estimate.
Lobbyists are responsible for all of the harm that Americans at large come to. Eco damage, car crashes, toxic chemicals in food, the drug war, wars in the Middle East, lack of public housing, the world's most expensive health care, union-busting, even heart disease. If you can think of it and it hurts lots of Americans, lobbyists were behind it.
I think this takes too much responsibility off the politicians swayed by lobbyists and the corporations paying lobbyists. Don’t get me wrong, lobbyists have been middlemen in a lot of disastrous policy, but they’re not really the source of the problem.
The problem is a system which allows politicians to be influenced in this way, and the group of politicians that accept said influence. The lobbyists–while not very admirable in their own right–are simply acting in their own self-interest. Someone–those in charge–needs to deny them.
> The problem is a system which allows politicians to be influenced in this way
Well, that's (representative) democracy for you. If politicians were off doing their own thing you'd have a dictatorship instead. Being "influenced" (i.e. listening to the people who share their story) is the whole reason you hired the politician in the first place!
Yes, democracy is hard work. Everyone is supposed to be lobbying. That is what democracy is made of. It is your civic duty. But, understandably, most people would rather do something else — like complaining on HN about how those participating in democracy got their way.
That's why not everyone in the world actually believes in democracy. But, whether you like it or not, if you live in a democracy it is your duty to participate in it. Speaking to your representative regularly (i.e. lobbying) to air out your concerns is a necessity. They are not mind readers! If you choose not to, don't expect magic.
Well, that's (representative) democracy for you. If politicians were off doing their own thing you'd have a dictatorship instead. Being "influenced" (i.e. listening to the people who share their story) is the whole reason you hired the politician in the first place!
Yes, democracy is hard work. Everyone is supposed to be lobbying. That is what democracy is made of. It is your civic duty. But, understandably, most people would rather do something else — like complaining on HN about how those participating in democracy got their way.
That's why not everyone in the world actually believes in democracy. But, whether you like it or not, if you live in a democracy it is your duty to participate in it. Speaking to your representative regularly (i.e. lobbying) to air out your concerns is a necessity. They are not mind readers! If you choose not to, don't expect magic.
We need some anti-mosquito lobbyists. That’s an environment disaster I can get behind.
Just hasn’t happened yet because the benefit is too spread out to make it happen.
Just hasn’t happened yet because the benefit is too spread out to make it happen.
> Just hasn’t happened yet because the benefit is too spread out to make it happen.
No, it doesn't happen because you can't make money out of that. So there's nobody to pay/hire the lobbyist.
Same reason why there's hardly research into new antibiotics. It's hard to make money on those as they tend to cure. Chronic diseases and their subscriptions to suppress symptoms, that's where money is to be made
No, it doesn't happen because you can't make money out of that. So there's nobody to pay/hire the lobbyist.
Same reason why there's hardly research into new antibiotics. It's hard to make money on those as they tend to cure. Chronic diseases and their subscriptions to suppress symptoms, that's where money is to be made
We've known for decades that it requires more energy to produce corn ethanol than is delivered in the ethanol produced. A lot of the necessary inputs are petroleum-based. This is not news.
What MIGHT be news is that the environmentalists who have been pushing biofuels as a "green" alternative to oil have finally figured out this basic physical fact.
What MIGHT be news is that the environmentalists who have been pushing biofuels as a "green" alternative to oil have finally figured out this basic physical fact.
It is my understanding that environmentalists never pushed for biofuels at scale. Biofuels make sense at a very limited scale where you use waste to produce fuel, eg pressing sawdust into wood pellets, or making biogas from manure.
Not to mention using up excess corn that we don't have room to store (predicting corn yield is hard), which is why the whole corn-based ethanol thing got going.
But in normal human fashion we took what is a decent idea at limited scale and thought we could make it an even better idea if we scaled it up to ridiculous proportions. And in normal human fashion, instead of realizing our mistake in not applying some moderation, now we're convinced that what is a bad idea at ridiculous proportions must be eliminated entirely...
