Corn Ethanol Worse for the Climate Than Gasoline, Study Finds (arstechnica.com) 173
Reuters reports:
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.... The research, which was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy, found that ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion....
Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a law enacted in 2005, the nation's oil refiners are required to mix some 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol into the nation's gasoline annually. The policy was intended to reduce emissions, support farmers, and cut U.S. dependence on energy imports.
"Today, most gasoline sold in the U.S. contains 10 percent ethanol, and about a third of the corn crop in the country is used to produce the fuel..." reports Ars Technica: The extra land put under the plow released a significant amount of carbon, enough to flip the assessment of corn ethanol from a carbon-negative fuel to a carbon-emitting one. The biggest decline came when new cropland released carbon that had been stored in soils and vegetation, including roots of living plants. Farmers were also less likely to enter a field into the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to plant perennial vegetation on unused farmland.
After the fertilizer was applied, it released a significant amount of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere 300 times more than the same amount of carbon dioxide over 100 years. The researchers' estimates of the carbon impact of the fertilizer are probably low, too, since the authors didn't calculate how much additional pollution the manufacturing process released or the extent to which degraded water quality in downstream waterways released more greenhouse gases.
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.... The research, which was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy, found that ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion....
Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a law enacted in 2005, the nation's oil refiners are required to mix some 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol into the nation's gasoline annually. The policy was intended to reduce emissions, support farmers, and cut U.S. dependence on energy imports.
"Today, most gasoline sold in the U.S. contains 10 percent ethanol, and about a third of the corn crop in the country is used to produce the fuel..." reports Ars Technica: The extra land put under the plow released a significant amount of carbon, enough to flip the assessment of corn ethanol from a carbon-negative fuel to a carbon-emitting one. The biggest decline came when new cropland released carbon that had been stored in soils and vegetation, including roots of living plants. Farmers were also less likely to enter a field into the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to plant perennial vegetation on unused farmland.
After the fertilizer was applied, it released a significant amount of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere 300 times more than the same amount of carbon dioxide over 100 years. The researchers' estimates of the carbon impact of the fertilizer are probably low, too, since the authors didn't calculate how much additional pollution the manufacturing process released or the extent to which degraded water quality in downstream waterways released more greenhouse gases.
Burning Food never made sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything that is nutritional enough to eat has wasted too much energy making things taste good to be efficient at creating a good fuel.
I am fully in favor of renewable energy in general, but it is clear that we should not use something that is edible. Inedible algae makes sense, but not corn derivatives.
It does if your agribusiness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: It does if your agribusiness (Score:3)
Re: It does if your agribusiness (Score:2)
Re:Burning Food never made sense (Score:5, Interesting)
The corn used for ethanol is very different from the form usually used for human food, and much of its byproducts can be used in animal feed. Also, Brazil uses sugar cane for a much more environmentally friendly bioethanol -- because the same sugars that make it tasty for people are easy for microbes to digest.
Re: (Score:3)
The waste product from making ethanol is mostly the proteins from the corn. Cattle need protein but they also need starch and sugar. To make up for this waste food is put in with the corn proteins, things like expired chocolate bars.
Here's an idea. Use the expired food for making ethanol and feed the unmolested corn to the cattle. The reason we feed this food to the cattle, aside from no longer being fit for human consumption, is that it is rich in high fructose corn syrup.
Let that sink in. We tear the
Re: (Score:2)
Large animals can consume a lot more different kinds of foodstock than the yeast that make bioethanol, though. It's not just a question of energy balance and stoichiometry. We don't have microbes or catalysts that do what you suggest.
Re: Burning Food never made sense (Score:2)
Re:Burning Food never made sense (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not in favor of biofuels in general, even if they are made from non-edible plants, plant byproducts, or whatever. All the biomass that we turn into oil is taken out of the cycle of soil regeneration, which means our soil becomes less fertile, and we then need to amend it with more and more fertilizer in order to grow our things on it. This is already a problem as we speak, soil depletion.
