Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Ethanol push could threaten water supplies

RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

The Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 12:43 PM EDT 10/10/07

Researcher warns of threat to both quality, availability of water from increasing crops to make biofuel ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. X. T. from Waterloo, Canada writes: Ha! Am I supposed to be surprised by this ill conceived 'environmental' nonsense?

    Just cut the government life support and let them die.
  2. dwight tanner from Vancouver, Canada writes: There is no one solution. CNG made from north america's large naturalgas supplies would work in the short-term and mid-term. The European solution of low sulphur diesel and high mileage cars with high fuel prices would also help.
  3. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Governments like to support biofuels because its relatively cheap and makes them at least look like they are doing something.

    Biofules can never offer a significant contribution to the solution to the problem.

    What is necessary is:

    i) massive investment in CO2 neutral energy infrastructure: Nuclear, Hydro-electric, Wind and Solar (pretty much in that order);

    ii) dramatically increased efficiency incentives (like carbon taxes, building code amendments, retrofitting programs); and

    iii) massive and effective carbon sequestration plants.

    France is doing well with the Nuclear option. About 75% of their electricity derives from Nuclear. Consequently, France's CO2 emissions are half of Canada's even though they have twice the population.

    France has some ways to go. We have a long ways to catch up.
  4. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: As well as offering very low EROEI, corn-based ethanol production with its fertilizer requirements will be hammered by peak oil. It is not a solution to energy security issues.
  5. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: I don't think Ethanol is good for many reasons. The corn needs pesticides, and because it's not food grade, they can spray all kinds of other stuff, otherwise illegal on food for consumption. Poison city.
    Then there is a refining aspect, which uses a lot of energy. I've seen claims how Ethanol has no benefit at all in the end.
    Much better solution is to run on Biodiesel. Jatropha for instance is a weed that can grow in poor soil, no pesticides needed, and the seeds, when simply pressed, yields 60% pure diesel usable by most diesel engines, just like that. In northern climates like our own there are all kinds of other crops that can yield biodiesel. No distillation required. I really think the oil guys are keeping us busy with this stupid ethanol thing. We need to transition to diesel. So, no more racing at the traffic lights - these vehicles are more lethargic - but they'll get your around just the same.
    Are we ready for it? I am!
  6. Rollo Tomasi from Moonrise, Belgium writes: Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: We need to transition to diesel. So, no more racing at the traffic lights - these vehicles are more lethargic - but they'll get your around just the same.
    Are we ready for it? I am!
    -----------------------------------

    Mitsibushi changed all that years ago, making diesel 20% more powerful than gasoline engines. Get with the program.
  7. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Scientific American reported almost a year ago about the total cost of biofuel (ethanol - not biodiesel) and suggested that the total environmental cost was more than that of fossil fuel extraction. The study concentrated, if my memory serves, only about production efficiencies and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). It did not take into account the 'downstream' effects of industrial agriculture.

    While I support the thought that pesticide-free production would be good for non-food sources, I still wonder whether we're at a practical engineering level for massive biofuel extraction that isn't on a par with fossil fuel extraction. The former should (in theory) be sustainable while the latter clearly isn't (it's just stored biofuel from a previous age), but we need incentives at an ecological level (taking our entire world into account), not just regional.
  8. Red Ensign is our glory! Real Canadian pride! from Canada writes: ethanol is a total scam. theres is zero carbon savings from useing it. any advantage is offset by production. all this is doing is driving the price of food up. better to build nuclear plants, and jumpstart the hyrdogen economy for any real advantage. as for spent nuclear fuel, we can store it in afghanistan for a century or two when reprocessing makes it a valuable commodity rather than a problem. this ethanol nonsense is just stupid.
  9. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: The push toward ethanol is a scam of major proportions. Rainforests from Brazil to Indonesia are being leveled to make room for sugar and palm oil plantations used to produce ethanol. Marginal agricultural lands in North America are being put back into production as grain prices rise. Food costs are going up, threatening millions with famine, as food grains are diverted into energy production. All for a fuel that is not one bit more environmentally friendly than good ol' petroleum-based fuel. Not only that, ethanol converts to energy when burned much less efficiently than petroleum fuels, and is more costly to produce. It therefore requires massive government subsidies (usually in the guise of lower fuel excise taxes) just to remain economically viable. The public is getting cornholed by the ethanol racket, of that there is no doubt.
  10. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I tend to agree with you 'Voice of Reason' about the nuclear option, having seen a generation of knee-jerk reaction against it here, driven by fear-mongering during the cold war.

