« Smith Electric Vehicles Closes Deal for 55 Newtons | Main | New Nanocomposite Process Improves Barium Titanate Capacitors »
Stanford Study on Ethanol Emissions Generates Counter Arguments and Rebuttal
26 April 2007
Last week’s publication of an article in Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) by Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson, in which he projects that fleet-wide use of E85 in the United States could increase the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations (earlier post), has stimulated counter arguments from several groups, including various state American Lung Association organizations, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the American Coalition for Ethanol.
In his paper, Jacobson concluded in the abstract that “Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline. However, because of the uncertainty in future emission regulations, it can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles. Unburned ethanol emissions from E85 may result in a global-scale source of acetaldehyde larger than that of direct emissions.”
In remarks outside the paper, Jacobson was somewhat more aggressive in characterizing the results of the study.
Today, there is a lot of investment in ethanol, but we found that using E85 will cause at least as much health damage as gasoline, which already causes about 10,000 U.S. premature deaths annually from ozone and particulate matter. The question is, if we’re not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote ethanol and other biofuels?
There are alternatives, such as battery-electric, plug-in-hybrid and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, whose energy can be derived from wind or solar power. These vehicles produce virtually no toxic emissions or greenhouse gases and cause very little disruption to the land—unlike ethanol made from corn or switchgrass, which will require millions of acres of farmland to mass-produce. It would seem prudent, therefore, to address climate, health and energy with technologies that have known benefits.
The American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest—a strong supporter of the use of E85—countered first by focusing on the assumption in the study that all vehicles will be operating on E85 in 2020.
E85 was never intended as a complete gasoline replacement, and will only be capable of achieving a portion of the total US fuel demand. Additionally, the areas of the county where this study demonstrates E85 to have the most harmful effects are where E85 is not currently manufactured or sold, making them the least likely areas of concern.
Additionally, the ALA noted that while ethanol-based fuels may increase the emissions of aldehydes, it reduces two air pollutants linked to cancer, benzene and butadiene. (Both those results of the use of ethanol fuels are reported in the Jacobson paper.)
Finally, the American Lung Association noted that Jacobson had not addressed the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions associated with the use of E85.
The NRDC identified what it characterized as a number of flaws with the paper, and recommended two steps to clarify the results of the paper, and take action if warranted:
First, that a team of leading vehicle emission experts review the existing data on emissions from E85. Based on this review, if the panel believes the emission scenarios in Dr. Jacobson’s study are incorrect and/or additional sensitivity runs are necessary, air pollution regulators should re-run the air pollution model to develop a broader scientific consensus of the impacts on air quality.
Second, based on the results from the above work, NRDC urged the CARB, US EPA, automakers and the ethanol industry to commit to additional testing of E85 vehicles if warranted. If such testing results indicate a need, we call upon CARB and US EPA to immediately set tighter emission standards on E85 vehicles to protect public health.
NRDC made a number of pointed comments on the contents of the paper, including:
The study finding conflicts with findings by US EPA, US DOE and NREL that found that E85 can reduce emissions of smog-forming chemicals.
The study’s assumption that E85 emissions are substantially different than those of gasoline is incorrect.
The study’s findings are primarily driven by assumed decrease in NOx.
The study ignores the potential global warming pollution reductions from E85 and the smog impact of rising temperatures caused by global warming.
In conclusion, the NRDC said,
The author’s comments surrounding the release of his study overstate what the study actually shows. An accurate summary would be that this study shows that use of high blend ethanol is unlikely to significantly improve air quality compared to use of gasoline.
—NRDC
In response to all of the above plus other comments in the press and from other organizations, Jacobson published a detailed rebuttal of the various charges on his web site at Stanford (with the promise of additional rebuttal to come, as of 26 April).
As to the general charge of a misleading study due to the assumption of 100% penetration of E85, Jacobson noted:
The study makes no exaggerations as it does not claim that E85 will or is likely to make a 100% penetration. The purpose of looking at 100% penetration was to determine an upper limit of the effects from which the effects of any smaller addition of geographically-dispersed vehicles can be examined. Once the 100% effects are known, the effects of incrementally-adding a few geographically-dispersed vehicles can be estimated. It is the direction of the effects, not the magnitude, that is important in this case.
