Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Biofuels From Corn Can Create More Greenhouse Gases Than Gasoline

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the as-long-as-it-looks-good dept.

Earth 159

New submitter Chipmunk100 (3619141) writes "Using corn crop residue to make ethanol and other biofuels reduces soil carbon and can generate more greenhouse gases than gasoline, according to a study published today in the journal Nature Climate Change. The findings by a University of Nebraska-Lincoln team of researchers cast doubt on whether corn residue can be used to meet federal mandates to ramp up ethanol production and reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

cancel ×

159 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

100% distrust (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46801949)

If oil companies are willing to pay off scientists, start entire shill foundations, websites and TV shows... why would this carry any weight?

As one sided as it might sound, I approach any article or discovery that would improve the oil industries' image or standing with the utmost distrust.

Such as I would to anybody who is willing to give me a secret to riches, phrenology, any religion of any sort, etc.

Re:100% distrust (4, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 4 months ago | (#46802023)

If oil companies are willing to pay off scientists, start entire shill foundations, websites and TV shows... why would this carry any weight?

As one sided as it might sound, I approach any article or discovery that would improve the oil industries' image or standing with the utmost distrust.

You hate the oil industry but you'll trust the corn lobby?

Re:100% distrust (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46802053)

Both are fairly evil:

1: HFCS. Enough said.
2: I wish there were concrete figures if using for ethanol takes food out of hungry people's mouths. Food prices sure jumped when ethanol was mandated in the US in gasoline.
3: Ethanol does a number on small engines.

If ethanol wasn't jacking up food prices, engines were designed to handle it, and it didn't affect the shelf life of gasoline, it would be a useful fuel. I've found that my E85 vehicle gets more horsepower (useful when towing) than on plain gas... of course this at the expense of MPG.

Were I to have a still (I wish), then things definitely would be different. Toss 10 gallons of premium into the truck's tank, fill the rest of the way with white lightning, call it done.

10% ethanol also means 20% MPG lost (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802437)

Contrary to what ignorant people believe, oil companies actually love the mandated 10% ethanol.

E-90 (10% ethanol blend) has the side effect of dropping the MPG of ANY vehicle by at least 20% ... meaning that you have to buy more gas ... and pay more for it.

Re:10% ethanol also means 20% MPG lost (3, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#46802581)

E-90 (10% ethanol blend) has the side effect of dropping the MPG of ANY vehicle by at least 20% ...

Baloney. Depending on your engine's compression ratio, E-90 will reduce your MPG by about 3-5%. Ethanol does not have the energy density of gasoline, but it is not a net negative.

Re:10% ethanol also means 20% MPG lost (5, Interesting)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 5 months ago | (#46803689)

Even so, growing corn to make ethanol is just dumb. Methanol would be a much better choice, since it can be made from any biomass, not just starch or sugar. The only reason we use ethanol is as an excuse to grow so much corn, which is heavily subsidized. Also, methanol is CHEAP... about $1.50/gal.

An easy solution would be to enact a flex-fuel standard for automobiles, [openfuelstandard.org] which would require that all new cars be fully flex-fuel capable: able to run on any mixture of gasoline, ethanol, methanol, or butanol. (In most cases, the "flex-fuel" cars on the market today can only use ethanol, not methanol.) To convert an existing car costs 500 bucks, but if it's built that way at the factory, it only adds about $100 to the cost of the vehicle.

Such a requirement would change the market. With millions of cars able to use it, gas station owners would start selling methanol on one or two pumps. This would effectively break the current monopoly that petroleum has on transportation fuel.

Re:10% ethanol also means 20% MPG lost (5, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | about 5 months ago | (#46802585)

E85 is 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline, not the other way around. A 10% ethanol blend (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) is called E10, not E90. Using E10 reduces your fuel economy by about 3–4%, and a 15% blend reduces your miles per tank by about 4–5%, assuming a modern, fuel-injected engine. I would expect the impact to be worse for an engine with a carburetor, but I don't know for certain. Either way, I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near 20% even with older engines.

Yes, if it were legal to sell E90, it would reduce your fuel economy by somewhere in the neighborhood of 20%. Of course, your car wouldn't start in the winter, and in most cars, parts of your fuel system would likely rust out pretty quickly, spewing fuel all over the hot engine, thus ending your life in a blaze of glory, so fuel economy would be the least of your problems....

Not rusting out (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 5 months ago | (#46803613)

90% Ethanol fuel will eat just as much at your fuel system as 10% Ethanol will. The big problem is that older cars (we're talking over 10 years old at least) may have materials in their fuel system that aren't able to deal with ethanol. Old rubber hoses will perish, fuel pumps with rubber seals will go the same way. 90% Ethanol would be hard to start in cold winter region, which is why E85 is usually the highest concentration used in vehicles

Re:10% ethanol also means 20% MPG lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46804211)

My experience, (94 F-150, 302cc, TBI, automatic transmission) is about a 13% drop in mileage. Theory is nice. Experience is brutal. Yes, it's pretty controlled; same commute, same drivign style, no change in the vehicle, and measured against more than 2 years of experience. The loss isn't just the loss of energy content; you have to look at the entire system; how it affects the anti-knock system, how the engine runs open loop when it's cold, etc....

Fortunately, I'm "rich" enough that the higher fuel cost doesn't affect me, and the business case shows that it's still better to keep my old truck than buy something new. However, this is another example of a regressive "tax" that hurts poor people while greenwashing political bribery of agri-business.

Re:100% distrust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46802151)

Would you trust any lobby to be objective?

I had no idea such a thing as a "corn lobby" existed.

Weird times.