I wonder if making biofuel from algae or other things we could grow in the ocean could be a more sustainable way to tackle this problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes it does (Score:5, Informative)
When you subsidize crops like this (pay higher than market price), more of it gets produced than there is demand. So every year, the U.S. ends up with a surplus of crops. The trick is to figure out what to do with all this excess food. A lot of it is turned into feed for cattle, because Americans love beef. Some of it gets turned into high fructose corn syrup, to reduce American's dependence on cane sugar imports. Some of it is turned into foreign aid and shipped overseas to countries in need of food. Then in the 1970s after the Arab oil embargo, someone came up with the idea of converting some of this excess corn into ethanol as a substitute for gasoline.
The important thing to understand is that this is excess corn. The food has already been produced. The water, fertilizer, and labor have already been used - they are sunk costs. Not using the corn doesn't get you these consumed resources back - all it does is give rats more free food in the silos where you're storing it. So in this case, burning food does in fact make sense. (Same goes for much of the beef we eat - lowering beef consumption won't translate into a direct reduction in water, land, and fertilizer used to feed the cattle).
However, the current corn ethanol program is totally different. It's corn which is specifically grown for the purpose of converting into ethanol. There are no sunk costs here. So it is in fact a waste of resources that the agricultural industry has foisted upon us with heavy lobbying.
Much better to use a waste product (Score:3)
Iowa (Score:3)
Let's guess that if the earliest presidential primaries were held in some other state than Iowa or similar corn-belt state, we wouldn't have this disastrous policy to begin with. BTW, it also affects food prices and not in a good way.
subsidies (Score:2)
But will we stop propping up the giant corn farms and the industry that surrounds them? Doubtful.
https://farm.ewg.org/progdetai... [ewg.org]
https://usafacts.org/articles/... [usafacts.org]
Re:subsidies (Score:5, Interesting)
But will we stop propping up the giant corn farms and the industry that surrounds them? Doubtful.
https://farm.ewg.org/progdetai... [ewg.org]
https://usafacts.org/articles/... [usafacts.org]
No, because without the taxpayers footing the bill, all those multi-billion dollar companies wouldn't be able to survive due to how ineptly they are managed. It's only because of those socialist payments that they exist at all.
It's like those soicalist policies Domino Sugar operates under to keep sugar prices high (relatively speaking). If the company was allowed to go out of business rather than being propped up by the taxpayers [nationalreview.com], the price of sugar would be half what it is now AND, instead of corn syrup (related to this article) we'd have real sugar in our drinks.
Socialists (Score:2)
You keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means. The word you are looking for is lobbying. Domino Sugar lobbies the government for favorable policies.
Re: (Score:2)
"because without the taxpayers footing the bill . . ."
Why are the taxpayers footing the bill? Pork is the answer. Farmers have vast power over elections in rural states. Congresspeople in those states are eager to be reelected. Thus they propose bills that favor their farmers. But rural Representatives are few among the hundreds of others. They can't sway the greater body of Congress to their will. But Senators have vast power. The Senator of a rural state has as much power as the Senator of the biggest sta
Re: (Score:3)
It's more like there are policies in place to ensure food is abundant and cheap in the US, as a consequence of the 1930s depression and subsequent "dust bowl." These policies heavily promote high farming production in various ways.
However, the overabundance of staple crops like corn means the market is flooded and the price has cratered. That's not entirely unplanned since the policies are intended to keep feed cheap - which they do - but among the consequences is the crop does not have sufficient market va
Is it possible that its not organic corn (Score:2)
Isn't the corn used in ethanol made from GMO corn?
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK once you distill it. You just don't want to eat it.
Actually, I suspect what they used is what's called field corn, and what we called "chicken corn". You wouldn't want to try to eat it, though you can make decent grits out of it. I haven't a clue at to its GMO status these days. Back when I dealt with it, it was the cheapest corn around.
We need to consume less (Score:2)
Not more!
But will they allow it's use to be stopped? (Score:3)
about a third of the corn crop in the country is used to produce the fuel
Does anyone think Republicans will agree to end this massive subsidy? I don't see it happening.