But in normal human fashion we took what is a decent idea at limited scale and thought we could make it an even better idea if we scaled it up to ridiculous proportions. And in normal human fashion, instead of realizing our mistake in not applying some moderation, now we're convinced that what is a bad idea at ridiculous proportions must be eliminated entirely...
Yes of course biofuels make sense on a limited scale in certain applications. Pellet stoves are a good example.
But I don't think I've seen many Environmentalist(TM) proposals that were anything less than a wholesale replacement of "fossil fuels" (and other "extractive industries") for all things everywhere.
I miss the good old days when they just wanted to save the whales, before they came to believe they were saving the whole goddamn planet from certain doom.
But I don't think I've seen many Environmentalist(TM) proposals that were anything less than a wholesale replacement of "fossil fuels" (and other "extractive industries") for all things everywhere.
I miss the good old days when they just wanted to save the whales, before they came to believe they were saving the whole goddamn planet from certain doom.
Interesting. In my bubble the only proposals for replacing fossil fuels were hydrogen (now the clear loser) and batteries.
Biofuels in the US were mostly motivated by a desire to reduce oil imports ("energy security") and were a bipartisan misstep. The original mandate (7.5e9 gal/yr) was part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed during a Republican trifecta, and was later expanded to 3.6e10 gal/yr by a Democratic congress in 2007 (still Bush - part of his "Twenty in Ten" energy security goal [0]). That said, reducing greenhouse gas emissions was definitely seen at the time as a benefit as well.
[0] https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/...
[0] https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/...
Nah I've been wanting hybrids for over a decade.
It's just that agriculture conglomerates get what they want because everyone thinks farmers should get whatever they want
It's just that agriculture conglomerates get what they want because everyone thinks farmers should get whatever they want
Yah. There's some reason for ethanol in the fuel mix. Having the ability to do it at some scale is good for security purposes, and it helps tailpipe emissions.
But that's a lot less corn-derived ethanol than we currently make/burn.
But that's a lot less corn-derived ethanol than we currently make/burn.
> There's some reason for ethanol in the fuel mix.
Uh, maybe from a "we can grow our own fuel perspective", but I've never seen a car run better on E10 or E85 than E0. Basically everything (including the newest and fanciest engines) runs like ass if you've got ethanol in there (and now you have to contend with your fuel having a component that's hydrophilic, which is a huge problem in and of itself, and brutal on natural rubber). Some things specifically built for ethanol as the primary fuel might be OK, but E10 is kind of a travesty.
We'd have been better served just working more towards synthetic gasoline and biodiesel (and I'll make a strong wager that there's still going to be a lot of gas/diesel powered stuff 20-30 years out, and we're going to be going back to trying to get good at synthesizing fuel).
Uh, maybe from a "we can grow our own fuel perspective", but I've never seen a car run better on E10 or E85 than E0. Basically everything (including the newest and fanciest engines) runs like ass if you've got ethanol in there (and now you have to contend with your fuel having a component that's hydrophilic, which is a huge problem in and of itself, and brutal on natural rubber). Some things specifically built for ethanol as the primary fuel might be OK, but E10 is kind of a travesty.
We'd have been better served just working more towards synthetic gasoline and biodiesel (and I'll make a strong wager that there's still going to be a lot of gas/diesel powered stuff 20-30 years out, and we're going to be going back to trying to get good at synthesizing fuel).
It does have higher octane than gasoline, so with the right tuning it can run in higher compression engines and be beneficial, even offsetting the lower caloric density.
It usually requires an ECU flash though.
It usually requires an ECU flash though.
Agriculture is bad for biodiversity. The raison d'être of agriculture is to favor few species over all others. The goal of agriculture is to reduce biodiversity.
Please keep agriculture for food.
Simple molecules like ethanol can be produced with electricity, water and air (CO2 capture). No need to sterilize a patch of land for that.
Besides I'm not sure ethanol is much needed, electric cars do not burn ethanol.
Please keep agriculture for food.
Simple molecules like ethanol can be produced with electricity, water and air (CO2 capture). No need to sterilize a patch of land for that.
Besides I'm not sure ethanol is much needed, electric cars do not burn ethanol.
