Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
The Big Dark Cloud in the Ethanol Silver Lining
greenoptions.com — When it comes to solving the fossil fuel crisis, it seems like every silver lining comes accompanied by a dark cloud. The rush to change over to a more ecologically friendly fuel source — ie, the rush to ethanol — is systematically causing damage to the Earth’s greatest natural resource. No, it’s not the kids of the future; it’s our water!
Bukowsky- 398 diggs
- digg it
- granolajoe, on 10/15/2007, -4/+27Ethanol is bad news. Many people already know this...but for those who don't, maybe research like this will convince them that it's NOT going to be a sustainable fuel source.
- grumpyrain, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3It is not ethanol itself that is bad, but the backwards idea of getting it from corn, an inefficient process that drives up food prices and damages the land by overplanting. It relies on fossil fuel based fertilisers that pollute the aquifers. In Australia, our ethanol comes primarily from sugar cane, and there is new laws (not sure if it is state or country wide) that mean that every service station must offer a 15% ethanol blend unleaded. In terms of the fuel itself, it saves about $1.50 on a full tank, but as ethanol has a lower energy density than regular unleaded, your economy won't be quite as good. It would have to probably be another 2-3 cents cheaper again to make it cheaper than regular unleaded.
- YojimboJango, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1I notice that problems with ethanol stem from problems with farming. Yes it does take a lot of water to grow corn. But we need to move away from fossil fuel soon, and preferably to a fuel source that we can be sustainable on. Corn based ethanol may not be the answer. Like the article says, we need to research better plants, not just go with the plant that has the best economic sanctions.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1What ever your views are, understand that bad news about alternatives may very well be relevant. But also understand that there is an active intrest in seeing any alternative look unfavorable.
Do not forget this before you decide. Look at the facts and make your own decision.
- grumpyrain, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3It is not ethanol itself that is bad, but the backwards idea of getting it from corn, an inefficient process that drives up food prices and damages the land by overplanting. It relies on fossil fuel based fertilisers that pollute the aquifers. In Australia, our ethanol comes primarily from sugar cane, and there is new laws (not sure if it is state or country wide) that mean that every service station must offer a 15% ethanol blend unleaded. In terms of the fuel itself, it saves about $1.50 on a full tank, but as ethanol has a lower energy density than regular unleaded, your economy won't be quite as good. It would have to probably be another 2-3 cents cheaper again to make it cheaper than regular unleaded.
- ZenFountain, on 10/13/2007, -2/+9All you have to do is look at a map of the Ogallala Aquifer to see what's going on here.
http://i21.tinypic.com/ne6akw.gif
The rush to irrigate many new acres of corn and beans in the Midwest is bad news. It's also squeezing out acreage for food crops and driving up prices across the board. It's good that farmers are finally getting above profitability but roller coaster commodity prices driven by inefficient biofuels won't be good for anybody except commodity traders. I live in Nebraska and this is really troubling to me because aquifer water and soil quality will both be quickly depleted if corn based ethanol demand keeps going up.- ZenFountain, on 10/13/2007, -1/+6Oh I was gona add that that graph is only up until 1995, the water table situation in the low plains along western Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas has become far worse since then.
- Pilot85, on 10/13/2007, -1/+9Not to mention the fact that there are at least 2 crops better for extracting the biofuels. Switchgrass, which grows all over the place anyway, and sugar cane.
- Bukowsky, on 10/13/2007, -4/+2this may be far-fetched, but what about hemp?
- MWeather, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4Hemp has many uses, but as a source for ethanol, or even just oil for biodiesel, if's far from the best choice.
- Scruffydan, on 10/13/2007, -1/+8Don't forget about algae. It is much more efficient, and grows anywhere there is sunlight and C02.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/bi ...
- Bukowsky, on 10/13/2007, -4/+2this may be far-fetched, but what about hemp?
- jakeson2, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1This is a stupid and unknowing argument. The facts are that we have been in a long 8 year drought. The water is down slightly over 50 years because of the drought. It has raised and dropped several times since I first started to irrigate. My farm has a well on it that has dropped only 3 feet since 1946 when the well was first drilled. That is NOT A DISASTER. Especially since my farm is now only 1/2 mile from a city where that city has drained the water table to more than 50 feet below the level of the water table surrounding that city only a few miles away. Get your facts straight and do not speak when you do not know what you are talking about.
