What is Digg?181 Comments
- tradwolley, on 10/10/2007, -4/+65People forget that the CO2 from the ethanol was pulled out of the air by the corn, so overall the net gain of CO2 comes only from the refining process. Regular gas is adding CO2 that has been sequestered away for millions of years.
Net result, the final line is garbage. "To reduce CO2 as a global warming pollutant, stop using ethanol as an automobile fuel substitute!" - Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24The real pollution issue with ethanol is not the CO2 but the farming runoff.
- neoblaque, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26Ethanol as a gasoline alternative is a hoax perpetuated by farm state Congress and big business. There are many studies out there by Universities in the midwest (farm states) that show that.
Spend some time on Google, evidence is everywhere. - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19This is a calculation performable by a high school student. It's all great to say "Ethanol puts more CO2 back into the air", but the real question to this is "where did that carbon come from in the first place?" With Ethanol, it comes from the Carbon Cycle, gasoline pulls its carbon out of sequestration in the earth as fossil fuels. This makes this entire argument invalid.
Ethanol might not be perfect for other reasons, namely that it has to come from crops which could be used for food and that the refining process is much more difficult and requires new infrastructure. If you want to seriously argue against it, start there. - phlanx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13The real problem is in the growing of the corn used to make ethanol. In order to grow corn, they use mass amounts of petro-chemical fertilizers. Guess what they are made from? OIL. So, it takes oil to grow a crop, that has to be converted, into something usable, that is overall more polluting.
Add to that the pollutants from creating the fertilizer in the first place and the ecological damage from runoff.
In a word, YES.
Ethanol sucks. It is way more polluting than Gasoline.
A great book on this and other pressing issues is called - The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Highly recommended. - kriox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14For one thing, all the ethanol CO2 referenced in the article comes from the air anyway through photosynthesis. As someone said below, CO2 from oil has been there for ages and is nowadays being released all at once.
Also, "Expert Consulting and Expert Witness Services"??? You've got to be kidding me. This company's business is finding someone with credentials willing to say exactly what you need said, no mather how foolish. - creolelicious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I don't know about others here, but I live in the American Midwest, where for the past few years more and more farmers have switched to growing corn instead of other crops because of ethynol subsidies. The entire area around Minneapolis is now pretty much nothing but corn, whereas in years gone by it was a mixture of corn, alfalfa, soy and many other crops. This is bad in many ways. First, growing corn is very hard on soil. You cannot grow only corn on the same field for many years without serious consequences for soil health, nutrients and erosion. Second, corn prices are soaring, but so are the prices for other crops, which are becoming scarcer due to the fact that farmers are opting not to grow them. This goes for animal feed, as well. Third, monoculture, the practice of growing only one crop on a field, reduces overall crop yields each year it is practiced on that field. Fourth, monoculture is a bonanza for parasites and crop-eating insects, who may prefer one type of crop over another and be disrupted when farmers rotate crops. When the farmers do not rotate, the corn parasites get to stay where they are, year after year, and build immunities and resistances to pesticides and natural protections in the crop. It is a terrible, terrible deal for everything and everyone involved, except the farmers, who will experience a little short-term economic benefit at the cost of long-term field and soil health.
- Tenlow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Actually corn ethanol is a ***** fuel, ethanol made from other sources of sugar have a much higher yield of energy. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
- alphacorvus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13What about all the CO2 that is released by the farm equipment that harvests the corn, or other farm machinery involved in the process?
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13This is possibly the stupidest 'blinded me with science' example I've ever seen. That ethanol releases more CO2 when burned than gasoline is irrelevant; the CO2 released by ethanol was previously sequestered by the plants it was fermented from.
Mind you, corn ethanol isn't sustainable; you don't get enough energy out of the refined fuel to run the cultivation and refinement process. Jerusalem artichokes are a better choice, releaseing 12 times the equivalent energy in relation to its cultivation and refinement. Of course, then there's hemp oil and cellulostic butanol, which have yields of around 300x per unit nonsolar input energy. Cellulostic butanol, by the way, could be made from something like Kudzu, which is *remarkably* efficient at producing plant mass with very little solar input. - Canaduh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Another funny thing is, the burning of biodiesel produces something like 20x the amount of nitrous oxide when compared head to head with gasoline. Nitrous oxide is something like 300x as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2 over a span of a century. Yep, that tiny car running on biodiesel is probably worse for the environment than an H2.