    There do still remain issues, though, primarily about capital costs, operational safeguards and the longterm potential for harm from past mining practices and future storage problems, which I tend to discount, given known engineering ways of disposing of waste.

    My biggest fears are on the early stage and operation aspects, not on the storage of waste. That's where human frailty, indifference and malice have enormous influence.
  11. this is just my opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: The 'hydrogen economy' is, unfortunately, another solution that creates more problems than it solves. Our best source of hydrogen is from using electrolysis to separate the H out of water. And what energy do we use for electrolysis? Electricity. So now we're trading our stinky non-renewable polluting energy source for a different one whose supply is already near the breaking point.

    As almost everyone so far has noted, the easiest and most promising solution appears to be low-sulphur deisel. Love my Jetta...
  12. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I raised the spectre of industrial agriculture in an earlier comment here. We should be familiar with the damage to health and the economy of industrial-style agriculture, pushing their inefficiencies downstream. They have put off the real cost of production onto the rest of us.

    It called the 'tragedy of the commons'. Each of you here should probe through:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/sotp/commons.dtl
  13. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: 'As almost everyone so far has noted, the easiest and most promising solution appears to be low-sulphur deisel. Love my Jetta... '

    Starting in 2010 you'll be able to get many 'common' cars and trucks with diesels....Jeeps and Dodge Ram 1500's are where it will start. Passenger cars will come along about 5 years later. Clean, no aftertreatment needed, plenty of pep, and better milage....what's not to like?
  14. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: The OECD, Science journal and some respecte scientists are questioning the total carbon footprint of biofuel vs. petroleum based fuel. When considering all inputs, including the large amount of fertilizer and herbicides required, the difference is estimated as high as 70% more emissions in the production and use of biodiesel vs. petroleum diesel.

    Science journal has published studies that suggest the most effective means of lowering emissions is by planting and preserving forests, the natural scrubbing mechanism. The advantages are multi-layered because destruction of habitat, species extinction is a side effect of creating biocrop land in Indonesia and South America. We are destroying natural habitat to artificially grow crops for biofuel of questionable advantage. Canada can play a major role in the strategy because of our landmass and natural forest cover.

    The new generation of Euro-diesels did not gain market acceptance because they are lethargic. Performance has been proven on the race course and that performance translated into market acceptance. The Japanese are now experimenting with high performance electric cars. Tell somebody that an electric car goes 0-100K faster than a Porsche and you have a sale.

    Transportation, from ships and planes to mopeds, must be the focus of reducing emissions. Canada was founded and is totally dependant upon long distance transportation of goods therefore the Canadian contribution has to be in protection and expansion of natural scrubbing mechanisms (forests) and mass transit in the three major population areas.
  15. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Alan Burke from Ottawa:'. One should not get caught in the spin cycle here and a lot of this article is the standard spin, not informative. Ethanol is highly beneficial for replacing MTBE because it is less carcinogenic, costs less, and reduces the need/energy for refining crude oil. It has a large net benefit in this role and the amount doesn't take up that much land ( it does help to stabilise prices, of course ). Much of the ethanol is not produced from corn in Canada anyway. It is produced from 'low grade' wheat and barley that is more valuable as ethanol than as feed. Cellulose ethanol is available ( i.e. Iogen ) and bordering on large scale production. It NEEDS the mandated use of ethanol for octane boosting in order to drive investment. The use of distortions based on some imaginary 'corn based ethanol as global fuel supply' nonsense may hinder progress toward energy independence on many levels including spiking cellulose ethanol investment. Two developments that might make a difference. One is gene engineered yeast that can tolerate higher levels of alcohol, thus making higher concentrations in the mash ( lower distillation costs). The other is production of DMF (Dimethyl Furan: immiscible with water and thus not requring distillation) from sugars rather than ethanol.It also is denser and less volatile, closer to gasoline as fuel. The biggest elephant in the room is algae based biodiesel. Algae can produce 100 times the output per acre of plant based crops. That means that biodiesel that would take 200% of the agricultural land to produce and thus would be impossible, suddenly only needs 2% of the land. Biofuels have a significant potential and will become an increasing part of the fuel mix for decades to come.
  16. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: See also:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/682
    http://members.forbes.com/asap/2001/0910/061.html
    http://www.spectacle.org/497/commons.html

