FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Ethanol just as bad as gas, maybe worse...

   
Author Topic: Ethanol just as bad as gas, maybe worse...
orlox
Member
Member # 2392

 - posted      Profile for orlox           Edit/Delete Post 
A new study this week finds that E85 pollutes as badly as gas, but in different ways.

Print (SciAm):
http://tinyurl.com/269j62

Video (Stanford Edu):
http://tinyurl.com/22l7a2

RealAudio (NPR/Science Friday):
http://tinyurl.com/ytrode

Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
My first thought when I read this thread title was "oh Lord, did you have a burrito for lunch?"
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
orlox
Member
Member # 2392

 - posted      Profile for orlox           Edit/Delete Post 
Worse. I had milk.

I drink one gallon of milk each and every day. Ever since I was a kid.

Another study this week suggested that male heavy milk drinkers have a 60% increased risk of Parkinson's Disease. Heavy use is defined as three glasses a day. I lose that out my nose watching Stewart and Colbert.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=dairy-food-linked-with-pa

Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Are you serious? How do you avoid kidney stones?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I'll bet his bones are like iron rods though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
orlox
Member
Member # 2392

 - posted      Profile for orlox           Edit/Delete Post 
There was an article a couple years ago that argued we are all the descendants of either alcoholics or tea/coffee drinkers because the water drinkers all died (except in the New World where the water was still unpolluted). I like to think that I descend from the tiny and rare group of milk drinkers. [Wink]

Unfortunately, both my parents were alcoholics so I suspect that drinking milk is just typical rebellion! As a teen, me and my friends would get all hopped up on a 5 pound block of cheeze at music festivals (true). Wild, radical times...

Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
There was a period of my life where I drank a gallon of whole milk a day. It was yummy.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marlozhan
Member
Member # 2422

 - posted      Profile for Marlozhan   Email Marlozhan         Edit/Delete Post 
So am I in the minority since 99% of what I drink on an average daily basis is water? I have soda once or twice every couple months, and I drink a glass of milk a couple times a week. (Of course, that doesn't include the milk in my cereal in the morning).

I figure water is cheaper (assuming you drink tap water) and better for you.

Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
I have drunk, on a regular basis, up to 1 gallon or more of raw goat milk a day.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post 
"Wow" on the milk thing.

Regarding the OP, I suppose there's something to be said for producing all that energy domestically, rather than importing it, even if it pollutes just as much -- as long as we don't call it a solution.

-j_k

Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
orlox
Member
Member # 2392

 - posted      Profile for orlox           Edit/Delete Post 
We sit on the cusp of expending a tremendous amount of effort to switch energy sources. That decision should be made thoughtfully to avoid creating more problems than we solve.

The US has already secured guaranteed access to the Alberta Oil Sands which has the reserves to meet domestic needs for most of the century.

America's addiction isn't to oil per se, but to cheap oil. Cheap energy may well be a thing of the past. Bio-fuels may be renewable, but they are not cheap. And if you add in the cost of environmental degradation even cheap oil isn't really cheap. Expensive energy that still has an unaccounted environmental cost is simply beyond the pale.

Zero emissions is all we can afford whether for economic or national security reasons.

Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So am I in the minority since 99% of what I drink on an average daily basis is water? I have soda once or twice every couple months, and I drink a glass of milk a couple times a week.
That describes my middle daughter. She almost exclusively drinks water.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dragon
Member
Member # 3670

 - posted      Profile for Dragon   Email Dragon         Edit/Delete Post 
Describes me as well. Though I do enjoy chai...
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alethea
Member
Member # 10457

 - posted      Profile for Alethea   Email Alethea         Edit/Delete Post 
Mmmm, chai. [Smile] Have you tried rooibos? It's a South African herbal tea, strong but not as heavily spiced as chai. Goes great with vanilla.

Orlox, I'm curious about the "guaranteed access to the Alberta Oil Sands" you mentioned. As far as I know, most of the companies running mines are Canadian, and the US is among several countries (including China and India) vying for contracts with us.

Posts: 5 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dragon
Member
Member # 3670

 - posted      Profile for Dragon   Email Dragon         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm, I had never heard of rooibos, but I looked it up and it sounds quite good. I'll keep an eye out for it.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SoaPiNuReYe
Member
Member # 9144

 - posted      Profile for SoaPiNuReYe           Edit/Delete Post 
I drink between 3/4 to a full gallon of water everyday. (Not at once though).
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
I usually drink at least 2 quarts of water a day, more if I exercise and/or sweat.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carrie
Member
Member # 394

 - posted      Profile for Carrie   Email Carrie         Edit/Delete Post 
I drink more milk than water, but the total's probably just over a gallon per day.

Hooray for opiated dairy products!

Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hank
Member
Member # 8916

 - posted      Profile for Hank   Email Hank         Edit/Delete Post 
A question for those in the know:

What do you people think of Nuclear energy? I've heard it vaunted as the best way to produce all the electricity we're going to start needing soon...y'know, once we run out of "black gold".

Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alcon
Member
Member # 6645

 - posted      Profile for Alcon   Email Alcon         Edit/Delete Post 
I drink probably a half gallon at least of chocolate milk a day, and I have no idea how much whole milk ends up in the 3 - 10 cups of tea I drink per day.

And it makes sense that ethanol would pollute almost as badly as gas. It's still an organic carbon compound and the reaction is still combustion.

What we need to be doing is looking for non-organic combustion energy and fuel sources. Nuclear is one that comes to mind, fuel cells are another. I think the best bet would be trying to switch power plants to nuclear (fission for now, fusion if we can get it working) and then try and develop an efficient fuel cell for portable power.

Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
The thing about ethanol is that it takes carbon out of the atmosphere (in the form of carbon dioxide when the plants it is made from go through photosynthesis) before emitting it back into the atmosphere. Does this balance out the emissions? Maybe, unless the tractors that harvest the plants burn gasoline...and the processes to convert the crops into ethanol burn gasoline...and the transportation of the materials around burns gasoline.

With ethanol, there is at least some balance between carbon being emitted into the atmosphere. With fuel made from oil, there is no balance. It all goes up.

Fuel made from oil emits carbon into the atmosphere that was buried underground. Add on to this the fuel burned in transportation and processing, and things start to get ugly. I'm not sure (and don't have time now) to find a reference, but I know that a large percentage of gasoline cost gets burned (ha) in transportation and distribution. I'll post that later.

Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

What do you people think of Nuclear energy? I've heard it vaunted as the best way to produce all the electricity we're going to start needing soon...y'know, once we run out of "black gold".

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we still have no way of disposing of the radioactive waste. If we did, then I'd be 100% behind it.

Right now, however, it just has to sit there.

There are other concerns as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_controversy

I think most of them are outweighed by the benefits of being energy independent from foreign oil, but others disagree.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BaoQingTian
Member
Member # 8775

 - posted      Profile for BaoQingTian   Email BaoQingTian         Edit/Delete Post 
Wait....so according to wiki the main arguments against going to nuclear power are:
1) It pollutes (good thing our current power sources don't cause environmental problems).
2) It's dangerous. There was a really bad accident almost 30 years ago at Three Mile Island (described as the worst American nuclear plant accident in history), in which there were no injuries or deaths caused.
3) It allows the United States to have the ability to create nuclear weapons.

Is it just me or are those some really weak opposing arguments? Also, you really hear very little on the amazing technological advancements that have been made in the area of nuclear power generation. Tatiana has posted a ton of useful information in the past. Less waste, even safer than before, etc.

Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alcon
Member
Member # 6645

 - posted      Profile for Alcon   Email Alcon         Edit/Delete Post 
Also, disposal isn't really a problem. We just find a way of dumping it into a subduction zone where it'll be dragged back into the mantel of the Earth. It's rather harmless and natural when in the Earth. Since most subduction zones are beneath the sea, making sure it does get dragged in is a little tricky, but I don't think it'd be too hard to work out.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
Dumbing nuclear waste into a subduction zone so that it gets buried beneath the mantel of the earth is a bigger engineering task than anything any civilization has done to date. I can think of dozens of things that could go horribly wrong with this concept.

And disposal is always a problem. With every waste that we produce, disposal is a problem. Maybe not for everyone, but the waste has to go somewhere, and that somewhere often ends up where people can't afford to fight it off.

Disposal with nuclear wastes is also a unique problem because the waste will last for generations. We, or our children, or our childrens' children may not be affected, but eventually, any container or waste zone is going to leak, and then who do you blame? I could imagine this generation being despised in a few generations for the blatant shrugging off of responsibility if we just bury nuclear waste.

I would rather see a movement for a reduction in the amount of energy we consume before we begin to search for riskier and less well-understood sources of energy.

If we keep focusing on finding more energy, the amount of energy we will consume will just grow. I look at it like food production. Whenever more food became available in our past, it did not stop starvation. It led to more population. Whenever we find new and better sources of energy, it does nothing to distribute the energy. It only allows people to feel like they can use more energy for more non-critical uses. If gas prices were still low, would the we (especially the US) still be focusing on alternative energy like it is now?

Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
Assuming production of the same amount of usable energy, we'd run out of uranium long before we run out of cheap oil.
Per unit of usable energy produced, reactor-grade uranium costs more than expensive oil extracted from shale and tar-sands.

ThreeMileIsland was a second or so from Chernobylizing. While Chernobyl's primary ExclusionZone is a 30kilometre/18.6mile circle covering ~2830 square kilometres / ~1090 square miles, the plume heavily contaminated an amorpheous area of ~28,000 square kilometres / ~10,100 square miles.
Using the distance between the areas most contaminated by the Chernobyl plume to the area surrounding ThreeMileIsland, both Philadelphia and WashingtonDC easily lie within that perimeter. And if you think cleaning up after Katrina was expensive...
Consider that rebuilding in NewOrleans & on the GulfCoast was the most expensive option. It would have been cheaper to buy every Katrina evacuee a median-priced home in other areas of Louisiana or Mississippi or Alabama.
Then consider that the property value of Chernobyl-level contaminated areas in eg the Philadelphia or WashingtonDC metroplexes would have plummeted to zero; with no possibility of remediation back to current standards allowing for human habitation. And the effect of those suddenly valueless mortgage and business loan holdings on the US banking system.

The standard "Chernobyl couldn't have happened here" is contradicted by all the engineering studies "proving" that "A meltdown couldn't happen at ThreeMileIsland".....until it did happen.

Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein

[ April 24, 2007, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
I doubt that nuclear waste will ever be a problem for us in the future, unless we end up back in the Stone Age again in the future. A race that can travel between the stars isn't going to have much trouble disposing of any amount of nuclear waste, IMHO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
Did I kill the thread?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Phanto
Member
Member # 5897

 - posted      Profile for Phanto           Edit/Delete Post 
Yep! [Wink]
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tatiana
Member
Member # 6776

 - posted      Profile for Tatiana   Email Tatiana         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, I just saw this. Obviously I have thought a lot about nuclear energy. BaoQingTian is right in that a lot of the arguments against it are pretty weak. It has a lot of really great arguments for it, as well. I happen to think it's a smart idea, and I think we really need it, unless we want to give up air conditioning from now on or something like that (which is perfectly doable). And even then we probably will need it eventually.

[ May 25, 2007, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]

Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2