Professional Soldiers ® - It's not easy being Green

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)

- - It's not easy being Green (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14127)

It's not easy being Green

Oh what, oh what, is poor Al going to do now?

Quote:

Study: Ethanol may cause more smog, deaths

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Wed Apr 18, 7:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Switching from gasoline to ethanol — touted as a green alternative at the pump — may create dirtier air, causing slightly more smog-related deaths, a new study says.

Nearly 200 more people would die yearly from respiratory problems if all vehicles in the United States ran on a mostly ethanol fuel blend by 2020, the research concludes. Of course, the study author acknowledges that such a quick and monumental shift to plant-based fuels is next to impossible.

Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.

"It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds. It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."

His study, based on a computer model, is published in Wednesday's online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology and adds to the messy debate over ethanol.

Farmers, politicians, industry leaders and environmentalists have clashed over just how much ethanol can be produced, how much land it would take to grow the crops to make it, and how much it would cost. They also disagree on the benefits of ethanol in cutting back fuel consumption and in fighting pollution, especially global warming gases.

In January, President Bush announced a push to reduce gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 years by substituting alternative fuels, mainly ethanol. Scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that could mean about a 1 percent increase in smog.

Jacobson's study troubles some environmentalists, even those who work with him. Roland Hwang of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that ethanol, which cuts one of the key ingredients of smog and produces fewer greenhouse gases, is an important part of reducing all kinds of air pollution.

Jacobson's conclusion "is a provocative concept that is not workable," said Hwang, an engineer who used to work for California's state pollution control agency. "There's nothing in here that means we should throw away ethanol."

And Matt Hartwig, spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, the largest Washington ethanol lobby group, said other research and real-life data show "ethanol is a greener fuel than gasoline."

But Jacobson found that depends on where you live, with ethanol worsening the ozone problem in most urban areas.

Based on computer models of pollution and air flow, Jacobson predicted that the increase in ozone — and diseases it causes — would be worst in areas where smog is already a serious problem: Los Angeles and the Northeast.

Most of those projected 200 deaths would be in Los Angeles, he says, and the only place where ozone would fall is the Southeast because of the unique blend of chemicals in the air and the heavy vegetation.

The science behind why ethanol might increase smog is complicated, but according to Jacobson, part of the explanation is that ethanol produces more hydrocarbons than gasoline. And ozone is the product of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide cooking in the sun.

Also, the ethanol produces longer-lasting chemicals that eventually turn into hydrocarbons that can travel farther. "You are really spreading out pollution over a larger area," he said.

And finally, while ethanol produces less nitrogen oxide, that can actually be a negative in some very smoggy places. When an area like Los Angeles reaches a certain high level of nitrogen oxide, that excess chemical begins eating up spare ozone, Jacobson said.

Hwang agreed that that is a "well-known effect."

While praising Jacobson as one of the top atmospheric chemists in the nation, Hwang said he had problems with some of Jacobson's assumptions, such as an entire switch to ethanol by 2020. Also, he said that the ozone difference that Jacobson finds is so small that it may be in the margin of error of calculations.

Jacobson is also ignoring that ethanol — especially the kind made from cellulose, like switchgrass — reduces greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. And global warming will increase smog and smog-related deaths, an international scientific panel just found this month, Hwang said.

So what is the answer?

So let me get this straight (tirade sparked by poster(s) in Metro).

Coal is filthy....gotta stop that. (by the way the poster showed a woman and child that looked like a couple of Mary Poppins chimney sweeps)

Nuclear is unsafe..unstable..unthinkable, besides that the manatees will boil(?)

Wind power is clean, but I don't want to see the mills, maybe they can go underground? Besides that they may chop up migratory fowl and my cellphone microwave link.

Solar is ok...unless you live in Washington state, but right now I don't have any electricty to make any more....and aren't those plastics used in those???

Hydro....great, now I gotta find a river!....which by the way I can't live near since the insurance industry won't cover me with the rising water levels!

Tidal motion of the ocean...see previous insurance statement.

Methane...cow flatulance is burning a hole in the ozone...guess that's out.

