The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[lpetrich]

Ocasio-Cortez: Serious climate plan to cost at least $10T

Any plan to adequately address climate change would likely cost at least $10 trillion, freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Wednesday as she responded to a flurry of climate proposals from Democratic presidential candidates.

... While acknowledging the figure "is a ton" of money, she said, "I think we really need to get to $10 trillion to have a shot" at real progress in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

"I don't think anyone wants to spend that amount of money," she added. "It's not a fun number to say. I'm not excited to say we need to spend $10 trillion on climate, but ... it's just the fact of the scenario."

Its opponents claim that it will be much more expensive.

American Action Forum, a Republican-linked think tank, has estimated that the Green New Deal could cost $51 trillion to $93 trillion over 10 years, a figure the plan's supporters dispute.

AOC likes the proposals that Jay Inslee and Elizabeth Warren have offered.

"Jay Inslee's I think is the gold standard climate plan that we have right now," Ocasio-Cortez told The Hill on Tuesday. "It's got the scale, the jobs and justice."

...
"I think the entire field of climate plans still needs to be pushed," Ocasio-Cortez told reporters Wednesday. "I think it just needs to be pushed in terms of the scientific scale ... in what we need to solve this problem."

She concedes that it is "is not politically popular" in either party.

"People are going to call it unrealistic, and I just don't think people understand how bad the problem is," she said.

 

[bilby]

Does it matter? Technically solar and wind are powered by nuclear power as well, so they are technically not renewable either.

Actually it does matter. Sun is burning at the same rate whether we use solar or not. Nuclear is fairly limited resource which can be used up pretty quickly. Once it's gone, it's gone. And nuclear is currently only viable way of colonizing this solar system.

First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

(Source)

And this is using the IMO very conservative estimate that the usable Uranium resource is only about 3x the currently expolred and assayed reserves. The actual resource is almost certainly an order of magnitude larger than that.

And then there's Thorium.

We won't be running out of fissile fuel any time soon, even if we go 100% nuclear worldwide, and lift everyone up to US levels of energy use.

 

[bilby]

Ocasio-Cortez: Serious climate plan to cost at least $10T

Its opponents claim that it will be much more expensive.

AOC likes the proposals that Jay Inslee and Elizabeth Warren have offered.

"Jay Inslee's I think is the gold standard climate plan that we have right now," Ocasio-Cortez told The Hill on Tuesday. "It's got the scale, the jobs and justice."

...
"I think the entire field of climate plans still needs to be pushed," Ocasio-Cortez told reporters Wednesday. "I think it just needs to be pushed in terms of the scientific scale ... in what we need to solve this problem."

She concedes that it is "is not politically popular" in either party.

"People are going to call it unrealistic, and I just don't think people understand how bad the problem is," she said.

Hinkley Point C, currently under construction in the UK, will cost less than US$8bn/GW.

At that cost, you could supply the entire electricity consumption of the USA (including replacement of all of the existing nuclear plants) for ~$3.6 Trillion.

That's a third of AOC's low end estimate, and a twenty-fifth of the AAF's high end estimate.

But apparently nuclear power is unthinkably expensive, so we need to spend FAR more on wind and solar instead.

 

[lpetrich]

Hinkley Point C, currently under construction in the UK, will cost less than US$8bn/GW.

That's US$8/watt.

Solar Panel Cost: Avg. Solar Panel Prices by State in 2019 | EnergySage
Solar panel cost 2019: by state, by system size and by panel manufacturer
More like US$3 to 4/watt

 

[barbos]

First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

(Source)

And this is using the IMO very conservative estimate that the usable Uranium resource is only about 3x the currently expolred and assayed reserves. The actual resource is almost certainly an order of magnitude larger than that.

And then there's Thorium.

We won't be running out of fissile fuel any time soon, even if we go 100% nuclear worldwide, and lift everyone up to US levels of energy use.

Nice of you to omit this part:

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now

None of these technologies really ready anyway. So current tech would last I understand few decades if we go 100% nuclear.
Yep, your article says 200 years, which is 30 years for 100% nuclear.
I can give you factor of 3 due to breeder tech. Can't really give you sea water uranium cause it's probably 1000x more expensive. So 100 years.

