| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2007/4/18-21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46363 Activity:kinda low 90%like:46354 |
4/18 Oops. Ethanol is worse for the air
http://urltea.com/e46 (sfgate.com)
\_ Biofuels have 10 times worse CO2 emissions than fossil fuels
http://tinyurl.com/3dog3p
\_ but a combination of biofuels with Biointensive farming
would be ideal
\_ Are you making the argument that increased farming will
result in less C02? While thats true, it may not have the
intended impact on global warming because the albedo of
farmland is lower than non-developed land. More solar
absorbtion will result in higher temperatures. Global
warming solutions aren't so simple.
\_ this entire ethanol thing is 100% bullshit, I can't believe
left-wing liberal who pride themselves being more intelligent than
those in the Bush Country fell for it.
1. it takes energy to grow corn. Fertilizers and pesticide all
cost energy, distill ethanol to an appropiate concentration requires
energy. If we do a mass balance on ethanol, it probably takes more
energy to produce it than we'll get from it.
\_ The overwhelming majority of researchers think that ethanol
has a 20-60% net energy gain:
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
\_ which is still an order of magnitude less than fossil fuel.
2. corn is not the most ideal plant to produce ethanol. high-sugar
content plants such as sugar cane is a much better solution. This
is one of the reason why Brazil can produce ethanol at a much
cheaper rate than us. And this is why we are imposing 18% tariff
on ethanols from Brazil
3. to use corn will eventually impact the food supply. It has
already impacted the price of animal feed. And we will soon need
to clear more forest to grow more of it, is this what we really
want?
In the end, this entire bio-disel thing boil down to two rational
behind it. 1. Toyota spend good 7-8 years on hybrid technology
and US is at least 7-8 years behind. Further, Toyota has patented
and US is at least 4-5 years behind. Further, Toyota has patented
a lot of hybrid thus make US car makers at a disadvantage. The
*EASY* way out is just say we are going to use "bio disel." such
solution requires almost ZERO modification to a car thus US car
manufacturers doesn't need to do jack shit other than may be
change the hoses/fuel lines.
change the hoses/fuel lines. 2. In the end, it's about letting
the petro price goes up and force people to pay for their lifestyle.
But no one want to make such compromise because it is always easier
to blame China/India than changing your own life style.
\_ Is this Chicom troll? Are you aware of what China is doing to
its environment in order to give its citizens a western "life
style?"
\_ corn-grower lobby, largely repulican. IT's not the best solution
for alternative fuel, but one with many proponents who stand to
make a buck off of it. |
| 5/25 |
|
| urltea.com/e46 -> sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/18/MNG7EPAN601.DTL Google Bookmarks Georgia (default) Verdana Times New Roman Arial New! If ethanol ever gains widespread use as a clean alternative fuel to gasoline, people with respiratory illnesses may be in trouble. A new study out of Stanford says pollution from ethanol could end up creating a worse health hazard than gasoline, especially for people with asthma and other respiratory diseases. "Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution," Mark Z Jacobson, the study's author and an atmospheric scientist at Stanford, said in a statement. "But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage." The study appears in today's online edition of Environmental Science & Technology, a publication of the American Chemical Society. It comes at a time when the Bush administration is pushing plans to boost ethanol production and the nation's automakers are required by 2012 to have half their vehicles run on flex fuel, allowing the use of either gasoline or ethanol. Jacobson used a computer to model how pollution from ethanol fuel would affect different parts of the country in 2020, when ethanol-burning vehicles are expected to be common on America's roadways. He found that ethanol-burning cars could boost levels of toxic ozone gas in urban areas, but that Los Angeles residents would be by far the hardest hit because of the city's reliance on the automobile and environmental factors that tend to concentrate smog there. His study showed that the city would experience a 9 percent increase in the rate of ozone-related respiratory deaths -- 120 more deaths per year -- compared with what would have been projected in 2020 assuming continued gasoline use. Pollution from ethanol would be riskier than pollution from gasoline because when ethanol breaks down in the atmosphere, it generates considerably more ozone. Ozone is a highly corrosive gas that damages the delicate tissues of the lungs. In fact, it's so corrosive that it can crack rubber and wear away statues, Jacobson told The Chronicle. Jacobson's study focuses on the health effects of an ethanol type called E85, a highly publicized fuel composed of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both R-Maine, introduced a bill to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. The bill would "require fuel suppliers to increase the percentage of low-carbon fuels -- biodiesel, E85 ... hydrogen, electricity, and others -- in the motor vehicle fuel supply" by 2015, according to a March 30 press release from Feinstein's office. Reacting to Jacobson's study, Feinstein issued a statement Tuesday. "All of these fuels emit certain pollutants, and those pollutants have to be known and evaluated for their health effects. There can be no real rush to judgment about these fuels. "We've got to find a way to develop low-carbon fuels that do not have adverse health effects." A spokesman for the state Air Resources Board said officials there were still studying prepublication copies of the Jacobson paper and would have no immediate comment. "This is the first we've heard