Nor was he swayed by the argument about greenhouse gases, characterizing the potential reduction, based on recent life cycle analyses, as too low. Concerning the NRDC paper, Jacobson noted:
In this document, NRDC has suppressed information contrary to its argument, misstated assumptions and conclusions in the paper, and failed to comment on the real issue, the comparative disadvantages of both ethanol and gasoline compared with other existing and emerging technologies that nearly eliminate air pollution, climate relevant gases, and use much less land area than corn or prairie grass for ethanol.
Resources:
“Effects of Ethanol (E85) Versus Gasoline Vehicles on Cancer and Mortality in the United States”; Mark Z. Jacobson, Environ. Sci. Technol., ASAP Article 10.1021/es062085v S0013-936X(06)02085-2
NRDC Statement on New Study of Ethanol (E85) Impact on Air Quality
Responses to Comments by the Ethanol Coalition, Roland Huang (NRDC), Gary Whitten (Consultant), and an unauthored NRDC document (Mark Jacobson)
April 26, 2007 in Emissions, Ethanol | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/18038786
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stanford Study on Ethanol Emissions Generates Counter Arguments and Rebuttal:
Comments
"There are alternatives, such as battery-electric, plug-in-hybrid and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, whose energy can be derived from wind or solar power."
How many wind or solar power plants would be needed to produce enought energy to power one car? Because of the small amount of power produced by one solar panel, I'm not sure that this would be a good solution from an environmental point of view. Just a few years ago, the production of a solar panel required more energy than it would produce during its whole lifetime. And do we really want vast fields of solar panels and wind farms instead of forests?
Posted by: skropp | Apr 27, 2007 2:23:38 AM
before you make your mind up on this one ask someone
that has spent some time in Brazil what the effects of Ethanol
are on the air quality particularly in the urban enviroment .
My brother spent some six months in Brazil a few years ago
working for a phone company and travelled to every major
city in the country , his overriding memory of the time was
the foul stench in all the citys from the use of ethanol.
The fact is that ethanol is just a loophole to enable the
continued use of the infernal combustion engine , and many
years down the we will find out the true cost of this miss use
the air that we breathe .
Recently studies of the air quality were carried out in Oxford
England and it was found that spending a day in the centre of this
small english city had the eqivalent effect on the lungs as
smoking 60 ciggarettes , a sobering thought !
Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 27, 2007 3:06:00 AM
@Andrichrose -
please provide a link to the Oxford city study. As it is, I don't believe your claim.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Apr 27, 2007 4:50:18 AM
skropp,
there have been huge advances in solar energy with multi- junction cells achieving 40% efficiency. these cells can have 500 suns of light energy concentrated on just a handful of them by parabolic mirrors. this development not only increases the energy collected per square metre but will reduce the cost per square metre. i think about half the average house roof area will easily power the average australian home including daily commuting, hot water and heating.
and i stand by my original post which was removed for some strange reason, that biofuels in their present forma are an ecological and humanitarian disaster, and their production needs to be stopped until they can be made without destroying more forests and without using food crops.
Posted by: aussie paul | Apr 27, 2007 5:47:22 AM
Donkeys and carts; that's the ticket!
Posted by: Mark | Apr 27, 2007 6:10:29 AM
Mark,
if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit! Donkeys and carts? I'm baffled.
Posted by: aussie paul | Apr 27, 2007 6:31:27 AM
I am puzzled by such a strong response from the ALA and NRDC. NRDC talks about potential greenhouse reductions. What on earth does that mean?
On the other hand, the NRDC seems to acknowledge that ethanol won't improve air quality. I think this is the key issue in any event. These are alternative fuels, not green fuels. Whether or not they decrease greenhouse emissions is unclear. A recent study concluded that biodiesel would actually increase greenhouse emissions, mainly because of the significant releases of nitrogen. Might the same logic apply to ethanol?
Frankly, I am not particularly concerned with the air pollution effects from ethanol because I don't think it will ever provide for a signficant amount of fuel demand. Keep this is mind. Ethanol is using up 25% of the corn crop but is only providing 3% of our liquid fuel needs.
The primary focus should be on increased efficiency and conservation garnered from smaller and more advanced vehicles, changes in land use patterns, more ubiquitous mass transit, and carbon and/or gasoline taxes. Biofuels are largely a fantasy pushed by politicians and others who don't want to face reality; we must cut back on the use of liquid fuels, regardless of the source.
Posted by: tom | Apr 27, 2007 6:53:04 AM
I see ethanol as an additive to gasoline. We might get to E10 and maybe E20, but E85 is highly unlikely, for the obvious reason that we could not produce the 85% of 150 billion gallons per year.