Re:100% distrust (2)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#46802135)

no big surprises in the study. California established all of this a while ago when they enacted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Here is the lookup table of GHGs from all fuel alternatives: link [ca.gov] . Once you include "upstream" emissions, the corn ethanol comes out pretty bad. Depending on the source of the corn and the way it is processed, many of the ethanol options are more carbon-intense than corn. The reason to push for ethanol is that corn ethanol could be a temporary bridge to cellulosic ethanol, which is much lower in GHGs. The science isn't there yet to do cellulosic at scale, but regs like the LCFS or EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard guarantee that there will be a long-term market, and make private industry more comfortable in investing in the technology. Of course, the fuel with the lowest GHGs is CNG made from landfill gas (or manure, or wastewater treatment plants). Otherwise it just escapes into the atmosphere!

The push for ethanol is because it is ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802455)

.... significantly less efficient even when blended.

A 10% ethanol blend with regular gas means a 20% loss in MPG on any vehicle. The loss is higher on less efficient engines.

That 10% blend is also the cause of a good number of damage to engines ... and not only to vehicle engines. If you are having problems with a gas lawnmower, chances are the cause of the problem is the fuel you are forced to put in it.

Re:The push for ethanol is because it is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802627)

If you are having problems with a gas lawnmower, chances are the cause of the problem is the fuel you are forced to put in it.

No, the problem is the manufacturer of lawnmower engines are cheap and unconcerned about actually doing things right, so they continue to make shitty engines i China and import them here, and they're happy when they only last 4 or 5 years.

Re:The push for ethanol is because it is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46804197)

A 10% ethanol blend with regular gas means a 20% loss in MPG on any vehicle. The loss is higher on less efficient engines.

-1, wrong

Re:100% distrust (5, Insightful)

budgenator (254554) | about 5 months ago | (#46802491)

The reason to push for ethanol is that corn ethanol could be a temporary bridge to cellulosic ethanol, which is much lower in GHGs. The science isn't there yet to do cellulosic at scale, but regs like the LCFS or EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard guarantee that there will be a long-term market, and make private industry more comfortable in investing in the technology.

Some times you do actually have to read the article, the article is not about making Ethanol from the sugars and starches in the grain portion of the corn plant like everybody is assuming, it's about making ethanol from the stalks, leaves and cobs normally left on the fields.

Corn stover -- the stalks, leaves and cobs in cornfields after harvest -- has been considered a ready resource for cellulosic ethanol production.

This is a bad idea because it removes organic matter from the soil and making it less fertile, more easily compacted and more prone to errotion. Fields in that condition require more fertilizer and increased tillage to maintain productivity.

Re:100% distrust (4, Funny)

killkillkill (884238) | about 5 months ago | (#46802687)

This is a bad idea because it removes organic matter from the soil and making it less fertile, more easily compacted and more prone to errotion. Fields in that condition require more fertilizer

Then we just add petroleum based fertilizers to the soil. Problem solved,

Come, come work in the Agriculture business ! (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 5 months ago | (#46804383)

I fully understand your doubt.

For people who have no idea of what it takes to grow plants commercially, they have no idea what the chain of support industries whose whole existence is to make the whole process more cheaply, and to get the "harvest" to market as fast as possible.

And in order to do so, they have to use a lot of resources - resources such as fossil fuels - to make it possible.

Everything from the making of the fertilizers, to the packaging of the fertilizers to the transportation of the fertilizers to the farms, to the pesticides used (and the making and transporting of the pesticides) to the harvesting to the, in the case of corn and palm to sugar cane and the turning of those commodities into biofuel --- all those consume massive amount of fuels.

You won't understand the full extent of the agricultural business until you are in it, and I am in the midst of it, right now.

I have largely exit the high tech field and right now most of my investment is in agriculture - I can see the stupidity of the insistence on the use of biofuel.

The only way to cut down on the carbon footprint is to USE LESS. The biofuel thing is nothing but a big sham !

Well duh! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46801953)

Why do you think Republicans support them?

Re:Well duh! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802387)

and the democrats are so innocent when it comes to lobbing.

Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (1, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | about 4 months ago | (#46801955)

Surely it's still carbon neutral, given it's from already-present carbon grown from air in the first place (like all plants)?

Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (4, Insightful)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about 4 months ago | (#46802033)

Surely it's still carbon neutral[?]

We use tons of petrochemicals to grow corn.

Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#46802039)

It's taking a lot of the carbon from the soil instead of the air... so no. Also, consider all the gasoline used to plant/harvest/transport it. Ethanol is a corn-state boondoggle. It drives up corn prices and brings in massive revenue to the midwest. Ethanol support is critical for any politician that wants to win in states like Iowa. When you hear a 60yr old farmer start talking about "green energy" you know he grows corn.

Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 months ago | (#46802091)

Ethanol support is critical for any politician that wants to win in states like Iowa.

Now if we could just push back the date of the Iowa Caucuses . . .

Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 5 months ago | (#46802543)

The only thing that runs on gasoline now are the Gators [deere.com] ; everything else is diesel, even the pickup trucks.

Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46803543)

It's taking a lot of the carbon from the soil instead of the air... so no. Also, consider all the gasoline used to plant/harvest/transport it. Ethanol is a corn-state boondoggle. It drives up corn prices and brings in massive revenue to the midwest. Ethanol support is critical for any politician that wants to win in states like Iowa. When you hear a 60yr old farmer start talking about "green energy" you know he grows corn.

But the vast majority of the carbon in corn comes from the air, not the soil! It might surprise you to learn that most of the bulk of a huge tree, for example, was produced from the air, not the ground. The ground supplies trace minerals and water, and little else.

Another real problem with ethanol is that it is a low energy density fuel, compared to gasoline. So beyond a certain small percentage, it actually reduces the efficiency of your vehicle and causes it to burn MORE gasoline per mile, rather than less, which negates the advantages of using ethanol in the first place.

Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46803919)

It's taking a lot of the carbon from the soil instead of the air... so no.