Ah, E85. My wife's flex-fuel Chevy could use it, but it ran poorly and mileage noticeably dropped. It wasn't worth the meager savings (it's usually more expensive now) over regular gas. I've always wondered about the environmental impact. It's clear now that it's not great. I'm not surprised.
Literary Hub needs an editor. That title's grammar is appalling.
And the problems start there. Grunwald, adjectives spilling all over his page, needs a thesaurus for "uphill battle." Stylistically, this is a mess.
Style aside, Grunwald implies that maize is field corn and not sweet corn. It actually means both. This is clearly not a well-researched article on ethanol.
Beyond that we see his politics on his sleeve, tying ADM to Watergate. And a misunderstanding of the meaning of "corps," as the "Corps of Engineers" is not "the Army Corps." This is sadly childish. No, that's unfair to children. I've seen better journalism from high school kids.
And the problems start there. Grunwald, adjectives spilling all over his page, needs a thesaurus for "uphill battle." Stylistically, this is a mess.
Style aside, Grunwald implies that maize is field corn and not sweet corn. It actually means both. This is clearly not a well-researched article on ethanol.
Beyond that we see his politics on his sleeve, tying ADM to Watergate. And a misunderstanding of the meaning of "corps," as the "Corps of Engineers" is not "the Army Corps." This is sadly childish. No, that's unfair to children. I've seen better journalism from high school kids.
> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine?
Because, doh, you would grow orders of magnitude more corn than you would just for food or feed.
Also, if you simply take away food corn, using all corn for nothing but biofuels, a substitute has to be found for food/feed uses of corn.
Food-versus-fuel reasoning about corn in the context of determining whether it is climate-friendly basically doesn't hold up. It leads to absurdities like contemplating whether biofuel from an inedible plant is better for the earth than biofuel from one that can instead be eaten.
Because, doh, you would grow orders of magnitude more corn than you would just for food or feed.
Also, if you simply take away food corn, using all corn for nothing but biofuels, a substitute has to be found for food/feed uses of corn.
Food-versus-fuel reasoning about corn in the context of determining whether it is climate-friendly basically doesn't hold up. It leads to absurdities like contemplating whether biofuel from an inedible plant is better for the earth than biofuel from one that can instead be eaten.
I always thought that trading precious topsoil for motive power when oil does just fine was an insane premise. Too bad not enough people recognize this for what it is. Biomass is another issue that I find grossly inappropriate.
It's not completely insane when you remember that we also grow the crops for food, and exactly matching food requirements with production yield is impossible, so there will be times of gross excesses (especially with corn, which can produce _way_ more than you could have ever dreamed of if the weather is just right). Turning excess product back into usable energy instead leaving it in a pile to rot can be worthwhile.
The problem is that humans don't understand moderation. They heard it makes sense at some small scale and automatically assume it would be even better if we scale it up massively. Now — if you look at the comments here — they heard it doesn't work at massive scale, and take from it that it doesn't ever make sense...
The problem is that humans don't understand moderation. They heard it makes sense at some small scale and automatically assume it would be even better if we scale it up massively. Now — if you look at the comments here — they heard it doesn't work at massive scale, and take from it that it doesn't ever make sense...
> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine? The carbon absorbed in the field wouldn’t change; neither would the carbon emitted from the car.
It would be worse because is food is also fuel. Whether motor vehicle fuel or animal fuel, the corn goes through pretty similar chemical change. Obviously, burning just the produce of fields that uptake as much carbon as their produce releases is better, in net carbon terms, than doing that plus burning fossil fuels.
It would be worse because is food is also fuel. Whether motor vehicle fuel or animal fuel, the corn goes through pretty similar chemical change. Obviously, burning just the produce of fields that uptake as much carbon as their produce releases is better, in net carbon terms, than doing that plus burning fossil fuels.
I just always assumed we grow excess corn for food security reasons and we turn the excess into ethanol so it doesn’t rot/go to waste, the other options are cornmeal or exporting it.
Big agriculture lying about the public benefits of ethanol is irrelevant, food security is more important in the event of a crisis that prevents agricultural imports than any negative externalities of turning corn into ethanol.
