- Filter by:
- All
High: 27° / Low: 16° — Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
[Via Washington Post] Stanford University has published a study that says widespread ethanol use may be as harmful to humans as gasoline. It was found that Ethanol combustion of E85 actually increases the output of two different carcinogens, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, when compared to traditional gasoline. The study also found links between E85 and heavy smog-causing ozone emissions in certain parts of the country. Ethanol has a political and practical leg up on other alternative fuels right now because it's renewable and mass-produced domestically. But it's time to step up, hydrogen.
Umm hydrogen?? Wtf?
Hydrogen is not really a fuel, it is a battery. How will this hydrogen be manufactured? You can make via various methods, but they all require a lot of energy. Hydrogen is not a means of producing energy, it is a means of storing it. So it is not really a replacement for oil or ethanol.
If we had a very good source of electricity, perhaps then producing hydrogen by using the cheap electricity would be a good idea. However, since we use coal, nuclear, etc bad ways of producing electricity hydrogen is not the pancea everyone makes it out to be. I am particularly astounded by all the politicians who cite it as the solution. They are simply telling me they don't understand the nations energy problems.
Total agreement, vlad. What's the way they usually obtain hydrogen now? From hydrocarbons (usually natural gas).
Yes, you can get it from water, but that costs more from an energy standpoint.
Th one potential advantage hydrogen might have, if it's not made with "clean" source power is that it is probably easier to control emissions from fewer, larger sources (power plants), than it is from many, smaller sources (individual cars).
But you're right. The source of the energy used to produce the hydrogen is a huge factor in how helpful it is as a replacement.
Wait, nuclear is bad energy? That's not what the co-founder of Greenpeace says.
I did not mean that nuclear energy is necessarily bad, merely that it is not the ideal energy source. There are tradeoffs to using it.
IMO the best bet we have is to use nuclear energy like the French do. Recycle the nuclear waste as much as possible, and thus generate less.
In the future, I hope we do develop the ideal energy source. My hope is that Fusion will become viable in the next 50 years.
Until the ideal source comes along we will have to make careful choices between all these imperfect ways to generate energy.
(oh controlling population growth, especially in India, may be a good solution to balloning environmental problems. Reducing American wastefulness aka American way of life may be an option as well)
mnblrmkr - that argument is fair, but keep in mind, we would need to invest a lot to establish this magical hydrogen infrastructure. For how many years have people been saying that hydrogen is 10 years away and will solve all our energy problems?
Humans are clever animals, but just by our nature, we will always find a way to grow as big as the cage we've built ourselves.
Before we drive it right off the cliff, mankind's hope rests on a timely asteroid strike that will end it all in a quick and painless fashion.
Wait...run cars with nuclear fuel?
I spent an hour arguing about energy and global warming with an electrician at my house today. We both agreed that ethanol is not feasible though. We also both agreed that nuclear needs to be on the table.
I wish everyone understood vlado's first comment... it would make energy discussions much more useful.
BTW, I'm a huge proponent of more nuclear power use. It's the best of a bad bunch. I think it should be used to fill holes while we convert to wind, solar, and hopefully eventually fusion, although we can't really count on that.
A car powered by nuclear power (via hydrogen or electricity) is much better than one powered by gasoline in terms of pollution and most importantly CO2.
Jeffk - agreed
Nuclear is perhaps the best of a bad bunch. Coal is perhaps one of the worst. Until we engineer electrical or hydrogen cars, I think expanding hybrid bus and train public transportaion may do a lot of good. The light rail can be powered by electricity from wind or nuclear, solar, etc. Compare that to people burning fuel in their cars.
The whole idea of growing fuel, instead of food is rather unpleasent to me. What about the starving kids in Africa, India, etc. etc. Shouldn't we be putting food in their mouths before we put ethanol in our gas tanks?
Oh and if you want to go green on your transportation right now, the technology is here, I bike everyday and only am carbon neutral. Well, I suppose that the petrol that is used to transport and grow the food I eat contributes, but still biking way more green than cars. Woohoo
I think hydrogen can definitely be called a fuel. A fuel is a store of chemical energy, which is what hydrogen is, isn't it? Granted, the energy from hydrogen is extracted differently.
By "step up hydrogen" I was trying to say that of course it's not a solution right now, but it's one of the options that might be on the horizon if someone could figure out some of the efficiency problems associated with it. Fuel cell technology has a lot of advantages over traditional batteries. But you're right on, vlado. Hydrogen is nowhere near a solution.
matt -
A fuel is a store of chemical energy
I will agree with that definition, although I think energy can be stored in other forms than just chemical. For example, nuclear power is derived from the bonding energy of protons and neutrons and that is definitely not a chemical process. Further, flywheels can store energy and that would be kinetic energy, not chemical. Anyway this is a technicality.