of it," said board spokesman Dimitri Stanich. In the meantime, he said, "there are multiple avenues for reducing California's carbon 'footprint,' (with) hydrogen and ethanol being part of that plan. The study also attracted the attention of environmental scientists. The basic principles of Jacobson's paper are sound, David Pimentel, an ecology professor emeritus at Cornell University, wrote in an e-mail. "The burning of ethanol releases large quantities of ozone, a serious air pollutant," he said. "In addition, the use of ethanol as a fuel releases formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, plus benzene and butadiene. All of these are carcinogens and are a threat to public health." Jacobson's study, however, concluded that the cancer-causing effects of ethanol would be roughly comparable to those of gasoline. Chris Somerville, a Stanford professor who chairs the executive committee for the recently announced BP-funded Energy Biosciences Institute at UC Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois, said the study was interesting and it "should be followed up with experimental work." It is "possible that ethanol will not be the major biofuel in 2020," he said. "I see ethanol as a transitional fuel that will eventually be replaced by ... I am just uncertain whether it will be done by 2010 or whether it may take longer." The institute is slated to develop a new generation of carbon-neutral biofuels, including ethanol. Alex Farrell, a Berkeley professor of energy and resources, was also complimentary of the study. "It's a good scientific paper that has taken the first look at the air-quality impacts of ethanol in a worst-case scenario," he said. "It is definitely my opinion that ethanol is not the only solution to air pollution." Jacobson's computer model for Los Angeles is extremely high-resolution, as such models go. It breaks the Los Angeles atmosphere into a three-dimensional grid akin to 100,000 "boxes" stacked more than 10 miles high. Each box measures 3 miles wide and a few hundred feet deep. He said he isn't surprised that no one previously tried to model the long-term health impacts of ethanol in such detail "because it's very complicated." "The only reason I was able to do it is because I've been building this model for 18 years now," he said. |
| tinyurl.com/3dog3p -> www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/27/a-lethal-solution/#more-1051 A Lethal Solution Posted March 27, 2007 We need a five-year freeze on biofuels, before they wreck the planet. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that it causes more harm than good. In theory, fuels made from plants can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. Plants absorb carbon as they grow - it is released again when the fuel is burnt. By encouraging oil companies to switch from fossil plants to living ones, governments on both sides of the Atlantic claim to be "decarbonising" our transport networks. In the budget last week, Gordon Brown announced that he would extend the tax rebate for biofuels until 2010. From next year all suppliers in the UK will have to ensure that 25% of the fuel they sell is made from plants - if not, they must pay a penalty of 15p a litre. By 2050, the government hopes that 33% of our fuel will come from crops. Last month George Bush announced that he would quintuple the US target for biofuels: by 2017 they should be supplying 24% of the nation's transport fuel. Only that they are a formula for environmental and humanitarian disaster. In 2004 this column warned that biofuels would set up a competition for food between cars and people. The people would necessarily lose: those who can afford to drive are, by definition, richer than those who are in danger of starvation. It would also lead to the destruction of rainforests and other important habitats. I received more abuse than I've had for any other column, except when I attacked the 9/11 conspiracists. I was told my claims were ridiculous, laughable, impossible. I thought these effects wouldn't materialise for many years. Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year." According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from both maize and wheat. Farmers will respond to better prices by planting more, but it is not clear that they can overtake the booming demand for biofuel. Even if they do, they will catch up only by ploughing virgin habitat. Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum. The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022(10). Just five years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn't happen until 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into biodiesel for the European market. This is now the main cause of deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the extinction of the orang utan in the wild. As the forests are burnt, both the trees and the peat they sit on are turned into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or ten times as much as petroleum produces(11). Biodiesel from palm oil causes TEN TIMES as much climate change as ordinary diesel. Sugarcane producers are moving into rare scrubland habitats (the cerrado) in Brazil and soya farmers are ripping up the Amazon rainforests. As President Bush has just signed a biofuel agreement with President Lula, it's likely to become a lot worse. Indigenous people in South America, Asia and Africa are starting to complain about incursions onto their land by fuel planters. A petition launched by a group called biofuelwatch, begging western governments to stop, has been signed by campaigners from 250 groups(12). The British government is well aware that there's a problem. On his blog last year the environment secretary David Miliband noted that palm oil plantations "are destroying 07% of the Malaysian rain forest each year, reducing a vital natural resource (and in the process, destroying the natural habitat of the orang-utan). The reason governments are so enthusiastic about biofuels is that they don't upset drivers. They appear