Corn-Based Ethanol
Hexmage-PA
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
The US produces a ridiculous amount of corn, more than we know what to do with. In addition to simply eating it, we also export it to other countries, use it for feed in industrial agriculture, and convert it into sugar. Corn is so cheap that to sustain the US's modern agriculture we have to find new ways to subsidize it.
Alternative energy is a growing concern both for energy independence and environmental concerns. One of the solutions with the most support in the US is corn-based ethanol. Policy makers have increasingly pushed for increased production of corn-based ethanol for several reasons: fewer greenhouse gases are emitted when it is burned, the carbon dioxide emitted during its production is balanced by the carbon the corn plants absorb, it helps free the US from dependence on foreign oil, and it gives us another use for corn.
Corn-based ethanol has many critics, however. The most obvious criticism is that corn-based ethanol encourages monoculture that itself harms the environment through the use of nitrous fertilizers and overuse of water. Many have called the energy efficiency of corn-based ethanol into question, claiming that existing farming technologies use almost as much energy derived from fossil-fuels to grow the corn as the resulting ethanol is supposed provide. Other criticisms make such claims as "Corn-based ethanol produces harmful pollutants itself", "It is irresponsible to use a food source for fuel when it could be used to feed starving populations" and "The production of corn-based ethanol will affect the poor by increasing food prices".
So, is the production corn-based ethanol a wise investment for the United States?
Alternative energy is a growing concern both for energy independence and environmental concerns. One of the solutions with the most support in the US is corn-based ethanol. Policy makers have increasingly pushed for increased production of corn-based ethanol for several reasons: fewer greenhouse gases are emitted when it is burned, the carbon dioxide emitted during its production is balanced by the carbon the corn plants absorb, it helps free the US from dependence on foreign oil, and it gives us another use for corn.
Corn-based ethanol has many critics, however. The most obvious criticism is that corn-based ethanol encourages monoculture that itself harms the environment through the use of nitrous fertilizers and overuse of water. Many have called the energy efficiency of corn-based ethanol into question, claiming that existing farming technologies use almost as much energy derived from fossil-fuels to grow the corn as the resulting ethanol is supposed provide. Other criticisms make such claims as "Corn-based ethanol produces harmful pollutants itself", "It is irresponsible to use a food source for fuel when it could be used to feed starving populations" and "The production of corn-based ethanol will affect the poor by increasing food prices".
So, is the production corn-based ethanol a wise investment for the United States?
Hexmage-PA on
0
Posts
So in that sense I am horribly biased in favor..
Fuck corn subsidies.
Woo hive mind!
If that's true than why are many politicians so gung-ho for supporting something that's so inefficient that it results in net energy loss?
I think the corn-lobby is paying them off. No jokes.
specifically, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). ADM and the rest of the players in corn are the reason it's so prevalent in our foods. Their lobbying is the SOLE reason we have Coke with corn syrup instead of sugar (like they have elsewhere in the world).
When I was searching info on peanut allergies it seems to be our use of cereal grains and corn is one of the main reasons there is a larger portion of allergy suffers in our country as opposed to others where peanuts are more available and used as more of a staple food. Also the way we cook peanuts tends to lend them that way too (instead of just eating them, we roast them).
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Entrenched rural voters and lobbying from both farmers and corporate conglomerates. We also have distorting subsidies in other areas (sugar tariffs) that influence things.
Without corn subsidies, Sugar and Hemp would pretty much destroy the corn industry... Not that can't just switch crops, but because hemp can be grown ANYWHERE they wouldn't have the exclusive lock on the industry they now enjoy.
That said, I don't know the exact numbers, and I get the distinct impression that corn is overly protected with respect to similar products.
Hemp flour is pretty awesome.
And if we ever get to the point where we are looking to import food and no one is selling it to us, we are probably all gonna die anyhow. Things getting to that point means that global revolution and widespread death are more or less inevitable. It just isn't worth the vast resources we spend trying to prop up portions of agribusiness at the expense of the third world.