 

[lpetrich]

A Peace Corps for Climate Change Is Among the Most Popular Green New Deal Policies
Memo: The Green New Deal is Popular — Data For Progress

Asking US people about these policies:

• Green Liability - Would you support or oppose a policy in which people are permitted to sue companies that fail to meet government emissions targets?
• Climate Test - Would you support or oppose a mandated assessment of climate, environment, and public health impacts for all new infrastructure projects requiring federal permits?
• Climate Conservation Corps - Would you support or oppose a government policy creating a "Climate Conservation Corps", which would provide jobs to those who qualify, repairing and upgrading our infrastructure to reduce pollution?
• Buy Clean - Would you support or oppose a "Buy Clean" law, requiring the government to prioritize purchasing and spending to go towards clean manufacturing firms with good paying union jobs? (Note: This item was asked in the second survey)
• Green Offset - Would you support or oppose a proposal to create a $10 billion fund for public utility commissions to offset the costs for low-income families of adopting new energy efficiency standards?
• Fuel Subsidies - Would you support or oppose ending government subsidies given to energy companies that fund the production and distribution of fossil fuels?
• Investments in Communities of Color - Would you support or oppose a new policy requiring the government to invest in clean energy infrastructure in poor communities and communities of color with disproportionate levels of pollution? (Note: This item was asked in the second survey)
• Coal Phase-Out - Would you support or oppose a policy mandating the phasing out of domestic coal plants over the next ten years in favor of new clean energy facilities?

Of these policies, the Climate Conservation Corps was the most liked across the political spectrum (Democrats, Independents, Republicans). The next one differed, however. Democrats and Republicans liked investments in impacted communities, while Independents liked fuel subsidies.

The least-liked policies were green liabilities and green offsets, also across the spectrum.

Democrats like the GND the most, with min 52, avg 68 max 82 (% like - % dislike). Independents like the GND a little bit, with 5 18 33, and Republicans dislike the GND, with -46 -27 -5. The overall population is 8 23 40.

Republicans who watch Fox News dislike it more, at -43, than those that don't, at -10. Likewise for all the others.

Watchers of Fox News were more likely to associate the GND with words like "cow" and "airplane", and non-watchers with words like "climate change" and "renewable energy" (strictly speaking, phrases, but treated as words in this analysis). So Fox News attacks on the GND stick in the minds of its watchers.

The population polled is 36% Dem, 34% Ind, and 30% Rep. The fraction of Fox News viewers is 50% in Reps, 26% in all, and 5% in Dems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually no. I'm talking about waste period. Whether low level, expended, enriched, co produced, or whatever I'm talking about nuclear waste. Governments actually do better than private enterprise in containing and processing waste. and that;s saying something given the record of superpowers with nuclear waste.

The proposed power plant in CA which my late friend lead protests was to be built on a fault at the ocean. Fukushima on the coast in a tsunami zone with inadequate barriers and improper coolant supplies and protections, TMI managed by a private company, the Detroit accident in 1967, and others which caused us to hold our breath were all commercial endeavors where profit won out over safety.

Not saying governments are responsible. US bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII and various testing sites in the us and south pacific. Russian programs and military services were very careless in storing waste as NUCLEAR WASTE AND RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION IN RUSSIA points out. http://factsanddetails.com/russia/Nature_Science_Animals/sub9_8c/entry-5066.html

Across the world storage of waste has been a problem. The US is still struggling with agreeing on a location for storage of medical and power plant waste.

The problem is political, not scientific. Note that all the waste issues are from areas of secrecy where they can just sweep it under the rug.

I do agree there is an issue with building reactors in seismic zones, but note that Fukushima wasn't due to the quake, but the tsunami. Also, Fukushima was 99% panic rather than threat. The evacuation cost lives, it didn't save them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does it matter? Technically solar and wind are powered by nuclear power as well, so they are technically not renewable either.

Actually it does matter. Sun is burning at the same rate whether we use solar or not. Nuclear is fairly limited resource which can be used up pretty quickly. Once it's gone, it's gone. And nuclear is currently only viable way of colonizing this solar system.

