Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Roadkill_Bingo t1_j8145pm wrote

Off topic but if the implementation of ethanol in the US was really about climate change, we’d import sugar cane from Brazil instead of subsidizing corn. Way more efficient in terms of caloric yields.

76

doubledippedchipp t1_j82fwhx wrote

I’m convinced corn is a massive scam

14

Coloradostoneman t1_j82rsn1 wrote

Corn is actually an amazing plant in terms of calories per acre and per gallon of water. It is a C4 plant and Midwest corn burst is the most intense bit of photosynthesis anywhere on the planet per day.

8

Roadkill_Bingo t1_j82xdgd wrote

But think about what ethanol production is. It’s distillation. Turn sugar into alcohol, easy. Well grains are seeds, so by their nature they’re starchy, so you have to convert them into simpler sugars first before you ferment. Not even considering the differences in yield (of which corn is inferior to sugarcane), the production costs are much lower for sugarcane ethanol. Thinking globally, it just doesn’t make sense using that valuable Midwest US land to grow corn for ethanol knowing you can import it from the tropics.

But indeed, no arguments here. Corn is an amazing plant with an absurd number of uses.

4

Coloradostoneman t1_j84ibnp wrote

My degree is in cellular and molecular biology. I do understand fermentation and related fields pretty well. Do you understand global economics? If we stop using corn for ethanol and ship it to places that might be willing to eat it, it will be so cheep that it will harm their local farmers tremendously ultimately making those places less food secure.

What else should we do with the corn?

1

Roadkill_Bingo t1_j84lfpb wrote

The point you raise is an important one. There’s no one way to do globalized trade without collateral damage. Specialized production has huge weaknesses in practice - just look at juggernaut oil producer Russia - it’s risky. The solution is not relying on Brazil for world ethanol production either.

My original critique was just pointing out the false narrative we’re given about ethanol production in the US. It’s marginally carbon negative and there are more productive ways to use the land in terms of climate change and/or human well-being. Food or grassland restoration, for instance.

2

Coloradostoneman t1_j84w7bt wrote

That is a much more nuanced response then just "we are wasting food". The world is not short on food. It might be short on sustainably produced food. It might be short on food in the places it is most needed. but it is not short on food.

Ethanol, as a fuel, is not carbon negative. Corn based ethanol is not even particularly better than say natural gas given the fertilizer input.

1

40for60 t1_j8cbzzn wrote

The US has been able to over produce its food needs since the 1940's this is why we started the Food for Peace program now called USAID and corn based ethanol, both ideas came from Minnesota.

1

Im_A_Parrot t1_j82ifjr wrote

The big corn cob pipe manufacturers have bamboozled us for decades.

6

SillyFlyGuy t1_j82jjqq wrote

It's about assuring our food supply.

Half of the corn we grow goes into our cars. Meaning we grow twice as much as we need. We have all the manpower, equipment, and logistics to double food output instantly. No ramp up or lead time needed, just stop burning the corn already harvested.

That gives us a nice cushion in case something truly catastrophic happens. Gives us time to find a solution, if there's a solution to find.

14

Coloradostoneman t1_j82ruqh wrote

Do we need twice as much food?

−4

sifterandrake t1_j82ztja wrote

Yes!

You. Do. Not. Fuck. Around. With. Famine.

It's just simply that devastating to country.

Having a secure food supply in case of a multitude of disasters is probably the single most important aspect to national security.

21

Coloradostoneman t1_j84gys6 wrote

But we don't have a famine right now. And you can't store corn for ever.

−2

40for60 t1_j8cbnza wrote

Its about keeping the farm industry stable.

https://ethanolproducer.com/articles/3855/building-the-minnesota-model

2

Coloradostoneman t1_j8dh8t2 wrote

I know that. Having a stable farm sector is a pretty good hedge against famine. Much better than trying to store an infinite amount of corn.

Look, I don't like corn ethanol as a fuel. But the idea that it is causing people to starve is just absurd.

It can probably be stated accurately that a smaller percentage of humanity is calorie deprived today than at any point in history.

2

markpreston54 t1_j834lh2 wrote

Maybe not double, but when it comes to food you better be safe than sorry

2

Coloradostoneman t1_j84hkoy wrote

Not sure if you have noticed, but we have a much bigger problem with obesity than hunger right now. We don't have enough storage capacity to reduce the consumption of corn by ethanol massively.

0

markpreston54 t1_j84kg35 wrote

If you somehow feel that obesity is even close to the problem of hunger is the very evidence that the food policy US had is quite successful.

Frankly speaking obesity may take several years off your life, but starvation takes all of them.

Besides, obesity is a life choice and one can very well just not eat and throwaway any leftover. We can't do that if we don't have the food in the first place.

One thing that contributed the high obesity rate is high food cost of healthy food, so there are arguments to be made to expand the growing of the healthy food, maybe corn land should be spared for the healthier vegetables, but this is not argument for not growing excess food at all

2

Coloradostoneman t1_j84wno1 wrote

PgYes, it is better to be fat than to starve, but nobody is starving because Midwest corn is made into ethanol. People are hungry because of distribution problems.

Midwest corn also doesn't change the cost of healthy food anywhere.

1

19wolf t1_j8311xp wrote

So when famine hits do we just eat more corn? What good is doubling our available corn for food if we're not doubling any other ingredients?

−5

Scented-Sound t1_j83g4p2 wrote

Here is, fortunately, someone who's never been in danger of not having food.

6

40for60 t1_j8cbsxi wrote

No we would switch the land to wheat. Corn saved farmers in the 70's and helped reduce the reliance on OPEC oil.

1

imgrandojjo t1_j82i9jo wrote

We make too much of our own sugar for that. Sugarcane and sugarbeet combined we're the world's largest sugar manufacturer.

2

V8O t1_j83gz5j wrote

You can't import sugar cane, it can't be stored for long before processing.

You could import ethanol made from sugar cane, but Brazil's entire production capacity is less than 2/3rds of US ethanol consumption.

And of course Brazil is already using this sugar cane and these factories to make ethanol for its own car fleet... Ethanol amounts to like 30-40% of all fuel used in gasoline engines in Brazil (which is like the world's 5th or 6th largest gasoline market).

2

Roadkill_Bingo t1_j84jpto wrote

The US’s ethanol consumption is only so high because we mandate it as a component in our fuels…again, the corn subsidies. They’re manufacturing a need.

1

V8O t1_j861p8j wrote

The need is there because you drive gasoline powered cars (about a third of global gasoline demand is in the US). With that car fleet in place, your only pick is between oil or ethanol...

1