Comments on: More corn ethanol = Bigger Gulf dead zone http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:22:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: TheSUBWAY.com http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-10305 TheSUBWAY.com Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:28:29 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-10305 We found an interesting article about the problems with Ethanol on ConsumerReports.org: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/03/ethanol-e85.html "But there are some problems with increasing ethanol blends. Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline will likely result in lower fuel economy. Increasing standard fuel blends from zero to 10 percent ethanol, as is happening today, has little or no impact on fuel economy. In tests, the differences occur within the margin of error, about 0.5 percent. Further increasing ethanol levels to 20 percent reduces fuel economy between 1 and 3 percent, according to testing by the DOE and General Motors. Evaluations are underway to determine if E20 will burn effectively in today's engines without impacting reliability and longevity, and also assessing potential impact on fuel economy." TheSUBWAY.com would like to invite readers to post their own views and ideas in TheSUBWAY.com's Investor Forum: http://www.thesubway.com/small-cap-forum We found an interesting article about the problems with Ethanol on ConsumerReports.org:

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/03/ethanol-e85.html

“But there are some problems with increasing ethanol blends. Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline will likely result in lower fuel economy. Increasing standard fuel blends from zero to 10 percent ethanol, as is happening today, has little or no impact on fuel economy. In tests, the differences occur within the margin of error, about 0.5 percent. Further increasing ethanol levels to 20 percent reduces fuel economy between 1 and 3 percent, according to testing by the DOE and General Motors. Evaluations are underway to determine if E20 will burn effectively in today’s engines without impacting reliability and longevity, and also assessing potential impact on fuel economy.”

TheSUBWAY.com would like to invite readers to post their own views and ideas in TheSUBWAY.com’s Investor Forum:

http://www.thesubway.com/small-cap-forum

]]> By: Peter Foley http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9725 Peter Foley Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:05:08 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9725 Hey Joe what's up with deleting my posts? Too much real science for you? Hey Joe what’s up with deleting my posts? Too much real science for you?

]]> By: HighSchoolStudentJD http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9720 HighSchoolStudentJD Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:20:48 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9720 Hey, don't shoot the messenger. The thing about Venus was something I read in a science journal a year or two back. However, I do suggest they should probably switch to something else, but if they do continue with ethanol, they should take a step toward improving the areodynamicy of modern vehicles before they start putting it everywhere. With the two combined, it would be relatively more efficient, if only slightly. Hey, don’t shoot the messenger. The thing about Venus was something I read in a science journal a year or two back. However, I do suggest they should probably switch to something else, but if they do continue with ethanol, they should take a step toward improving the areodynamicy of modern vehicles before they start putting it everywhere. With the two combined, it would be relatively more efficient, if only slightly.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9714 David B. Benson Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:09:19 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9714 HighSchoolStudentJD stated "By the way, scientists have calculated that if greenhouse gas production continues at its current rate that in a hundred years or so Earth will closely resemble Venus…we can’t live on Venus." I doubt this. Adding 2 ppm per year for one hundred years gives 385 + 200 = 585 ppm, which in the short term increases the temperature another 3+ K and in the long term maybe 7 K. Far from Venus conditions. Nonetheless, looks to me to be quite deadly for most, if not all, humans. Some use of certain biofeuls is certainly a good idea. You can learn more about the advantages and disadvantages here http://biopact.com/ and also here http://www.icis.com/blogs/biofuels/ HighSchoolStudentJD stated “By the way, scientists have calculated that if greenhouse gas production continues at its current rate that in a hundred years or so Earth will closely resemble Venus…we can’t live on Venus.” I doubt this. Adding 2 ppm per year for one hundred years gives 385 + 200 = 585 ppm, which in the short term increases the temperature another 3+ K and in the long term maybe 7 K. Far from Venus conditions. Nonetheless, looks to me to be quite deadly for most, if not all, humans.