    We live on a small spaceship.
  17. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'The use of distortions based on some imaginary 'corn based ethanol as global fuel supply' nonsense may hinder progress toward energy independence on many levels including spiking cellulose ethanol investment.'

    Please tell G W Bush about this.
  18. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I welcome comment from others about this issue, it's a big one. Ian St. John, the article is oversimplified, to be sure, but does raise legitimate concerns.

    Let's hope that 'J Luft', 'GlynnMhor' and their reflexive cousins don't poison the debate based on fact that's now happening here.
  19. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'this is just my opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: The 'hydrogen economy' is, unfortunately, another solution that creates more problems than it solves.'. Not really. Hydrogen becomes a universal 'energy carrier', not a primary source of energy in the 'hydrogen economy'. It is relatively easy to produce hydrogen from a myriad of sources so as 'common currency' it means more efficient use of energy and fewer fuel systems to develop. 'Our best source of hydrogen is from using electrolysis to separate the H out of water. And what energy do we use for electrolysis? Electricity.'. Red herring. Nobody is claiming that converting electricity to hydrogen is useful if you can use the electricity directly. But it does form a means for utilizing irregular power production such as wind farms and solar energy by using the hydrogen as a 'storage media'. It can also convert power to fuel tranport vehicles without the legendary 100 km extension cord.. ;-) 'As almost everyone so far has noted, the easiest and most promising solution appears to be low-sulphur deisel. Love my Jetta... '. As you might note, in China they are moving towards electric bicycles. 240 km on one charge costing a yuan. Now that is commuting.. There will be no perfect single solution anywhere. Not even your beloved Jetta. Notes: Low sulfur diesel requires a lot of extra processing adding costs and emissions. Biodiesel is inherently low sulfur and below about 10-15% levels reduces emissions. However, above that it actually increases emissions. No 'perfect solution' yet.
  20. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I don't doubt the potential of biofuels. The thesis of the article is that the downstream effects require different accountability. Let's forget that the accountability has never been there with the fossil fuel industries.

    What we need now is assurance, including those old buggers, that they'll not push their incompetencies, greed and malice downstream.

    It's already there in our food chain. When is the last time you swam downstream from a turkey or pig farm? I caught edible trout below the Glenmore Reservoir in Calgary, about 40 years ago. We've lost something.
  21. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Alistair, it's potentially sustainable.
  22. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Alan Burke writes: '...forget that the accountability has never been there with the fossil fuel industries.'

    Agreed. The potential solutions to global warming seem to be held to a much higher environmental standard than oil production is in the first place.

    I agree with an earlier poster that, all in, ethnoal is probably no better than oil for the environment.

    But I'll bet that even the worst ethanol production practices pale in comparison with the horrific environmental impacts of the Tar Sands - which is by far and away the dirtiest method of energy production bar none.
  23. CPT America from United States writes: What a bunch of hogwash, there are already 7 cellulosic ethanol plants built or under construction in the US. These types of plants require feedstock that do not require fertilizer, pestisides, etc! How do you think oil gets to market, in sailing ships? Give me a break, I read that the real cost of oil is over $250.00 a barrel. What CDNs, are you upset oil might be worthless in a few years?
  24. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Hey 'CPT America', could you step back a bit from the rage and tell us. please, how they're doing that?

