6 ms·

What does the 1% of land used to grow corn have to do specifically with solar and batteries? Solar doesn't need to be on the 15% arable land at all. The corn

What does the 1% of land used to grow corn have to do specifically with solar and batteries? Solar doesn't need to be on the 15% arable land at all. The corn doesn't just produce ethanol, which just utilizes the starch/sugar. The protein, fat, fiber is eaten by livestock in some form like distillers grains. And governments like to have food security , and having secondary uses for an abundance of food in the good times is more convenient than storing cheese in caves , and in case of an emergency shortage the production is already there without having to rip up solar panels to grow food. My conclusion is you're conflating issues (solar and ethanol) unnecessarily.

jacquesm 6mo ago
My conclusion is that you didn't even try to understand the GP.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- conorcleary 6mo ago
  No no, that argument is pretty old now. The amount of fuel you GROW on your own continent at any single or double digit percentage during wartime-anytime is probably a good long-term research project that shouldn't be interrupted by people online.
  - laurencerowe 6mo ago
    The problem is corn requires a lot of fossil fuel energy input, mostly in the form of fertiliser. The net energy output is only around 1.3 so an acre of corn produces maybe 400 gallons of gasoline equivalent output requires 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in energy inputs. Ethanol from sugarcane makes a lot more sense. Corn ethanol is just a wasteful subsidy for farmers paid for by drivers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance
    - asdff 6mo ago
      >The net energy output is only around 1.3 so an acre of corn produces maybe 400 gallons of gasoline equivalent output requires 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in energy inputs. What is the problem, that sounds great? 30% free output out of your input is staggering honestly. Thank you sunshine and atmospheric CO2. You don't have to use fossil fuel for this. You can potentially run the farm equipment off ethanol if it were designed as such. You can also only grow sugarcane well up to usda zone 8. Some people can do it as an annual but I guess it is tricky. Corn you can grow all the way into Canada.
      - laurencerowe 6mo ago
        Opportunity costs essentially. The effort that goes into growing and refining corn ethanol could be better spent on reducing fuel consumption instead of dedicating five acres of land to provide the equivalent net yearly fossil fuel consumption of a single average car using 500 gallons of gasoline to drive about 15000 miles.
        asdff 6mo ago
        Why not do both, reduce fuel consumption while shifting to a carbon neutral fuel source that is fully onshored?
        laurencerowe 6mo ago
        Again opportunity costs. It almost always makes sense to spend the money on the most efficient means to achieve the goal. Money spent paying farmers and ethanol refiners to inefficiently produce 25% lower carbon fuel could instead be directed at other endeavours that for the same cost reduce carbon emissions more.
        asdff 6mo ago
        The difference is we already grow corn at scale beyond market need. Probably less has to be paid in that effort than starting up some other industry. Which still can be done along side the corn shouldering the load until that industry reaches the scale of the corn industry's waste product.
- FEELmyAGI 6mo ago
  Then please explain, to me he brought up an unrelated point about ethanol (which is often poorly understood and mischaracterized anyways) consuming a portion of agriculturally productive land. Which BTW this agricultural land that produces ethanol is probably not even close to the best place in the country for industrial scale solar from a LOT of perspectives.
  - cloverich 6mo ago
    My "try to understand" take: We subsidize corn, then use it yo make a less efficient fuel. The money involved in this process likely takes away from subsidies to other forms of energy. There are a great many activities we do not subsidize, but solar is one that if we did, would produce an outsized benefit to society. And the more we do, the better. Redirecting an ethanol subsidy to solar would be a far more beneficial long term strategy for energy independence and overall standard of living in the US. Going all in on Solar would be a transformative and likely relatively short investment period that would last and benefit a long time. We have done many large scale infrastructure projects in the US, and it is frustrating to see the resistance to this one, being both less disruptive and more "all around win" than any other i can think of.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
  - mbesto 6mo ago
    This is a fair point as it's not just simply using ethanol for gasoline. This article goes into more depth about it: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2501605122 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2501605122 There's lot of factors at play here: - Location for generating PV - Redistribution of food (both for livestock and human) production - Environmental impacts of PV vs livestock vs depletion of native prairies Point still stands...if you replaced all of the land used to produce ethanol with PV, you would create a surplus of energy that is higher than anything we could imaginably consume today (hint - China is essentially already doing this)