Breeder reactors. Quit throwing away 99% of the fuel.

 

[bilby]

Hinkley Point C, currently under construction in the UK, will cost less than US$8bn/GW.

That's US$8/watt.

Solar Panel Cost: Avg. Solar Panel Prices by State in 2019 | EnergySage
Solar panel cost 2019: by state, by system size and by panel manufacturer
More like US$3 to 4/watt

Multiply by five to allow for the fact that they only work for between six and eight hours a day; Then add the costs of storage (or backup Gas power), plus grid upgrades, grid stability services, effective life before replacement (nuclear plant lasts about 3x as long as PV panels, so that's another threefold cost increase for solar), etc. etc.

You are comparing a complete solution with a 95% capacity factor and flexible downtime with a partial solution with a 20-25% capacity factor and inflexible downtime.

To achieve sixty years of reliable 24x7 supply, your $3/watt panel is going to need to be significantly in excess of $45/watt of actual expenditure.

Nuclear plants can just slot straight into the existing grid to replace coal plants; Any additional costs are minuscule compared to the costs of the plants themselves.

This is not a reasonable comparison, and presumably is why even AOC suggests that you will need $10 trillion.

 

[fromderinside]

The problem is political, not scientific. Note that all the waste issues are from areas of secrecy where they can just sweep it under the rug.

I do agree there is an issue with building reactors in seismic zones, but note that Fukushima wasn't due to the quake, but the tsunami. Also, Fukushima was 99% panic rather than threat. The evacuation cost lives, it didn't save them.

As I think I wrote there is actually no political solution. One political solution that has some potency is military or secured or national interest mechanisms. So it comes back to political. Scientific might as well be political since most science is either sponsored by or supported by government funding. The fraction of commercial funding is extremely low when you take into account the write offs companies get for doing research through receiving government support.

I worked both the commercial side and government side at Boeing. Amazing how government funds poured into commercial research more or less thorugh the same spigots as those tapped by the defense side.

 

[steve_bank]

Politically it is impossible to have any kind of energy stegy and plan.

Conservatives insist let the market forces take caremof it.

Nuclear waste was a problem. I believe it was the French that developed glassification for nuclear waste. Mixing waste with a glass. When it hardens it is impossible to leak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification

Applications[edit]

When sucrose is cooled slowly it results in crystal sugar (or rock candy), but when cooled rapidly it can form syrupy cotton candy (candyfloss).

Vitrification can also occur in a liquid such as water, usually through very rapid cooling or the introduction of agents that suppress the formation of ice crystals. This is in contrast to ordinary freezing which results in ice crystal formation. Vitrification is used in cryo-electron microscopy to cool samples so quickly that they can be imaged with an electron microscope without damage.[11][12] In 2017, the Nobel prize for chemistry was awarded for the development of this technology, which can be used to image objects such as proteins or virus particles.[13]

Ordinary soda-lime glass, used in windows and drinking containers, is created by the addition of sodium carbonate and lime (calcium oxide) to silicon dioxide. Without these additives, silicon dioxide will require very high temperature to obtain a melt, and subsequently (with slow cooling) a glass.

Vitrification is used in disposal and long-term storage of nuclear waste or other hazardous wastes[14] in a method called geomelting. Waste is mixed with glass-forming chemicals in a furnace to form molten glass that then solidifies in canisters, thereby immobilizing the waste. The final waste form resembles obsidian and is a non-leaching, durable material that effectively traps the waste inside. It is widely assumed that such waste can be stored for relatively long periods in this form without concern for air or groundwater contamination. Bulk vitrification uses electrodes to melt soil and wastes where they lie buried. The hardened waste may then be disinterred with less danger of widespread contamination. According to the Pacific Northwest National Labs, "Vitrification locks dangerous materials into a stable glass form that will last for thousands of years."[15]

 

[bilby]

Spent fuel from PWRs and BWRs (the only types of reactors currently in service in the US) is in the form of ceramic oxide pellets. It doesn't require vitrification, because it's already an insoluble solid.