Some use of certain biofeuls is certainly a good idea. You can learn more about the advantages and disadvantages here

http://biopact.com/

and also here

http://www.icis.com/blogs/biofuels/

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9636 Joe Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:03:47 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9636 Who said I'm against (cellulosic) biofuels? Who said I'm against nuclear? Who said I'm against coal with CCS? Who said I'm against gas? Or hydro? You get nothing. Who said I’m against (cellulosic) biofuels? Who said I’m against nuclear? Who said I’m against coal with CCS? Who said I’m against gas? Or hydro?

You get nothing.

]]> By: PGosselin http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9635 PGosselin Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:49:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9635 Joe, No biofuels, No nuclear, No coal, No oil, No gas, No hydro... Err...we get the picture. Joe,
No biofuels,
No nuclear,
No coal,
No oil,
No gas,
No hydro…
Err…we get the picture.

]]> By: Steve Howell http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9620 Steve Howell Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:07:00 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9620 Look at the bright side! Those dead zones are anoxic, drastically slowing degradation of sinking organic material. It's the original geological method of carbon sequestration. Look at the bright side! Those dead zones are anoxic, drastically slowing degradation of sinking organic material. It’s the original geological method of carbon sequestration.

]]> By: HighSchoolStudentJD http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9617 HighSchoolStudentJD Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:37:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9617 I don't think we should use any form of bio-fuel. Anything biological is made from carbon and, as everyone knows, things made of carbon that burn release carbon. Now, bio-fuels may reduce CO2 emissions, but they will still be there and really just delay the more extreme effects of global warming until later on. Since the United States emits 25% (no kidding) of the world's CO2 emissions, it should really not focus on any carbon-burning fuel. I believe the best way to go is probably with hydrogen fuel cells or, even better, air (yes, there is an air-powered car). With hydrogen, for one thing, it's abundant, the most common element in the universe. Second, the only biproduct of it is water, which can actually be used to fuel a stage of the fuel cell opperations. Air would probably be the best choice because, well, it's relatively infinite. There are no CO2, CO, CH4, etc. emissions from pure air and the creators of this revolutionary idea have developed a prototype egine that recycles the air used back into the tank, essentially refueling itself and never needing to be refilled. So, yeah, air as a fuel is probably the best choice for the United States, and the world for that matter, if we really wish to live on this planet. By the way, scientists have calculated that if greenhouse gas production continues at its current rate that in a hundred years or so Earth will closely resemble Venus...we can't live on Venus. I don’t think we should use any form of bio-fuel. Anything biological is made from carbon and, as everyone knows, things made of carbon that burn release carbon. Now, bio-fuels may reduce CO2 emissions, but they will still be there and really just delay the more extreme effects of global warming until later on. Since the United States emits 25% (no kidding) of the world’s CO2 emissions, it should really not focus on any carbon-burning fuel.
I believe the best way to go is probably with hydrogen fuel cells or, even better, air (yes, there is an air-powered car). With hydrogen, for one thing, it’s abundant, the most common element in the universe. Second, the only biproduct of it is water, which can actually be used to fuel a stage of the fuel cell opperations. Air would probably be the best choice because, well, it’s relatively infinite. There are no CO2, CO, CH4, etc. emissions from pure air and the creators of this revolutionary idea have developed a prototype egine that recycles the air used back into the tank, essentially refueling itself and never needing to be refilled. So, yeah, air as a fuel is probably the best choice for the United States, and the world for that matter, if we really wish to live on this planet.

By the way, scientists have calculated that if greenhouse gas production continues at its current rate that in a hundred years or so Earth will closely resemble Venus…we can’t live on Venus.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9594 Joe Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:14:36 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9594 Corn ethanol was pushed not by the climate crowd -- check the votes in Congress. I don't know any climate activist who thought corn ethanol was a good idea, especially at the volumes we're now at. Corn ethanol was pushed not by the climate crowd — check the votes in Congress. I don’t know any climate activist who thought corn ethanol was a good idea, especially at the volumes we’re now at.

]]> By: PGosselin http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9592 PGosselin Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:52:34 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/more-corn-ethanol-bigger-gulf-dead-zone/#comment-9592 We warned you all! We warned you all!

]]>