- ZenFountain, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1That may be fine in your area, but here in the plains where wells are drawing off the Ogallala Aquifer it is a problem. Why? Because this is where most of the new corn acreage is. Yes we have been in a drought, but it's going to take far longer than 8 years to recharge the aquifer...more like 800.
- YojimboJango, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1The MMidwest has no problems with water sources. We have the Great Lakes. The worlds largest supply of fresh water. As Jakeson2 above said drought has brought lower water tables to the heartlands, and they should probably start cutting back. However the midwest is fine.
- ragsmaloy, on 10/13/2007, -4/+12I think ethanol could help ease the transition from fossil fuels in the medium term. However when the US is just focusing on ethanol from corn, in order to appease key primary states such as Iowa then you've got a problem. The ethanol in Brazil made from sugarcane is much cheaper than the US corn based stuff but import tariffs make it pretty much uneconomical and so just essentially subsidise US farmers at the expense of weaning the country off of petrol.
Give it 10 years until everyone is growing genetically modified buffalo grass and you'll be sorted, until then ethanol is just a way for politicians to buy votes from primary states whilst pretending to care about the environment.- zybch, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4Um, I've always wondered this, but why doesn't the US use sugar cane instead of their current sources of sugar stuff?
- ragsmaloy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+5I'm not to sure (being neither an American nor a farmer) but I assume it's to do with the political gain of subsidising the growing of corn in swing midwest states, as opposed to the promotion of suger cane cultivation in safely held southern states.
- grumpyrain, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1What, are you telling me that decisions are being made in order to buy votes not for what is in the best interest of all the constituents? Surely you jest?
- Smight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sugarcane is not a particularly hardy plant and will not grow in the cold climate that most of the US experiences.
A better option for the US would be to grow sugar beets. But because our government subsidizes heavily corn and not beets it is more profitable for a farmer to grow corn collect the subsidies and then try and convince people to use all this extra corn they have. Without government interference the farms would grow the crops most needed instead of which one gets the biggest government check.- MWeather, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1Without government interference, there would be no US farmers left.
- jakeson2, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1Just who do you think would pay for the public schools if they were not forcing me to pay for my farm all over again every 10 years in property taxes. It takes a big crop of high priced grain to pay the expenses and the taxes. Why don't you buy or rent a farm and try it once???????
- ragsmaloy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+5I'm not to sure (being neither an American nor a farmer) but I assume it's to do with the political gain of subsidising the growing of corn in swing midwest states, as opposed to the promotion of suger cane cultivation in safely held southern states.
- zybch, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4Um, I've always wondered this, but why doesn't the US use sugar cane instead of their current sources of sugar stuff?
- gaberowe, on 10/15/2007, -0/+16The real problem is Ethanol made from corn--not ethanol. Ethanol can be made from a huge number of biomass sources. Some people are going after corn, other people (more wisely I would add) are planning to use materials like switch grass, and poplar trees. Those sources are much easier to sustain and don't require the ridiculous amount of fertilizing and watering. Switch grass has all sorts of great benefits--I believe its talked about in the most recent Wired magazine. The idea of using corn is pandering the current farming community, and not the result of any sort of study showing the energy and or environmental efficiency of corn vs other sources of biomass for ethanol.
- jakeson2, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2An untruthful and unknowing comment. The amount of switch grass that could be raised on a farm without irrigation would not pay the property taxes much less any profit or expense in growing and harvesting the crop.
- grumpyrain, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1You keep saying this, but surely then that is the property taxes which cause the sorts of plant density that are the real problem. Planting more crops than the land can naturally support and forcing the reliance on fossil fuel fertilisers is going to cause soil degradation in the long term, so it is largely a case of borrowing from the future.
- jakeson2, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2An untruthful and unknowing comment. The amount of switch grass that could be raised on a farm without irrigation would not pay the property taxes much less any profit or expense in growing and harvesting the crop.
- kinerry, on 10/15/2007, -1/+13While ethanol may be bad, CELLULOSIC ETHANOL IS NOT!!!
Learn the difference- brewer, on 10/13/2007, -1/+4True, but any viable full-scale method for producing ethanol from cellulose is still quite a ways off.
- jakeson2, on 10/13/2007, -3/+1Without water and fertilizer there cannot be enough biomass, grass etc raised to pay the property taxes much less the expense and profit needed to keep people interested.
- brewer, on 10/13/2007, -1/+4True, but any viable full-scale method for producing ethanol from cellulose is still quite a ways off.
