Another issue (not mentioned by the text) is that long-term sugarcane farming desertifies the environment where it's grown. Yeah - it is not sustainable in the long run.
Whey, the by-product of dairy manufacturing, is most cheaply disposed of by feeding to pigs. The excess the pigs can't eat is supposed to be safely disposed of, but this is often deemed too costly, and it ends up in the river. A bribe to the right official will be cheaper anyway.
So I started to buy the stuff, for pennies per decalitre. Dairies didn't have to bribe officials anymore, and the river is spared. My refrigerated truck then brought this enormous amount of whey to my nanofiltration pump (setup with the help of a local chemical engineer), where we split it into Whey Protein Isolate, which is the powder bodybuilders drink. I then became a local supplier for the (at the time) only South American company that produced and marketed protein powders in Brazil, sold my share of the business, and came home a slightly wealthier man.
Every stage of this was a nightmare. The uses of whey have been well documented in the literature since the 1920's, and the equipment is cheap. In engineering terms, it's a completely solved problem. But the bureaucracy....
I'm not surprised, I completely expect it and do what I can to mitigate it. But it's still shocking. What kind of sociopath builds something and decides "I'll throw this leftover crap where others drink" for decades? And why do they have so much power, so frequently?
Whey is an example of ease of rationalization "you're just feeding the fish".
A business managed by a sociopath has a larger margin of profit, due to arseholery like: misleading customers, dumping stuff on rivers, bribing authorities, etc. That makes the business able to expand faster, more resilient to eventualities, and more attractive to vulture capital injecting money in it. Those sociopaths will also see no issue whatsoever on amassing power elsewhere, for the sake of their business.
As such, businesses playing by the rules are outcompeted by the ones managed by sociopaths. Darwin style.
Of course that might be a hard sell given the importance of the ethanol production industry in the economy.
But it might be a good strategy for countries that don't yet have the purchasing power to support a market for pure EVs.
The 2023 Chevy Bolt has a 247 mile range and a $27,000 MSRP without government incentives. That’s still a higher cost of ownership than a used ICE, but things are getting a lot closer. https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev-2023
And keep in mind that degradation is fastest at the beginning, so at 200000km, you have about 92% of what you started with, not the 88% you'd expect if it were linear.
In terms of clean energy, inflation adjusted US wholesale rates fell as we dramatically reduced the grids carbon footprint. 2022 is looking like a major anomaly, but that’s in part because natural gas prices are through the roof due to Russia’s invasion.
I don't see how that's relevant. The alternative for your house isn't powering it with gasoline.
> and government subsidies for the industry are never ending
You should expect that when it's still "around the corner".
And it could make sense to continue subsidizing EV purchases once prices are similar. Or even beyond that, if you want new-ish EVs to be competitive with a bigger chunk of used gas cars in upfront price.
Just turn the solar radiation into electricity and turn that into power. Solar and EVs are here now.
Brazil uses sugar cane, which has better energy yield than corn for ethanol, due to it's higher caloric content. But yes, it is less efficient than direct solar to batteries.
> Just turn the solar radiation into electricity and turn that into power. Solar and EVs are here now.
Yes, but large battery vehicles are still to expensive in developing and middle income countries - they are just now getting affordable to the masses in developed countries.
A smaller battery could easily offset 50-80% of ethanol fueled miles because most daily drives are short, so a smaller affordable PHEV with a 20kWh battery could offset a lot of liquid fuel usage.
To make corn ethanol you get an energy loss actually, the energy usage to grow and process the corn, for example to power the tractors and so on, is bigger than the energy you can get burning it.
US government solution for this is spetacularly boneheaded too.
So USA has so much corn because it has corn subsidies. This is the reason for USA using the terrible for health corn syrup too instead of sugar from cane.
Then USA government decided to give ethanol subsidies to incentive green fuels.
Result is people make corn ethanol, get 2 subsidies, pollute a bit and cause a net energy loss.
So USA government decided solution was give a even bigger subsidy to sugar cane ethanol.
Result is Brazillians make sugar cane ethanol, sell to US companies, those companies collect the subsidy from it, buy corn ethanol that has 2 subsidies on that thus is extra cheap, sell back to Brazillians.
So now you have USA government giving 3 subsidies that result in people making a ton of corn ethanol, causing energy loss, and shipping it to Brazil, while Brazillians ship cane ethanol back, the shipping in question being done with Diesel ships.
Sometimes I wonder what the fuck is wrong with USA government to think that such decisions are good idea, wasting a ton of taxpayer money on energy losing production process and encouraging Diesel-based ocean shipping all in the name of "green".
It is not MY tax money though (I am Brazillian) so it is not like I can do anything about it.
Makes me wonder if your comment is literal copypasta, or merely figurative copypasta from US ecoactivism.
However, ethanol is too expensive south of São Paulo, so it is hardly ever used.
Anyway, a flex/eletric hybrid would be very useful.
It's less important than it looks like, but it's backed up by a rather nasty political mafia.
At least for SP/PR/SC/RS, a better approach is to simply forget that the Brazilian government exists, and implement measures to reduce fuel consumption. Such as building an actually usable trains infrastructure for goods transportation across cities, and investing further on public transportation for passengers inside large metropolises.
That's an important aspects too many tend to fail considering, for instance "hey, but we can made antarctic bases with food self-sufficiency", yes, we can, for a single base and very few humans inside. With the work of hundred, thousand of others and a tremendous effort: the fact something is doable and done and does work at a certain scale does not means it can work at every scale.
> Continued problems with vinasse-dumping marred the sugar-ethanol industry’s environmental image, even as specialists encouraged repurposing the nitrogen-heavy byproduct as a fertiliser. Today, compliance with anti-dumping legislation is still not effectively enforced.
"In the past, vinasse was a problem in production of ethanol, but vinasse is also a good fertilizer (at least for some time) and a source of methane that can be used to generate heat or electricity. Moreover, other uses of vinasse involving also the formulation of nutritive solutions for hydroponics, formulation of culture media for plant tissue culture and culture media for algal growth."
Seems like it's only a problem because it's being dumped and not being purchased for reuse.
They compete against plant agriculture for access to land, making food more expensive.
Often they also use a lot of energy, water and produce CO2 during the farming process.
Reminder: you should read the article before commenting, to not make a fool out of yourself.
Maize is not relevant in this discussion. RTA and you'll see why.
I don't think they capture as much co2 as they release.