The Minnesota Department of Agriculture is offering grants of almost $5 million to expand access to ethanol blends at gas pumps. But experts say the environmental and economic tradeoffs of ethanol aren’t worth the investment.

“Ultimately, we want to use less fuel, not more, and so we should be looking at increasing vehicle efficiency more,” he said. “We should be looking at public transportation options.”

The article doesn’t get into it much, but an acre of solar panels provides a lot more vehicle-miles than an acre of corn turned into ethanol.

  • kata1yst@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    10·
    4 days ago

    Energy is consumed in watering, fertilizing, harvesting, shipping, and then the processing and fermenting.

    Ratio is estimated at 1.34 for the whole system. Which is fucking terrible.

    https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/energy_balance_of_corn_ethanol.pdf

    And that doesn’t even touch on the horrific water consumption of corn. Or the greenhouse gasses released in the production. Or the pesticide usage.

    EDIT: while I thought the source I first linked had many valid points, I did some digging and found that the funding and politics of that source were suspect.

    Here’s a more reputable paper with deeper analysis of the water issue.

    https://itspubs.ucdavis.edu/download_pdf.php?id=1467

      • kata1yst@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        8·
        4 days ago

        I made a claim based on research and facts.

        You said nuh-uh.

        I sourced my claims.

        You accuse me of hysteria.

        I don’t think you’re here for an intellectually honest conversation. Do you think you are?

      • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
        4·
        4 days ago

        It’s not hysterics. It’s fact.

        Ethanol burns more fossil fuel than it replaces. It turns more fuel into less fuel and pisses away irreplaceable topsoil in the process.

        Facts don’t care about your feelings.