• bridgeburner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    4$ per gallon? Thats like a bit over 1$ per litre. Which is still ridiculously cheap. In comparison: In germany I pay like 2,20€ per litre for Super…

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Just makes everything else corn based more expensive. From plastics to animal feed.

    This administration is running just like trump runs his businesses into bankruptcy. From taking money from medical services to buy bombs to shuffling corn products around to cheapen fuel it’s all the shallow economics of someone who never pays anything back. All that’s left is for trump to try to borrow money from Russia.

  • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you drive an old car that’s not designed for ethanol it’s gonna fuck up all the seals in the motor.

    • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      And you still make less power per gallon, and so don’t really save anything. The only think it improves is pre-detonation, which only matters in super high compression or turbo cars (for whom gas money isn’t the problem anyway).

    • AngryDeuce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Even if you drive a new car everything ive heard from actual mechanics is that it causes much more buildup and bullshit in the engine and you end up spending far more in maintenance due to using E85 then you save paying less per gallon for the fuel.

      Personally in my step father’s flex fuel truck the MPG dropped by like 20% on E85 thus evaporating even more of these “savings”.

      Ethanol is a trash substitute. We should be going full electric and putting all our money into that, but of course that dont prop up the corn and soybean farmers to keep them voting Republican.

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        17 hours ago

        For the record: ethanol burns with no carbon residue. All you want get is CO2 and water. Some countries run on E100 ethanol. Ethanol is used in drag and indycar racing, look it up.

        Ethanol burns with 1/3 less energy vs gas, but much higher octane rating.

        So while you will get 25% less fuel economy with E85, it costs less than half as much. But pickup drivers never math good.

        • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          It varies by area. My E85 is well above half e15. Like within a dollar so at recent best, 33% less.

  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is the argument they made over 20y ago. It’s proven to be completely stupid. We already know that a fraction of the land used for corn could instead be used for solar, and it would power the entire country. Using today’s solar technology.

    • aramis87@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 day ago

      Fun point: many farmers are switching from corn and wheat this year to growing soybeans, because soybeans need less fertilizer. Now you can get biofuel from soybeans, but you need to crush and process them first, and it’s more expensive and time consuming than corn-based ethanol.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Now you can get biofuel from soybeans, but you need to crush and process them first, and it’s more expensive and time consuming than corn-based ethanol.

        For clarity, if you’re growing soybeans for biofuel most efficiently, you’d use it as biodiesel. You get much more energy out of it that way.

        Yes, you could instead take those soybeans crush, process, and ferment them into ethanol, but you get far less energy out only yielding about 25% more energy than it takes to grow the soybeans to begin with, far lower than using soybeans as diesel fuel.

        • megopie
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          if you crush out the oil, the biodiesel, you’re still left with a significant mass of protein and carbs, the carbs are what you would want for making ethanol.

          The protein? Uh, not really useful for fuel. like maybe there is some specialized microorganism that could metabolize that to make ethanol or something? Probably it would just get tossed after the starches were fermented out of the solids. Normally it’d just get fed to animals, but the reason we’re even talking about alternative uses for soy is because the foreign animal feed market has collapsed because of an idiot old mans atavistic urges.

          • [object Object]@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            I was just wondering, wasn’t the US exporting the soybeans to China until China said to shove it recently after another one of the tariff tantrums (and switched to buying from Argentina iirc).

            • megopie
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              That’s a big part of why the conversation about soybean based biofuel is suddenly in the news. Lot of farmers want to keep growing soy because it is relatively easy and hands off (as much as things can be in farming at least) but the demand is gone, so they need the government to step in and invent a new demand by subsidizing the purchase of soybeans for diesel.

              The funny part is, the deals where other countries bought US soybeans as animal feed were a multi decade diplomatic effort by the US government to solve this issue. Those were not deals that just naturally arose because American soy was so cheap or good or anything, they were major foreign policy objective pursued for the sake of maintaining domestic soybean prices at the behest of farmers.

      • Janx@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        So… we can get transportation power from soybeans, which is worse than from corn, which is worse than from hydrogen, which is worse than from batteries. All I getting that right?

        • megopie
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Yah, see, thing is, multigenerational wealth cosplaying as farmers need to grow something that at least breaks even on their financalized property assets, otherwise those assets wouldn’t be “farm land” and would get taxed differently.

  • ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    2 days ago

    So instead of using the crop fields to feed people, we’re gonna grow corn for fuel for cars instead.

    Cars are literally more important than feeding people.

    • [object Object]@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Iirc something like a third of food produced in the US ends up in garbage, so it doesn’t seem like yall have shortages there.

      • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        This. People in relative comfort have no idea what starvation looks like, but are willing to sell out their own country because of some images of people on the middle of a ‘food shortage’.

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      2 days ago

      Much of our corn fields already go to fueling vehicles even the corn that isn’t is more than likely feed corn for livestock. It’s not great for human consumption.

        • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          It doesn’t. Likely why Americans are so fat. Everything in US food has corn or is fed corn. 98.5% of corn is used for cheap sugars, oils, and precursor for plastics.

            • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              17 hours ago

              Surprisingly? Corn is how you fatten up farm animals and humans, that’s been known hundreds of years. That’s what “corn fed” refers to.

              And you get fatter eating animals fed corn.

            • athatet@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Food that has been eaten for thousands of years having things that our bodies need in it is surprising?

        • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          I think it has some value but not much, not unless it’s been through nixtamalization which frees up vitamins and other nutrients. Masa harina is cornflour that’s been through that process. Masa Harina is also used in making tamales.

          • Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            It depends on how you’re using the word “nutrient”. It isn’t great by any means but it has carbs and carbs are a macronutrient.

    • totesmygoat@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      It will bring down prices. Got a few weeks. Until the balance of costs of ethanol kicks in. Just in time to make money off of the grift.

      • Stern@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m sure there’s a few C level guys who wish they could have owned plantations but will settle for cubicles.

      • AngryDeuce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Thats a part of it, but I think the biggest thing is they know that once work from home gets normalized, commercial real estate is going to tank and make what happened in 08 with subprime mortgages look quaint by comparison.

        The big time real estate developers dont care about residential property, and more and more Space For Lease signs are showing up everywhere. If work from home becomes the norm they stand to lose a fortune and they will do anything in their power to prevent that.

        • Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          In my opinion, it’s not just commercial that’s vulnerable. How may office workers are going to live in San Fransisco or New York if they don’t have to?

        • Ghostie@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I also believe there is some tax incentives for businesses getting butts in the seats at their brick and mortar workplaces too. Like on-site facility deductions and such.

          • AngryDeuce@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            24 hours ago

            Oh im sure…empty office buildings slowly decomposing isnt a good look for an areas local economy.

            If we weren’t run by monied interests wed be offering tax incentives the other way to get more people off the road but that doesnt keep us all dependent on fossil fuels so that’s right out the window.

          • Restaldt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Also cities provide tax incentives to corps to get bodies in downtown areas supporting the restaurants and shops

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    Probably not. It will be a subsidy to corn farmers, artificially increase corn prices. Farmers have generally not been having a great time of it under Trump administration policies, so they’ll probably be happy about that. Corn consumers, maybe not so much.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-iran-war-farm-crisis-rcna266283

    Before the war, roughly a third of the world’s fertilizer ingredients and a fifth of its oil supplies passed every day through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway off Iran’s southern coast. But since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, the strait has been effectively closed by Tehran, leaving scores of tankers stranded.

    The strait’s closure has driven up global prices for fertilizer and for the diesel fuel that powers most of America’s heavy agricultural equipment.

    The double whammy is hitting farmers just as they head into the spring planting season.

    “This is that perfect storm where everything comes together and hammers the farmer,” said Mueller, who also serves as the president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association.

    Mueller said his fertilizer supplier was selling a nitrogen fertilizer he needs for $795 per ton on Feb. 22, a few days before the war started. At the end of March, it was $990, Mueller said, a nearly $200 jump in just a few weeks.

    Meanwhile, the price he’s paying for diesel has jumped, too. Diesel is now averaging $5.51 nationwide, up from $3.76 right before the war, according to AAA.

    Mueller said he got most of the fertilizer he needs for spring before the war — but had to buy some at the higher prices. He’s holding off on purchasing the additional fertilizer he needs for summer, hoping prices will come down.

    President Donald Trump’s tariffs have also added to the cost of goods that farmers import from overseas — and frustrated many of the foreign buyers of America’s agricultural products.

    “Our government made our life more difficult by walking away from trade deals or instituting tariffs or just basically making our customers angry — our customers being other nations and companies in other nations,” said Mueller.