Wood...well then I'm deforesting and reducing the processing of CO2 into O2, and the smoke I produce will block the sun for my neighbor's solar panel.

Corn,Sugar cane or other renewable resource...It takes more energy than it produces. Not to mention what the price of grain products will be and apparently this solution is worse than driving a coal-fired Stanley Steamer.

I could rub balloons on my head to generate a charge....but what do I do with it other than stick it on the ceiling?

So that leaves us with the option of becoming Yemen...

I don't know what E85 does to the air outside the car, but I remember when I ran it in my Tahoe the cabin smelled like someone spilled a bottle or three of rubbing alcohol. I always wondered what would happen if I got stopped by a cop.

I'd like to buy a full-size pickup truck, but I'm waiting for the light-duty diesels to come out in a year or so. I am a Chevy guy (one of the first cars I was allowed to drive was the family beater Chevette, and a love affair was born :D), but if Ford beats 'em to the punch, I might just have to pinch my nose and jump into one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vsvo

I don't know what E85 does to the air outside the car, but I remember when I ran it in my Tahoe the cabin smelled like someone spilled a bottle or three of rubbing alcohol. I always wondered what would happen if I got stopped by a cop.

I'd like to buy a full-size pickup truck, but I'm waiting for the light-duty diesels to come out in a year or so. I am a Chevy guy (one of the first cars I was allowed to drive was the family beater Chevette, and a love affair was born :D), but if Ford beats 'em to the punch, I might just have to pinch my nose and jump into one.

Don't do it!!! I love being a GMC driver and as every Ford I have ever driven has broke down on me and that is not an exaggeration! It had been like 4 or 5 Fords that left me Found on Road Disabled!!!

My current GMC is E85 capable but I haven't used any in as I have not found an E85 station in the Ft. Bragg area that I would normally pass by. Oh and before we start a Chevy vs. GMC truck argument I will just say GMC = Get More Chevy! :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by SF18C

Don't do it!!! I love being a GMC driver and as every Ford I have ever driven has broke down on me and that is not an exaggeration! It had been like 4 or 5 Fords that left me Found on Road Disabled!!!

My current GMC is E85 capable but I haven't used any in as I have not found an E85 station in the Ft. Bragg area that I would normally pass by. Oh and before we start a Chevy vs. GMC truck argument I will just say GMC = Get More Chevy! :p

LMAO! I used to spend a lot of time working on the road, and drove my fair share of that rental fleet queen, the Ford Taurus. Ford never did it for me, plus the corporate management has just been plain wacky sometimes. Not that GM is much better in that regards.

You gotta try E85 at least once, even if you have to go out of your way. If only to see the gas needle spin down faster than it normally would!:D The stations I used to stop by around here are near military installations, one by Ft. Meade, and the other the Navy Exchange Citgo next to the Pentagon.

I saw a report on a news program awhile ago about E85, and I believe it was consumer reports that showed, using E85 is actually WORSE than using regular unleaded, as far as cost goes.

Sure, E85 is cheaper by the gallon when you fill up, but you'll burn through it faster than regular unleaded, which will make you fill up more often the with regular gas.

So in the long run, it's cheaper to use regular gas than E85.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SF18C

***ahem***

I'd rather PUSH a FORD, then be seen driving a Chevy. :D

Proud owner of a 1999 FORD F-150 TRITON V-8 XLT, with over 168K on it, and still running like a champ. athankya :lifter

Yep, here it is....

Consumer Reports: E85 Cleaner but LESS Efficient

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...31/020480.html

It never fails. They will always find a way to bitch about whatever is being used. I heard an interview with one of the founding members of Greenpeace and he said nuclear is the answer. Clean and safe.

He left Greenpeace because he was tired of them always protesting but not coming up with solutions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

I could rub balloons on my head to generate a charge....but what do I do with it other than stick it on the ceiling?

I have no hair, so I'm screwed with this solution!

US Nuclear Pwr Market Open To Foreign Cos -DOE Official

Great!