Re:But will they allow it's use to be stopped? (Score:5, Interesting)
There has been a pretty steady decline in ethanol subsidies over the last decade. And most farmers are actually very much in support of their removal.
The biggest "subsidy" that remains is mixing mandates. Adding a % of ethanol to your petrol gas helps it burn cleaner (less smog). Many states have a mixing mandate (so, you know some % of the pump gas sold will have to be ethanol). But the price supports and subsidies are mostly gone (at least compared to where ethanol was a decade or more ago).
The biggest farming "subsides" that remain are programs like crop insurance programs (you document yearly your yield, and they insure 85% of your average output ... this helps small farms not fail in years there are weather related crop failures), and CRP (which pays farmers to NOT FARM acres that are environmentally sensitive to farm). If you want to question if the rates they pay for crop insurance are properly matched to the payments of the program, I'm up for that conversation. But, I'd also point out that most flood insurance programs are federally backed and equally upside down (fewer payments from the insured than cover the costs of the loss). That opens a much larger can of worms around how in MANY MANY sectors of our country we have structured "insurance" and pensions in ways that they payment out will not be covered by the payments in, and then just transferred that loss to the US Treasury.
In Summer of 2020 there were some unusual payments after COVID wrecked the commodities market for a few months, and suddenly found themselves with commodities that they could not sell at any low price, but had payments and bills that were dependent on actually being able to move product (even if at a minor loss). Farmers know there are times they "loose money" on their products. They kinda ... build themselves to be able to handle that. But there were many stories of farmers literally with truckloads of a commodity on the road, and the truck being told to take it back to the farmer. Big difference between "I'm going to loose $x on this, but at least I can cash flow some bills" and "I just can't sell anything ... at all ..."
Re: (Score:3)
There has been a pretty steady decline in ethanol subsidies over the last decade. And most farmers are actually very much in support of their removal.
The biggest "subsidy" that remains is mixing mandates. Adding a % of ethanol to your petrol gas helps it burn cleaner (less smog).
No, not anymore.
Back in the '70s, cars were fitted with carburetors, and the US EPA ran some studies that showed less smog if you added an oxygenate to the gasoline.
The Ethanol (or MTBE) in the gas drags in some oxygen, making a leaner burn, if you're using a carburetor.
If your engine has fuel injection and an oxygen sensor, the sensor detects the lean mixture and the FI system richens the mix to compensate. Bottom line, oxygenated gas (Ethanol or MTBE) yields about 3% lower mileage, with no difference i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That would be true if not for the filibuster.
Small wonder (Score:2)
The billions of subsidies the farmers get to produce it, the CO2 created when producing their Ammonia with natural gas alone make it a stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
> The billions of subsidies the farmers get to produce it, the CO2 created when producing their Ammonia with natural gas alone make it a stupid idea.
Not to mention all the CO2 required to create/tax those billions of dollars. Imagine how many commuter miles are involved in production, before taxation, before administrative overhead, before giving it to the farmers. Shall we even mention the CO2 required to fuel the humans who are generating it? Or the CO2 required to rear these people as some number of
Re: (Score:2)
the CO2 created when producing their Ammonia with natural gas alone make it a stupid idea.
No one gave a flying hoot about CO2 when corn ethanol was debated and chosen to fix a completely different problem than the one being faced now.
You have a time machine and know the future? Great. Use it and go back to change things. Otherwise your perfect 20/20 hindsight is completely useless to everyone.
Biased... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A study doesn't need to be wrong to be biased. You're looking for errors when instead you should be considering that maybe the study is completely correct and the bias being produced here is purely based on finding something bad about bioethanol that we currently give a shit about. e.g. CO2 emissions, something which wasn't even remotely considered when bioethanol was considered as a petrol alternative back 2 decades ago.
