Is Corn Based Ethanol Good or Bad for Global Warming 7

[JJPellin]

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?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/u-corn-based-ethanol-worse-200000730.html

Johnny Pellin

 

[IRstuff]

Part of the crop rotation/fallowing process was to allow the topsoil to rejuvenate and to minimize the use of fertilizers; the elimination of both for economics means that fertilizers need to be used, and more so than otherwise, which skews the carbon neutrality, since fertilizers require energy to produce.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Crop rotation seems to be just another a red fish2 hering in the grand scheme of things.

Maybe in the grand scheme of all things climate change it could be a red herring. However, it is essentially the main point of the article the OP posted. So, it is VERY relevant to this thread.

 

[JJPellin]

Nobody addressed one of the points that I made. I can take corn and ferment it and turn it into ethanol. Even at relatively low purity, I can sell that ethanol for human consumption (moonshine) at (for the sake of argument) $100 per gallon. As a capitalist, properly motivated by profit, why would I divert that ethanol and spend more money to purify it even more and then sell it for $5 per gallon as motor fuel? It's just bad economics. Flood the market with moonshine. Drive the price down and let's all have a nice drink.

Johnny Pellin

 

[1503-44]

Sure.

A black swan (they were unknown to western science until they were "discovered" to exist in Australia in the 18th century or so) is representative of a supposed extremely unlikely outcome of a series of probabilistic events, or combination thereof, such as rolling dice 4 times and getting 12 each time, or similar. I think 12 x 4 has a probable outcome of roughly once in some 20,736 rolls. 1/(1/12)^4. A very black swan indeed. Normally we wouldn't worry about anything with such small odds of happening. We drive to work every day at a 1:4000 or so chance of dying on the freeway within the next year with little more than an occasional thought, and then only if the weather happens to be very horrible. Very few even slow down. But if ice appears on the road, the odds drop to maybe 1 in 2000 that day and maybe we stay home. Why stay home, because even though the chance is still small, we might actually die this very day, which we realize is a high consequence event, regardless of the somewhat slim chance of occurring, so we stay at home. The point being that the high consequence of a black swan, no matter how small the probability, warrant taking proactive steps to avoid meeting one.

The biggest problem with black swans is that we base much of their probabilities on very sparse data, so much so, that when just one happens, we have to revise the odds to a lower number. Let's say nukes were once 100% safe, until the first accident happened. Since then we think we got smarter and the odds have been getting better, because now the accidents per hour operated is lower. But do we really know if the odds depend on our time of experience operating then? Or does it depend on the ginger counters maximum reading before it gets pegged. Do airline accidents depend on all the miles the airplanes flew last year, or does an accident depend on how Boeing changed their MCAS design and didn't tell anyone. Why are we basing our predictions of flight safety on the number of miles flown in the last 20yrs when that didn't predict the fate of Lion Air or Etheopia Air death dives. Maybe we should have based it on the number of QAQC inspectors at Boeings assembly plants.

And what do we really know about how complex systems work, or how 2 or more of them really interact in the wild, like 5G and flight radar altimeters for example? Most of what we know about probability is based on knowledge acquired under highly controlled laboratory conditions, or at the poker table. In the meantime, we walk around thinking we're safe, because the numbers tell us so, even though we have a marginal understanding of quite a lot if it at best. It's like medicine. We know a lot about what drugs will do, but relatively nothing about what combining any two of them will do. A lot still left to learn. Probability is a numerical phenomenon that deludes us into a certain way of thinking that we are safe the same way fish think the shark won't eat them if they swim in schools.

Sorry for the rant.

Recommended (fascinating) reading: "The Black Swan and the impact of the Highly Improbable" by Nassim Taleb "Black swans are much more common then we think"

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

 

[1503-44]

JJ, you will never sell 80,000,000 bbls/day by filling 8oz cups with one shot of it, even if everyone gets doubled on the house.

The most money to be made is not at the bar, it's at the gas station. Volume makes more money than quality. Look at all the crap on the Internet.





A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

 

[btrueblood]

JP,

The difference right now, in the US, is that your moonshine would be taxed by the government, while if you sold it for motor fuel, they would subsidize your production (indirectly now, but still a subsidy). I think you as a capitalist can only sell a small volume of liquor of any type directly to the public, beyond a certain level of production you have to sell to third party distribution networks? Dunno, I just know it gets complicated, mostly due to many layers of subsidies and penalties and legislation and lobbying...

 

[1503-44]

Even the mob knew the real money was in volume, even when it was illegal and not taxed.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

 

Corn-based Ethanol is an energy balance shell game that does nothing to advance the fight against AGW. This work has been done some years ago. And honestly, just seeing that is based on oil-based fertilizers, oil-based pesticides, and oil-based transport, to make a product that reinforces a damaging transportation system means it doesn't even pass the sniff test of sustainability in any sense of the word.

It is practiced by experts in leveraging the extraordinarily disproportionate political power of farmers in low population states (California sends two senators to Washington, as do South Dakota and Iowa). So my previous conclusion was incorrect: it is very sustainable politically.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[1503-44]

Don't forget Illinois, Ohio, Nebraska, Minnesota and Indiana. 14 senators! Both sides of the asile guilty.
Plus soy belt Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi Kansas ... OMG.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

 

Institutional corruption, i.e. the US political structure, is no respecter of party.

Canada takes the brunt every time resource states whinge about lumber, holding the process (and us) to ransom, in violation of free-trade agreements. And that was the situation before Drumpf bulldozed every norm and law possible. In the final analysis the US consumer also pays.

But I digress, again.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[1503-44]

I always have to snicker when I hear the anticorruption Dept of State guys lecture foreign officials about corruption. They say it basically doesn't exist in the US and actually they are right. In the US its all legalised. If they do cross the line, no real consequence. Couple yrs at FedMed.
See. You're pulling me down the rabbit hole.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

 

The hole is deep and the hole is wide. Room for everyone.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[GregLocock]

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...climate-than-gasoline-study-finds-2022-02-14/

Corn-based ethanol, which for years has been mixed in huge quantities into gasoline sold at U.S. pumps, is likely a much bigger contributor to global warming than straight gasoline, according to a study published Monday.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, contradicts previous research commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showing ethanol and other biofuels to be relatively green.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[hokie66]

So what about cane, wheat,or sorghum based ethanol, which we produce in Australia? A tiny amount in the great scheme of things, but that is true of all Australian fuel usage.

 

[TugboatEng]

It's looking like we need to use the defense production act to pivot from corn production to wheat production...

 

[1503-44]

Finally. Something we can eat.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

 

[TugboatEng]

I'd personally prefer a shift to barley based ethanol but we're in the midst of a crisis.

 

[SkipVought]

Corn-based ethanol...is likely a much bigger contributor to global warming than straight gasoline

Spilling the beans.

But it FEEEEELS so much better to screw the petroleum industry because they're bad capitalists, whereas the agriculture industry aren't quite so bad capitalists. lets just shuffle some carbon credits. Now tell me which cup hides the beans.

Skip,
[sub]
Just traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance![/sub]

 

It's the opportunity cost that kills...

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Apparently the Biden Administration (or their energy gurus) don't put much stock in this study.... as they are trying to expand the availability of ethanol infused gasoline use in the USA.

Granted, this is likely as a desire to help reduce prices at the pump and NOT being done with regards to reducing CO2 emissions.