Nuclear waste only looks like glowing green goo in cartoons. It's actually pretty boring as materials go - it's a largely inert, dark grey or black solid, whose only interesting characteristic is it's radioactivity. And as the majority of that radioactivity is due to short-lived fission products, it rapidly becomes safe enough to store behind a few inches of concrete and steel.

Onsite dry cask storage is very safe indeed - you could crash an airliner into it, and a spill would be unlikely.

If you hit a dry cask with a 'bunker buster' bomb, you would probably be able to spread the spent fuel over a radius of a few tens of metres; After which point it wouldn't likely travel any further. Cleaning it up would then be fairly simple - even small amounts of radioactivity are very easy to detect, so you can be sure you got it all (and if you didn't, you can easily find and isolate the bits you missed).

Dry cask storage has a 100% perfect safety record worldwide. Schemes to make nuclear waste 'safer' (vitrification, deep repositories, etc.) are futile, and just have the counterproductive effect of convincing people that the current technology is inadequate - which is demonstrably untrue.

 

[bilby]

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Hore-Lacy%20AusIMM%202019.pdf

An interesting paper from AusIMM on the economics of nuclear vs intermittent renewables in Australia - with some telling detail about how costs increase, and prices decline, for uncontrollable renewables as installed nameplate capacity increases.

Wind and solar are economically disastrous for high market penetrations.

... deploying a lot of wind and solar PV with low marginal generating cost creates a substantial increase in the volatility of electricity prices, and at 20% wind/solar or above, zero prices sometimes occur.

This value decline caused by wind and solar generating most of their output during times of self-imposed electricity oversupply is marked, and magnifies with their share increasing.

German data for 2018 show that as day-ahead wind+solar power reaches 50 GWe due to self-imposed oversupply the average price drops from about €58/MWh to €20/MWh.

 

[barbos]

Wind and solar are economically disastrous for high market penetrations.

... deploying a lot of wind and solar PV with low marginal generating cost creates a substantial increase in the volatility of electricity prices, and at 20% wind/solar or above, zero prices sometimes occur.

This value decline caused by wind and solar generating most of their output during times of self-imposed electricity oversupply is marked, and magnifies with their share increasing.

German data for 2018 show that as day-ahead wind+solar power reaches 50 GWe due to self-imposed oversupply the average price drops from about €58/MWh to €20/MWh.

Where do you get "economically disastrous" part?
Solar needs storage, once it has it, everyone will forget about nukes.

 

[bilby]

Wind and solar are economically disastrous for high market penetrations.

... deploying a lot of wind and solar PV with low marginal generating cost creates a substantial increase in the volatility of electricity prices, and at 20% wind/solar or above, zero prices sometimes occur.

This value decline caused by wind and solar generating most of their output during times of self-imposed electricity oversupply is marked, and magnifies with their share increasing.

German data for 2018 show that as day-ahead wind+solar power reaches 50 GWe due to self-imposed oversupply the average price drops from about €58/MWh to €20/MWh.

Where do you get "economically disastrous" part?
Solar needs storage, once it has it, everyone will forget about nukes.

Where did you get the idea that storage will just magically 'poof' into existence without massive and expensive industrial and construction efforts?

Storage is as easily and cheaply available right now as a herd of unicorns.

Until you wave this mythical storage into existence, large proportions of uncontrollable intermittent power are economically disastrous - doubly so if the grids are (as in Germany) legally required to buy everything they make, at a set minimum price, even when the market wholesale price is negative.

Renewables are 20-25% of power generation in Germany, and retail prices have tripled in less than a decade as a result - while they demolish irreplaceable historic towns to get to the lignite underneath, so that they can keep the lights on.

Germany has spent a fucking fortune on renewables, and they have nothing to show for it - CO₂ emissions are basically unchanged, the retail price of electricity has trebled, they are dependent on lignite and imports of natural gas, and for about a third of what they have spent to date, they could have built a nuclear powered grid that would have similarly ultra-low emissions to those of the French, they could keep the coal in the ground, and be in a position to produce a sufficient surplus of low-emissions electric power to make a big inroad into the emissions from the transportation and industrial sectors.

