Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in

Is Corn Based Ethanol Good or Bad for Global Warming 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
JJPellin

JJPellin

Mechanical
Oct 29, 2002
2,183
0
36
US
I have always suspected that the US method of converting corn into ethanol was detrimental. A new study suggests it has a net negative effect on global warming. In addition to that, we are turning food into fuel which would tend to drive up food prices. In the current situation of high inflation, this seems like a bad idea.

In parts of the US south, people still use corn to create high purity ethanol that they sell for more than US$100 per gallon. They call it moonshine. How does it make sense to take that ethanol and burn it in your car in place of gasoline that cost less than US$5 per gallon?



Johnny Pellin
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
Federal subsidies help.

Reducing the food supply to fuel doesn't make sense to me. Hits those that can least afford it the worst, but I guess they're used to that by now.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Almost all governmental (and especially environmental) policies hit those who can't afford it the hardest.

You want to the chickens to have more space and better lives? The price of eggs goes way up and poor people are hit the hardest.

You want pigs farms to conform to the new California regulations? Well, that might mean that poor people can't afford bacon, ham or sausage anymore.

There is something that doesn't smell right about this study (at least to me). It doesn't smell completely rotten. But, they do cite a lot of assumptions that they made to come to this conclusion. Assumptions regarding land use and such. What would the land be used for if it were NOT being used to grow corn. It seems like the main assumption is that the land would not be used or tilled. That seems like a stretch to me. Especially, since virtually all the carbon emissions from ethanol is carbon that was originally removed from the atmosphere by growing the corn.

As far as the Nitrogen fertilizers, what do they think would happen if those weren't used? Isn't that mostly bio waste from farms. It's got to decompose at some point. So, it seems more like a creative book keeping issue. If you say that this "carbon release" is associated with corn (even though it's going to happen anyway) then you make ethanol look worse.

The reporting certainly is honest as they include this quote from a trade group that lobbies for the ethanol industry:

Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol trade lobby, called the study "completely fictional and erroneous," arguing the authors used "worst-case assumptions cherry-picked data."
Click to expand...

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The real solution entails a drastic change in the way things have been done for the last couple of centuries. There's no other 'real' solution. The 'disposable' society has to change as well as non essential transportation. We've developed some 'bad habits'.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
so much of what we do is "non essential" ... i think we call that "progress" or "prosperity". now that may not be a good thing, but it is something we desire.

Of course we could choose to live a subsistence life style ... but not many would choose that.

of course, I suspect you'll say "soon we won't have a choice". I guess we'll see what the future becomes.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

I concur... but the heck of it is, it may not be a matter of choice, in the not too distant future.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"As far as the Nitrogen fertilizers, what do they think would happen if those weren't used? Isn't that mostly bio waste from farms. It's got to decompose at some point."

We (the world as a whole) generate something like 100 Mtons/year of artificial nitrogen fertilizer*, consuming a lot of natural gas and energy (most of said energy from some type of fossil fuel) in the process. Biowaste gets used some too, but is usually used locally - you need a nearby supply (feedlot or dairy farm or a composting operation), so much of that biowaste is used to produce feed crops for the animals, not as a general fertilizer for human food crops. There are some pretty big stumbling blocks (at least in the US) to using human biowaste for fertilizer, though our state sprays sludge on state forest lands...and you know when they do so, because the woods you hike through suddenly smell "Tide fresh".

*The use of nitrogen fixation plants increased in the developed world as cheap fossil energy and the impetus of two world wars (nitrates for explosives) drove their construction. Post WW2, cheap nitrates drove consumption by agriculture, and we are off to the races -

this graph is a bit more sobering:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It seems like the main assumption is that the land would not be used or tilled. That seems like a stretch to me.
Click to expand...

Subsidies have historically been used to promote otherwise unprofitable or marginal activities, so marginal land that might have remained fallow might be used to grow corn because of the financial incentives. Traditionally, land is left fallow for some time to allow for rejuvenation and replenishment of soil nutrients, but incentives and tax breaks might sway some farmers to continue using land that should have been left fallow and supplement with fertilizers, etc., that are not necessarily environmentally beneficial.

Somewhere in the dim past, I also recall that there was a bump in livestock feed costs because the ethanol program coopted corn that would have otherwise been sold as livestock feed, thereby bumping up the price of livestock.