Virtually none of the carbon plants are made of comes from the soil. What most plants take from the soil is nitrogen and micronutrients. Some plants, however, actually put nitrogen into the soil. Sadly, instead of planting crops in guilds, we opted for gross machine cultivation which not only demands planting massive monocultures but which also requires using varieties bred for machine harvestability rather than optimal nutrition, flavor, or texture. It also attracts pests while failing to attract their natural counters, and in practical terms requires the use of pesticides. The pesticides kill the soil-dwelling organisms which make nitrogen "bioavailable" (packaging it in a form which the plants can use) which changes soil into dirt and basically reduces modern factory farming practices to hydroponics in a dirt medium.

Sadly, this is just as applicable to food as fuel. The only difference is that we need to eat food, but there are vastly better feedstocks for biofuel than corn.

Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (5, Informative)

caseih (160668) | about 5 months ago | (#46802189)

No it's not that simple. Plants require nutrients from the soil, which have to be replenished each year[1] partly by natural in-soil processes that break down residue from previous crops, but mostly from the application of synthetic fertilizer, which is synthesized using a process that burn natural gas. See the wikipedia article on the Haber Process [wikipedia.org] .

Also there are fossil fuels used in the planting, cultivation, harvest, and irrigation of the crop.

If corn could fix its own nitrogen like legumes do, it might be a lot closer to carbon neutral.

[1] In many parts of the world, including the Brazillian rainforest, farmers are actively "mining" nutrients from the soil. The soil left from burning the rainforest is extremely rich in nutrients, allowing intensive farming for a few years. After a while, though, the soil is depleted of nutrients and organic matter and yields drop. Sadly many farms just burn down more forest. Some methods of farming, including zero-till, try to foster natural soil processes to produce more nitrogen in natural ways, reducing synthetic inputs.

Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 5 months ago | (#46803719)

Most of he carbon from corn normally gets recycled back into the soil via whatever eats it, burning it puts all the carbon into the atmosphere.

Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (1)

s_p_oneil (795792) | about 5 months ago | (#46804327)

I don't think that's true unless its waste and/or corpse gets buried deeply enough that bacteria can't cause it to decompose. When bacteria eats plants/animals/organic waste, it releases a lot of CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Re:Uh ... it's still carbon neutral, isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46804375)

Only if they are grown by manual labour. But pretty much everything in agriculture is motorized.

"beofuels from corn" is not just stupid (5, Insightful)

Pope Raymond Lama (57277) | about 4 months ago | (#46801969)

It is brain-dead stupid!

How much of the total plant bio-mass are you processing to start with when you are dealing with corn? 2%? 3%? (That is until you get to
the actual fuel, which is much less than that.) When you do Biofuels from farming monoculture the proper way (if such a thing is possible at all), like from sugar-cane, where maybe 30-50% of the biomass is the part to be processed into biofuel, you may be getting some improvement over oil status-quo. With algae you maybe can achieve 100% of the biomass to start processing, sounds even nicer.

But from Corn? It is so stupid, it does not even deserve a proper adjective. It is even stupid to waste time making "studies" on it.

Trying to do it is only about corn super-production, hype, and abuse of government subsidies to plant corn, all mixed with a large, big
dose of the reverse of common sense.

Re:"beofuels from corn" is not just stupid (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802273)

Imagine a beofuels cluster of these

Re:"beofuels from corn" is not just stupid (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#46802999)

Sounds like a crate full of stupid my friend. Imagine how many people could be fed from that corn? Well as long as the environmentalists didn't throw a hissy fit over it and try claiming it was poisonous or something.

Re:"beofuels from corn" is not just stupid (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | about 5 months ago | (#46802363)

How much of the total plant bio-mass are you processing to start with when you are dealing with corn? 2%? 3%?

This research was about making biofuel from cellulose, which means that stems, leaves etc are used as well. But apparently even that is not sustainable because corn takes a lot of its carbon from the soil instead of from the air.

Re:"beofuels from corn" is not just stupid (2, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 5 months ago | (#46802405)

They claim that ethanol has 3% less energy than gasoline. But I have measured that I get AT LEAST 10% less millage in my 2013 Mazda on gasoline diluted with alcohol than I do with pure gasoline. What that means for me is that I effectively get ZERO energy from the alcohol mixed with my gas. I would be better off just buying the 90% gas and letting them keep the 10% alcohol, at least that way I wouldn't have to haul around the useless alcohol and/or I would have more space for gas in the tank. When I can find it I sometimes buy pure gas at a premium price, but it isn't available close to my home, isn't easy to buy when on the road, and usually costs more that the difference in the mileage justifies.

Re:"beofuels from corn" is not just stupid (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 5 months ago | (#46803069)

I have had a 265mile per tank vs 300 mile per tank difference between 10% ethanol vs 0% ethanol on three occasions. I've never gotten 300 miles per tank on 10% ethanol.

So -- for a 2010 Honda Element, my experience is the same as yours.

Re:"beofuels from corn" is not just stupid (1)

pepty (1976012) | about 5 months ago | (#46803097)

But I have measured that I get AT LEAST 10% less millage in my 2013 Mazda on gasoline diluted with alcohol than I do with pure gasoline.

Assuming that's true: is it likely to be due to the way the ECU and the emissions system treat the ethanol/fuel mix? Lots of cars are optimized for lowest production of NOx, carbon monoxide, etc, as opposed to highest efficiency. Just an example: the PZEV version of my Mazda gets 10% less HP and torque than the same car with the then standard (non California) emissions package.

Re:"beofuels from corn" is not just stupid (1)

volmtech (769154) | about 5 months ago | (#46804031)

Lucky me. A RaceTrac gas station just opened 4 miles from my home. They carry ethanol free gas. It's priced at the mid-grade price. $.30 per gal more then unleaded but with the increased fuel mileage almost a wash. I'm retired and rarely drive my truck so that corrosive alcohol mixture wont set around in the tank drawing water. Also now I don't have to worry about ethanol ruining the carburetors on my lawn mower, boat, and weed whacker.