We have two solid cases to look at - France and Germany chose different paths. France chose nuclear and has succeeded in producing reliable, low-carbon electricity at a reasonable price. Germany chose wind and solar, and after taking twice as long, and spending three times as much, they have done nothing but make life harder for German electricity consumers, while cluttering up the countryside with thousands of ugly wind turbines. And on calm cold winter nights, the Germans depend on imports of electricity from France to avoid blackouts.

This isn't theoretical. It's straightforward observation. The French option worked. The German one didn't.

Imaginary storage isn't going to change this simple and observable fact.

 

[lpetrich]

Is Latin America’s lithium industry sustainable? Environmental costs of the new white gold – Energy Transition - the fundamental problem is that lithium is a very rare element, and one has to depend on places with unusual geology that concentrate lithium, like the Chile-Bolivia-Argentina "Lithium Triangle".

In 2019, expect even less coal in the US – Energy Transition

Is an energy revolution underway in Chile? – Energy Transition

The Chilean energy sector has experienced big changes in the last few years. Five years ago, Chile generated only 5% of its electricity from renewable energy sources. This percentage has more than tripled in the last years, reaching 18% in May 2018. This excludes big hydro-electric plants over 20 megawatts.

Germany’s energy consumption in 2017 – Energy Transition

Nuclear fell by nearly 11% in 2017. One reactor was shut down at the end of December, but that decrease was only slight. A bigger factor was the extended downtime at Brokdorf, a reactor that made history last year by being the first nuclear plant to shut down specifically because of damage caused by ramping. Other reactors, such as France’s Civaux, have also experienced difficulties possibly related to load-following, but ramping was never clearly reported as the cause for any other reactor.

So load following can be troublesome for some existing nuclear reactors.

Concentrated solar power: storing renewable energy in Chile – Energy Transition

There are severe environmental and social concerns related to large-scale hydropower as it often results in the displacement of communities, flooding and deforestation. In addition, the last years have seen weather phenomenon El Niño make hydroelectric supply less predictable due to climate change. It is therefore unlikely that hydro will continue to play such a dominant energy source in the region.

Hydroelectric generation is vulnerable to drought - not having much water.

It’s clean, powerful and available: Are you ready for hydrogen energy? - Renewable Energy World
It will be an intermediate, like electricity, and it would be made by electrolysis. Currently, 95% of it is made with natural-gas reforming:
CH4 + H2O <-> CO + 3H2
CO + H2O <-> CO2 + H2

 

[barbos]

Where do you get "economically disastrous" part?
Solar needs storage, once it has it, everyone will forget about nukes.

Where did you get the idea that storage will just magically 'poof' into existence without massive and expensive industrial and construction efforts?

Where did you get this idea about me having such idea?

Storage is as easily and cheaply available right now as a herd of unicorns.

Until you wave this mythical storage into existence, large proportions of uncontrollable intermittent power are economically disastrous - doubly so if the grids are (as in Germany) legally required to buy everything they make, at a set minimum price, even when the market wholesale price is negative.

As I said, once storage is developed nukes become obsolete.

Renewables are 20-25% of power generation in Germany, and retail prices have tripled in less than a decade as a result - while they demolish irreplaceable historic towns to get to the lignite underneath, so that they can keep the lights on.

Germany has spent a fucking fortune on renewables, and they have nothing to show for it - CO₂ emissions are basically unchanged, the retail price of electricity has trebled, they are dependent on lignite and imports of natural gas, and for about a third of what they have spent to date, they could have built a nuclear powered grid that would have similarly ultra-low emissions to those of the French, they could keep the coal in the ground, and be in a position to produce a sufficient surplus of low-emissions electric power to make a big inroad into the emissions from the transportation and industrial sectors.

We have two solid cases to look at - France and Germany chose different paths. France chose nuclear and has succeeded in producing reliable, low-carbon electricity at a reasonable price. Germany chose wind and solar,

Nope, that's not how it happened, Germany choose coal as the rest of the world.

and after taking twice as long, and spending three times as much, they have done nothing but make life harder for German electricity consumers, while cluttering up the countryside with thousands of ugly wind turbines. And on calm cold winter nights, the Germans depend on imports of electricity from France to avoid blackouts.

This isn't theoretical. It's straightforward observation. The French option worked. The German one didn't.

One more time, once storage is good enough....