The property tax deduction on income taxes was used to promote home ownership in those that might have remained renters.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IRStuff said:
but incentives and tax breaks might sway some farmers to continue using land that should have been left fallow and supplement with fertilizers, etc., that are not necessarily environmentally beneficial.
Click to expand...

Well, that makes more sense to me. That farm land which would have been cycled off periodically would be used continuously, necessitating the use of the non-environmentally friendly fertilizers that "btrueblood" mentioned.

I'm not 100% buying into the original article. But, I'm softening on it quite a bit. I'd have to read more on the subject to truly get behind it. However, it doesn't "smell bad" to me anymore. So, now I've only got the normal level of skepticism that I apply to most articles.

Thanks to the two of you (IRStuff and btrueblood) for presenting what seem like good, logical information in support of the basic premise. I love it when people like you respond in ways that cause me to learn and grow. Thank you!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
really ? ... I'm not surprised that something hyped like things tend to be these days didn't turn out as expected.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
GregLocock said:
Is it not mainly a greenwashed bribe to farmers in some states and a federal handout to some friends of politicians?
Click to expand...

I think it's more than that. Didn't it start here in California where we required a difference formulation for certain months of the year? Wasn't this at least partly to reduce "smog" and air pollution and not focused on CO2 emissions? That was my recollection.

I could easily be wrong, of course. Honestly, this stuff is a maze of regulations and such. It's hard for me to tell what the intent was vs was actually happened.

However, my impression is that these new gas formulations started as something other than a handout to corn producers.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I suspect that your evaluation may be closer, Greg.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK the reasoning was that back in the 80s cars were a significant source of carbon monoxide. In 92 the clean air act tried to deal with this and the blending settled on a somewhat unfortunate choice, MTBE, which is cheap, improves combustion and reduces knock. But it turns out it gets into groundwater and tastes revolting. Health effects are unknown.

So they looked around for another oxidiser and came up with ethanol. Iowa is a huge beneficiary of the ethanol mandate. Quite what this means politically is a detail I am not going to chase down but I suppose this is a place to start




Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks Greg!

That helps me make some sense of the information I read in that 154 page document about California specific fuel requirements. Specifically the part about MTBE's. Because ethanol was mentioned specifically in a section called something like "non-MTBE oxidizers".

You know, so many of our politicians pretend that they're going to get a handle on all the "big business" shenanigans when they get into power. But, nothing is friendlier to big business than big government. Putting up road blocks for competitors and such, bailing out businesses that are "too big to fail".

It makes perfect to me that regulations that were once "well intended" got subverted to be favorable to a particular lobbying group. Though, I have to admit it's also possible that ethanol just ended up being the cheapest and most effective "oxidizer" on the market and that's why it's used so much.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, one of the unintended consequences is that the whole process started out as a way to monetize junk parts of the corn plant that was going to be plowed over, or corn that was not fit for consumer purchase, but as demand rose and prices increased, others saw an opportunity to make money, particularly those that were servicing the livestock feed market, since the ethanol market offered higher prices.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I wonder if there will be an impact on the following transportation?

carbon-cost-of-transportation-ds_gog7uf.jpg



Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I never understood the infatuation with rail. It doesn't pick you up or take you where you want to go so there must always be a secondary level of transportation.

Road is made from waste product, asphalt, while rail is premium manganese steel.

Rail is hampered by bottlenecks and breakdowns.

Personal vehicles are a form of scaling. Less demand means less personal vehicles. Rail must always run the same number of engines regardless of spontaneous demand.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GregLocock
  • Locked
  • News
Wind farms cause warming 1
Replies
9
Views
10
BridgeSmith
BridgeSmith
enginesrus
  • Locked
  • Question
How bad is oil? 1
Replies
19
Views
20
JoshPlumSE
JoshPlumSE
GregLocock
  • Locked
  • Question
Positive feedback in the global climate
Replies
1
Views
2
rb1957
rb1957
GregLocock
  • Locked
  • News
Global roundup of offshore wind (OFW) generation costs 1
Replies
6
Views
7
rb1957
rb1957
Euler07
  • Locked
  • Question
Question: Global average temperature and Gas Laws
Replies
11
Views
12
rb1957
rb1957
Back
Top