Re:"beofuels from corn" is not just stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802481)

It is brain-dead stupid!

No, you are thinking stupidly.

1. how else do you create an invisible corn subsidy?
2. how else do you funnel money to the "early adopters" (ie. your funders?)
3. how else do you remove MTBE that is polluting water supplies without pissing off the oil industry too much?
4. how can you satisfy the "stupid voter" that demands "save the planet" but doesn't know better or care how?

You see, "biofuels" address all these problems.

Re:"beofuels from corn" is not just stupid (3, Insightful)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 5 months ago | (#46802619)

>It is brain-dead stupid!

Only from a science perspective.

Supporting corn ethanol is how candidates win primaries, so it makes perfect sense for our presidents to support it.

>But from Corn? It is so stupid, it does not even deserve a proper adjective. It is even stupid to waste time making "studies" on it.

If we're going to eliminate corn ethanol (which we should), it will require putting pressure on politicians from non-corn belt states. And to do so will require studies like these.

Corn ethanol isn't good for the environment, and it drives food prices through the roof, both domestically and abroad.

I highly recommend reading The Economics of Food for anyone interested in the subject.

Reflexive hatred of carbon (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46801989)

"Using corn crop residue to make ... biofuels ... can generate more greenhouse gases than gasoline"

Which of course totally ignores closed carbon cycle , which is the whole point to biofuels.

F'ing irrational reflexive carbon-hating warmists.

Re:Reflexive hatred of carbon (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 months ago | (#46802081)

The problem is that It isn't a closed carbon cycle. There are a lot of inputs into the process that release carbon. For example what do you think the basic ingredients for fertilizer are?

Re:Reflexive hatred of carbon (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about 4 months ago | (#46802089)

It's not closed when you are using large quantities of fossil fuels and petrochemical inputs to grow the corn.

There are better feedstocks than corn, for reasons of both environmental impact and efficiency, which also don't drive up food prices in international and domestic markets.

Something's not right (3, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | about 4 months ago | (#46802059)

If they're counting the carbon to harvest the stalks, then the comparison for gasoline should include the carbon from oil extraction, transportation and refinement. The article also doesn't state if the carbon reduction from plant uptake is offsetting the carbon emissions of burning biofuels. Sounds like they're saying, look at the carbon you get from burning ethanol, add in the diesel to run the tractor, worse than gasoline!

I remember a study by the airline industry trying to claim air transportation was more efficient than high speed trains. This study reminds me of that kind of science.

Re:Something's not right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802255)

Trains or Airplanes? Hmph, they both get their atoms from exploded supernovae, just like everything else in this solar system.

Black-hole energy is where it's at. There's a point where whatever you put in just stops. Beyond it, time must go backwards. So, there's infinite renewable energy just beyond the event horizon!

Re:Something's not right (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 5 months ago | (#46802299)

I was asking myself the same question: do they really consider that gasoline comes for free from the oil wheel to the car?

Someone will need to read the academic paper to tell us

Re:Something's not right (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 months ago | (#46804107)

the oil wheel

Oil has wheels???

Re:Something's not right (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802891)

I found the article confusing as well, but here is what I've come up with. I don't think they are talking about any indirect carbon emissions due to say, running the tractors or fertilizer. So the study doesn't address total life cycle carbon costs of ethanol or gas. (It does address it, but just uses standard previously compiled models). It's main focus is to study how much CO2 the soil will give off after the corn plant leftovers are removed from the field. Literally, the soil has carbon trapped in it and it releases it as CO2 over time after the corn is harvested. One could imagine various microbiological and chemical processes at work, but whatever, since the study just relied on direct CO2 measurements over farmland.

And what was found was that just by removing the leftover bits of the corn plant from the farmland, there is an increase in CO2 emissions directly from the soil. And this affect is large enough that it makes corn ethanol worse than gas... if left unaddressed. And it stops there, there are no grandiose declarations that corn is dead, just that this is one problem that must be addressed.

All this is just my armchair-expertise take on the article, so take it with a grain of salt.

So what? (4, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | about 4 months ago | (#46802083)

Biofuels are about government subsidies and nothing more. All the talk about biofuels and the environment is just to trick the rubes.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802741)

The concepts behind biofuels are actually good, and its definitely something we should continue to research, but using ethanol for a fuel is absolutely fucking retarded. Combustion is essentially the energy released when oxygen breaks the bonds in atoms; more bonds means a higher energy density and more potential energy. Ethanol only has a few bonds that can release energy when broken this way, so no matter how you look at it the potential energy is pathetically low, especially compared to the fuel vehicles already use, which has several times as many bonds, making its energy density several times higher than ethanol's.

If we're going to burn an alcohol for fuel, it should be something with a higher energy density, and it absolutely should not be made from a staple food.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46803611)

Thank you. This. ^
Fuck corn as fuel.
Fuck Beta.

Re:So what? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46803897)

Biofuels are about government subsidies and nothing more.

That is bullshit. Biodiesel or green diesel from waste fats are pure benefit, as are biofuels from algae. Unfortunately, the best of them (Butanol) is being suppressed by BP and DuPont until such a time as they can control it completely. If that's never, so be it, to them.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46803983)

Source please?

Sorry, but my cousin works for BP. He had offers from pretty much all the oil companies but he chose BP. You know why? Because they were the least "oil company" of the oil companies and invested the most in alternative and green fuels. So unless you can back that up with some form of facts, STFU. I really am sick of tin foil hat conspiracies from idiots.

Re:So what? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46804103)

Source please?

Butamax is a shell company of BP and DuPont. It is suing Gevo to prevent it from selling Butanol fuel based on an obvious patent developed at public university, partly with our tax money.

And we are supposed to be surprised by this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46802093)

Corn ethanol was all about trying to win votes at the Iowa Caucus and in California.