With the large technological problems associated with hydrogen, and the problems with electric cars (recharge rate being the biggest and hardest to overcome, unless you have household wiring capable of handling several MW), efficiency seems the way to go for the foreseeable future. - rabidmonkey1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9The problems with Corn-based ethanol are numerous:
Too little energy to be found in corn to make it financially effective.
Too much pollution during harvesting (they run the harvesters on diesel, fyi) and refinement.
Gov't subsidies are a negative in this situation.
Greater engine damage from usage over time.
The usage of corn for ethanol restricts the supply for food (namely cattle feed) because of increased demand. This means food prices go up on all meats and dairy and anything containing either.
Ethanol is bad overall. Corn doesn't have much energy in it to begin with - a much, much better solution would be Sugar Cane; something the Brazilians have been adamant about and use to great success. Sadly, legislation is blocking Louisiana farmers from planting Sugar cane. Another alternative would be switchgrass, but again, not nearly as good as sugar cane. Only a select group of people are benefiting from this lie perpetrated on the American Public and they are using legislation to keep it that way. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8We should create a giant vacuum that sucks all the CO2 from the atmosphere and blows it into outer space. Problem Solved.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8O.O
God DAMN, but that was stupid. I know it was on purpose, to pooh-pooh what's become a buzzword, but DAMN.
There is presently an overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon neutral, as you apparently know, means that the cradle-to-grave process in a fuel's lifecycle releases no additional gaseous carbon compounds into the atmosphere. You are correct in that gasoline and diesel are carbon-plus; they are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that hasn't been there for millenia. The carbon found in ethanol comes primarily from the atmosphere, and as a result is 'neutral'.
Meanwhile, the 'stupid' comes from this: plants have continuous access to CO2. There's a lot of it about. - ZenFountain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Corn based ethanol is a terrible idea cooked up by agribusiness to extract easy money though government subsidies. It's a total fantasy to think that you gain energy from a crop the requires immense amounts of water, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer to grow in mass quantity on top of the machinery needed to plant the crop, apply chemicals, harvest and transport it. These record corn crops are also exhausting soil and depleting water resources. Parts of Kansas and Texas have nearly sucked the Ogallala Aquifer dry from irrigation and pesticides are contaminating drinking water supplies in many areas. It's just plain stupid any way you slice it, on top of the pollution considerations. I say this as a Nebraskan who knows a bit about agriculture and where it's going. The days of the family farm where people actually cared about the land and their living are closing fast, being replaced by giant agribusiness companies that don't give a ***** about anything other than profit.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8what this doesn't cover is that it matters where the CO2 comes from. CO2 from gas used to be locked under ground, CO2 from ethanol comes from the biosphere, and when the corn crows back it will reabsorb the released carbon.
- crunchyeyeball, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Brazil gets 30% of its vehicle fuel from ethanol. You can fill up with ethanol for less than the cost of gasoline. They have cut oil imports by over $50 Billion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
I don't see any evidence that ethanol is a hoax, despite your claim that the "evidence is everywhere" . Perhaps you should inform the Brazilian public who've been filling their tanks with cheap sugar cane ethanol since the 70s that it is all a hoax. - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Corn eth is unsustainable crap. However, cellulostic, jerusalem artichoke, and cane eth are all quite sustainable.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7How about leaving out generalities and post some credible sources.
By credible sources I mean those that do not include the following:
Study funded by Exxon, BP, Citgo, etc. - 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The real pollution is to our economy. The government mandates a certain percentage of corn produced be used to make ethanol, which artificially drives up the price of milk and every other product which uses corn.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/02/news/economy/corn_milkprices/index.htm?cnn=yes - rebrad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Not only is ethanol more polluting, the worst effect is that it dramatically raises the price of food products (source: Kroger, Ralphs, etc). While it may make farmers, politicians and some people feel good, it's a sin to use food to fuel a vehicle. Food should be eaten not burned.
- Subterfug, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The point of Ethanol is so that we are less foreign-oil-dependent, but I agree that it is one step forward and two steps back if it just pollutes more.
- prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I just can't get excited about burning food.
- dakboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Ethanol is actually a decent renewable fuel source.
