This is the point in the process that gets the most reaction from
ethanol proponents. They claim up to 25% reduction in GHG emissions &
pollutants in the production side. If, as they argue, the tailpipe end
is a wash or nearly so, the production reductions are well worth it.
We need to consider every part of the process: production, emissions and
costs from distribution, and consumption by end users. The end user
research is the part I was addressing, and it showed no net gain in
emissions of carcinogens and either no gain or small losses in regard to
GHGs.
As for the production end, most research I'm aware of is from the
industry. I would like it to be verified independently. And there are
the other issues raised by Ed W., such as engine compression. Ethanol
can be burned in diesel engines, but my understanding is that B20 (20%
blend) is the most efficient blend in existing engines, and it does
compare well with petroleum diesel, other blend percentages, and
gasoline FOR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS. But for GHGs?
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Donna Buell
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 7:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: biomass, corn stover, and the new wave of synthetic biology
Isn't this looking at ethanol in a vacuum?
The issue with biofuels is rarely the carbon burned in the fuel. The
issue with biofuels is the carbon emissions in the process of growing
the feedstocks, in the conversion of our land from carbon sinks to
carbon emitters, in the inappropriately located, poorly regulated or
excessively large biofuels facilities, etc. We need to take a full life
cycle view of bio-energy.
And on the bigger scale: This isn't about ethanol v. crude for autos.
This is about more of the same v. transitioning our energy to truly
renewable. This is about refusing to upgrade our cars because we can
claim to use "renewable" ethanol instead of making more efficient cars.
This is about Big Ag and Big Oil vying for their next big grab on our
natural resources.
If anybody opposes perennials for on-the-farm energy using pyrolsis or
some other highly-efficient method of producing energy, please let me
know.... But FYI, directly from the new policy statement: "Sierra Club
opposes further deployment of corn-based ethanol based on its extremely
dubious net carbon benefits and its unresolved direct and indirect
environmental impacts. The Club also opposes proposals to overuse
agricultural waste and residue products (e.g., corn stover) without
rigorous evidence that the material being used is surplus to the needs
of soil health and fertility."
Donna
On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Ed Woolsey wrote:
> Lee:
> No worries. I always enjoy some discussion on the subject.
This is
> one of those topics where you've always needed to follow WHO pays for
these
> studies, and, the strings that come attached, attached to so many of
our
> academics today. With most of these AQ tests there were always
"agendas".
> I fear that this is one of the main reasons that the enviro community
is so
> skeptical of ethanol.
> Ethanol does not have the energy (btu's) per gallon of gasoline.
> 73,000 vs 115,000. or about 30% less...so Gerald...I'm not sure how
you would
> drop 10% or Lee...you would drop...30-40%. 9X115,000 plus 1x73,000
for
> E10 and 10x115,000 for straight gasoline. I'm calling BS....ok...a
little BS.
> Gasoline is REFORMULATED for cold weather conditions. The use of
lighter
> components (volatile that start easier) would lower the total btu's in
your
> winter blend. Or, gasoline companies would have an economic incentive
to
> dump lower grade gasoline and boost it more than 10%vol. Perhaps we
need
> to monitor the blends more.
> Other related issue is the use of ethanol octane...110 vs gasoline's
85 or a
> little higher. Octane is an indicator of how efficiently the fuel
combusts.
> Because ethanol has a higher octane you can use it in the higher
efficiency
> engines. (diesel) Ethanol likes 16 to 1 and the current engines are
about 8.5
> to 1. Ethanol is short shifted big time. Boosting the compression
ratio for the
> fuel results is something like 25% greater fuel efficiency. (If
anyone's
> interested they can look it up or I can find it somewhere) Oh, and
the
> reduced efficiency leads to what???? yes...more pollutants.
> Short story long....what we should be using is about 80%ethanol 20%
water
> mixture in a higher compression engine...tuned for the fuel. Then
lets see that
> AQ study....ethanol will smoke any fossil. (pun intended) e
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
>
> Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
> e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
> latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
> editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
|