- ralph12c41, on 10/13/2007, -4/+5Unless I am mistaken..when the energy requirements (natural gas) of producing ethanol are considered, the entire cycle, production to consumption, ethanol is a net energy consumer as compared to gasoline. Anybody else know if this is correct.?
- brewer, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2I believe that is correct, but if ethanol from cellulose can be produced (as the poster above you mentioned) then it would be net positive, IIRC.
- darkciti2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1The only reason it takes slightly more energy to produce ethanol is because it's not being done on a massive scale. Once it's being produced in a high-volume manner the efficiency losses of energy will be overcome.
- zanzzz, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Wrong! Energy balance for corn ethanol is 1: 1.3. One unit of fossil fuel input for 1.3 units of energy fuel output for corn ethanol. Pretty lame compared to cane ethanol, 1:8.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
- embarkadero, on 10/15/2007, -4/+10ethanol prevents our troops from dying in a war for oil.
- MarvinGalaxy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0Unfortunately, it does not. Ethanol has really only one benefit in that it burns in gasoline engines. It takes too much energy to distill alcohol and the fermentation process produces carbon dioxide. There are just too many inefficiencies in the system. On the other hand, biodiesel mostly just needs to be squeezed from seeds. Both ethanol and biodiesel require agricultural acreage, but biodiesel has less inefficiencies in it's production since it doesn't need to be distilled or refined with heat. It also gets better fuel mileage on the road. Straight vegetable oil would be best since it wouldn't require the chemical refining necessary for biodiesel, but there are problems using SVO in cold climates.
Try to make your next car a diesel so we can switch away from inefficient gasoline and alcohol. They cost a bit more up front, but they more than pay for themselves in lower fuel costs. They are now much cleaner, quieter, and more fun to drive than the lame diesel cars from the 1980s. Diesel fuel is also safer.- darkciti2, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1It DOES NOT TAKE MORE ENERGY TO PRODUCE ! The only reason there are inefficiencies in the system, is because it's not produced in HIGH VOLUME like Gasoline.
One the process is refined (no pun intended) and it's done in volume, we'll have a major solution to the Peak Oil Crisis.- MarvinGalaxy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0I'm comparing ethanol to biodiesel. Petroleum is 100% wasteful so I don't consider that an option. The only way ethanol will be practical is if it is part of a combined system that also produces biodiesel. This may be possible with algae farms where waste carbon dioxide is used to feed the algae, but corn ethanol is much too wasteful. If algae is producing both biodiesel and ethanol, it may become useful. At is is right now, ethanol takes far too much energy to distill to justify the land and water resources needed. From what I have read, the only biofuels currently in use that even comes close to being feasible are palm and rapeseed oils. Even those take too much land. A possible easy alternative (waiting for algae) is to find the oilseed that makes the most oil per acre and that can grow without much water.
- init100, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1"the fermentation process produces carbon dioxide."
This fact is pretty irrelevant since the same amount of CO2 was consumed when the plant grew. No new carbon is added to the system.
- darkciti2, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1It DOES NOT TAKE MORE ENERGY TO PRODUCE ! The only reason there are inefficiencies in the system, is because it's not produced in HIGH VOLUME like Gasoline.
- rarson, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Not until ethanol can be used to make lubricants and plastics.
There's a hell of a lot more stuff made from oil than just gasoline.
- MarvinGalaxy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0Unfortunately, it does not. Ethanol has really only one benefit in that it burns in gasoline engines. It takes too much energy to distill alcohol and the fermentation process produces carbon dioxide. There are just too many inefficiencies in the system. On the other hand, biodiesel mostly just needs to be squeezed from seeds. Both ethanol and biodiesel require agricultural acreage, but biodiesel has less inefficiencies in it's production since it doesn't need to be distilled or refined with heat. It also gets better fuel mileage on the road. Straight vegetable oil would be best since it wouldn't require the chemical refining necessary for biodiesel, but there are problems using SVO in cold climates.
- ssjgogeta88, on 10/13/2007, -3/+3Ethanol cannot be transported in the same pipelines as oil products because of water condesation, thus it has to be driven around by truck. Why not use the concept of this with marijuana? It's able to be used to derive fuel, uses less chemicals, is less harsh on the land, and would have a higher yield.
- brewer, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3I think you mean "hemp". There is [somewhat of] a difference.
- jakeson2, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3Face it, he is just a pothead looking for a fast and easy source.