However, Ethanol *derived from corn and other low-yielding biomass* IS "a hoax perpetuated by farm state Congress and big business." Brazil gets their Ethanol from sugar cane, which is yields much more Ethanol per acre. - gummih, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13OK, I don't know much about this but isn't rather much CO2 released when gasoline is refined?
This seems to be a rather simplistic approach to the pollution of ethanol vs. gasoline.
There must be better resources than this? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7This is retarded, you can't just look at the chemical formula... The whole deal with ethanol is that it's almost carbon neutral.. the CO2 it gives off is what the plant produced and pulled out of the air to grow. What we should really compare is Gasoline total (what is released + the CO2 that's released to refine it) vs. the amount of CO2 released for manufacturing the ethanol.
This article is dumb. - merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Natural sources produce 7 times as much (15 teragrams) Nitrous Oxide as human sources do (2 teragrams).
http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html - justinjstark, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I call *****. Some ***** who bought himself a Ph.D. thinks he is the ***** for touting a few chemical equations and coming to a result. Anybody -- and I mean anybody -- in science knows that there are more variables in the real world than there are in any series of equations.
From Popular Mechanics, here is something not even brought up by this "expert."
"The performance of E85 vehicles is potentially higher than that of gasoline vehicles because E85's high octane rating allows a much higher compression ratio, which translates into higher thermodynamic efficiency. "
Want some actual data? From the EPA:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/338/cawaiverdenial.pr.050602.pdf
“The science is clear: ethanol-blended RFG reduces total smog forming emissions.
Given that, the EPA had no choice but to uphold the Clean Air Act RFG provisions.
The continued use of ethanol in New York, Connecticut and California will reduce
smog-forming emissions and expand tight gasoline supplies with an affordable clean
octane component. But this should not come as a surprise to anyone – it’s what
ethanol’s been doing in California, Connecticut and New York for more than a year.
Given the EPA’s continued affirmation of ethanol’s clean air benefits, other states
considering MTBE bans should rest easy that they can act to protect their water
without harming air quality.”
And to try to remain unbiased:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/apr/science/ee_ethanol.html
"[Jacobson's] results, published today on ES&T's Research ASAP website (DOI: 10.1021/es062085v), show that ethanol is no silver bullet for health. Switching to E85 blends (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) could result in slightly higher ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma (9% higher in Los Angeles and 4% higher in the U.S. as a whole), the study finds. Cancer rates would be similar for gasoline and E85."
"It's true that ethanol does decrease some pollutants, but it also increases some others," Jacobson says. Compared with gasoline, ethanol tends to produce less benzene and butadiene, but more acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, when burned."
I'm burying this as inaccurate. This article contains horrible science...if you can even call it science. - mrmcphee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Well said.
The idea is that Ethanol, although producing CO2 as well, would be sustainable and renewable. - boxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The carbon isn't going back in there when we're done with it. Therefore, it's not a cycle.
- rabidmonkey1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, Brazil does use ethanol, but it works for them because they harvest it from Sugar Cane, not corn. Corn has a much lower energy yield than sugar cane. Sugar cane does not tax the soil like corn. IT does not require fertilizer like corn, and the harvesting process is much different. It's not really the Ethanol that's the issue here, but the means of production. Currently, laws prevent the US from growing and harvesting Sugar Cane for ethanol.
- jeffeb3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4ethanol is still very young...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+14Gasoline is still far healthier for the earth compared to ethanol in regards to the amount of energy returned from energy required to use it.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3*blink*
Um. It's carbon that's been locked away for a very, very long time. It hasn't been a part of any 'cycle', per se, for aeons. Sure, it's in there now, and we're constantly adding more, but what's still underground is no more a part of the natural carbon cycle than my shoes are part of my feet. - IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Everything about corn sucks ass. Corn is bad for you to eat, corn syrup and HFCS is terrible for you to consume, and corn-based ethanol isn't going to help the environment since its energy output is so much lower than other forms of ethanol like sugar cane and switch grass. Corn is going to bring the USA down.
- Arkons24, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4and that doesn't even count the amount of co2 emitted to produce the ethanol in the first place.
- ausfahrt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Apparently they cut down the rain forests to grow the stuff now too cause there is so much demand.