    Don't get flaming outraged at those of us who are trying to find a solution. Show us solutions instead, please. Do those plants indeed get their raw materials from sources that do not push their inefficiencies downstream? I'd like to hear about them if so, they could be heros.
  25. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Cpt America - If you ever came to Canada, you would discover something called pipelines, many of which go such places as Minneapolis and Chicago.

    The total carbon footprint arguments are open ended ... at what point do we say inputs, production and distribution are no longer calculated. The product does not exist in isolation of all other factors.

    This article is concerned with water use ... a non-carbon footprint issue.

    I don't know if you live in an agricultural area, but I did for fifty years and any crop today, other than organic, requires chemical inputs harmonized with the seed product i.e. Monsanto. Canola(biodiesel) is notorious for genetic engineering and specific chemical requirements. There was a law suit in Saskatchewan pitting an individual farmer vs. Monsanto regarding the patent on seed.

    One of the purposes of GM seed is herbicide tolerance. As reported in Sept. 07 Scientific American, 54% of all cropping in the U.S. is transgenic (2006). The transgenic products are Soybeans (57%), Maize or corn (25%), Cotton (13%) and Canola (5%).

    No we Canadians are not upset about peak oil or possible customers because we have uranium, diamonds, copper, nickel among many minerals, timber, natural gas, huge tracts of farm land and, most importantly, water.

    We are concerned about the flushing of the U.S. greenback and may be reluctant to accept payment from a country with massive debt problems and a large trade imbalance and treasuries being held by China.
  26. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: There might be a solution, Voice of Reason, to the oil sands extraction pollution. It could be nuclear.

    Or perhaps not. What everyone here needs is breadth of vision. We are creative and can solve problems. It requires knowledge and courage, not reflex action.

    I hate the politicization I see here in G&M commentary. It's usually unidimensional and does not recognize the value that diverse opinion can bring to solving problems.

    That's at the heart of the scientific method, something that the ideologues refuse to recognize.
  27. Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: Hydrogen fuel cells....that's the ticket.
  28. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Alan Burke - Agreed. While scientific consensus is that CO2 emisssion must be reduced sharply, I don't think that consensus requires the complete elimination of oil for fuel. (Though we could do it).

    I 'Harp' on the Tar Sands (weak pun intended) because it is so brazzen.

    I believe there is enough time to keep our planet healthy for our children and grandchildren. I believe eveyone wants this, and that we will ultimately succeed together. We just have to get through the petty 'denialist' phase, as happened with smoking.
  29. J Lee from North Vancouver, Canada writes: So we continue to look for some way to replace gasoline as the fuel for our cars. And we run into the problem that there really isn't another substance that is as energy dense as oil or that is as readily available as oil was for the last 40 years. Well maybe the problem isn't finding a replacement fuel for cars - maybe the problem is the car.
  30. X. T. from Waterloo, Canada writes: Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: Hydrogen fuel cells....that's the ticket.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    To you and a couple of other hydrogen drunks:
    Hydrogen has no future, at least so far into history.

    It is true that hydrogen produces about 34,000kcal/kg energy, compared to petrol at 11,000kcal/kg. However if you look at the volume density of energy content, H2 is simply nothing. 1kg H2 takes up about 11 cubic metres volume, under room conditions. 1kg petrol takes about 1.3 litres volume. So volume speaking, petrol is thousands times better. Even the good old firewood does light years better than H2.

    You may argue that you can compress H2, and I say good luck. H2 can not be compressed into liquid, unless you cool it down to about 252C below zero. So practically you are stuck with some light gas in your car.

    Therefore, let me assume that you can compress H2 to 1/25 of the normal volume, which calls for maybe 30 atm pressure. That still means you need about 450L tank to hold 1kg H2.

    Assume your fool cell can deliver 85% energy efficiency, as petrol engine delivers 35% efficiency. That 1kg H2 is equivalent to about 7.2L petrol in output.