To me an I.C.E. is a smog pump. No matter what fuel you use, you lose. Eventually, perhaps, we can get to EVs and fuel cells, but until that time, I would not worry about E85 nationwide in the U.S.
As far as energy payback from solar panels, the last estimate was about 3-4 years of operation to pay back the energy used to manufacture the panel. If you do some research, I think you will find that this is true.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 27, 2007 7:52:17 AM
Farm fields will NOT be replaced by solar/wind farms.
1st, you can farm right around windmills, they do not shade the crops.
2nd, solar's advantage is that it can be used at the end source, so why would we setup solar in rural areas with little electrical usage? We have PLENTY of buildings with a whole lot of nothing on top. All these building do is absorb heat and increase AC costs. We also have a practically unlimited amount of parking lots that would actually benefit from a little shade overhead from the panels. Plus, if we move to EV's, as most predict, you can plug in while your parked.
Posted by: darwin | Apr 27, 2007 7:57:41 AM
If you look online, you will see solar panel covered parking structures. This keeps the car cool and the paint from fading. These structures could recharge PHEVs during the day while at work.
Most people could put enough solar PV on the roof of their home to run their car 40 miles per day. It all costs, but so does gasoline, oil and wars.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 27, 2007 8:25:54 AM
It seems to me that many have conflated CO2 emissions and their associated global warming effects with smog producing emissions and the health effects of burning fuel in densely populated environments.
Posted by: Green Destiny | Apr 27, 2007 8:27:22 AM
Skropp, each kilowatt of wind turbine will power one PHEV. If our 200 million cars were all PHEVs we'd need 200 GW of wind turbines. If you assume a 40 year turbine life, that's 5 GW/year. The US will install about 3 GW this year and should install over 5 GW in 2010.
We're already there with wind turbines, we just need to start building the PHEVs!
--ddw
Posted by: doggydogworld | Apr 27, 2007 8:54:59 AM
We won't need to replace the entire car fleet though.
Looking ahead, it will be too expensive for a lot of people to have ANY type of car, whether gas or electric. I would predict in 10 years, we'll have half the cars on the road, and many of them will be electric commuter vehicles. You don't like mass transit or can't work from home? Well you're gonna pay a bunch for the privelage of driving a car every day.
Posted by: darwin | Apr 27, 2007 9:32:38 AM
The problem is our polluting inefficient ICE vehicles and our inefficient polluting HVAC systems.
Using ethanol, especially from food crops, instead of gas & diesel derived from fossil fuel (oil and coal) without changing our gas guzzlers and our HVAC systems is NOT the proper solution.
Progressively switching to a mix of 100+ mpg PHEVs and BEVs could reduce liquid fuel consumption by up to 90% over a 20-year period or so.
The remaining 10% could come from cellulosic ethanol and/or butanol and/or FC.
All the extra electrical energy required for our PHEVs, BEVs and electrical HVAC systems could come from clean sources such as Hydro, Solar, Wind, Waves, Geothermal, (wastes disposal with plasma torches) and Up-to-date Nuclear plants.
PS: Switching to an up-to-date geothermal heat pump/AC with 23-SEER instead of the old air cool 10-SEER unit will reduce energy consumption enough for one or two PHEVs in most places.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Apr 27, 2007 9:45:54 AM
How do you power a BEV world? Solar is nice but its a intermittent sources of energy. In a BEV transport system cars are going to be driving around at day or parked by plug-less streets, at night the people will plug in their cars at home, content with the belief that their cars reduce emission. Big problem: the sun not up! What do you think is charging the BEV at night? Smog belching coal! Hydrogen would solve the problem by storing the solar electric energy, but with the price of fuel cells and radical means of storage needed hydrogen cars are not likely to be around any time soon. H2EVgo for ~$1million, BEV ~$100K but an E85 ICEV goes for $15-40K or just $300 more then a Gasoline ICEV. Reducing global warming and increasing air-quality are definite goals, but preparing for and dealing with Peak Oil is a whole other problem. Ethanol made from cellulosic agriculture waste could replace 15-30% of our gasoline demand and could do it now invisibly, this would reduce global warming (by producing a carbon net neutral fuel) but (according to this study) do nothing for our air quality in general, so what? The benefits out weigh its disadvantages: it can be implemented now invisibly, it would reduce global warming, but it does nothing for general air quality, so we should just chuck it and keep with gasoline until a perfect solution appears??? Come on people be realistic, we need to implement as many different energy plans now and have them fight it out over the next few Post-Peak Oil decades until the winners appear. In the end its will probably be hydrogen powering most cars (or maybe even Zinc instead of hydrogen), with biomass and fermentation products like ethanol finding there niche in other things (likes race cars, power tools, small airplanes, jets, plastics, asphalt, and basically the other 50-40% of the oil market that no one notices) until then it’s a piecemeal transition economy where anything goes.