There have been papers questioning the carbon savings from corn ethanol for over a decade.
The Brazilian's have been using the claim to promote their ethanol from sugar waste, as have those promoting cellulosic alcohol.
Poor countries and feedlots have complained for over a decade that it drives up grain prices while achieving nothing.
The same thing has been demonstrated for grain ethanol in Australia.

Harvesting the Corn stover .. (1)

DTentilhao (3484023) | about 4 months ago | (#46802101)

That study doesn't apply if the whole plant [wikipedia.org] is harvested rather than harvesting the Corn stover (leftovers) in a separate process. Seem to be yet another study that damns renewable fuels with faint praise, I wonder who financed such a study.

Switch Grass (4, Insightful)

David_Hart (1184661) | about 4 months ago | (#46802133)

Anyone who knows anything about Ethanol knows that the two best sources are sugar cane and switch grass. Switch grass should be the choice for North America as it can grow just about anywhere. Corn, on the other hand, takes up valuable farm land, requires more water, and has higher production costs. Ethanol from corn is a nothing but a scam perpetrated by the corn industry. Believe this study or not, but there are much better options than corn...

http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]

Re:Switch Grass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46803033)

But ethanol is a carbon compound, whether it is derived from corn or switch grass. Won't switch grass therefore deplete soil carbon also? It seems the problem is ethanol, not the source thereof.

Re:Switch Grass (1)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46803463)

Not necessarily. Plants vary in the amount they derive from air vs soil. Much like some plants deplete nitrogen from the soil and others fix atmospheric nitrogen into the soil.

Re:Switch Grass (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 5 months ago | (#46803329)

Yeah Howard Bloom is a pretty serious mouth piece for ethanol. He suggests using any number of other materials to make the stuff. And I do actually agree with that part of his platform. Just think he's kind over stating what it can do. Well that it eats old seals.... I can't afford a new car.

Re:Switch Grass (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46803891)

Anyone who knows anything about Ethanol knows that the two best sources are sugar cane and switch grass.

'Best' how? Both of those are still soil-based crops. Algae is better because you can grow it on dirty water in most weather conditions above freezing, and it takes less processing than basically any other bio feedstock but shit.

Goal? (1)

seven of five (578993) | about 4 months ago | (#46802155)

Why has the US pursued corn biofuels? I thought it was to reduce dependence on imports, not to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Re:Goal? (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 5 months ago | (#46802573)

Because corn farmers wanted higher corn prices. And everything else is window dressing to disguise the handout. It's well known that ethanol from sugar cane is the only "good" available source of ethanol.

Re:Goal? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46803465)

That and the fact that the U.S. is a net exporter of fossil fuels leaked out.

Government incompetence as usual (1)

BenfromMO (3109565) | about 5 months ago | (#46802211)

This is what happens when you trust the Government to solve a problem. They make the problem worse, waste money, and to make matters even WORSE, they tell you to vote for them in the next election to fix the problems they caused in the first place. But sure, Government is the solution to all of our crisis in the future, and we should turn to our over-lords to solve that which ails us, because after all they are soooo darn good at it huh?

Re:Government incompetence as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802305)

Actually, it seems like anti-government scaremongering.

Re:Government incompetence as usual (4, Insightful)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 5 months ago | (#46802599)

Governments are fully able to solve difficult problems, see universal medicare, roads, sewers, city water. However governments only do what they are told to do, and if the voters only care about pork (and not success) then that's what you get. P.S. people who complain about government incompetence seem blind to corporate evils. The telco's basically run the NSA spying program, but nobody is complaining about anything but the NSA.

Re:Government incompetence as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802761)

The telcos run the program at the behest of the NSA... But they wouldn't be running it if it were not for the NSA requesting it.

Re:Government incompetence as usual (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46803933)

The telco's basically run the NSA spying program, but nobody is complaining about anything but the NSA.

Telcos cannot function without the capability to run a telephone spying program, at least the listening-in part. And that's all they provide, besides basic records which they need for billing and for diagnostics. The federal government itself operates the facilities which actually centralize and process the data. You may (or may not) have seen some articles go by here on slashdot about massive federal data centers for use by certain three-letter agencies.

Re:Government incompetence as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46804043)

Sorry, that made me laugh. At least in the area I live, the roads, sewers and city water are shit. I live just outside of Boulder, CO. The roads in Boulder are notorious for being some of the biggest pieces of shit on earth. I don't think they've ever done repair work on them (an exaggeration, yes, but they're truly awful). They'll ticket you for not shoveling your walk ways but god forbid if they plow the roads. With the recent flooding, it came to pass that though the city isn't actually that old, they actually use combined black water and rain run off systems. This is usually only seen in older cities (old for the US), like Boston and New York. Younger cities don't do that, because it's a stupid idea. The result, during our recent floods, everybody in Boulder ended up with basements flooded with feces. The water system, yeah, they constantly scream about conservation yet they refuse to fix a leak in their reservoir that spills something like 100,000 gallons of water per day. We won't get into the actual quality of their water (they irregularly treat it with a chemical which most municipalities won't use, I can't remember what it's called, but some people like myself are sensitive to it and thus makes the water literally undrinkable, hence why most municipalities don't use it), but it is well known that the waste water from Boulder has such a high level of female hormones (read birth control run off) that it's actually mutating the fish. Maybe you live in an area where government works and you have good roads, sewers and city water, but that most certainly isn't universal.

Stop using Corn. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802253)

Given the vastly superior alternatives to corn for this.

Using Corn for this crap is about as smart as grinding up phone books for ink. Using corn for this is just asking for it to look bad.

Greenies = Stupid ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802353)

Ethyl Burns dirtier than gasolene and has less energy - making you burn even more.

Lets not forget all the secondary Carbon/Polution creation cause by producing it in the first place.