Big agriculture lying about the public benefits of ethanol is irrelevant, food security is more important in the event of a crisis that prevents agricultural imports than any negative externalities of turning corn into ethanol.
The public wants to be mislead by dumb-ass feelgood statements about how green something inefficient and expensive is.
I thought the US approach to biofuels was always understood as a Republican head fake towards climate change action during Bush without doing anything that would threaten oil interests while simultaneously enriching their donor and voting base with all our tax dollars.
Biofuels get the subsidies so that in case of a major crisis like war there is enough food and some fuel for essential services.
It is not that hard to understand. It is possible that studies were tweaked to support another narrative, but farm subsidies always serve strategic interests.
It is not that hard to understand. It is possible that studies were tweaked to support another narrative, but farm subsidies always serve strategic interests.
Yeah, that’s my understanding of agricultural subsidies as well, and I’m surprised to see that only a couple low ranked comments (yours, and my top level comment) mention the food security angle when what we do with the excess corn is basically irrelevant if food security is the primary purpose of ag subsidies.
Wouldn’t be the first time most people on HN misunderstand an issue completely though.
Wouldn’t be the first time most people on HN misunderstand an issue completely though.
Corn ethanol as a car fuel looks espeically bad if you compare it to solar generation on the same land area. You get ~200x car miles per acre with solar electric vs corn and combustion engine.
Keeping dollars in the USA and away from petrstates certainly isn't an understated benefit.
And in the petrostate up North, Canada, we’ve required 10% ethanol (and possibly going up) in our gas…
But we don’t grow enough corn to do that and therefore 60% of the ethanol is imported from USA.
Kinda a weird dependency to create as a petrostate.
But we don’t grow enough corn to do that and therefore 60% of the ethanol is imported from USA.
Kinda a weird dependency to create as a petrostate.
Just because you can drive 2’ and casually get 100 liters of gasoline does not make fossil fuel infinite. People forget that oil is not like air.
We waste a ton of resources for drilling, transporting and refining, creating in the process huge externalities, to ensure reliable production and supply. And it will only get worse as we are running out of easy to tap sources.
Looking for cheap and viable alternatives to fossils is not a conspiracy or a game. It’s an absolute necessity.
We waste a ton of resources for drilling, transporting and refining, creating in the process huge externalities, to ensure reliable production and supply. And it will only get worse as we are running out of easy to tap sources.
Looking for cheap and viable alternatives to fossils is not a conspiracy or a game. It’s an absolute necessity.
The issue with corn ethanol is that while it could* be done without fossil fuels, it isn’t actually.
Which is why it is such a scam, actually, because in theory it could be done that way, but it’s cheaper to inject fossil fuels at every stage, and hence isn’t actually green. It was also done before electric cars were a thing, and now the whole thing is a pretty pointless give away to the ag industrial complex.
Which is why it is such a scam, actually, because in theory it could be done that way, but it’s cheaper to inject fossil fuels at every stage, and hence isn’t actually green. It was also done before electric cars were a thing, and now the whole thing is a pretty pointless give away to the ag industrial complex.
> Just because you can drive 2’ and casually get 100 liters of gasoline does not make fossil fuel infinite.
The finiteness of fossil fuels is not an issue we need to worry about right now.
> it will only get worse as we are running out of easy to tap sources.
As it gets worse, we'll just move on to other sources. No problems at all. At least none that would be easier to prevent than to solve.
> Looking for cheap and viable alternatives to fossils is not a conspiracy or a game
No, this is a pure, large-scale corruption conspiracy.
The finiteness of fossil fuels is not an issue we need to worry about right now.
> it will only get worse as we are running out of easy to tap sources.
As it gets worse, we'll just move on to other sources. No problems at all. At least none that would be easier to prevent than to solve.
> Looking for cheap and viable alternatives to fossils is not a conspiracy or a game
No, this is a pure, large-scale corruption conspiracy.
Corn is just a very inefficient solar panel.