Literally nothing ever will encompass every factor and every impact. The world is too c
Re: Biased... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No shit Sherlock. (Score:2)
Ethanol i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Old news (Score:2)
Bunch on idiots who know nothing about Corn. (Score:2)
Ethanol From Corn Never Made Sense (Score:3)
"Meatloaf energy" proves to be a bad idea again. (Score:2)
The "Meatloaf energy" idiots will do anything for global warming but they won't do "that". What is "that"? What is the thing that they won't do? They will try anything and everything but nuclear power.
The US Navy proved that synthesized hydrocarbon fuels are a viable alternative to petroleum fuels. They proved this a decade ago. The had real world numbers to show that they could produce a net zero carbon fuel that was at the time double what people paid at the pump for gasoline.
I expect people wanting
Not only that! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you showed as much care for 85% ethanol as I do for 40% (80 proof) single malt you would not have a problem.
All other problems with Ethanol can be solved by using the proper gasket, flexable line and o'ring materials.
The food stuffs that are made into Ethanol would be food waste otherwise.
You can't compare grown biofuel to fossil fuels (Score:2)
You can't compare grown biofuel to fossil fuels. The biofuel is grown, partially offsetting carbon omissions, with the benefit of being renewable. The gasoline is not renewable.
This is what's missing from the calculations: biofuel is renewable, fossil fuels aren't.
Ethanol is price support, in lue of rot. (Score:2)
Corn grain yields in the U.S. have steadily increased since the 1950's at almost 2 bushels per acre per year. The variance between years is 1 billion bushels just for US producers, that is about 30%.
The volume on the world corn market is typicaly slim unless disaster has h
Well, at least we still have carbon credits... (Score:2)
The Iowa caucus (Score:2)
It's positioning in the schedule of primaries is extremely significant as to why ethanol is used to the degree it is, and it also serves to weed out those who don't care to be part of a great hypocrisy, and fraud. Can't have that kind winning!
It's like joining a tribe that mandates cannibalism as part of the initiation. When you're in you're in.
https://www.uspresidentialelec... [uspresiden...onnews.com]
I remember when we started talking about this (Score:2)
Not news (Score:2)
This is not new. The problem is that corn farmers really like free money, and congress really likes farm votes.
Re: Oh Well (Score:2)
Re: Oh Well (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ethanol is good for Iowa, good for the environment, and good for our economy!". Until the first one stops being true, the second and third one being false wont matter. Ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone knows that this is bad for the environment (more fertilizer, more insecticide, more herbicide) and that it is bad for gas engines. Now it is clear that it is also more polluting. There is only one reason why this is done, to please corn farmers, who get government subsidies to do this. It is to get the farm vote in elections. What a truly horrible reason for increasing pollution and wasting farmland.
Re:Oh Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Now it is clear that it is also more polluting. There is only one reason why this is done, to please corn farmers, who get government subsidies to do this.
Wait a second. You mean those con artist loving farmers are happy to live off the public dole like those socialist countries do? That's unpossible!
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Be honest, there is no sector that is more on the dole than the military. So if you want to complain about the dole, start there.
Re: (Score:2)
Be honest, there is no sector that is more on the dole than the military. So if you want to complain about the dole, start there.
The military is a service that’s not supposed to turn a profit because murdering the weak for their resources isn’t popular and is generally frowned upon. You’re thinking of mercenaries, it’s a common confusion.
Re: Oh Well (Score:3)
Think if it this way. If you're in the military the government provides everything -- from clothes to food to housing, plus healthcare and employment. They totally own the means of production and assign you a job as they need it. You have limited ability to leave and limited rights.
The military is purest socialism just with guns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Oh Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, globalised socialism
That word does not mean what you think it means.
Who knows what that one thinks? Bugs has a rageboner for 'Murrica.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Definition of socialism [merriam-webster.com]
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
In the U.S., the goverment owns and administers the means of production -- as you said, the military produces nothing. The gov't also distributes all goods to the military, which was my initial point.
Communism is where the workers own the means of production. And an authoritarian dictatorship is a form of government, not an economic system. socialism, communism, and capitalism are economic systems, not forms of government.
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. From your same source [merriam-webster.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is the workers owning the means of production.
