If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   A $500,000 study by the feds and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change: "biofuels made with corn residue release 7% more greenhouse gases compared with conventional gasoline"   (realclear.com) divider line 75
    More: Ironic, Nature Climate Change, greenhouse gases, academic journal, cellulosic ethanol, biofuels, Argonne National Laboratory, gas, renewable fuels  
•       •       •

1711 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2014 at 7:50 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-21 06:26:58 PM
... Yeah, and?

Corn based Ethanol is a sop to Iowans and maybe a hedge against foreign oil, not an ACC solution.
 
2014-04-21 07:03:06 PM
Next up: A study to find that at 100 mph the little runt spare in your trunk isn't as safe as a new Pirelli.
 
2014-04-21 07:12:50 PM
Not to mention what it does to global food prices, hitting the poor in third world countries the hardest of course.


/no more corn ethanol please
 
2014-04-21 07:54:53 PM
Well, shiat.
 
2014-04-21 08:00:48 PM
What stuck out to me was that the study only cost $500,000.  I'm not sure the government can get anything done at that amount any longer.  Not that I disagree with the findings.  I think corn is better as food than fuel.  Shouldn't we all be driving cars that DO NOT use internal combustion by now?
 
2014-04-21 08:01:29 PM
Well no shiat.  Thanks a lot envirowackos.  You're trying to kill us all with your ignorance.  Go stuff a beehive up your ass
 
2014-04-21 08:01:50 PM

SquiggsIN: What stuck out to me was that the study only cost $500,000.  I'm not sure the government can get anything done at that amount any longer.  Not that I disagree with the findings.  I think corn is better as food than fuel.  Shouldn't we all be driving cars that DO NOT use internal combustion by now?


No. Just no.
 
2014-04-21 08:03:02 PM
Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,
 
2014-04-21 08:06:06 PM

InterruptingQuirk: Not to mention what it does to global food prices, hitting the poor in third world countries the hardest of course.


/no more corn ethanol please


Not to mention what it has done to pet food prices. They shot up after ethanol became the rage.

/Owned by 9 cats
 
2014-04-21 08:09:42 PM

Lee451: InterruptingQuirk: Not to mention what it does to global food prices, hitting the poor in third world countries the hardest of course.


/no more corn ethanol please

Not to mention what it has done to pet food prices. They shot up after ethanol became the rage.

/Owned by 9 cats


1. you're an idiot
2. you're an idiot for having 9 cats
3. you're a gigantic moron for feeding a cat a corn-based food.
 
2014-04-21 08:10:10 PM

RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,


Yeah I don't think a stalk of corn breathes in quite as much CO2 as it will put out in equivalent biofuel combustion products.
 
2014-04-21 08:12:03 PM

RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,


Bingo! We have a winner.
 
2014-04-21 08:13:00 PM

RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,


This - corn ethanol sucks - but the Co2 it emits is ALREADY unsequestered Co2.
Boneheadmitter.
 
2014-04-21 08:14:43 PM

moeburn: RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,

Yeah I don't think a stalk of corn breathes in quite as much CO2 as it will put out in equivalent biofuel combustion products.


Doesn't matter - the carbon from which it made that Co2 was ALREADY part of the biosphere.
Just think about it, real hard, for a minute or two.
 
2014-04-21 08:14:46 PM
"Cellulosic biofuels that don't meet that threshold could be almost impossible to make and sell. Producers wouldn't earn the $1 per gallon subsidy they need to make these expensive fuels and still make a profit. Refiners would shun the fuels because they wouldn't meet their legal obligation to use minimum amounts of next-generation biofuels. "

$1 per gallon subsidy,  to add 7% more CO2 than regular gas.     I guess that is some kind of bargain.
 
2014-04-21 08:15:01 PM

gajillion: RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,

Bingo! We have a winner.


But corn production is highly mechanized. Lots of diesel is burned tilling, planting, harvesting, processing and transporting it.
 
2014-04-21 08:17:54 PM
jso2897:

Doesn't matter - the carbon from which it made that Co2 was ALREADY part of the biosphere.

Yes, but like you said about the crude oil being safely kept underground, much of the carbon of the corn also came from soil and stuff already underground (I have no idea how plants work, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Just think about it, real hard, for a minute or two.

I'm trying, I'm really trying.
 
2014-04-21 08:18:07 PM

SquiggsIN: Lee451: InterruptingQuirk: Not to mention what it does to global food prices, hitting the poor in third world countries the hardest of course.