    How far can you go with that much hydrogen? Go figure. I know my Corolla uses about that much per 100km.

    There is another benefit I did not mention: Imagine if that tank explodes. I think those 'martyrs' in Baghdad will love this.
  31. Stephen no last name from Montreal, Canada writes: Corn is for cows, shepperd's pie and the odd summer roast, not for cars. There's a saying in French,loosely translated as: 'Why change 1 dollar for 4 quarters'.
  32. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Unfortunately, there's little emotional incentive for most correspondents here to respond and to listen to reasoned discussion. Those of us who try to bring reason to bear are dealing with a very limited forum. Please look for links and read them before you comment or spew invective.

    Outrageous assertions make for good news. This thread of conversation has, so far, strayed from the usual invective, slander and misinformation provided by a few correspondents.

    I hope they'll recognize the futility of their ignorance and start to contribute to solutions. The problem is that they won't even recognize the problem.
  33. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Ethanol is, quite simply, a dumb idea. Just another farm subsidy.
  34. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I think you exaggerate the explosive effects, 'X. T.' of hydrogen. It blows away, vertically, very quickly. Petroleum products do not do so; they cling and burn at our level in a collision.

    Have you ever used a propane tank? Does you BBQ have one? Going from liquid gasoline to contained hydrogen could be a good step.
  35. X. T. from Waterloo, Canada writes: If they subsidize the ethanol in LCBO, I would support the policy. Otherwise, no deal
  36. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'm very pleased 'J Luft' to see you here because we've been unfortunate in having the G&M close comments before you could answer me, which I'd like to hear now, if you please: 'I've asked before and got no answer so I'll try again: J Luft, are you related to Barry Luft, the Vice-President Drilling for 'Blackwatch Energy Trust' or to Inge Luft, AFE Analyst, Capital at 'Harvest Energy Trust', both based in Calgary? If so, that might explain your mindless devotion to denying the reality of anthropogenic warming.'
  37. Alan Burke from Canada writes: Thanks, 'X.T.' for your blurred mental fart into the discussion.
  38. ss dd from vancouver, Canada writes: Growing corn (i.e. food) for filling car's fuel tank is the singlest idea even more idiotic than the entire Kyoto thingie.

    Whomever came up with it, is a genius NOT !
  39. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Well thanks, 'ss dd' for your insight. You've added all kinds of positive perspective. About on a par with the trailer park boys or bart simpson.

    Do you care to enlighten us about why you hold that opinion?
  40. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: For the chemists: I know this isn't going to come out clearly, but here goes anyway: The heat of combustion of ethanol is only 11,500 BTU/lb, while the heat of combustion of say heptane (as gasoline) is 19,315 BTU/lb. For a motor that is 70% efficient, it takes 1.46 Imperial gallons of ethanol to deliver the same amount of energy as 1 Imperial gallon of heptane. Using this ratio (1.46:1.00), the stoichiometry for the CO2 produced is as follows: Ethanol 1.46 imperial gallons or 11.55 lbs gives 132,870 btu 11.55 24.11 X 13.56 C2H6O 3 O2 >>> 2 CO2 3 H2O 46 96 88 54 X CO2 = 22.10 lbs Gasoline 1 imperial gallon or 6.879 lbs gives 132,870 btu 6.879 24.21 Y 9.91 C7H16 11 O2 >>> 7 CO2 8 H2O 100 352 308 144 Y CO2 = 21.19 lbs That is, ethanol produces 22.1 lb of CO2 compared to 21.19 lb of CO2 from heptane for the same energy delivered in a 70% efficient motor. So, where is this large CO2 benefit we are supposed to get by introducing ethanol? If you add in the energy to grow corn and the energy to produce ethanol and the energy to ship and mix ethanol to gasoline, the picture is very dark for ethanol. So, why the big push for ethanol? Is it simply to reduce the volume of gasoline, regardless of the energy picture. I'm afraid this is all too complex for our members of parliament ... unless they are in bed with corn producers??? Hmmm?
  41. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: My appologies to the board for the compressed rendition of what is much more clear on my spreadsheet. If the G&M would only allow my spacing is would have been as clear as mud ... for our MPs, that is ... sigh ...