I would fully agree with you, if there were large reserves of hydrogen that we could use somewhere. That is the case with oil, we have a lot of it in the ground. Thus it is a viable fuel.
Hydrogen on the other hand is very reactive and is rarely found in its pure form. So we have to extract it from water, fossil fuels other places. That is fine, but that takes energy. More energy than the resulting hydrogen produces. In the end you have your new hydrogen fuel, but you've wasted more of energy from nuclear, coal, solar, whatever, than you have generated.
So no, hydrogen is NOT REALLY A FUEL, it is a battery. Maybe it will be an option one day, but there seem to be enormous challenges.
I really wish I could be on board with the nuclear option, but until we find something to do with the waste I can't. Right now we have spent rods being stored all over the country in places they were not meant to be stored and that is simply dangerous.
If we were able to adequately store the spent fuel we have now, I'd believe we could do so for even more spent fuel. The perfect solution would be to find uses for that spent material and extract more energy from them, but I'm not a nuclear engineer.
I would like to refine my above statement.
Hydrogen is a FUEL, it is not a source of energy. And while we need a portable fuel to run our cars, we are in a much more desperate need of a reliable, clean source of energy.
I am not a nuclear engineer either, but have toured Prarie Island Nuke Plant and am an electrical engineering Grad Student.
First, the USA does do something with its spent nuclear fuel. It makes artillery shells out of it and uses them to fight the terrorists in Iraq. While depleted Uranium is a very hard material that will penetrate many armored vehicles, once it blows up it is scattered everywhere and is impossible to clean up. The heroic troops and residents of Iraq can look forward to a country littered with radioactive material.
The pansies in France which don't want to fight terrorists on the other hand have one of the best nuclear re-processing facilities in the world. They are able to recycle 90% of their nuclear waste and use it to generate power again. The rest is processed in a way which decreases the waste by 10-20 times. France derives the majority of its power from nuclear energy.
So we have to convince our government to make energy rather than weapons. A possibly impossible task considering defense lobbyists and interests.
The whole idea of growing fuel, instead of food is rather unpleasent to me. What about the starving kids in Africa, India, etc. etc. Shouldn't we be putting food in their mouths before we put ethanol in our gas tanks?
This may be a vast over simplification, but I was under the impression that the vast majority of food shortages are caused by political instability and/or disruptions in the distribution of the food. It seems that on a global scale, we probably have excess food capacity (for now). When there is a crop failure in one part of the world, adequate aid is collected, but getting it to the people who need it is complicated.
As it seems we stash corn syrup in just about anything these days, I'd say the US at least is producing more than is required for human and animal nutrition.
So does anyone have some good sources for info on Ethanol. Perhaps something peer-reviewed and not funded by the corn-lobby.
As for corn-syrupp, umm delicious. I am a particular fan of the new consumer grade corn syrup which can be found at rainbow. If you didn't have enough in your diet, you can supplement.... holesome, natural, deliciousness
Solving the energy problem only enables us as consumers to make the bigger cars and houses that are so much affordable and "green" to operate. We'll tear down the mountains and forests for all the raw materials we need for all this stuff.
Then we'll figure out how to get raw materials out of our finished products -- then run out of energy in the process, and/or run out of land for everyone to sprawl out their endless supply of crap.
It's a cycle of futility.
19 comments on ethanol, yet nary a word from alamnbob. weird. not sure what, but it must mean something.
It means he probably gets to take off the ALA cap and leave the office by 4:30 in the afternoon or so.
Champs -
That is an interesting point. Sounds completely futile indeed. I will speculate that we will evolve past a pathetic consumerists culture and realize that happyness and good life does not necessitate large material wealth.
Perhaps that and population control will save the world....
I propose Mr. Fusion for every car.
I'm sure bob will double post very soon.
Vlado, there was a good article by a U Ecology professor, I think in the Washington Post, a few weeks ago in regards to Ethanol.
I think Elizabeth is right, although there's still something about burning food to power cars while people are starving that irks me, perhaps because it serves to make that much more clear how little we do. There are plenty of other reasons why ethanol is a small player at best.