Like owning stock in the company? I always though Marxian Socialism was really Capitalism and Marxian Capitalism was really Feudalism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Oh Well (Score:2)
It also calls out MAINTAINING a navy but only RAISING an army, but that point seems lost in most people.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the "founding fathers" explicitly did not want a standing army, as they worried that it would lead the US to unwise overseas military adventures. They sure got that right. Providing for the common defense has nothing to do with a standing army if your army is mostly overseas in our 750+ military bases outside of the US mainland.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the "founding fathers" explicitly did not want a standing army, as they worried that it would lead the US to unwise overseas military adventures. They sure got that right. Providing for the common defense has nothing to do with a standing army if your army is mostly overseas in our 750+ military bases outside of the US mainland.
The problem with the concept that there should be no army unless a war comes is simply at odds with any modern world.
The world has shrunk dramatically since the mid 18th century.
Massive WW2 style mobilization isn't needed, but a nation with no standing army will soon become part of a country that does have a standing army.
So let's say we eliminate the standing army. What other nation would you prefer to take over the USA?
Re: (Score:2)
Being an asshole must be a full time job. Like all assholes, all you can do is try and insult people, and you can't even do that right.
Re: (Score:2)
They sure got that right. Providing for the common defense has nothing to do with a standing army if your army is mostly overseas....
Yeah, it'd be way better if all of those bases were over here, so we don't have the ability to "take the fight to the bad guy". We can sit around like a bunch of little bitches and wait for them to be show up on our doorstep.
You get a boner every time you look at a historic photo of Neville Chamberlain, don't you?
This. Anyone who is a student of WW2 history, and still wants the USA out of it's bases, wants to be ruled by Stalinesque Communism. Or is just not paying attention.
All this bad USA stuff started toward the end of WW2, as Stalin showed that he wanted more or less what olde Adolphe wanted. Took over many once independent European nations, and needed stopped. Unless you like that sort of government, that is
Re: (Score:2)
Defund the Military?
"Defund the Police" hasn't worked well for the average American; why would you think "Defund the Military" would?
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare and Education have proven themselves to be areas where the more you spend, the less you get. Spend more in those areas is always directed toward bureaucratic bloat.
Re: (Score:2)
Great argument. You really are brilliant, aren't you? Don't drool on your keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Great argument. You really are brilliant, aren't you? Don't drool on your keyboard.
Let's set up some ground rules for the discussion.
First off, we gotta find out where we situate ourselves.
I'm in the USA Where are you?
Second, we need to establish our wants. Are you willing to live under whoever rules you?
A good rule of thumb would be are you of the frame of mind that you would be willing to have Stalinesque Communism to rule Europe? To end up with what olde Adolphe wanted,
That's how this whole Shitshow got started. After WW2, The SU annexed many once independent nations, and
Re: (Score:2)
I am in the US and I know my US history. I doubt you do. Russia has no military bases around the world, we have over 750, at great cost to taxpayers with no benefit whatsoever. Read the book, Base Nation. Or for a bit more history, try reading The Gangsters of Capitalism, about General Smedley Bulter's military career. Right now I live under unregulated corporate rule, and I don't like it one bit. You will of course try and counter that I should move to Russia, because that is the perennial retort from cons
Re: (Score:2)
I am in the US and I know my US history. I doubt you do. Russia has no military bases around the world, we have over 750, at great cost to taxpayers with no benefit whatsoever.
Okay, let us now learn about your knowledge of history. Explain how these bases provided no benefit. Is it possibly your premise that the Allies simply allow the Soviet Union to accomplish what National Socialist Germany could not? The Immediate postwar history of Europe shows that there was a big expansionist push by the Soviet Union under Stalin. Poland, Finland land secession, creation of satellite states like Hungary. Creation of Soviet backed communist states as well. This was a rather disturbing dev
Re: (Score:2)
The US is the military aggressor, with the 750 military bases. Russia is staying within their borders. I don't need to say anything else. What you need to explain is why is the US filling Europe with missiles aimed at Russia? Does Russia have missiles in Mexico and Canada? Hmmm. Guess not. Maybe you didn't even know that the supposed crisis in Ukraine was because the US backed a neo-Nazi based coup in the Ukraine in 2016 under Obama, Clinton and Biden. So the Russian aggression actually turns out to be US a
Re: (Score:2)
Be honest, there is no sector that is more on the dole than the military. So if you want to complain about the dole, start there.
