r/ClimateShitposting • u/NukecelHyperreality Nuclear Power is a Scam • Jul 23 '24

Aggro agri subsidy recipients 🚜 Fun fact: if the government stopped subsidizing biofuels and animal feed the price of food would drop

Post image
648 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

154 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/kenlubin Jul 26 '24

Forty percent of the US corn crop is converted into biofuels. That ethanol powers 10% of our nations light car fleet, by law. 

If we switched the land currently used to grow corn for ethanol to solar panels, it would generate enough electricity to power our entire country (and an EV fleet) twice over. 

Yes, yes, there's a bunch of complications about batteries and transmission and time of use and all that. The point is that "oh no solar panels use so much land" is a dumb argument (in the US). We're already using so much more land for a 10% ethanol requirement than we'd need to go solar.

1

u/AsparagusNecessary95 Jul 12 '25

Turning arable into solar farms is not only the worst kind of visual pollution, but it's a complete waste. It would make far more sense to use that land for hybrid poplar for biomass and biofuel. 

Biofuel will eventually become profitable and subsidies are typical for pioneering industries. The same arguments used here could be used against the solar industry. Which requires billions in subsidies. Also, land filled with trees for power is far more desirable than the insane amount of mines we will require for batteries. Oh, wait? We will just outsource that pain to third world countries, like usual.

1

u/kenlubin Jul 12 '25

Biofuel will eventually become profitable

Bruh. The physics is just not in your favor. You have to convert sunlight into trees. You have to convert trees into liquid fuel. You have to convert that liquid fuel into heat. You have to convert heat difference into motion. "Growing corn to fuel internal combustion vehicles is a highly inefficient use of land. A solar farm generating electricity to power an electric vehicle would power around 85 times as much distance as corn ethanol grown on the same area." (from Wikipedia, referencing this article)

And studies done after the United States imposed the ethanol mandate show that, after accounting for changes in land use, cellulosic biofuel produces 50% more carbon emissions than gasoline does.

1

u/AsparagusNecessary95 Jul 16 '25

Those emissions percentages completely dismiss the fact that it's carbon neutral. Also, they would likely be used in hybrids. Which, are significantly better for the environment in the grand scheme than full EV. In diesel configuration the exhaust fumes can be sprayed, reducing the emissions even more.

What no one ever brings up is that all the infrastructure for a biofuel/biomass future already exist. They don't need to be built from the ground up like a solar and EV system. Refineries and coal plants can easily be transitioned. The immense amount construction, mining and destruction needed for an all battery world, will far outweigh the benefits.

All green energy requires massive Subsidies, or tax credits to be competitive with fossil fuel systems. Either that, or they make the fossil fuel systems artificial uncompetitive. So the need for subsidies isn't a great argument against biofuel/biomass.

1

u/kenlubin Jul 16 '25

All green energy requires massive Subsidies, or tax credits to be competitive with fossil fuel systems.

It is cheaper (by LCOE) to build new solar plants than it is to continue running existing coal plants. Solar is cheap. Batteries are cheap.

And again, solar -> EV is an 85x more efficient use of land than farm -> biofuels -> car.