jacquesm 6mo ago

My conclusion is that you didn't even try to understand the GP.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
conorcleary 6mo ago
No no, that argument is pretty old now. The amount of fuel you GROW on your own continent at any single or double digit percentage during wartime-anytime is probably a good long-term research project that shouldn't be interrupted by people online.
- laurencerowe 6mo ago
  The problem is corn requires a lot of fossil fuel energy input, mostly in the form of fertiliser. The net energy output is only around 1.3 so an acre of corn produces maybe 400 gallons of gasoline equivalent output requires 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in energy inputs. Ethanol from sugarcane makes a lot more sense. Corn ethanol is just a wasteful subsidy for farmers paid for by drivers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance
  - asdff 6mo ago
    >The net energy output is only around 1.3 so an acre of corn produces maybe 400 gallons of gasoline equivalent output requires 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in energy inputs. What is the problem, that sounds great? 30% free output out of your input is staggering honestly. Thank you sunshine and atmospheric CO2. You don't have to use fossil fuel for this. You can potentially run the farm equipment off ethanol if it were designed as such. You can also only grow sugarcane well up to usda zone 8. Some people can do it as an annual but I guess it is tricky. Corn you can grow all the way into Canada.
    - laurencerowe 6mo ago
      Opportunity costs essentially. The effort that goes into growing and refining corn ethanol could be better spent on reducing fuel consumption instead of dedicating five acres of land to provide the equivalent net yearly fossil fuel consumption of a single average car using 500 gallons of gasoline to drive about 15000 miles.
      - asdff 6mo ago
        Why not do both, reduce fuel consumption while shifting to a carbon neutral fuel source that is fully onshored?
        laurencerowe 6mo ago
        Again opportunity costs. It almost always makes sense to spend the money on the most efficient means to achieve the goal. Money spent paying farmers and ethanol refiners to inefficiently produce 25% lower carbon fuel could instead be directed at other endeavours that for the same cost reduce carbon emissions more.
        asdff 6mo ago
        The difference is we already grow corn at scale beyond market need. Probably less has to be paid in that effort than starting up some other industry. Which still can be done along side the corn shouldering the load until that industry reaches the scale of the corn industry's waste product.
FEELmyAGI 6mo ago
Then please explain, to me he brought up an unrelated point about ethanol (which is often poorly understood and mischaracterized anyways) consuming a portion of agriculturally productive land. Which BTW this agricultural land that produces ethanol is probably not even close to the best place in the country for industrial scale solar from a LOT of perspectives.
- cloverich 6mo ago
  My "try to understand" take: We subsidize corn, then use it yo make a less efficient fuel. The money involved in this process likely takes away from subsidies to other forms of energy. There are a great many activities we do not subsidize, but solar is one that if we did, would produce an outsized benefit to society. And the more we do, the better. Redirecting an ethanol subsidy to solar would be a far more beneficial long term strategy for energy independence and overall standard of living in the US. Going all in on Solar would be a transformative and likely relatively short investment period that would last and benefit a long time. We have done many large scale infrastructure projects in the US, and it is frustrating to see the resistance to this one, being both less disruptive and more "all around win" than any other i can think of.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- mbesto 6mo ago
  This is a fair point as it's not just simply using ethanol for gasoline. This article goes into more depth about it: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2501605122 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2501605122 There's lot of factors at play here: - Location for generating PV - Redistribution of food (both for livestock and human) production - Environmental impacts of PV vs livestock vs depletion of native prairies Point still stands...if you replaced all of the land used to produce ethanol with PV, you would create a surplus of energy that is higher than anything we could imaginably consume today (hint - China is essentially already doing this)