    BTW, my arguement for the MPs cuddling up to corn producers is a big argument in the U.S. where their lobbies have banned introducing Brazilian ethanol for sugar cane.
  42. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'm afraid, Richard Hawrelak, that you'll find most correspondents here to be innumerate, and only a few not to be illiterate.

    The article centred, however, on the downstream effects and not on the economics of direct production. The second order effects are in focus for ethanol production but have rarely been in focus for other energy producers, hence my earlier suggestion that readers understand 'The Tragedy of the Commons'.

    See: http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/sotp/commons.dtl
  43. Journey Man from Ontario, Canada writes: I agree with most of the posters above. Biofuels are a huge scam being propagated by the agra-business people to drive up the cost of corn and the like to line their own pockets. The consumer will be the loser and the planet will be not for behind.

    For those who think that bio-fuels are the answer, if I traded you a loonie for 99 pennies, would you think that was a great deal? That has been labeled Energy Returned on Energy Invested (or EROEI)..and bio-fuels don't do well on this rating. In the good-old-days sweet-crude from Texas would give you a >100:1 ratio. Nuclear power gives us >4:1, the 'tar sands' are about 1.5:1, but corn-to-car fuel...the numbers hover around 1:1.

    If people don't like to read about all of this kind of 'hard science' then might I suggest watching a recent documentary called: 'Oil Crash: A Crude Awakening'.

    This stuff scares the pants off of me quite frankly, and what is even scary is the general lack-of-understanding by politicians and the general public. Everyone should be forced to retake high-school science courses before they are eligible to vote.
  44. ss dd from vancouver, Canada writes: Alan Burke, you're way over your head into this even though you don't seem to realize it. You're also funny, but not exactly in the sense you envision it... :-)

    Common sense (something you're sorely lacking) would dictate to most people that growing some plant from which to extract some fuel is not exactly as efficient as drilling for more oil. While at that, I'm pretty sure that even the oil extracted from tar sands comes in cheaper than your ethanol little scheme.
    If you do the energetic balance sheet between producing 1 liter of gasoline vs 1 liter of ethanol, you'll see why ethanol was a dumb idea from the very beginning. Plus, the energetic efficiency of burning the two substances is favoring gasoline again by a large margin.
    The only advantage I can see for ethanol is that, in the end, you can drink it and give up driving altogether (which could be more fun too, at least for some people :-)

    That's about it, roughly. You really should have known this from school but hey, nobody's perfect... Probably you had better things to do at the time :-)

    And please don't stop writing. This forum needs you, even if it's just for entertainment...
  45. Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: CPT - the cellulosic plants that are in production all use the same kind of enzymatic process to ferment the cellulose to make ethanol. Hence the current cellulosic technology is too expensive. Alternate cellulose options are coming up shortly... then we can make a difference.
  46. Billy Bob from Saskatchewan from Canada writes: Just to reiterate Ian's post.

    Oil from Algae has great potential. Its not as good quality as some of the bio oils out there but VERY huge output per acre ratio.

    Algae and we could probaby combine its production with pumped in waste CO2 for a win win.

    Algae for the WIN!

    Woohoo!
  47. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I find your derision, 'ss dd', just as amusing as you find mine, I guess. The difference is that I do not attribute motives. I ask for reason and rational backing.

    The fact that you seem to regard me as somehow promoting one side versus the other merely shows your own ineptitude in reading.

    I'll take you on any day on the facts of these issues. Go feast on your own preconceptions.

    If you care to offer rational rebuttal rather than personal effrontery, I'll be pleased to take those arguments on. In the meantime, continue to speak to your own uninformed audience.
  48. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: BTW, 'ss dd', if your care to read and understand rather than skimming and reacting, you might appreciate that I wasn't defending ethanol production.
  49. ss dd from vancouver, Canada writes: 'I wasn't defending ethanol production.'