SO dont forget to tell all your ignorant eco-greenies that they are being taken for a ride and really need to look into these scams they believe in.

does not matter (0)

Crass Spektakel (4597) | about 5 months ago | (#46802399)

The amount of released CO2 simply does not matter because when the plant regrows it will absorb exactly the same amount again.

The only question is the total amount of CO2 in the biosphere, not the output of single reactions inside the biosphere. Reducing the total amount can be either done by "growing" more CO2 containers or store CO2 by industrial methods eg underground. The later sounds strange but works pretty well, a single plant with a 10MW power source can easily outperform a 100km forest in CO2 reduction.

it does matter, for two reasons (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 5 months ago | (#46802431)

There are two major reasons it DOES matter, as explained in TFA. First, much of the CO2 is not from burning the ethanol, but from producing it. Imagine if the tractors, stills, etc. burned four gallons if diesel to produce on gallon of ethanol. Every gallon of ethanol you put in your car caused four gallons of diesel to be burned. That's the concept, though of course it's not quite that simple.

Secondly, it isn't the total amount of carbon that matters. There is always the exact same amount of carbon on the planet, modulo meteorites. The problem with fossil fuels is that they take carbon out of the ground and put it into the atmosphere. It's carbon in the atmosphere that's the problem. Corn ethanol does the exact same thing - carbon from the ground goes into the corn. When you burn it, that carbon ends up in the atmosphere - just like burning gasoline.

Come again? Photosynthesis? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802643)

Most of the Carbon in the plant comes from Co2, not from the ground numb nuts. That's what plants do, they convert Co2 into biomass.

no, dummy. Heard if nitrogen fertilizer? Why corn (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 5 months ago | (#46802733)

Unfortunately, no. You may be aware that the air is 79% nitrogen, yet fertilizer is mostly nitrogen, because plants take nitrogen from the soil , not from the air. Corn does the same with carbon. That's one reason that corn is a stupid way to produce ethanol and switchgrass is a better choice.

Re:no, dummy. Heard if nitrogen fertilizer? Why co (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46803943)

It's only a problem if you are taking too much of the plant away from the field. Growing corn isn't the problem, growing corn and carrying away the waste instead of turning it in is the problem. Corn still gets most of its carbon from the air like every other plant.

true, only if you make ethanol instead of tilling (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 5 months ago | (#46804477)

I started to mention that and link to a study that measured soil C, but the rude AC didn't merit it. As you said, growing corn for food kernels and tilling the rest in is fine. The amount of carbon that comes out of the soil is roughly equal to the amount that's in the leaves and stalks, so tilling those back in makes food production roughly carbon neutral. If you take those tillings to make cellulistic ethanol, then the soil carbon is reduced. The carbon that was in the soil ends up in the air.

Of course none of this occurs on other planets, which are also warming, but that's another discussion.

And this is surprising...how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802413)

There are no scientists in government. Nearly none in the environmental movement, and the few that are have shown themselves to be committed to keeping the global-warming gravy-train going at any cost. They are all, therefore, prone to grab at the first idea that comes along, mandate it, ram it down everyone's throats, expend vast sums of money in the process, only to discover it won't help anyway, or even makes the problem worse. We saved far more CO2 with fracking than any number of other hare-brained schemes from the looney left and now that's the next thing they want shut down. This study shouldn't surprise anyone who has bothered to look at the history of the players involved.

#1 Get the gov't out of it.
#2 Get the UN out of it.
#3 PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS RAISING AND SPENDING THEIR OWN GOD-DAMN MONEY SHOULD THEN:
#4 Let responsible climate scientists fight it out - on the internet, not in the journals - until a real consensus, unaffected by emotional advocacy groups who really only oppose things because their self-designated opponents are evil people, not because they really care one way or the other about the issue at hand.
#5 Determine if the warming is significant enough to have measurable effects and that those effects outweigh the good effects they may cause as well.
#6 Determine what the best return on investment is for proposed courses of action, start small, define success criteria and stop if it doesn't meet them.
#7 See #1-#3 again, and immolate any lawyers or politicians who interfere.

Food crops as fuel is immoral (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802487)

Using food crops as fuel is immoral. Our ethanol program has made the price of food go up just not here but in countries whose people can ill afford to pay more for food. It needs to go away now. There is plenty of oil in the ground for a long time.

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802501)

Well of course biofuels from corn create more greenhouse gases than gasoline. It is not cost effective to dedicate corn into the production of synthetic crude oil when organic garbage can be used.

Yeast Eats Sugars, Cows Eat the Rest (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802653)

Slashdot is becoming a corporatists plaything. Filled with tech naives who would die in the dark without electricity after an EMP. And wouldn't be able to thing of anything else but the present paradigm. What a sorry read that was. Oh, by the way, I did try to be equitable, generous, patient, tolerant. After having it pester me so persistently, now I, too, *Curse Beta*!

Most of the corn grown in the US is used to feed cows. Cows (via their symbionts) eat the wood and protein. They pass most of the starches. Which is what yeast likes. And uses to make alcohol. You can ferment corn to make alcohol. What's left is great for ruminants like cows. And the yeast remains provide protein and minerals. And much more starch productive plants - like milkweed - can be used to help clean up the cow runoff (that isn't used to produce gas and fuel).

Plus, whatever the emissions per fuel expenditure is, it doesn't include sending hendreds, I mean, hundreds of thousands of people thousands of miles away from home, to kill and die and drill and bring it home, and refine and lug it around. Until every gallon actually burned in the engine costs 3 or more to get it there. And the cost of destroying whole countries and cultures just for some lobbyists and politico's payoffs.

The study doesn't make sense. It's cherry picking a low return case.

We already knew corn is a very bad biofuel. (2)

Sarusa (104047) | about 5 months ago | (#46802753)

Corn (maize) is one of the worst possible plant masses you could grow to make biofuel. It's horribly inefficient compared to other crops.