//I remember when that was the "Global Warming" of it's time - ruley, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4we could just use algae based ethanol and solve all the problems in the world...
- bbtrev, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Environmental impact aside, there is no way that ethanol as a fuel source is at all sustainable. First of all, our planet is currently home to over 6 billion human. Rough estimates are that the maximum capacity, based on merely feeding all of us ravenous people, is 2 billion. So if we already have more people than the planet can feed, and we start using agricultural land to produce organic material with which we will run our cars, then we're gonna run out of food quick.
One tank of ethanol in your car consumes the equivalent of as much food as one person would eat in a year. Many people fill their tanks weekly, so that means that the average Joe would go from consuming the food of one person per year to consuming more than 50 times that. Good luck finding lunch under those conditions...LOL - C0lMustard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The electric car is the answer... The only real limitation is the fact that they don't have long a range vs. time to charge..
Benefits:
0 emmissions by the car - (the power plant that generates electricity does but, because the pollution is centralized it is easier to clean/treat or convert on a large scale to wind/hydro/solar.
Less moving parts/replacement parts etc... an electric engine will outlast a gas engine and cost significantly less to maintain Quiet- imagine the sound of a freeway when the only sound is wheels on the road If electric cars are adopted in the mass market battery technology will get better, (as soon as ford can say they get 200 miles per charge Gm will find a way to have a 220 mpc vehicle).
The only real issue is the time it takes to get back to full charge, which could be fixed by offering battery change out stations rather than gas stations. - Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3which is a problem with almost all farm.
- Modiga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Surely ethanol based fuels would be carbon neutral? Or at least close to it. Think of it this way. The corn is grown and the sugars it produces contain carbon atoms that have been taken out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis. These sugars are then used to make ethanol, which is combusted in various forms of engine. The carbon locked in the ethanol is released back into the atmosphere. In other words, any carbon (dioxide) produced would have been removed from the atmosphere to begin with and so the net amount of carbon released should be zero.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The problem with the green debate is that the Earth is a closed atmosphere. There are too many conflicting theories. Ethanol is cleaner but the energy to produce ethanol is questionable. Electric cars are clean, but the energy required to manufacture car batteries is questionable. Solar energy is clean but the energy to manufacture solar cells and batteries are questionable. The problem is that you need a coal fired power station to supply the electrical energy for manufacturing. Catch 22. C02 output to stop C02 production. C02 is not a bad polluter; so we get global warming. Ice melts, oceans rise and the climate compensates. It has happened in the past and will happen again. The best solution is to go back to throwing boomerangs. Environmentally friendly, but who is going to produce the food? Oil and a coal fired power station. The bigger picture is to stop building cities near the ocean, low lying areas and swamps.
The North West of Australia has enough natural gas to supply Europe for 200 years. Convert to LPG. - ZaZ2137, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We could call it.....MEGA MAID
- ckedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2***** morons. The C02 released in that forumula is "neutral" if we grow crops that take up the exact same amount of C02 and re-use it in a never ending cycle - whereas the C02 released by burning the already sequestered hydrocarbons is never re-captured or re-used, it's added to the environment.
It's a lot lot lot more complicated than that simple chemical formula or even what I suggest above. Buried as totally ***** innacurate. That anyone could be so stupid is frightening. That so many people are is terrifying. - apolloae, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'd say the main problem is that ethanol is being advertised as the "greener" approach when that is not necessarily true and instead it should be advertised and promoted as a way to reduce our dependence on anyone but ourselves. After we do that, then we can work on finding a greener approach.
- cspivack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We should be using something like switchgrass, because it isn't a food and is much more efficient than corn. But we won't because of the huge subsidies for farmers that grow corn. The same people getting subsidized is the reason why we have high fructose corn syrup in all our food.
- ambrosious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What about the drilling machines and oil tankers required to ship oil from far away countries all around the world? At least with Ethanol it can be grown and sold far more locally for many more countries.
- hamlet9000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Bravo. It's nice to see someone who actually understands the full scope of the issue.
- kalisphoenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We don't give a ***** about what's underground. It doesn't currently affect the atmosphere that supports and sustains life. Similarly, I don't really care all that much about the rat poison in boxes at Wal-Mart, because I'm currently drinking lemonade that doesn't contain rat poison. It's a rather simple concept.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 181 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is