Nuclear waste: I think updating our technology to deal with things the way France does would go a long way. Nobody's saying nuclear waste doesn't suck - I'm saying we gotta make a choice, and as much as I'd love to see windmills and solar panels as far as the eye can see, this is more realistic for the temporary. Nuclear waste can't cause global warming, if nothing else.
happyness and good life does not necessitate large material wealth.
any lingering doubts that vlado was raised in the Communist Eastern Bloc have erased. welcome to America, son.
"I will speculate that we will evolve past a pathetic consumerists culture and realize that happyness and good life does not necessitate large material wealth."
Historically, in this country, we're not all that far past the time when most peoples' existences were characterized by an almost complete lack of material wealth, along with massive insecurity about our next meal. I think we're still in the "over-reaction to the availability of wealth" stage; we've reached a developmental stage in which everything is right here for us to have and own and possess, and each new toaster or SUV or fur-covered sink mostly serves to reassure us that we are really getting that next meal.
But I think we as a society will tire of that soon, and in fact I see signs that this is already starting.
But what a conflict that's gonna generate between us, and all of the places and societies across the world where they still haven't even managed to end that "insecurity about food" problem.
Glad to be missed. I was dealing with a server crash, an interview with KARE-11 (guess which topic) and interviews with Scientific America on same. Some day!
Actually, "Stanford University" hasn't published anything. Author Jacobson is a grad student there, I believe (athmospheric scientist sounds sooo much more impresive and grownup, doesn't it?). He sent me an email early this week with his study's findings and asking for my comment. We have been aware of this study for some time. In recent days, as the author has pitched it to various journals looking to get published, it's long list of co-authors have been run away from it like cockroaches from bright light. Look at the methodology used and you'll see why.
I'm on a remote computer away from the office without ablility to link, but here's my thoughts in a nutshell:
The study can't really doesn't stand much scrutiny. He used computer models, basically turning all of America in to a super-heated LA of the future, fed only "worst case senario" data on E85 into his machine, crunched numbers on smog-related morbidity and mortality and Lo, I become Ethanol, destroyer of worlds...
Or not.
The American Lung Association of Minnesota does not support issues or projects without rigorously testing and researching first. We have real data, from real vehicles using real E85 and gasoline we bought at Twin Cities stations. We used independent scientists and laboratories. What we have is hard data, proven and replicated by other researchers around the globe. When I'm back online, I can provide links. For now, you'll have to take old alamn Bob's word when he says this study is, basically, BS.
E85 is not a perfect fuel (none are), nor is it "the answer," it is cleaner and healthier than gasoline. It's a first step away from gasoline, and I and my organization still stand behind its use.
Questions?
Here's the KARE-TV link. Best I can do from this machine.
And Scientific America. I'm getting better at using this old wreak of a computer I've borrowed.
Correction: Mark Z. Jacopson is a PhD and associate professor at Stanford, not a grad student as I thought (he does look young in his photo). Sorry, doc. I should have checked further before I got all snarky. These computer problems, coming when they did, has me a little cranky. Sorry to all for my earlier sloppiness.
He's still wrong about E85 and ozone, however.
The fellow in the SA and the KARE-11 interview, Tim Gerlach, is one of the nation's top experts in E85 emissions. He has been studying and lecturing on this subject for more than a decade, and has more "real world" experience in this field than just about anyone else. Lately, he has been going around the country at the request of the US Dept. of Energy to share what he has learned here about E85 and apply the Minnesota Model elsewhere.
But I think we as a society will tire of that soon, and in fact I see signs that this is already starting.
But what a conflict that's gonna generate between us, and all of the places and societies across the world where they still haven't even managed to end that "insecurity about food" problem.
Kinda like me down-sizing to my little abode in Ely, eschewing the good life here in "picturesque and affluent" Mac-Groveland, while Vlad is still dreaming of that first home. heh
"They are able to recycle 90% of their nuclear waste and use it to generate power again. The rest is processed in a way which decreases the waste by 10-20 times. France derives the majority of its power from nuclear energy.
So we have to convince our government to make energy rather than weapons. A possibly impossible task considering defense lobbyists and interests.
»» Submitted by »»» vlado4 at 6:18 PM on April 18"
Thanks, that was an excellent post. I thought the French government had a procedure in place, but wasn't positive.
A Google search confirmed it. Google is my friend.
Hydrogen, E85, etc. is not going to be the answer. The only reason we are looking at this type of model is because it is one that we have been using.
You go somewhere, you put something in your car, you pay, and you move on.
However, there is a fundamental flaw in this. Everything that you "put in your car" will continually increase in price. Further, if combustion is the rule, that means there is a highly flammable substance in your vehicle.