This article is just state propaganda which wants artificially dumped food prices (otherwise riots) decoupled from arbitrary energy prices
If the carbon has been stored 1 million years ago and you burn it the total net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases
If the carbon was stored last year and you burn it the net amount of carbon stays about the same YoY
Moving the transport sector over to the latter carbon or electrical would be a good direction in general
Disregarding spidy senses and mental gymnastics about people starving if they dont eat all that corn, I dont understand how we fail to see this as a net benefit and crap articles like that get produced
If the carbon was stored last year and you burn it the net amount of carbon stays about the same YoY
Moving the transport sector over to the latter carbon or electrical would be a good direction in general
Disregarding spidy senses and mental gymnastics about people starving if they dont eat all that corn, I dont understand how we fail to see this as a net benefit and crap articles like that get produced
>> If the carbon was stored last year and you burn it the net amount of carbon stays about the same YoY
The accounting for biofuels is not that simple in practice. They end up significantly more carbon intensive than using electricity and batteries or even hydrogen.
The accounting for biofuels is not that simple in practice. They end up significantly more carbon intensive than using electricity and batteries or even hydrogen.
Just wait until you learn about the crazy stuff like corn syrup, “fortified” highly processed white bread and sugary kids cereal they’ve pushed for the last 40 years. There’s a reason the farm bill tackles both ends: Farm subsidies and SNAP - American taxpayers are literally subsidizing the obesity health crisis.
> they’ve
Who?
Who?
I know the general public should never be expected to subsidize enthusiasts, but E85 - available in many places for under $3/gal - has many of the same performance characteristics as $20/gal race gas for performance automotive enthusiasts.
I'm all for the peaceful and orderly dissolution of the entire US federal government, as involuntary taxation under implied threat of violence is theft, but until then, thanks for the deeply discounted race gas, fellow taxpayers!
I'm all for the peaceful and orderly dissolution of the entire US federal government, as involuntary taxation under implied threat of violence is theft, but until then, thanks for the deeply discounted race gas, fellow taxpayers!
It's been a long time since I dabbled, but from memory the likes of E85 is good for fixed load use (eg. drag racing) but not great for variable load (track racing cars, motocross etc) because petrol has a wide range of evaporation points compared to the much narrower range of E85.
It has an octane equivalent of 105-110, and an even stronger anti-knock index, you can add a ton of timing.
It also lets the engine run cooler despite burning hotter precisely because of those evap characterisics.
That's not to say there are no downsides. It's less energy dense so you need larger injectors or a higher duty cycle, you get less mileage, it's extremely hygroscopic, it has different corrosive properties, and a different stoich ratio so most vehicles need some amount of modifications and tuning to properly utilize it.
But all in all, it's wildly economical alternative to traditional high performance fuel.
It also lets the engine run cooler despite burning hotter precisely because of those evap characterisics.
That's not to say there are no downsides. It's less energy dense so you need larger injectors or a higher duty cycle, you get less mileage, it's extremely hygroscopic, it has different corrosive properties, and a different stoich ratio so most vehicles need some amount of modifications and tuning to properly utilize it.
But all in all, it's wildly economical alternative to traditional high performance fuel.
[deleted]
Take Brazil, for example. Their ethanol program is fundamentally different. It's based on sugarcane, not corn, and it has a spectacular EROI (Energy Return on Investment) of about 8:1. That means for every unit of energy put into producing it, eight units are returned. By contrast, U.S. corn ethanol barely breaks even, with an EROI around 1.3:1 to 1.8:1.
Brazilian ethanol also sidesteps many of the land use and food diversion issues that plague U.S. biofuels. Sugarcane is mostly grown on degraded pastureland far from the Amazon, and it doesn’t displace staple food crops. Plus, the leftover biomass (bagasse) is burned to power the refineries themselves, making the process close to energy self-sufficient.
The Brazilian model shows that biofuels can work—but only under the right agricultural, environmental, and economic conditions. The U.S. corn ethanol lobby essentially hijacked the "green energy" narrative to push something that mostly benefits Big Ag subsidies and corn states, with questionable climate gains.
So yeah, skepticism about biofuels is warranted—but we should be careful not to throw out the good examples with the bad.