We've always known this. And it drives up the price of food. Globally.

Why are we still using corn to make ethanol? Farm lobby.

The answer is Cannabis/Hemp... Not Corn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802755)

You insensitive clod!

Even a 10 year old looking up the statistics would have picked beets or sawgrass or hemp over "Corn" for bio-fuels.

Corn is ridiculously low output for alcohol per acre and freaking retarded as a Diesel-oil replacement.

Hemp seed oil runs in diesels... no modification. Grow it cheap, press and filter the oil out of the(billions of) seeds and put it straight in your diesel tank. CHEAP!

Biofuels from corn.... What a ripoff!

You pot-heads never give up, do you? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46803103)

Hemp, hemp, hemp, it's the answer to EVERYTHING for you guys; you're like children with hammers who think the planet is made of nails. Let me guess - the heartbleed bug can be fixed with hemp?

I'd remind you that people on drugs tend to have distorted perception, but... well.... nevermind - Taco Bell is open and I hear they have burritos - you should probably get some...

For those not currently making a run to Taco Bell, allow me to point out that NO "bio-fuel" made from a bunch of just grown green plants will have the same energy density as petroleum, which (being made of squished animals and plants made very dense by high pressure and temperature) is actually also a "renewable" (stuff's always dying and being buried) bio-fuel (the stuff's not from mars, it's plant and animal matter) even though no tree-hugger will admit it.

Re:The answer is Cannabis/Hemp... Not Corn (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 5 months ago | (#46803343)

Well that is actually true. Hemp honestly is a wonder crop for many reasons. Including the fact it can produce massive amounts of ethanol. However I don't think ethanol is the wonder answer that people make it out to be.

Re:The answer is Cannabis/Hemp... Not Corn (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 5 months ago | (#46804485)

Aaah, potheads, never let us down, do they?

Is there any problem that can't be solved with hemp?

Biofuels = Faster breakdown of engine parts (1)

kolbe (320366) | about 5 months ago | (#46802779)

Go ask any mechanic who deals with vehicles that run on Biofuels such as BioDiesel, Green diesel, Bioethanol or >10% blends and you will find that they often clog up the injectors so badly that they need to be replaced (injector) 45% more frequently (adjusted % based on time injector was installed and comparing same brand part durability on the same vehicle until breakage).

That may not seem like much to some, but for those running public transportation and school buses, the political "go green" machine ends up including a hefty maintenance charge, metal waste and labor... All this atop of added air pollutions.

Re:Biofuels = Faster breakdown of engine parts (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 5 months ago | (#46803333)

Yeah I've noticed that myself. Sure ethanol does 'clean' engines. But it also eats seals and gaskets. And sure, that's not that much of a problem in brand new cars... but if you're still banging around in something from the 80s or 90s you can expect more repairs. If not having to replace or rebuild the whole engine.

Re:Biofuels = Faster breakdown of engine parts (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46803907)

Go ask any mechanic who deals with vehicles that run on Biofuels such as BioDiesel, Green diesel, Bioethanol or >10% blends and you will find that they often clog up the injectors so badly that they need to be replaced (injector) 45% more frequently

Uh what? Biodiesel and green diesel remove varnish left behind by petrodiesel. Ethanol sucks because it attracts water and because you get poor output when you run it through an engine which also expects to run on gasoline. Running veg oil will certainly clog things up, though, or waste motor oil.

In any case, the cure for deposits from running one or the other kind of diesel (petro or bio) is to occasionally run a tank of the other. Problem solved.

This wasn't obvious from the start? (1)

chriscappuccio (80696) | about 5 months ago | (#46802785)

Since the energy required to produce corn ethanol is nearly equal or sometimes greater than the energy gained as fuel, corn sucks. It should be obvious that you are going to produce more emissions with corn. Even when the tarsands require large amounts of refining, that tarsand oil will be used to produce corn ethanol. Oil is used today in corn agriculture and production of ethanol. Corn as a biofuel is an odd stop-gap. If we have to use subsidies, why not encourage farmers to make some other crop that transforms to oil with higher efficiency?

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46802951)

which don't use the Development models official GNAA irc paranoid conspiraCy list of other than a fraction *BSD has steadily Worse and worse. As

rather basic science at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46803077)

This was very well-known, long before the effort even began. There was plenty of research on this back in the seventies and eighties, but the big agri-business corporations were going around buying-up family farms and buying politicians to get the politicians to pass laws REQUIRING people to buy a fuel additive that only the big agri-businesses were gearing-up to make. Don't you "green" activists pay ANY attention to who is funding all the anti-"Big Oil" propaganda??????? Probably not, since so many of you seem not to notice all the Arab oil money that poured into the anti-frakking campaigns.... (hey, what Arab oil minister wants Americans moving from Arab oil to domestic American natural gas?) Move along, nothing to see here...

The simple fact is that fossil fuels are like meat in one important way: They are highly-concentrated forms of energy created through time and complex interactions of lower-concentrations of energy. (VERY) Simply put: the grazing animals spend all their time wandering the plains eating grasses and putting meat and fat onto their bones, and the big cats come along and get the energy they need from a quick meal of meat (indirectly getting the energy from all that consumed prarie grass). In a similar manner, you can inefficiently convert a huge bunch of green vegitation into fuel for your car (barely getting more energy out of the process than you put into it, and consuming lots of water and cropland in the process, thus driving up food and water prices), OR you can let mother nature (at her expense, not yours) condense the energy from plants and animals that died long ago (using time, heat, and pressure) into very dense "fossile fuels" for you and use them. Oh, and since mother nature went ahead with the process without asking you first.... the "harm" has already been done... the carbon products exist; leaving them in the ground does not make them "go away".

It takes an idiot to always choose the inefficient low-energy path, particularly if the supposed "benefit" is the hope that someday the planet might be half a degree cooler during an interglacial period.... if the current crop of fortune tellers are using their wands correctly... and assuming your descendants won't mind entering the next ice age a few years early.

