# Bernie Sanders, Money, and Ethanol **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2016, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-money-and-ethanol/744912 "2016-02-02T03:04:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-money-and-ethanol/744912/21 "2016-02-04T14:50:34Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > But that small increase in fuel consumption still produces less pollution and less CO2 per mile than plain gas. And, of course, use less gasoline. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-money-and-ethanol/744912/22 "2016-02-04T17:28:33Z")
> [@harmonicamoon](#): > > I don’t know anything about modern cars. > > A friend has a 5 year old Camry. Per her manual, estimated MPG is less when feeding the car ethanol based gasoline. So, she has to burn more ethanol gasoline to go the same distance, compared to straight gasoline. > > Is this true for today’s cars? What in blazes do you mean, “today’s cars”??? If a mere 5-year-old car (which is practically brand-new) does not count as one of “today’s cars” then what does? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-money-and-ethanol/744912/23 "2016-02-05T18:59:49Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Even if he is shamelessly pandering to the voters in Iowa, I’d argue that it’s better than pandering to a handful of billionaires. I want a true democracy, warts and all. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the oligarchy we’ve got now. He was pandering to the voters in Iowa and in the process handing billions of dollars to a few corporations at the expense of poor people. Was his motivation the voters or the corporations? If it was the voters then we don’t have an oligarchy, and if it was the corporation then he is a part of the problem he claims to be fighting. Either way Sanders is not the solution to our political problems. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-money-and-ethanol/744912/24 "2016-02-05T20:32:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > On the practical side, I haven’t read the Pimentel study and probably wouldn’t be competent to critique it anyway, but from what you’ve said, even though it’s the fossil fuel energy going into it that it counts, most of that is natural gas, which is far cleaner than gasoline and probably a lot more efficient. As I said, the only thing that matters in the end is that the total carbon emissions in the ethanol lifecycle are less than gasoline, and it appears that they are – depending on the ethanol source, they could be very substantially less. It appears that the Pimentel study is crap. Well, no, the Pimentel study is imperfect and somewhat out-of-date, but it really did some pretty incredible work of summing up total fossil energy inputs vs. outputs for the ethanol program. You could argue that the way it’s used is crap, but I think the study itself is rightfully considered pretty good. The problem with the assertion that carbon emissions are lower for the ethanol lifecycle than for gasoline on a per-mile driven basis is that it’s really hard to figure out exactly what to count. The argument that ethanol is _worse_ for carbon emissions than gasoline is taking into account land use change (if you plow up a native prairie to plant corn, you’ve likely released a considerable amount of soil carbon into the atmosphere, for example.) So how do you measure how much and in what ways land has changed because of ethanol? How do you weigh a large, one-time release of carbon into the atmosphere against ongoing carbon reductions from the ethanol produced? There’s simply no way to do that analysis that everyone will ever agree on. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-money-and-ethanol/744912/25 "2016-02-06T08:18:12Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > So how do you measure how much and in what ways land has changed because of ethanol? How do you weigh a large, one-time release of carbon into the atmosphere against ongoing carbon reductions from the ethanol produced? There’s simply no way to do that analysis that everyone will ever agree on. You’re certainly right about that, it’s complicated, and each side will spin the facts to their own advantage, a situation not helped by the fact that both sides have their lobbyists. An interesting aspect of that one-time carbon release question is that the answer heavily depends on what form that carbon takes. Carbon flux between soil and atmosphere can be in the form of CO2 and CH4, determined in part by factors like temperature, moisture, and oxygen supply. CH4 is a more potent GHG but ultimately much less of a concern because it has a very short residency time in the atmosphere. Anyway, the ethanol side has argued that deforestation and land use changes have little connection to ethanol production, but I have no idea how valid those arguments are. I tend to be persuaded by the fact that burning ethanol – and for that matter, carbon flux from soil – releases carbon that’s already actively in the carbon cycle. That’s a huge difference because burning fossil fuels releases carbon that’s been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years and is indisputably and fundamentally changing our climate. That’s the elephant in the room. The worst that can be said about ethanol is the accusation that it may not be an effective enough mitigation – or perhaps no mitigation at all – against the damage wrought by fossil fuels. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-money-and-ethanol/744912/26 "2016-02-06T13:59:59Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Study from Princeton University that shows [we no longer live in a democracy](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy): > > > [@](#): > > > > Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters. [emphasis mine] What do they mean rich, well-connected individuals “NOW” steer the direction of the country? When didn’t they? At its best, the system is supposed to prevent them from abusing the rest of us, and ideally the more civic minded of them will back policies that are good for the people and get their backing (e.g. FDR), but did we need to be told the powerful have power and that the influential influence? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-money-and-ethanol/744912/27 "2016-02-07T02:48:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > To be clear, my comment about the sun was in reference to the statement about the second law of thermodynamics, which of course is of no practical relevance if a large part of the energy of the system in question comes from a free source. It’s exactly like trying to argue that there’s no way you can get more energy out of a gallon of gasoline than the energy it took to extract and refine it. > > On the practical side, I haven’t read the Pimentel study and probably wouldn’t be competent to critique it anyway, but from what you’ve said, even though it’s the fossil fuel energy going into it that it counts, most of that is natural gas, which is far cleaner than gasoline and probably a lot more efficient. As I said, the only thing that matters in the end is that the total carbon emissions in the ethanol lifecycle are less than gasoline, and it appears that they are – depending on the ethanol source, they could be very substantially less. It appears that the Pimentel study is crap. It seems to me there are two issues. One is the effect on carbon in the atmosphere. The other is the energy used. Burning more energy than the energy that is extracted from the ethanol is independent of the fact that the ethanol is getting a lot of energy from the Sun. The energy being used is coming from fossil fuels in order to turn the Sun’s energy into a liquid fuel that then doesn’t provide as much energy as was spent to create it. The Second Law doesn’t come into it. However, an argument can be made that there is benefit to losing energy efficiency in that process if you are gaining less pollution and, in particular, less carbon entering the atmosphere. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Yes, the car doesn’t matter, there’s about 30% less energy in ethanol by volume than there is in gasoline. Which causes a different problem, the mandated fuel efficiency standards are getting higher while they simultaneously try to force more use of a lower energy density fuel, compounding the problem. It’s hard enough to raise efficiency, now you have to do it and compensate for a worse fuel. Yay! ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-money-and-ethanol/744912/28 "2016-02-08T04:58:57Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Which causes a different problem, the mandated fuel efficiency standards are getting higher while they simultaneously try to force more use of a lower energy density fuel, compounding the problem. It’s hard enough to raise efficiency, now you have to do it and compensate for a worse fuel. Yay! I’m pretty sure for CAFE purposes, fuel efficiency is calculated as miles per gallon of gasoline, not miles per arbitrary mix of gas and ethanol that you can find in a commercial station. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-money-and-ethanol/744912.md?page=1)