Well, considering U.S. only has about 66 (?) plants and we haven't built one in 20 some years, maybe the Phrench are the ones to have build one (they seem to do well in 3rd world countries :D)

France 2007 population 61,538,322 --- 58 active plants

United States 2007 population 301,139,947 -- 66 active plants

US Nuclear Pwr Market Open To Foreign Cos -DOE Official

October 02, 2007: 12:57 PM EST

PARIS -(Dow Jones)- Foreign companies, including French energy firms, can share in the United States' nuclear renaissance, a U.S. energy official said Monday.

"Our market is wide open for nuclear power," said Karen Alderman Harbert, the U.S. Department of Energy's assistant secretary for policy and international affairs.

French power giant Electricite de France (1024251.FR) hopes to have its first nuclear plant in the U.S. up and running by 2015, a company spokesman confirmed Monday. EdF aims to build the plant as part of a joint venture with Constellation Energy Group (CEG).

EdF already has 58 nuclear power plants in France and has announced plans to build a 59th in Flamanville, Normandy. The company also said in May that it would like to play a top role in the United Kingdom's attempts to revive its nuclear industry by building four to five nuclear power plants.

Alderman Harbert said the U.S. plans to build "much more" nuclear power capacity, and recalled that her government recently received the first application for 30 years to build a new plant.

There is room "for everybody to participate," she said.

Meanwhile, on the subject of biofuels, Alderman Harbert said she expects so- called second-generation fuels made from abundant feedstocks like "sawdust, switchgrass and plant waste" to be "cost-competitive with regular ethanol by 2012."

The U.S. government is already backing the production of first-generation biofuels from plants and animal fats. It sees them as a way to reduce its dependence on oil imports and as being better for the environment.

But while the plants used to make the fuels do convert carbon dioxide into oxygen as they grow, the carbon footprint of farming, transporting and refining them, and their role in raising food prices, have called into question their green credentials.

The second-generation fuels, and eventually hydrogen power, will help reduce reliance on fossil fuels, Alderman Harbert said. But for now, she said the world economy would benefit from an increased oil supply, and underlined the need for more refining capacity.

-By Adam Mitchell, Dow Jones Newswires; +33 1 40171740; adam.mitchell@ dowjones.com

Call for delay to biofuels policy

EGADS...science and reason before a rash decision! But what about Global Warming????
:eek:

Call for delay to biofuels policy
By Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment Analyst

The UK's chief environment scientist has called for a delay to a policy demanding inclusion of biofuels into fuel at pumps across the UK.
Professor Robert Watson said ministers should await the results of their inquiry into biofuels' sustainability.

Some scientists think biofuels' carbon benefits may be currently outweighed by negative effects from their production.

The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) is to introduce 2.5% biofuels at the pumps from 1 April.

Professor Robert Watson warned that it would be insane if the RTFO had the opposite effects of the ones intended.

He said biofuels policy in the EU and the UK may have run ahead of the science.

His comments in an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme appear on the day when a coalition of pressure groups from Oxfam to Greenpeace writes to the Department for Transport (DfT) demanding that the policy be delayed until after the review.

Sustainability question

Professor Watson does not advise the DfT - and said his thoughts as chief environment scientist on the sustainability of biofuels had not been sought.

The DfT is itself under pressure from an EU policy demanding the inclusion of 5% biofuels in road fuels by 2010 in an attempt to cut carbon emissions.

The EU's Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas earlier told BBC News that this target should only be reached if the biofuels could be proved to be sustainably produced.

It is impossible to say yet whether any biofuels are truly sustainable or not as they are blended on the world market and their origins are impossible to trace.

Some scientists believe some biofuels - particularly ethanol from sugar cane - should be seen as sustainable.

Serious concern

But others fear the impact of biofuels on food prices. And recent articles from US scientists argue that the carbon debt incurred from carbon released from ploughing virgin soil often outweighed any potential carbon saving from the biofuels.

Professor Watson said some of the calculations on soil science were controversial - but agreed that carbon losses from soil were a serious concern.

He said that the UK was a leader in exploring the full sustainability implications of biofuels.

This is certainly true compared with the US which has set numerical targets for biofuels without consideration of their carbon impact.

But many will question why energy experts promoting biofuels in the EU were allowed to go unchallenged so long by the views on biofuels of agriculture specialists or soil scientists.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...re/7309099.stm