- jakeson2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3I do not think pushing ethanol through pipelines creates water. In fact the ethanol would collect any water in the pipeline that oil may have deposited there. The oil companies do not want ethanol to compete with their gravy train.
Besides a pipeline pig should always be pushed in front of a material change in a pipeline. That would isolate any differences and mixing of product.- mtekk, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3Ethanol does collect water from the air. This does cause problems, and right now the only solution is to truck it everywhere instead of using the pipelines. As for the rest of his comment...
- darkciti2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Ethanol, much like Gasoline get transported by tanker trucks. Raw OIL gets pushed through pipelines to refinement facilities where it is turned into gasoline.
Please stop spewing mass media lies in an attempt to sound intelligent. If you don't know something, don't comment.
- brewer, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3I think you mean "hemp". There is [somewhat of] a difference.
- fullback, on 10/13/2007, -5/+1Seeing the phrase "fossil fuel" in the blurb means the poster or article is worthless, unless you also believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
- personfromhell, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3mind explaining why?
- ragsmaloy, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2I concur, what with the earth being only 9 thousand years old or so, there would have been no time for anything to fossilise hence no fossil fuel so the article is obviously a piece of neanderthal crap.
- darkciti2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Ever heard of the Oil Crisis?
Try visiting http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ and doing some homework. - fullback, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0Because oil does not come from fossils. The term is perpetuated by the industry to promote the idea of a finite, constantly decreasing, constantly more expensive supply. The "fossil fuel" theory was abandoned decades ago by scientists.
My point is that if the writer doesn't even know that, then they know nothing. I'm not the one needing to do their homework...- init100, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1"The "fossil fuel" theory was abandoned decades ago by scientists."
Scientists? I guess you spelled "conspiracy theorists" wrong.
- init100, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1"The "fossil fuel" theory was abandoned decades ago by scientists."
- baalzebub, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2there are other crops beside corn to make ethanol, sugarbeets can glow with very little water in poor soil would be a good alternative to corn, but big oil companies seems to be doing a great job of squashing ethanol as an alternative, its really shamefull they put profits in front of everything else like the environment...
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The rush to change over to a more ecologically friendly fuel source — ie, the rush to ethanol "
What's with that "i.e."? As if the only ecological fuel source spoken of is ethanol. :-p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel - dicerandom, on 10/13/2007, -3/+1Ethanol is not a solution. Same problem, different name.
It's really easy to tell what is and isn't going to work: Hydrocarbons are bad. Why on earth would you want some big nasty carbon atoms sitting around while you're trying to burn hydrogen and oxygen? - slashdotted, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5Corn based ethanol is a farm-subsidy and has never been a serious solution for energy independence:
Cornell University Scientist, David Pimentel:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/P ...- jakeson2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And you think all the energy used to make the steel in the tanks, guns, and aircraft carriers needed to keep the world trade in oil and all other goods flowing does not use fuel, water, energy, labor and propaganda like this entire blog??????????
- IndicaDreams, on 10/13/2007, -2/+5Food for fuel is just plain stupid.
- baalzebub, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2it would be perfect, the fat people would have to go on a diet if they want to drive their cars...
- jakeson2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1corn grows in the ground and captures photons just like the ancient forests that turned into coal and oil. The amount of carbon dioxide as well as methane's released while those ancient forests were decomposing is the same process used today to convert grains to ethanol. Ethanol is a much cleaner burning fuel than oil and coal. When you talk of food versus oil, just get out your checkbook and pay the price. Corn will go to the highest bidder and it should ALWAYS BE SO! After all that is what I must do when I buy something built or put together in the cities. I must pay the market price. I cannot command you do make something for me while ignoring your wants desires, or forcing you to take a lower price to serve ME!
- jakeson2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2This whole blog is one of greed by those who are selfish and want only their own selfish interests to be served.
- personfromhell, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3can you say electric cars?
- Tetraca, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Electric cars are for wussies. Nuclear fission cars on the other hand....