/no more corn ethanol please

Not to mention what it has done to pet food prices. They shot up after ethanol became the rage.

/Owned by 9 cats

1. you're an idiot
2. you're an idiot for having 9 cats
3. you're a gigantic moron for feeding a cat a corn-based food.


Price of corn goes up>price of chicken goes up>price of cat food goes up>price of ALL food goes up.
Mexicans who depend on corn for their daily diet are starving because we burn their damn food and give big bucks to Monsanto, corporate farmers, and Iowa politicians.

FARK corn based ethanol, and fark Iowa.
 
2014-04-21 08:19:24 PM

moeburn: jso2897:

Doesn't matter - the carbon from which it made that Co2 was ALREADY part of the biosphere.

Yes, but like you said about the crude oil being safely kept underground, much of the carbon of the corn also came from soil and stuff already underground (I have no idea how plants work, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Just think about it, real hard, for a minute or two.

I'm trying, I'm really trying.


Not to mention that all the equipment that is used to process all that corn runs on gasoline or diesel.
 
2014-04-21 08:25:02 PM
but it tastes so much better....
 
2014-04-21 08:32:20 PM

RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,


Depends on how much fuel was burned during planting and harvest, as well as the source. I'd guess near 7%, unless this is another one of those MPG articles pointing out that ethanol is not as efficient.

Oh, also, stubmitter, the greent tech people have been against corn based ethanol since it was first proposed. Most of them wanted switch grass or algae based.
 
2014-04-21 08:44:29 PM

jso2897: moeburn: RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,

Yeah I don't think a stalk of corn breathes in quite as much CO2 as it will put out in equivalent biofuel combustion products.

Doesn't matter - the carbon from which it made that Co2 was ALREADY part of the biosphere.
Just think about it, real hard, for a minute or two.


So to the extent that corn ethanol reduces use of crude oil, it actually does yield a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, in direct contradiction to boneheadmitter's implication.

This is not to say whether or not corn ethanol is good policy. Only to say that it is at least modestly effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
 
2014-04-21 08:46:54 PM
Ok, those farking idiots are trying to compare stover based corn ethanol with actual corn ethanol.

What we all think of as corn ethanol actually uses the corn. The study in question is talking about using the stuff that's left over after harvest to make ethanol.

It's apples and pancakes.
 
2014-04-21 08:49:07 PM

Zafler: Depends on how much fuel was burned during planting and harvest,


Different machines would also have used fossil fuels to harvest and process the oil. It would take a rather dramatically larger use of fossil fuels to harvest and process corn than oil in order to offset the ultimate reduction from corn ethanol.
 
2014-04-21 08:54:34 PM

Baz744: Zafler: Depends on how much fuel was burned during planting and harvest,

Different machines would also have used fossil fuels to harvest and process the oil. It would take a rather dramatically larger use of fossil fuels to harvest and process corn than oil in order to offset the ultimate reduction from corn ethanol.


Doing reading on actual corn based ethanol says about 1.3 gallons of ethanol per gallon of gas. No other information on this stover based stuff.

Maybe they can come up with a more efficient way of harvesting the stover to get it down. Also: does anyone know if they were still tilling the stover into the ground as fertilizer for next years crop, or was it really just rotting away?

If it was just rotting away, using it is better than letting it go to waste, if they can get it down to at least 1 to 1.
 
2014-04-21 09:08:17 PM
Forget corn for a bio fuel, use low tetrahydrocannabinol strains of Cannabis sativa.
 
2014-04-21 09:08:55 PM
The point of the article is that the biofuel made from stover won't meet the thresholds the Gov't set in 2007 to reduce Greenhouse gas.

Thus, they won't get $1 subsidy.     It's about the profit.    And it's not going to be there with stover.
 
2014-04-21 09:15:04 PM

SquiggsIN: What stuck out to me was that the study only cost $500,000.  I'm not sure the government can get anything done at that amount any longer.  Not that I disagree with the findings.  I think corn is better as food than fuel.  Shouldn't we all be driving cars that DO NOT use internal combustion by now?


Well Tesla has nothing but bad press over their external combustion models.
 
2014-04-21 09:18:14 PM
I think if there's any benefit to plant-based biofuels at all, it's that they're renewable, and you can grow them in your own backyard.  Instead of relying on something that we use a lot faster than the earth can make, like oil.