The true answer is the electric car. It doesn't matter HOW the electricity is generated. It can be made from Hydrogen, Solar, Wind, Nuclear, fusion, etc. Electricity will likely ALWAYS be available.
While there are problems with electric cars, these can be overcome. It is that they break the model. You do not put anything into your car. This makes gas stations obsolete. Imagine all the SA's going out of business. THIS above all is keeping the true solution from being discussed.
Oh yes, the "true solution..." Electric cars.
Gee, I thought that nukes, wind, solar, celluolic biomass, drilling ANWR, etc. where all "the true solution."
Sigh...
No, the true solution is public transit operating on fixed-routes, because the energy distribution infrastructure for that is much cheaper and requires no expensive/potentially hazardous storage medium.
ok maybe not. but seriously, it's vastly more efficient than single-occupant auto use.
The U has a very interesting test project going on in West Central Minnesota.
They are working on trying to turn wind into storable hydrogen. Phase two is to try and make nitrogen fertilizer using wind power replacing the fossil fuels that are used today and the third phase is to mix hydrogen with natural gas to make Hythane to make the hydrogen more easily transported to power generation facility.
Re: the Morris project, see this related project and my comment on the Minnesota effort.
Bloomberg News just called us for comment. This is getting interesting.
bob made up for the early absence on this one with five straight posts. are posterbation and postherria words?
They are now. Heh!
"Kinda like me down-sizing to my little abode in Ely, eschewing the good life here in "picturesque and affluent" Mac-Groveland, while Vlad is still dreaming of that first home. heh"
Yeah, plus the "developed" world telling the Third World it's time to start cutting out industry and energy use and consumerism.
("Yeah?! Well, Kyoto THIS, a-hole!")
Not like ethanol was really a viable solution to the problem anyways
"E85 is not a perfect fuel (none are), nor is it "the answer," it is cleaner and healthier than gasoline. It's a first step away from gasoline, and I and my organization still stand behind its use.
»» Submitted by »»» alamn at 6:14 AM on April 19"
I agree. I just got spanked on Grist and Hugg for posting similarly. Seems ethanol is another one of those subjects that are either black or white.
Haven't been on Hugg, but I got the same treatment on Grist. Whole lot of corn haters on that site.
I suppose they all drive vehicles that run on fairy dust and good intentions.
sigh...Happy belated Earth Day for trying, Steve.
The regional ALA office has a statement posted on this topic.
If the Stanford researcher is right (and he is NOT), at least we know why the Gophers didn't win the nation hockey title this year.
Just kidding. This Z runs on propane.
Here's a nice chart that illustrates what I've been saying about air pollution and E85. They didn't have E85 emissions data to compare to gasoline for every FFV listed, but when they did, the air pollution score improved greatly -- from sub-par 3s to respectable 6s or 7s.
The Prius ranked well, as you might expect. The Honda Civic CNG model is the best. We had one here at ALAMN for a couple years.
But a lot of those cars with better pollution are also more expensive fuels costs.
In the case of FFVs, it's because the majority of them are big honkers -- a trend that is (too) slowly moving down to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles like the Impala.
Anyway, this chart uses a national fuel cost estimate. In Minnesota, our fuel costs are generally lower (and have been for years).
From the Strib: Former U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Rachel K. Paulose retaliated against a top prosecutor in her office who reported her for careless handling of classified homeland security reports, a watchdog agency said Wednesday.…
Andrea Swensson tackles the 11 year legacy of the Minnesota hip hop supergoup the Heiruspecs. If you've somehow managed to remain unfamiliar with them, here are some started pages: Their Web page, their MySpace page (with music), and a recent video i…
Aaron points out that it is ridiculously easy to look up someone else's utility bills online here in the Twin Cities, and pay them, if you like. But is this a bug or a feature? After all, utility bills are public information. Aaron does a little digg…
MnHotline has posted an ad looking for people to be in the audience for the taping of pilot game show, "Risk Your Meat," starring the ever bizarre Rich Kronfeld, formerly of Let's Bowl and, er, Dr. Sphincter. Not sure what this might be? It's a meat …
Vikings defensive linemen Kevin Williams and Pat Williams have been suspended for the last 4 regular season games. Both players had taken a weight loss supplement called "StarCaps." The supplement itself isn't banned by the NFL, but it contains an u…
Ok MnSpeak folks, here's the deal: Having seen how it works in other states, I am selling ad space on my exams. I'm not kidding. I'm almost out of copies for the year, and I'm already over $1,000 out of pocket to buy the necessary books and materia…