- timeslip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There's talk where I live about Ethanol pollution
http://www.semissourian.com/story/1283591.html
Ethanol fallout
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Three ethanol plants are planned along Nash Road between Cape Girardeau and Scott City. At a recent meeting of the Small Business Compliance Advisory Committee, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources said each of the plants will be allowed to discharge up to 300 tons of air pollutants, including hazardous pollutants known to cause cancer. By comparison, the DNR said, the limits on hazardous pollutants are 15 to 27 times higher than similar air discharges by two existing plants, Buzzi Unicem and BioKyowa - mwrl, on 10/13/2007, -1/+0Bio-Fuel will be the fuel of the future. People are going to have to come to terms with it. People cry and whine but the mid-west have wonderful water treatment plants designed to clean the water systems from farm run off. The use of "food" as fuel will allow the United States to again run the fuel market for the world. Between corn and soy we are also developing alge grown for the direct purpose of fuel to run the country. This movement is the "greenest" the country has ever taken part in. With today's industrial filter systems little air pollutants ever leave the site. Why is it when after years of people screaming we need to get off ground fuels that when we do they cry and whine about the solution?
- MarvinGalaxy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Bio-Fuel is not the problem. Ethanol, particularly from corn, is the problem. In many ways it looks good, but it requires too much energy to distill the alcohol from the mash (water, yeast, yeast food, and alcohol). Yeast can only live in about a 20% solution of alcohol. That means the alcohol must be boiled out of the mash to make it a fuel.
The real problem with focusing on corn-based ethanol is that it is a known dead end due to it's inefficiency. There is not enough acreage on the earth to grow corn for ethanol. It's inefficiencies mean it will consume precious water resources and cut into the food supply.
You mention algae. If the production obstacles with algae are overcome, it may be a decent source for both biodiesel and ethanol. Biodiesel is better, but the fact that algae could be used for both is very promising.
Try to make your next car a diesel so we can get off inefficient gasoline and ethanol.
- MarvinGalaxy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Bio-Fuel is not the problem. Ethanol, particularly from corn, is the problem. In many ways it looks good, but it requires too much energy to distill the alcohol from the mash (water, yeast, yeast food, and alcohol). Yeast can only live in about a 20% solution of alcohol. That means the alcohol must be boiled out of the mash to make it a fuel.
- canuq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mirror: http://mirror.canuq.com/3767032/2007/10/10/the_big ...
- 3leggedHorse, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2 ***** it we are all screwed take recreational drugs and hug strangers.
- MadHarvey, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0Sometimes when you see a dark cloud near the silver lining, you are really just putting the icing on the bee whose far too worried to notice anyway.
So, I would just ignore the silver lining all-together because, surely, their frequent companions are an effect of global warming. - dylio, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1This is why they're trying to make it so that they can break down the cellulose from grass. We just need the proper enzymes at a low cost. Then we'll be set, for awhile.
- DustarForgash, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1This is one reason why I'm a strong advocate of hemp (and marijuana). Industrial grade hemp is strongly resistant to pests and requires low fertilization, can be used to make clothing, used for animal feed, used to make to produce paper, and has many other uses. Most importantly, unlike marijuana, industrial grade hemp has no potential for being used as a drug.
The more you know. =D- nytewalker, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Tell that to the DEA who outright ignorantly stated that they hold hemp to be "the same as marijuana." Just because Hemp can contain very trace amounts of THC, no where near enough to get a High from, they stamp it out as a drug. So while Hemp is a very useful plant with literally thousands of uses the DEA wont let it be grown because they have a very short-sided view of it.
P.S.
I'm an advocate for Hemp and Marijuana as well, but it is a shame that we hold a substance that causes next to zero ill effects to be dangerous, while tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of people every year.
- nytewalker, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Tell that to the DEA who outright ignorantly stated that they hold hemp to be "the same as marijuana." Just because Hemp can contain very trace amounts of THC, no where near enough to get a High from, they stamp it out as a drug. So while Hemp is a very useful plant with literally thousands of uses the DEA wont let it be grown because they have a very short-sided view of it.
- PresidentGas, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1how about geothermal energy from the magma vents?
- Hosalabad, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Another problem is that you have CAFE credits applied for flex fuel (ethanol) vehicles that are substantially raising their average fuel economy and allowing further increases in production of large fuel inefficient vehicles that will almost never even get to use Ethanol.
The last stats for Georgia showed less than five E85 gas stations, but how many FlexFuel Chevy Tahoes did I see on the highway today? - zanzzz, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1If only we could convert stupidity into energy. As Frank Zappa pointed out stupidity not hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
- Virgule, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0Earth does not have enough land to grow enough corn to provide the world with ethanol. We need about 3 more planets....
- chijim70, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1i'm still waiting for the aircar to take hold. It seems to make the most sense to me.
http://www.theaircar.com/
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