Posted by: Ben | Apr 27, 2007 9:51:55 AM
It is sophistry about "new" fossil fuel as opposed to "old" fossil fuel when the products are indistinguishable.
Fuel made from current production of vegetative plants or from older vegetative plants (Oil and Coal) is indistinguishable and doesn't change a damn thing with respect to the atmosphere!
Only idiots, politicians, and charlatans can speak of the good or bad of the same fossil fuel when they are not different and the consequence is the same.
Now since I think CO2 has been more recently scientifically been shown, to be an effect and not a cause, of the warming we are seeing. Solar irradiance is globally warming ALL the planets of the Solar System, including Earth. It makes no difference the source of the fossil fuel, even more.
The only true "warming polluter" in that case is the use of Solar Energy which absorbs more than any other absorber of solar radiance, including the perfect black body radiator/absorber.
Where do you think the "Solar Energy" comes from, anyways? You can't repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It is the net energy removed by a Solar Cell, that leaves the residual to be re-radiated as the lower Albedo, that could be a problem. This would only aggravate warming the Globe even more due to the Solar warming. If they have scared you enough that you lose sleep over that microscopic 'warming', then Solar Energy should be the worst anathema.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Apr 27, 2007 10:37:05 AM
Your kidding, right Stan?
The law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted.
In a solar panel, the sun energy is converted to electricity, as OPPOSED to converting it to heat energy as asphalt shingles do.
Posted by: darwin | Apr 27, 2007 11:57:24 AM
Mark,
if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit! Donkeys and carts? I'm baffled.
Posted by: aussie paul | Apr 27, 2007 6:31:27 AM
You want to minimize your footprint on the Earth? Find alternatives to automobiles Paul. And consume less. The meek will inherit the earth.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 27, 2007 12:24:42 PM
"It is the net energy removed by a Solar Cell, that leaves the residual to be re-radiated as the lower Albedo, that could be a problem. This would only aggravate warming the Globe even more due to the Solar warming. If they have scared you enough that you lose sleep over that microscopic 'warming', then Solar Energy should be the worst anathema."
Stan,
Currently, yes. However, if we use two stage solar thermal or high temp photovoltaic concentrator systems then the effect will be far less pronounced. The first stage is electric generation whether it be turbines, or photovoltaic cells. The second stage uses excess/waste heat for various purposes. Piping in seawater and using the waste heat as part of a desalination (and chemical/seasalt production) system is one of the many possibilities.
__On a smaller scale, running copper/aluminum water pipes on the underside of rooftop photovoltaic setups for hot water, or at least preheat the tap water before reaching the water heater, may be another way to offset the decreased albedo.
Posted by: allen_xl_z | Apr 27, 2007 12:29:50 PM
"The meek shall inherit the earth"
Since the time that was written (2000 years ago?),
the exact opposite has been true.
The crusades.
colonialism.
slavery.
resource extraction from poor countries to rich countries.
Why do think that pattern will change?
Posted by: darwin | Apr 27, 2007 12:30:22 PM
Mark:
Where would one obtain, let alone keep, a donkey and cart in a suburban home? There's little things called zoning regulations that prevent the owning of such livestock. Your suggestion is absolutely absurd.
This is Green CAR Congress. That means sustainable personal mobility. Increasing mass transit may be doable in some localities, but the lack of affordable housing close to employment, suburb-to-suburb commuting, low population density, and other factors prevent it being being practical at scales seen in Europe (which has a much more dense urban population).
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 27, 2007 12:36:49 PM
Rafael ,
Got the info from the EV.uk website , must admit did not believe
myself , so I checked it through a friend who works in the air quality
study group here at the European research centre here in northern
Italy and he had seen the study and confirmed its findings as being
more or less accurate , in fact recent tests in and around Milan have
come up with in some cases worse results than the Oxford study.
Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 27, 2007 2:34:59 PM
Rafael ,
Got the info from the EV.uk website , must admit did not believe
myself , so I checked it through a friend who works in the air quality
study group here at the European research centre here in northern
Italy and he had seen the study and confirmed its findings as being
more or less accurate , in fact recent tests in and around Milan have
come up with in some cases worse results than the Oxford study.
Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 27, 2007 2:35:11 PM
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong will just take it back :)
Posted by: SJC | Apr 27, 2007 3:01:31 PM
and blessed are the cheesemakers!
Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 27, 2007 3:24:30 PM
The meek will inherit the earth... when the technological singularity comes and everyone but the Amish, fundamentalist, etc are assimilated by our new cybernetic overlords!
I can see the day coming when Amish will be riding their horse powered buggies around with signs on the back that say “Biofuel powered since 4000BC” just to spite us.
Stan Peterson, first of all biofuels don’t “produce” CO2 likes oil,coal,NG do. All the CO2 given off by biofuels is reabsorbed when plants are grown to make more biofuels, hence carbon net neutral, in fact recent studies show some biofuels could be net negative with a constant input of carbon back into the soil! But you probably don’t care.
Posted by: ben | Apr 27, 2007 3:50:14 PM
Why can't we use solid biofuels to produce electricity to power EVs? If we take this path, we can generate electricity and stuff the carbon from the combustion of the biofuels underground (carbon capture and storage / or soil sequestration). That way, we have a 'carbon-negative' energy system that takes more CO2 out of the atmosphere and takes us back to a pre-industrial age, while still powering our societies. This can't be done by wind or solar, can it?
Posted by: Gio | Apr 27, 2007 7:31:45 PM
If you read the Standford study the results on Table 1 show clearly that nearly all 30 measured pollutants are reduced by an average of 75-80% compared to gasoline. For the time that ethanol will be used to transition to BEVs, the "health risk" is acceptable.
Again, spinning for controversy is an exercise in exercises. Busywork of dubious value.
And if people walked more then the donkeys would inherit the earth.
Posted by: gr | Apr 27, 2007 11:02:15 PM
Gio,
Its a good idea, but not as compelling as others. Biomass is a great source of carbon, which electricity and hydrogen can't replace (unless someone revives the art of alchemy). Biomass could be used to make things like plastics (fermentation pathways, polylactones) composites and asphalt (gasifiction, prolysis) which if not burnt act as carbon sinks, so not only are you carbon negative but you also make a profitable product. Trying to store CO2 is a questionable and energy intensive task, trying to store asphalt isn’t.
Posted by: ben | Apr 28, 2007 5:38:29 AM
I think the problem is people have to stop giving the middle east so much of our money, and that is the number 1 concern ....they want us all dead, what ever we do is better than buying there oil..
Posted by: Perry | Apr 28, 2007 5:42:54 AM
This is kind of where CO2 and fossil fuels overlap. If the world gets serious about CO2, then they get serious about fossil fuels. We get several benefits with one change. We can save finite fossil fuels for later use, clean up the air, reduce foreign imports and reduce CO2 emissions. If people like former CIA chief Woolsey are correct, we can stabilize the world situation as well. There would be fewer conflicts over scare resources that will bring huge amounts of hard cash. I would like to see a day when there is still oil in the ground, but there is not such a demand for it to keep our economies running.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 28, 2007 7:25:41 AM
No matter what the best deal looks like, the economical factor is the main factor. It wont change anything if a sciencetist or two give a warning about the end of the world.
The end of oil age will not because of people's concern of environment, nor because of oil rigs drying up. Just like the end of stone age not because we are running out of stones.
---
Some buddy above mentioned about the vast idle spaces in city mainly in rooftops, car parks, its everywhere. If we are to make those place productive, it would do the world and yourself a big flavour. Not just putting solar panels on rooftops, but simply install dipping system and farm some tomatoes on an apartment rooftop would helps preserving a few more trees being chopped. Not to mentioned the panels/plants absorb heat from sun and reduce AC cost a bit - it would be better then switching off the lights of the whole city for an hour.
Why would people keep dipping into biofuel? Especially ethanol, lower mileage, less power, more cost, and lots of farmers got occupied behind the scene. At least not with the fuel guzzler roaming the street. A Hummer with E85 simply spells the word destruction.
Posted by: rexis | Apr 28, 2007 8:37:24 PM
One probably doesn't need be a scientist to realize that the next half decade will see "steps" taken to getting to more efficient PV's, etc. Once our US government can see the effectiveness to subsidizing our personnal choices for home PV deployment (not troop deployment), our society will have a chance at not becomming a "third world" community. We're fast losing our real estate, businesses, car industry, etc.