Imaginary storage isn't going to change this simple and observable fact.

Imaginary uranium from sea water is not going to change simple fact that nukes are not long term solution.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump touts ethanol victory, but Iowans say waivers undermine gains
How the 2020 Democrats Learned to Love Ethanol - POLITICO Magazine

For a while, it looked like Iowa’s favorite corn subsidy might be in jeopardy. But even the newly green Democrats are lining up in favor.

Every four years, presidential candidates make pilgrimages to Iowa and preach the gospel of ethanol, the corn-based fuel that pours nearly $5 billion into the state’s economy every year.

Including politicians who had earlier slammed it as a boondoggle. A big problem is that Iowa has the first Presidential primaries in the election year, making many politicians feel obligated to pander to Iowan corn-ethanol makers.

Ethanol = drink alcohol, CH3CH2OH For industrial purposes, it is usually "denatured", with something bad-tasting or poisonous. As a fuel, it is usually mixed with gasoline, making "gasohol".

A big problem with fuel ethanol is the energy required to produce it -- energy for the farm machines, energy to make the fertilizers, and energy to ferment the corn kernels' starch. The figure of merit here is EROEI - Energy Returned on Energy Invested or EROI - Energy Returned on Investment. One obviously wants an EROEI as high as possible, and an EROEI less than 1 is only justifiable if the energy output is in a form otherwise inaccessible, like some specialty fuel. If corn ethanol has an EROEI less than 1, then one can get more energy by using directly the fossil fuels used to make it.

There have been several attempts to estimate typical corn-ethanol EROEI values, and the most optimistic ones are less than 2 with some of them being less than 1. So as an alternative to fossil fuels, corn ethanol is a failure.

Biofuel supporters had hoped that higher-EROEI biofuel crops would eventually be put into production, but that has not happened, and electric cars are becoming more and more practical. Another alternative is synthetic fuels, but that has been slow to take off.

 

[steve_bank]

It is all a moot point. The current crop of congressional leaders along with fossil lobbies are calling the shots, not engineers and scientists.

 

[bilby]

Trump touts ethanol victory, but Iowans say waivers undermine gains
How the 2020 Democrats Learned to Love Ethanol - POLITICO Magazine

For a while, it looked like Iowa’s favorite corn subsidy might be in jeopardy. But even the newly green Democrats are lining up in favor.

Every four years, presidential candidates make pilgrimages to Iowa and preach the gospel of ethanol, the corn-based fuel that pours nearly $5 billion into the state’s economy every year.

Including politicians who had earlier slammed it as a boondoggle. A big problem is that Iowa has the first Presidential primaries in the election year, making many politicians feel obligated to pander to Iowan corn-ethanol makers.

Ethanol = drink alcohol, CH3CH2OH For industrial purposes, it is usually "denatured", with something bad-tasting or poisonous. As a fuel, it is usually mixed with gasoline, making "gasohol".

A big problem with fuel ethanol is the energy required to produce it -- energy for the farm machines, energy to make the fertilizers, and energy to ferment the corn kernels' starch. The figure of merit here is EROEI - Energy Returned on Energy Invested or EROI - Energy Returned on Investment. One obviously wants an EROEI as high as possible, and an EROEI less than 1 is only justifiable if the energy output is in a form otherwise inaccessible, like some specialty fuel. If corn ethanol has an EROEI less than 1, then one can get more energy by using directly the fossil fuels used to make it.

There have been several attempts to estimate typical corn-ethanol EROEI values, and the most optimistic ones are less than 2 with some of them being less than 1. So as an alternative to fossil fuels, corn ethanol is a failure.

Biofuel supporters had hoped that higher-EROEI biofuel crops would eventually be put into production, but that has not happened, and electric cars are becoming more and more practical. Another alternative is synthetic fuels, but that has been slow to take off.

Around here, we use sugar cane ethanol, which has EROEI around 8. Corn is a dumb source for ethanol; It exists in the US only because of the powerful farming lobby that wants to push up the farm-gate price of corn by any means available.

E10 gasoline is commonplace here; It does make some sense to use it, though if it didn't, we would likely have it anyway, as our cane growers have a powerful lobby too.