Except you're subsidizing farmers to grow far more corn than is required for the USA's food needs.
and yes, flour is one of an amazing array of products you can make with Hemp (but it threatens the Wheat industry)
If in the future we were getting our electricity from renewable sources like Wind and Solar then it wouldn't matter as much that you don't get as much energy out of CE as you put into it, since it's not like you'd be burning oil to make it.
That said, I think at this point corn ethanol is a stupid idea. There are much better products to make ethanol out of. Sugar cane ethanol you get something like an 800% return on your refining energy.
EDIT: Here.
the USA??? Think bigger.
NO ONE needs this much corn. We can't sell it fast enough to other countries so they had to invent other shit to do with it.
There's only so much bourbon you can make with corn stockpiles, but refine it more and instead of Knob Creek, you have an additive for your car.
the gas stations can pump whatever you give it.
Not exactly - it's not like you can just fill existing gas station tanks with hydrogen. You can fill them with a gasoline-like product like ethanol (not necessarily corn ethanol.)
I think one of the reasons corn ethanol is popular is because it is easily understood by people. The technology and infrastructure is already here - you just replace gas with ethanol. Instead of electric cars or fuel cells where you have to plug in your car or go to some special station or some other shit.
Because politicians are dumb, and the things that push corn over the edge into being so inefficient aren't always counted (energy used in shipping corn and ethanol from A=>B)
As I said, I'm under assumption that we are protecting the corn industry too much. We should be able to be self-sufficient with respect to food so that we don't suffer too greatly from shocks in production caused by natural or man-made disasters. A little surplus is a good idea, but not to the degree that we're deflating other countries ability to compete.
This is very true, there are better sources of ethanol already available and others not far off. There are scientists getting it out of algae, with potentially far better energy efficiencies (and some distinct advantages with regard to large scale production).
it's popular because ADM decided that now was a good time to re-introduce it to the masses. It's been about 30 years since the last big push for ethanol in cars. I remember seeing the commercials by ADM for ethanol back in the late 70's and there were even a handfull of gas stations that had ethanol pumps (actually, it was "Gasahol", something like an 80/20 mix of gasolin/ethano). Shit didn't catch on and faded out almost as quickly as it had appeared.
Well, almost every 1st world country heavily subsidizes its farming and agricultural industries....many intelligent people have realized that this is terrible for the the world overall and essentially a breach of free trade, but no country is in a hurry to fuck over their own farmers while the rest of the world continues subsidizing....also its not good form a vote winning point of view, its political suicide in some countries.
No, common misconceptions about simple shit that people make either because they think "hey, it can't actually be right that it consumes more energy that it produces, it must be the other way around!" or because bad information is fed out by pro-corn types.
Currently, you get only 91% of the energy you put in to ethanol production out the other end (1 unit out for every 1.1 units put in). Science fact.
Corn ethanol is only around through is pure bullshit, lobbying & presidential primary politics. Sugar beet ethanol as made in Brazil & elsewhere is the one that actually produces energy. Yet I can guarantee that corn ethanol will continue to grow, because it has a lot of money & interests behind it, benefits the current setup of a vocal minority within the population (of course, not as much as growing a decent crop would, but hey), and because given this existing momentum, bloody idiots wanting to be 'green' who know fuck all about energy or the environment will keep believing that it can't be wrong just because it is popular, and start buying it along with their offsetting credits, carbon neutral car insurance, environmentally friendly soles to reduce their carbon footprints, and all the other pointless crap that is being touted to them by people who are either as stupid as they are, or much smarter and have figured out how to make a tidy profit.
There was a story on NPR just recently about how corn based ethanol plants have been closing left and right due to lack of demand. It's on its way out yet again.
From what I understand, ethanol is generally a poor choice in comparison to biodiesel and the like, and corn-fed ethanol production is a particularly bad strategy. Producing oil directly is a better solution, and it will almost certainly be possible to do so very efficiently in the near future using certain strains of algae.