Ethanol Is Not The Answer

Sometimes what seems like a good idea at the time actually turns out to be a pretty bad one in the end. Such is the case with ethanol. Ethanol is not the answer to either global warming or reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol has huge physical and economic drawbacks, is inefficient, and produces more harmful emissions than gasoline.

A Minnesota study in 2005 revealed that one gallon of ethanol required 4.5 gallons of water, while a new ethanol plant can use up to 1.3 million gallons of water and produce 400,000 gallons of contaminated water every day. This type of pumping has recently shown a negative impact on Greene County, Missouri's aquifer which has dropped 140 feet in some places, and has led to more than half of the 300 well owners in the county to report problems with their wells. - St. Louis Post Dispatch

Currently, ethanol is being made primarily from corn. The U.S. does not produce enough corn to meet the demand, and even if it did, would we really want to rely on it. Current methods for producing ethanol require 450 pounds of corn to produce 25 gallons of ethanol, enough calories to feed one person for an entire year, which has resulted in an 80% increase in corn prices in 2006. Continuing increases in corn prices would obviously result in an increase in the production price of ethanol, but aside from this, it would also result in an increase in virtually every food item consumed in this country. Why? The answer is simple. Corn is found in virtually all food products produced in the U.S. in the form of Corn Syrup. Thus, as the price of corn rises, so does the price every product made from it, which does not bode well for the American consumer. At our current rate of corn consumption, both from food and ethanol, we all better hope that nothing happens to our corn harvests, because if anything did, it would make the Irish Potato Famine look like a walk in the park.

Scientists are working to produce ethanol from substances other than corn and that cost less than corn; however, unless these methods can make production and use of ethanol more efficient, they will do little good. Based on my assessment of information relating to ethanol, ethanol at best is as efficient as gasoline, yet requires much more energy make and produced more greenhouse gases than gasoline to produce (due to the use of farm equipment and processing needs). That being said, ethanol also produces more harmful emissions than gasoline.

Results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage (because) E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others—formaldehyde and acetaldehyde (but) E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog (and) inhaling ozone—even at low levels—can decrease lung capacity, inflame lung tissue, worsen asthma and impair the body's immune system (which would likely) increase the annual number of asthma-related emergency room visits by 770 and the number of respiratory-related hospitalizations by 990. - See Science Daily

So, what should we do?

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. - See Science Daily

Share on Facebook

The Dollars and Cents of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

When I read that Australia had become the first country in the world to ban incandescent bulbs I had two thoughts. First, I said to myself, "This is a great step in the right direction for the fight against global warming." And second, I asked myself, how come Australia was able to pass a law like this without a massive public outcry?

To help answer this question I decided to look into replacing all of the light bulbs in my house with compact fluorescent bulbs for a hefty fee of roughly $100. But what would I really be doing? Aside from the environmental benefits of compact fluorescent bulbs and playing a part in preventing global warming, will I benefit from switching all of my bulbs? And if so, how? Will I save any money? Will I be able to recuperate the money I spent?

Well, the answer is a resounding "YES!"

One bulb = $2.49 + tax
Energy Use = 15 watts = 60 watt incandescent light bulb light output
One year saving for one bulb averaging three hours of use = $12
Average Life of Bulb = 7 years at three hours of use per day
Nate Would Replace 30 Bulbs
Nate's Pre-Replacement Energy Use = 1,800 watts
Nate's Post-Replacement Energy Use = 450 watts
Nate's Savings Per Year = $360
Nate's Savings Over the Life Time of the Bulbs = $2,520

With this analysis, Australia's decision to outlaw incandescent makes perfect sense. The government is able to play a part in preventing global warming, and the citizens actually will recuperate their expenses and attain additional savings by switching.

This seems pretty reasonable right? So why can't we do it?



Share on Facebook

The Only Country to Reject Global Warming

Why?

Because if we reduce carbon emissions along with EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET...

The Bush administration argues the Kyoto protocol would hurt the U.S. economy and objects that high-polluting developing nations like China and India are not required to reduce emissions. - AP

What is more important, saving the world or worrying about our economy? Why are we worried about our economy, when EVERY other country isn't worried about theirs? And if they are worried about their economies, why have they decided to forgo their concerns to fight global warming while we have not?

Maybe they realize a correlation between the two that the current administration does not.

Roscoe Barlett's (R-MD) believes that if the U.S. acts to combat the Peak Oil Crisis, we could combat global warming and emerge as a manufacturing super power once again.

So, will combating global warming really hurt our economy?

Important economic and jobs benefits could result from a concerted U.S. effort to develop substitute fuels plants... (and) The impacts might include hundreds of billions of dollars of investment, hundreds of thousands of jobs, a rejuvenation of various domestic industries, and increased tax revenues for the Federal, state, and local governments. - Hirsch Report

The answer is simply no. Additionally, because peak oil is a world problem...

It is virtually certain that at the same time the U.S. embarked on an aggressive mitigation program, other major initiatives would likely be undertaken elsewhere in the world. - Hirsch Report

The U.S could become a world leader and increase our lagging exports by developing useful alternative fuels and energy producing technologies if the necessary government efforts are made. Our reluctance to enter into the Kyoto treaty for the reasons given by the White House seem suspect. If our economy will actually benefit, why is there such a reluctance? Maybe the answer lies in the high-polluting companies who would be most affected by a U.S. entry into Kyoto.




Share on Facebook