Perhaps, in the future, wars will be fought over fertile land.
 
2014-04-21 09:19:13 PM
Kinda hurts the Global Warming argument there, Al Gore.....
 
2014-04-21 09:22:32 PM

moeburn: Perhaps, in the future, wars will be fought over fertile land.


LOL.  wonder how many bites you'll get on that one.
 
2014-04-21 09:22:50 PM

RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.  The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,


Except that crap lowers my car's fuel economy to a degree roughly proportionate to the gasoline it replaces.

No way you can spin ethanol as a net win -- environmentally or on any other grounds.  It's pure pork.
 
2014-04-21 09:33:20 PM

RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,


it takes energy to plant, water, harvest, process and ship the corn and corn products.  Maybe from that, but just a guess.
 
2014-04-21 09:37:33 PM
Something is seriously wrong here.

Alcohol is, by nature, a cleaner burning energy source. Alcohol lamps have long been touted for their clean heat, which made them popular in laboratories. Piped in natural gas usually had to be heavily filtered to remove sulfur traces, which made it a bit smoky.

Plus, a clear glass beaker will develop a smudge of carbon if held over a candle, a kerosene lamp, unfiltered burning natural gas and even regular gasoline. I recall filling Zippo lighters with gasoline and they often smoked a bit when you lit them.

What about the contributions to global warming from the many other chemicals added to gasoline? Like those that keep fuel lines clean, keep the engine from knocking, boost octane and so on? Wouldn't burning them produce unfriendly emissions? After all, you can still die if in a sealed garage with the engine of your car running.

Now, Moonshiners toss out the first run off their stills, which is undrinkable alcohol. Ethanol I believe and most can identify it by smell. What about burning the 'drinkable' alcohol? Ethanol? (I might have the names reversed. I get a bit confused at times.)

There are various plants which are considered more carbon fixing than others, and not necessarily food versions. Certain types of clover not only hold more carbon, but nitrogen, which makes it a good plant to grow over fallow fields and then plow it into the ground. It renourishes the soil. A lot of farms allow certain plants to take over fields and then plow the stuff into the soil come fall to add natural nutrients.

Now, beer brewers do not pour off any alcohol because, the beer making process does not first develop the Methanol. (?) You can extract 95% of the alcohol out of beer and you can also brew a much higher alcohol batch. Europe does. Only whisky makers have to dispose of the 'first run'.

You need to consider diesel also. It's one step above kerosene in flammability. Yet it produces an enormous amount of carbon. Hang around a busy truck stop for awhile and the reek of burned diesel will be obvious -- and this is with cleaner burning diesel.

Kerosene, often used as heating oil, has a low flash point. It smokes something terrible. If you've ever used a real Kerosene Lamp, you'll know what I mean because you'll have to clean the chimneys daily after use. Plus even using current safety Kerosene heaters, you need to ventilate the room because of the fumes.

In WW2, cars in Europe, especially Germany, used conversion kits that turned wood into fuel. The wood was heated to turn it into carbon from which came a gas, which was then filtered until only clean burning hydrogen remained. That was channeled into the engine.

Today, you can build one which will run a generator for your home. (Saw that on 'Hillbilly Blood') However, the actual converter is large and bulky. Plus, hydrogen is dangerous and difficult to store.

I think you need to remember that the massive oil industry is NOT going to allow any alternative fuels eat seriously into it's profits unless they can own the lions share first.
 
2014-04-21 09:56:38 PM
The solution, of course, it to use cane ethanol from Brazil.
 
2014-04-21 10:04:55 PM

theorellior: The solution, of course, it to use cane ethanol from Brazil.


georgebushfacts.com

Switchgrass.
 
2014-04-21 10:21:04 PM

moeburn: RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,

Yeah I don't think a stalk of corn breathes in quite as much CO2 as it will put out in equivalent biofuel combustion products.


ummm... where else do you think the stalk of corn gets its carbon from?   You do realise that's how plants grow, right?  They get their carbon from CO2 in the air.   you could burn the ENTIRE plant and unless you incinerated it right down to white ash you'd still be releasing less CO2 than the plant consumed to make itself in the first place.
 
2014-04-21 10:25:21 PM

rga184: it takes energy to plant, water, harvest, process and ship the corn and corn products.  Maybe from that, but just a guess.


And the logistics involved in mining/drilling, cracking and transporting fuel oil doesn't use any energy?
 