    Alan Burke, you weren't doing anything else of any importance for that matter. Hence my suggestion for you to continue to entertain us :-)
  50. Stephen John from Toronto, Canada writes: never a mention of Hemp as a fuel
    read the article in the link below
    a real eye opener

    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n1160/a10.html?397
  51. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Can I take it as a given then, 'ss dd' that you dismiss the ideas expressed in the links I posted?

    e.g.,
    http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/sotp/commons.dtl
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/682
    http://members.forbes.com/asap/2001/0910/061.html
    http://www.spectacle.org/497/commons.html

    I've seen nothing from you other than ridicule, ad hominem attacks and ignorance of reality.

    If that's your idea of entertainment, so be it. I'd rather have mine; it's based on reality, not dreams.
  52. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: You might like to read a SciAm article on this issue, away from the personality issues being pushed by 'ss dd'. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=07520EDF-E7F2-99DF-3F39F759D467DFCD or http://tinyurl.com/2s27gq
  53. Billy Bob from Saskatchewan from Canada writes: Algea > Hemp

    pffftttt....

    :)
  54. ss dd from vancouver, Canada writes: So, you like 'controlled growth' ? Fine. Why don't you live by it ?
    You could start by controlling your literary productions.

    And by the way, these 'gloom and doom' scenarios were so much fun during the '70... Too bad most of the guys from the original Club of Rome died of good old age without having the satisfaction of seeing any of their funny predictions becoming reality.

    Oh, and your link publishing skills suck (your last link, in particular, is a road to nowhere :-)
  55. Alan Burke from Canada writes: I assume, 'ss dd' that your comment at 6:00 PM EDT was directed to me. Your sarcasm is mildly humorous, much like a small belch at the dinner table. I give thought to each posting here, unlike much of the mental diarrhea I see spewed by many others, you apparently among them. If you cannot stand literacy and informed opinion, please visit blogs elsewhere. If you choose to ignore scientific consensus you're either a genius if you can do a better job, an ignoramus or a willful disrupter. How you got 'doom and gloom' into this discussion escapes me; that's certainly not on my agenda, though you seem to be intent upon tarring me with the nearest brush you have available. I'd be interested to hear whether anyone else has had trouble following the posted links. Is it possible you don't know how to do a copy-and-paste?
  56. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I assume, 'ss dd' that your comment at 6:00 PM EDT was directed to me. Your sarcasm is mildly humorous, much like a small belch at the dinner table. I give thought to each posting here, unlike much of the mental diarrhea I see spewed by many others, you apparently among them. If you cannot stand literacy and informed opinion, please visit blogs elsewhere.

    If you choose to ignore scientific consensus you're either a genius if you can do a better job, an ignoramus or a willful disrupter. How you got 'doom and gloom' into this discussion escapes me; that's certainly not on my agenda, though you seem to be intent upon tarring me with the nearest brush you have available.

    I'd be interested to hear whether anyone else has had trouble following the posted links. Is it possible you don't know how to do a copy-and-paste?
  57. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I apologize for the double posting, it appears to be a glitch in the G&M message handler.
  58. Wayne Spitzer from Faywood, United States writes: Ethanol is the fuel of the future. Ethanol is produced by the fermentation of sugar, and in the beginning the sugar source will come from starch (carbohydrates from food plants such as corn). As the ethanol field matures, the sugar will come from cellulose, which is readily available and easily renewable. The concern that growing corn will have a long term effect on the water supply is just plain silly. Most of the corn grown in the U.S., comes from states like Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Missouri. No irrigation is required (or used) to grow corn in these states. The irrigated corn in the U.S. comes from drier places like western Nebraska and Colorado, but the corn they produce is a only small amount of the total production.
  59. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes: It suggests the possibility of irrigating crops for biofuel with wastewater that would not be suitable for food crops.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    A good source of irrigation and fertilization would be all the manure bandied about in the Glow Ball War Ming debate.
  60. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I apologize for the double posting, it appears to be a glitch in the G&M message handler.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It's a glitch all right, but which glitch is which?
  61. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    Okay, a question:

    The Russkies consume ethanol by the barrel. If they were to cut vodka consumption by, say, one-half, could they also become the world's biggest exporter of grain alcohol?