We're not competitive in any of our industries. Our country MUST start to save the national money now sent over to the OPEC countries for oil. We shouldn't be driving HUMMERS, we shouldn't be questioning the oil shortage, we shouldn't be putting off installation of PV on everything around. It's just an inevitability that a passive producer of electricity will predominate.
So you can see, one need not be a scientist to realize this, or speak with eloquence and scientific jargon. :)
Posted by: FBerry | Apr 29, 2007 5:36:33 AM
Bear with me on this thought......
What if the government decided to pay for 100% of any BiPV system; one that could actually do the job for any given home with an excess of power generation? Let's say that a system should produce 10% excess by design.
Start in sunny states to hasten the money recovery; pay attention Arnold (and start slowly by trial communities.)
What if the government in doing so, would legally and ethically collect electrical revenues so generated by the excess power from these systems. This money would be used to replace ageing equipment over the decades and further develope next Gen. PV technology, as well as subsidizing our ageing power grid. It wouldn't be used for war reparations, or any other bull $%$$.
Making money passively is not something that the government is doing other than taxing the %#$$%^* out of us.
Posted by: FBerry | Apr 29, 2007 5:56:28 AM
I see no reason why the government can not compete with the private sector and make a profit. I know this is a radical idea, but why not? As far as renewable energy goes, the figure I have heard is 20%. Beyond providing 20% of the grid power with renewable sources, the now and then nature of wind and sun can make the grid unstable. This may not be entirely true, but everything has limits.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 29, 2007 9:16:54 AM
Ben,
In response to your response to Gio. You're right about biomass as a means of potential carbon sequestration as charcoal, but it could also be a plentiful source of electricity. See http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/27/0432/3533 for a well thought out proposition, by the blogger Engineer-Poet, for using biomass to generate primarily electricity and making ethanol from the emissions from the electricity generation. Direct Carbon Fuel Cells are a promising means of converting great sources of carbon like biomass into electricity.
Posted by: basline | Apr 30, 2007 1:30:07 PM
Basline,
I kind of disagree, it would be best to use biomass as a carbon source. If you can make both electricity and optimize carbon recovery then that fine by me. But gasification and pyrolysis processes can loss a significant amount of carbon as CO2, fermentation processes have better carbon efficiencies at making specific products from specific biomass sources (which is both their weakness and there advantage). It might be best to run fermentation on biomass and then run gasification or pyrolysis on the left over unfermentable biomass.
Posted by: ben | May 1, 2007 5:49:13 PM
Perry,
You make your own bed...
Posted by: skropp | May 2, 2007 1:51:34 AM
Perry,
You make your own bed...
Posted by: skropp | May 2, 2007 1:51:38 AM
""The meek shall inherit the earth"
Since the time that was written (2000 years ago?),
the exact opposite has been true.
The crusades.
colonialism.
slavery.
resource extraction from poor countries to rich countries.
Why do think that pattern will change?"
Because the exploitation is unsustainable, and little changes like colony collapse disorder(honey bee)and low birth rates will leave the indigenous people in LDCs and the Amish (the meek) as the only ones with the skills to feed themselves.
Posted by: John Schreiber | May 5, 2007 6:47:39 AM
Amazing thread...what about BIOBUTANOL?
Isn't Dupont working with some startups on organisms to make cellulosic biobutanol? It has many advantages over ethanol. What's the pollution story there?
Posted by: C Harget | May 10, 2007 12:33:23 PM
Is it true that Stanford received a $50 Million dollar Gift or grant from Exxon!!
Posted by: Croft | Jun 20, 2007 9:41:08 AM
how is e85 a bad and good thing?
Posted by: | Oct 31, 2007 6:11:41 AM
check this out-
www.teslamotors.com
and it only costs 100k cuz its a supercar.
its possible, just needs to be reduced in terms of power/speed.
Posted by: brian | Mar 20, 2008 2:59:15 PM
From studying the emissions data of ethanol I'd have to say that deriving a cleaner burning fossil fuel is still our best option until our electrical alternatives are more cost effective and less costly in buy into. There are additives that can be used to reduce the harmful emissions of the current generation of internal combustion engines. I know as a stop gap measure to mitigate the level of pollutants this might be more feasible, cost wise, to the very day consumer given the current economic situation.
Going green shouldn't increase the risk to our health, the environment or our overall quality of life. I think that the impacts of ethanol usage out-weigh it's supposed benefits greatly.
http://topfuel.wordpress.com/
www.topfuel-performance.net
Posted by: inthebarrel | May 20, 2008 9:40:14 AM