The military is a government entity. Working for the government isn't being "on the dole". Now defense contractors are another matter. The amount of money wasted on things that don't work, and that the military neither needs nor wants, is staggering.
Re: (Score:2)
No bid contracts are the dole. The military budget never goes down, only up. And we get nothing for it.
Report is missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been known for ages that producing ethanol was nearly always going to not reduce petroleum consumption, at least in the northern hemisphere . In the tropics alchohol production might be favorable however via sugar cane. Ethanol was also billed as an automotive smog reducer for gasoline combustion but this use became negligible as engines themselves became low emission. And it's quite possible the ethanol produces its own climate issues.
However that was never really the point. The expectation was that 39 years in the future we'd have figured out how to produce alchohol based biofuels economically. Perhaos via switch grass or birch trees or from field wastes . Making it from fuel in a format that contained lots of water one had to dry out was always going to be a net negative .
But it takes over 30 years to replace the engines in the automotive fleet in the USA. And you can't even get started on that without a source of fuel the engines can use. It's a chicken and egg problem . Since proper biofuels were not in place yet technologically urgent commercially possible ( who was going to plant a forest of birch trees or plant switch grass without an existing market). There wasn't a way to jump start the switch to alchohol based engines. Except for corn. Now with corn we were already having to offer price supports. We were a net exporter . Thus there was a surplus that could be redirected there.
That was why we went to bio ethanol made from grain. In the long run we would stop using grains and go to cellulose based products instead. These grow on non crop land , use less water, don't raise food prices, and are easier to dry of residual water, and have way higher mass density per acre .
Unfortunately things haven't gone the way that was expected . It certainly was a good plan but things change. At the time the prospects for electric vehicles were a joke. Solar power was a joke . Hydrogen based concepts were still borne ( and still aren't much good) , the only other thread was algal or bio - oil based fuels. But ethanol was vastly more mature and possible to get started converting the fleet. And the agricultural Lobby was powerful too.
So the art of the possible was to go with ethanol from corn for the time being.
It's time to rethink that in light of electric vehicles and the rise of bio- lipid fuels ( e.g. jet fuels) .
The latter have the advantage of not being sedatives to gasoline but replacements for petrochemicals. They too are not ready for prime time but there is one customer that is ready: the military . Having an assured source of oil that isn't imported or coming from off shore vulnerable sites was or could be produced at sea from available biomass was of interest. Maybe that too is if less interest due to fracking. But it still has the advantage of being carbon neutral unlike petroleum chemicals.
Re: Report is missing the point (Score:2)
Sadly, trump nixed the navy investment in lipid biofuel production so many of the commercial interests in this changed to new businesses. That meant the military was carrying the R&D load . When that went away it was reduced to DOE alone to carry the load. They don't have the resources to do that a scale. Fortunately europe and other countries have been making jet fuels that are not carbon neutral expensive. So again there is some pull there. And DARPA established a bio fuel certification pipeline
Re: Report is missing the point (Score:4)
Trump wanted nuclear powered icebreakers for the US Coast Guard. If there's a "no brainer" on lowering fossil fuel consumption by the military its giving them nuclear powered surface ships beyond just aircraft carriers. The Democrats fought real hard to get rid of nuclear power ever since the Carter administration. They were able to kill the "nuclear navy" except for submarines and aircraft carriers. They almost got rid of the nuclear powered aircraft carriers too but after the first nuclear powered submarine was demonstrated there was no killing that.
The US Navy has been working on a system to synthesize jet fuel at sea for decades. It wasn't until Trump that they finally got to conduct studies at sea. This isn't bio-fuel, it uses CO2 dissolved in the water for the source of carbon. Because of the tactical advantage that producing jet fuel at sea offers there's likely no killing that once it is demonstrated. That's another technology the Democrats have been fighting for decades. They talk big about lowering CO2 emissions but every time a vote came up for a nuclear powered military ship came up the Democrats voted it down, opting for a diesel engine ship instead.
