Hacker News Reader

Comment by ecshafer | Hacker News Reader

As far as i know, ethanol and all biofuels are/were a dead end. They were used purely for farmer subsidies and the energy independence was an excuse.

View on HN

That doesn't sound right. If that were the case, why would people still be building biofuel factories, e.g. in Sweden?

In Sweden, I’m guessing it’s government backed greenwashing. This article (state sponsored site) strongly suggests biofuels have significantly reduced their carbon output:

https://smartcitysweden.com/focus-areas/mobility/biofuels/

But the numbers don’t add up. Instead, it looks like they’re simply burning less gas (biofuels or not):

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/sweden

Trust the government and their experts though.

Literally a report from government experts:

"It is important to note that biofuel production and consumption, in and of itself, will not reduce GHG or conventional pollutant emissions, lessen petroleum imports, or alleviate pressure on exhaustible resources."

Which makes it even more ridiculous that governments subsidize ethanol for fuel.

Its only ridiculous if you view it as a subsidy for ethanol fuel rather than a subsidy for the corn industry. All the government is doing there is creating a market where one wouldn't otherwise exist.

> Its only ridiculous if you view it as a subsidy for ethanol fuel

I.e., what the government claims it to be.

Hence my sarcastic comment about trusting the government and its "experts".

what is the source?

Googling the exact quote: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofue...

That doesn’t necessarily mean you can trust government reports though. Take this Bush-era propaganda piece, for example:

https://www.energy.gov/articles/biofuels-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com