to reduce the amount of carbon from our cars, without requiring new taxes. It's an illusion sustained by the fact that only the emissions produced at home count towards our national total. The forest clearance in Malaysia doesn't increase our official impact by a gram. In February the European Commission was faced with a straight choice between fuel efficiency and biofuels. It had intended to tell car companies that the average carbon emission from new cars in 2012 would be 120 grams per kilometre. After heavy lobbying by Angela Merkel on behalf of her car manufacturers, it caved in and raised the limit to 130 grams. It announced that it would make up the shortfall by increasing the contribution from biofuel(14). It can't: its consultants have already shown that if it tries to impose wider environmental standards on biofuels, it will fall foul of world trade rules(16). And even "sustainable" biofuels merely occupy the space that other crops now fill, displacing them into new habitats. It promises that one day there will be a "second generation" of biofuels, made from straw or grass or wood. By the time the new fuels are ready, the damage will have been done. We need a moratorium on all targets and incentives for biofuels, until a second generation of fuels can be produced for less than it costs to make fuel from palm oil or sugarcane. Even then, the targets should be set low and increased only cautiously. This would require a huge campaign, tougher than the one which helped to win a five-year freeze on growing genetically modified crops in the UK. That was important - GM crops give big companies unprecedented control over the foodchain. But most of their effects are indirect, while the devastation caused by biofuel is immediate and already visible. This is why it will be harder to stop: encouraged by government policy, vast investments are now being made by farmers and chemical companies. Budget 2007, Chapter 7 2 Department for Transport, 21^st December 2005. Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) feasibility report. html 4 The US Energy Information Administration gives US gasoline consumption for October 2006 (the latest available date) at 287,857,000 barrels. If this month is typical, annual consumption amounts to 345 billion barrels, or 145 billion gallons. htm In the state of the union address, Bush proposed a mandatory annual target of 35 billion gallons. Food prices to rise as biofuel demand keeps grains costly. Financial Times8 Keith Collins, chief economist, US Department of Agriculture. Quoted by Eoin Callan and Kevin Morrison, 5^th March 2007, ibid. State of Emergency: Illegal Logging, Fire and Palm Oil in Indonesia's National Parks. Commission Of The European Communities, 7^th February 2007. Results of the review of the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles. Feasibility Study on Certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Cellulosic Ethanol: Biofuel Researchers Prepare to Reap a New Harvest. |
| journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html One of the most controversial issues relating to ethanol (and more recently to biodiesel as well, see below) is what environmentalists call the "net energy" of ethanol production: is more energy used to grow and process the raw material into ethanol than is contained in the ethanol itself? In the US most ethanol is made from corn (maize), which is far from the best energy crop (Brazil uses sugar cane). Nonetheless, a US Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol. However, variations in data and assumptions used among the studies have resulted in a wide range of estimates. This study identifies the factors causing this wide variation and develops a more consistent estimate... We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 124." htm "The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update", by Hosein Shapouri and James A Duffield, US Department of Agriculture, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, and Michael Wang of the Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory. For every BTU dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34% energy gain... Only about 17% of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 BTU of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 634 BTU gain." ", David Lorenz and David Morris of the Institute for Local-Self Reliance (ILSR) state: "Using the best farming and production methods, the amount of energy contained in a gallon of ethanol is more than twice the energy used to grow the corn and convert it to ethanol." A 1992 ILSR study, based on actual energy consumption data from farmers and ethanol plant operators, found that the production of ethanol from corn is a positive net energy generator. In this updated paper the numbers look even more attractive: more energy is contained in the ethanol and the other by-products of corn processing than is used to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol and by-products. html New study confronts old thinking on ethanol's net energy value, 3/28/2005 -- Ethanol generates 35% more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent study by Argonne National Laboratory conducted by Michael Wang. The new findings support earlier research that determined ethanol has a positive net energy balance, according to the National Corn Growers Association. That research was conducted by USDA, Michigan State University, the Colorado School of Mines, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and other public and private entities. Argonne is one of the US Department of Energy's largest research centers. pdf Ethanol under fire: David Pimentel et al Actually it's Big Ethanol and Big Corn that are under fire by Big Oil, though Big Corn and Big Agriculture are a major client of Big Oil. Small is beautiful, especially with food and biofuels, and we don't support Big Ethanol producers like Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill or Monsanto any more than we support ExxonMobil or Shell. Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol Results -- six charts that show the picture at a glance (Acrobat file, 140 kb) In August 2001 Pimentel attacked the economics of corn-to-ethanol production in an article published in the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology. Pimentel asserted that ethanol production is uneconomic: "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. US drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price." "Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist", August 6, 2001 -- "Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces." h tml In a detailed analysis of Pimentel's research, Dr. Michael S Graboski of the Colorado School of Mines says Pimentel's findings are based on out-of-date statistics (22 year-old data) and are contradicted by a recent US Department of Agriculture (USDA) study. "Comparison of USDA and Pimentel Net Energy Balances" -- "The USDA analysis clearly shows, contrary to the Pimentel paper, that US farming and ethanol manufacture are very energy efficient, and that the energy content of ethanol delivered to the consumer is significantly larger than the total fossil energy inputs required to produce it. USDA estimates that ethanol facilities produce at least 123 units of energy as ethanol for every fossil BTU included considering all energy inputs related to corn farming, corn transport, ethanol production, and distribution and transport of finished ethanol." Industry Argues That Ethanol Delivers" In fact this isn't the first time Pimentel had published misinformation about ethanol, nor the first time critics had poked his analyses full of holes. He knows he's using outdated data, but that doesn't stop him. In 1998 he published this report: "Energy and Dollar Costs of Ethanol Production with Corn" by David Pimentel, April 1998 -- "Ethanol does not provide energy security for the future. It is not a renewable energy source, is costly in terms of production and subsidies, and its production causes serious environmental degradation." html This report was debunked by, among others, Michael Wang and Dan Santini of the Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, who conducted a series of detailed analyses on energy and emission impacts of corn ethanol from 1997 through 1999: "Corn-Based Ethanol Does Indeed Achieve Energy Benefits" -- "Prof. David Pimentel's 1998 assessment of corn ethanol concluded that corn ethanol achieved a negative energy balance (which is usually defined as the energy in a product minus energy used to produce the product). Unfortunately, his assessment lacked timeliness in that it relied on data appropriate to conditions of the 1970s and early 1980s, but clearly not the 1990s... With up-to-date information on corn farming and ethanol production and treating ethanol co-products fairly, we have concluded that corn-based ethanol now has a positive energy balance of about 20,000 Btu per gallon." ht m Wang and Santini found that Pimentel had been recycling his already-ancient data for at least 10 years. In August 2002 a new report from the USDA found that not only is ethanol energy-efficient, it's efficiency is steadily improving. But his outdated work has been refuted by experts from entities as diverse as the USDA, DOE, Argonne National Laboratory, Michigan State University, and the Colorado School of Mines. While the opponents of ethanol will no doubt continue to peddle Pimentel's baseless charges, they are absolutely without credibility," the Renewable Fuels Association commented. "From stalk to fuel tank, ethanol a net energy gain" -- Washington, August 7, 2002, Reuters: Measured from cornfield to the fuel tank, ethanol provides more energy than is consumed in producing it, researchers said in a new report that could figure in congressional debate over US energy policy. pdf Biofuels: Energy Balance, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, October, 2003 -- ... A 2002 study by the US Department of Agriculture that accounts for gasoline and diesel fuel use, fertilizers and a variety of other energy inputs in the production, concluded that the energy balance of ethanol is 134:1. This means that ethanol "yields 34% more energy than it takes to produce it, including growing the corn, harvesting it, transporting it and distilling it into ethanol." Bruce Dale, Michigan State University (2002), and a study by Argonne National Laboratory (1999). htm Energy Balance/Life Cycle Inventory for Ethanol, Biodiesel and Petroleum Fuels, Minnesota Department of Agriculture -- ... "The finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel dedicated to the production of ethanol is 134 but only 074 for gasoline. html Pimentel's arguments Under the heading "Food Versus ... |
| sfgate.com Friday, May 14, 2004 Updated: 12:07 AM PDT ' I'm guessing that the best way to hail a cab or a bartender in Athens will not be by waving an American flag." Sorensen Capital group He's already got more money than god, but that isn't stopping Steve Young (above, right) from embarking on a second career in business. Gov's Balancing Act Schwarzenegger unveils revised budget containing spending cuts and (as promised) no new taxes. Wedding Date's Still On Same-sex marriage opponents lose bid to halt gay nuptials, scheduled to begin Monday in Massachusetts. Researchers say they've found evidence of impact greater than the one that probably caused the dinosaurs' extinction. Wars' $50 Bil Price Tag "It's a big bill," says Wolfowitz, who estimates the cost of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. No Plea From Anderson Using a wheelchair, the haggard-looking suspect is arraigned in the murder of Xiana Fairchild. Giants Left Stranded G-men leave 12 men on base, including two in the bottom of the 9th, and drop series to Philly. Sex, Drugs, And Then 5 Deaths Playboy Playmate tells how she got involved with 2 suspects, but left in just the nick of time. Pixar Growth Plan Wins Fans 20-year proposal for Emeryville site gets flak from activists, but city says go for it. |