When it comes to the DOE they've been the biggest hurdle to new energy solutions in the federal government. Any fission energy project got killed, that is until the Trump administration. Any fusion energy that wasn't ITER got killed. Many solar power projects died because of DOE. More real world energy development came from DOD and NASA than from DOE. Maybe it's because DOD and NASA have real goals to reach while DOE has just "do some energy stuff". The people at DOE don't want to solve our national energy problems. If the DOE solved our energy problems then we would not need a DOE any more.
The DOE needs to go. All the weapons development they do should go to DOD. The nuclear physics stuff they do should go to NASA. Any commercial energy development should go to Commerce or Transportation. If someone thinks we need bio-fuel development then put that in the Department of Agriculture. Mining for coal, uranium, thorium, or whatever should go to Interior. The DOE is redundant and has been an obstacle to energy independence more than anything.
Re: Report is missing the point (Score:2)
Your opinions seem to be completely contradicted by the coast guard, the navy and congress. The us cast guard has no nuclear infrastructures crude like the navy does.
Re: (Score:2)
One *slight* problem with a nuclear powered navy: the entire purpose of military vehicles is to be legitimate military targets
Which means that every single nuclear military vessel is a nuclear disaster waiting to happen the first time an enemy makes a lucky shot.
How about nuclear powered cargo ships? Very rarely is anyone trying to intentionally destroy those, AND they travel a lot further a lot more frequently, so the environmental benefit would be far larger. Of course we only have to look at how frequ
Re: Report is missing the point (Score:2)
Patent Information Publication number: US20160215403 A1 Patent Title: Extraction of carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater and hydrocarbon production therefrom Publication date: 28 Jul 2016 Filing date: 4 Apr 2016
First reports of it producing fuel in a lab emerged at the end of 2014 under Obama. Perhaps the USN hadn't done tests at sea under Obama because the technology was so new. Sorry if the facts won't line up with your politics. Not that there is anything that requires nuclear power here, just electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
You Ain't going to burn diesel to run a generator (or bunker fuel in a boiler) to extract CO2 and H2 from seawater to make Jet fuel (basically slightly thinner diesel fuel) without getting bitch slapped by the laws of thermodynamics. In the Navy, enough electricity to make Jet fuel, in the quantities needed means nuclear generation.
Re: (Score:3)
The expectation was that 39 years in the future we'd have figured out how to produce alchohol based biofuels economically. Perhaos via switch grass or birch trees or from field wastes. Making it from fuel in a format that contained lots of water one had to dry out was always going to be a net negative .
But it takes over 30 years to replace the engines in the automotive fleet in the USA.
Cornahol was always a agricultural industry scam. There was never any showing that it would not increase carbon emission, or even that it would reduce actual fossil fuel use. It was always just a way to give Archer Midlands Daniel (principally) and other giant agricorps an enormous guaranteed subsidized market. Corn is by a large margin the biggest crop in the U.S. and 40% of it goes into alcohol for fuel. This has almost entirely happened since 2001 when only 1/8 as much corn was going to alcohol, so about
Re: Report is missing the point (Score:2)
Perhaps you have a reading comprehension issue ? Did I not explicitly say corn based ethanol was never going to be a carbon reduction? I explained what the actual concept was. But you just ignore that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
it is bad for gas engines
Not really. Older cars (like 2005 and older) will need modernized fuel system components to survive contact with ethanol, but once you have that, ethanol actually has a very high octane and lower combustion temperatures than gasoline, which can greatly improve performance on boosted/high compression engines. The only downside is the lower energy density, which once the engine has the fuel delivery capacity, it won't mind one bit.
I'd considered setting up one of my cars with a high-compression engine to run
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ethanol actually has a very high octane and lower combustion temperatures than gasoline, which can greatly improve performance on boosted/high compression engines.