2014-04-21 11:00:37 PM

InterruptingQuirk: Not to mention what it does to global food prices, hitting the poor in third world countries the hardest of course.


/no more corn ethanol please


How does using corn waste do this ?

And despite the tone of TFA (we haven't seen the study, so we don't know what it actually said), plant-based ethanol is carbon-neutral unlike fossil fuels.
 
2014-04-21 11:33:30 PM

lindseyp: moeburn: RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,

Yeah I don't think a stalk of corn breathes in quite as much CO2 as it will put out in equivalent biofuel combustion products.

ummm... where else do you think the stalk of corn gets its carbon from?   You do realise that's how plants grow, right?  They get their carbon from CO2 in the air.   you could burn the ENTIRE plant and unless you incinerated it right down to white ash you'd still be releasing less CO2 than the plant consumed to make itself in the first place.


And that doesn't include the carbon sequestered in the root zone. It is fossil carbon not bio carbon that is the problem
 
2014-04-21 11:43:24 PM

jso2897: moeburn: RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,

Yeah I don't think a stalk of corn breathes in quite as much CO2 as it will put out in equivalent biofuel combustion products.

Doesn't matter - the carbon from which it made that Co2 was ALREADY part of the biosphere.
Just think about it, real hard, for a minute or two.


And the natural gas to make the fertilizer and boil the ethanol, diesel to run the trucks and harvesters, more diesel to run the trains to haul the ethanol because you can't pipeline it, another smidge of diesel to get it to the gas station.

If you could use the whole plant it might get better, but I have no idea how much.
 
2014-04-21 11:46:39 PM

lindseyp: ummm... where else do you think the stalk of corn gets its carbon from?   You do realise that's how plants grow, right?  They get their carbon from CO2 in the air.   you could burn the ENTIRE plant and unless you incinerated it right down to white ash you'd still be releasing less CO2 than the plant consumed to make itself in the first place.


The plant also takes carbon from the soil. If you'll read TFA between the lines, carbon is being depleted from the soil. That is explained more clearly elsewhere. And it doesn't matter how little of the residue is taken, the soil still is depleted.
 
2014-04-22 12:36:07 AM

InterruptingQuirk: Not to mention what it does to global food prices, hitting the poor in third world countries the hardest of course.


/no more corn ethanol please


I remember when tortilla prices went apeshiat in Mexico because of ethanol horseshiat. Not my problem, but I was angry regardless.
 
2014-04-22 12:45:28 AM

Phil Moskowitz: InterruptingQuirk: Not to mention what it does to global food prices, hitting the poor in third world countries the hardest of course.


/no more corn ethanol please

I remember when tortilla prices went apeshiat in Mexico because of ethanol horseshiat. Not my problem, but I was angry regardless.


blame NAFTA
 
2014-04-22 01:36:47 AM
Corn also takes up carbon form the soil as well as taking in CO2 during growth.

No matter how you approach it, burning a corn byproduct is not a benefit fo the atmosphere.

It is a benefit to agribusiness and politicians.

And a detriment to hungry people worldwide.
 
2014-04-22 01:54:45 AM
I am farting in the general direction of the environuts.

Their heads are so far up their own arse, they think my noxious "Winds of Pure Death' is an pleasant change.

Go ahead, save all the Earth you can, it makes my consumption cheaper to afford.

Earth needs to be hotter, as I am trying to get acclimatized for the hereafter.
 
2014-04-22 02:31:18 AM
So, on paper, that's the unfortunate part of biofuels. They have higher emissions of certain gases, but they burn a lot cleaner and cut down on particulates harmful to human respiration. In practice, it's more of a neutral environment impact. No more harmful than a field of corn catching fire. (So your vehicle can move)
 
2014-04-22 02:49:26 AM

RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,


this this thissity this.
 
2014-04-22 04:30:49 AM

moeburn: RightWingWacko: Except that much of that CO2 was CO2 that was ALREADY in the atmosphere a year ago before the corn was grown.   It was temporarily removed only to be returned.

The CO2 coming from Crude Oil is CO2 that was long ago removed from the system and safely stored underground where it harmed no one,

Yeah I don't think a stalk of corn breathes in quite as much CO2 as it will put out in equivalent biofuel combustion products.


Plants really get most of their carbon from the air. Burning biofuel does not add to the carbon cycle.
 
2014-04-22 06:49:35 AM
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report