Prohibition set us back 100 years on biofuels (1)

blindseer (891256) | about 5 months ago | (#46803211)

If farmers were not forced to destroy their alcohol stills in the early days of Prohibition we would have known long ago about the viability of biofuels. Almost a century ago farmers would make ethanol for use as a fuel to run tractors. No doubt they'd also drink some of it, or sell some of it for others to drink. Prohibition destroyed the hobbyist experimentation of ethanol as a fuel. It made any use of ethanol a legal nightmare.

When Prohibition was lifted it didn't improve things much. Ethanol production was tightly controlled for anything beyond what the government deemed as "private use" amounts. This held up ethanol fuel experimentation until the 1970s. Even to this day no one would even consider ethanol as a fuel without the blessing, and a big pile of cash, from the federal government. Anyone doing otherwise runs the risk of jail time for "bootlegging". Something I'm sure is enforced as much by the whiskey producers as it is from the people that get the big piles of cash from the government for biofuels.

There's all kinds of things we could have learned if it wasn't for crushing taxation and regulation by the federal government. It's not that I'm some sort of anarchist. I think we need a strong government. If the federal government was truly interested in finding energy solutions they'd have to look at what laws are in place which prevent experimentation.

If the government wants people to experiment with, for example, the effects of ethanol on modern internal combustion engines then they'd have to make it possible to manufacture the ethanol without two full time lawyers and a dozen clerical workers. But the government is not interested in finding energy solutions. The government is interested in buying votes.

If the government was interested in finding energy solutions they'd also let people build nuclear power plants. I believe ethanol to be a dead end technology. Prohibition prevented us from figuring that out nearly 100 years ago. So, we'll have to go through the motions, and piles of my tax money, to prove it. Then what? We'll have to go through nearly 100 years of no effective research in nuclear power to figure out that it is possible to make safe, cheap, and abundant, nuclear power.

To those that think nuclear waste is some sort of unsolvable problem I say you need to look up waste annihilating molten salt reactors.

Re:Prohibition set us back 100 years on biofuels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46804123)

NASCAR was started by moonshine runners during prohibition. They modified their cars to run on Ethanol in the beginning, mostly because you can run a much higher compression ratio and get more power AND more efficiency (the efficiency of a piston engine is proportional to the compression ratio). They became quite expert at building high-compression ethanol and methanol engines. There was plenty of waste product from making the shine that provided eth and meth for fuel.

Ethanol works IF and ONLY IF you have a high density feed stock like cane. In the American South, my ancestors grew thousands of acres of cane to make sugar, industrial alcohols, and moonshine.

Ethanol was used for fuel in Otto engines in 1876. Yes, 1876. Henry Ford's very first auto (the quadricycle) ran on pure Ethanol, not gasoline. Standard Oil started adding Ethanol to gasoline in the 1920s to reduce knocking.

The Army built the first Ethanol plant in the 1940's to supply the Army and regional fuel blenders.

So where did all of the Ethanol go? Well, gasoline got so cheap between the 40's and the Arab Oil Embargo that it was more economical to lower the compression ratio of engines so that it could run on the cheaper and in many ways inferior gasoline fuel.

Ethanol has never been an experimental fuel. It was always the first choice for performance and efficiency, but gasoline was cheaper, and so the natural laws of economics killed it.

The only real winner from corn ethanol... (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 5 months ago | (#46803395)

The only real winner from corn ethanol is giant agribusiness companies who produce the GM corn seeds, sell the massive amount of chemicals the corn requires and makes ethanol from the result. It does nothing to reduce green house gas emissions. It does nothing to reduce the dependance on foreign oil (especially given all the oil-derived products required to grown that corn including the diesel for the tractors and harvesters). And it probably doesn't put all that much extra money in the pockets of small corn farmers.

Ethanol from hemp or switch grass or any number of other plants is much better for the environment, doesn't require anywhere near as many inputs, can be grown on land that other stuff wont grow on, can genuinely reduce dependance on oil (foreign or otherwise) AND can reduce green house gas emissions. But there is no "Switch grass lobby" to fight the corn lobby so everything is pushed to corn ethanol and the planet is worse because of it.

Not New News... (1)

linearz69 (3473163) | about 5 months ago | (#46803471)

I remember reading this argument like 10 years ago. I don't know if it is true, but it seems reasonable... all things being equal, it would take a lot more work to get a diesel fuel out of corn than crude oil.

But the true stupidity in using corn for fuel is using food as fuel. That just pushes food costs higher. Consider that there are a lot of other cleaner ways to make bio-diesel that don't compete with the food supply, it is hard to pin this study on the oil companies. Corn for bio-diesel is just more government kickback to the corn industry, and the ridiculous subsidy corn farmer get for bio-diesel.

Who didn't know this already? (2)

jcr (53032) | about 5 months ago | (#46803663)

The only purpose of the whole corn ethanol debacle is to transfer vast amounts of money from the taxpayers and the gasoline-buying public to Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland. Any other claimed purpose is, and always was, bullshit.

-jcr

Anyone been to the store lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46804093)

Seen the price of meat lately? Hmm? Bacon? Beef, perhaps?

We paid $4.39/lb for 90/10 ground at the local processor last week. At Walmart yesterday it was $4.99/lb.

Bacon is still outrageous, too.

The media blames heavy rains or droughts or whatever, but none of it is true. It's all because feed prices are skyrocketing with the price of corn, because we're stupid enough to use our food to make dirty fuel for our cars.

What "greenhouse gases" would those be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46804379)

Oh, you mean carbon dioxide, that deadly poison... Idiots.

Please stop repeating this braindead 'catastrophic man-made global warming' mantra. Saying it over and over and over doesn't make it real...

www.climatedepot.com

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>