The last thing you want in a high compression engine is a LOW combustion temperature, you fucking poser. Higher octane levels RAISE the temperature at which gas combusts so the hot engine doesn't cause it to pre-ignite (knock), which is very bad for the engine..
Re: (Score:2)
I meant the temperature produced from combustion, properly known as molar heat capacity, you nitpicking vulgarian:
https://www.6speedonline.com/f... [6speedonline.com]
Maybe you're a capital-E Engineer with a god complex that I've offended, in which case I offer you as much apology as you offered me benefit of the doubt - exactly none.
Re: (Score:3)
If one factors in the production cost for replacement small engines that are torn up by ethanol based fuel (E-10/E-15), then ethanol's pollution goes sharply up.
I do agree that an engine from scratch to accept E100 would be a good thing. E-85 in a Flex-Fuel engine has more horsepower, burns cleaner, and actually does a decent job at getting crud out of the engine and into the oil, which is why it is wise, if one has a Flex-Fuel rated engine, to run a tank of E-85 before an oil change.
Ethanol is easy to sto
Re: (Score:3)
It was never "eco Marxists" who wanted that (Score:5, Insightful)
Same thing they did to us when they invented "welfare queens" or when they told us the problem was avocado on toast. It's a trick to get you angry at the wrong people. You should be mad about that. Change your media sources, they're lying to you. I recommend you start with Beau Of The Fifth Column [youtube.com]on YouTube.
Re: (Score:3)
Except you're confusing ends with means.
Capitalism didn't pick ethanol, government did. Government mandated the use of it across the US, which was gleefully agreed to by money-hungry agricapitalists, no doubt.
But ethanol is lower energy, it's bad for seals, and it's more expensive.
There was no serious energy producer saying "hey everyone here's why we should switch to ethanol" based on market forces or profitability. AS A RESULT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY, agribusinesses then BECAME energy producers, but that wa
Gov't != Communism (Score:2)
You're confusing motive with means. Capitalists will always use gov't to their advantage. If you try to dismantle government they'll make one for themselves (with blackjack and hookers) and exclude you from it.
The motive here is profit, which is what underpins capitalism on it's most fundamental level. It's not a Government policy when that policy was _bought_ by Capitalists.
I guess you could get into a "no true Scottsman" argument at that point,
Re: (Score:2)
You can always find idiots on every side of every topic. The environmentalists I talked to said that it didn't sound like a very good idea, though they hadn't run the numbers. The articles I read said that it looked as if it would be only very marginally better than straight gasoline. Several folks said that they thought it was to buy off the corn lobby.
You chose your sources, and you can always find a stupid argument. You can't always find a good argument, but the only good argument I found for the eth
Re: (Score:2)
The worse gas mileage and increased engine wear has long been known. Previously, though, the studies had shown that it was barely worse for the environment than straight gasoline. So either this study has found something new, or included an effect that the prior studies ignored. Or, of course, it's wrong. (I'm not sure what the fourth choice would be, but there should always be an "other".)
Re: (Score:2)
The worse mileage is very noticeable in a car - all modern car have gas mileage indicators - mine go from 6.2 to 6.8 l/100km on E10.
That's odd. Ethanol only has a 3% lower energy density than gasoline. And... as someone who's tracked every drop of fuel and every kilometer driven for the last thirteen years, I'm confident in saying that there's so much noise in the data that there's no way you can isolate the cause of the .6L/km change on the fuel blend.
That said, I've been doing my part of the environment: I only burn ethanol-free 91 in my Hellcat.
Re: (Score:3)
*Which* "conspiracy" nuts were right all along? One can always, in retrospect, find a bunch of "conspiracy nuts" who were right. This doesn't mean or imply that they understood the problem.
FWIW, the serious environmentalists never supported that law, and at most considered it "consciousness raising". I don't know any whose judgement I trusted that thought it was a good law. Most, however, didn't consider it horrendous. (Of course, they hadn't run the numbers. Much of the information needed to really d
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is what the EPA had in mind, but it makes me smile.