    I'm asking this because the use of food crops to produce gasoline additives is somewhat suspect. The price of corn for poorer Mexicans rises because of demand for fuel corn in the Almighty States, which subsidizes corn production.

    Wheat processors remove the valuable parts of 'whole wheat' and sift the remaining junk into various 'breads.' The sugar cane / sugar beet industry sells sugar by the millions of tons to beverage makers who feed children and teenagers unhealthy amounts of sugar disguised as nutritional content. Fruit juice mfgrs make a fruit drink product called a '...cocktail' which has a high content of sugar (sucrose-fructose -- check the labels).

    Nothing is pure anymore and now they are contaminating oil and gasoline with chemicalized corn. It is curious and ironic that many of the chemicals used to fertilize and insecticidize corn will contain or be derived from petroleum.
  62. F M from Toronto, Canada writes: Duh!!!
  63. bj sutherland from Victoria, Canada writes: Just an aside with regard to those posters advocating a lot more use of diesel powered vehicles. A couple of months ago I was driving behind a diesel powered car and go a really bad headache almost immediately. For the next 6 or 8 blocks it just got worse. Took a couple of hours to let up afterwards. Then a month ago I came across an article about research that found diesel exhaust to be culpable in an increase in heart attacks and strokes. I had never heard of this before. Anyone?
  64. D JL from Canada writes: Ethanol is not a good use of the biomass as thing are going. Great grow corn and burn it. There are masses of people starving to death. But us westerners need our cars.

    Grow stuff that produces food and leaves a biomass that is usable for ethanol. Grow stuff that is able to grow on marginal land.
  65. Rock n' the Boat from Canada writes: Any addict will do whatever it takes to fuel an addiction. Wake up to the addiction known as consumerism. Again I say in these pages 'In the future Capitalism as it is known today, will be judged a failure that destroyed the planet'.
  66. Tony Burson from Toronto, Canada writes: Could this be propaganda from BIG OIL?
  67. Raymond P from Canada writes: ...and oil doesn't require any water usage?
  68. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Ethanol is a red herring , waste of time ,,energy etc .We need a national transportation system , and what about those cars that run on compressed air ?
  69. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: I rather drive than drink, I drink mainly Coke anyways.
  70. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'd like to ask a simple courtesy, which I'll do in return. 'J Luft', 'ss dd', especially, but everyone who chimes in.

    Will you, at least, read the linkages before responding? I could berate you just as much as you choose but I'd rather hear reasoned argument based on evidence. Provide that and we can have a discussion, else it's just useless flaming. Complex issues are rarely resolved by shouting obscenities.
  71. A. Gammage from Canada writes: Alan Burke - your links are working just fine. Thank you for the reasoned and reasonable information. It's imperative that these discussions centre around facts and less around emotional diatribes.
  72. X. T. from Canada writes: Alan Burke from Canada writes: Thanks, 'X.T.' for your blurred mental fart into the discussion.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Let me tell you, you ignorant sir:
    My posts are simply based upon hard scientific facts. It is YOU that is illiterate in physics or chemistry. Are you an art/social science major of some sort, or simply an NDP?

    Hydrogen is the lightest matter in this world. It is extremely difficult to compress. Your comparison to propane tanks simply shows your sheer ignorance.

    Propane, i.e. C3H8, is 22 times the density of H2. Propane has a critical temperature (Tc) of 97C. That means, propane can be compressed into liquid at temperatures lower than 97C. This is why you may pack 20LB of propane into a small tank. H2 has a critical point of 32.97 K, 1.293 MPa. In case you are illiterate, 32.97K is about 240C below zero. That 12.93MPa is about 120 atmosphere pressure. This means H2 simply cannot be compressed into liquid at normal temperature. Therefore it is simply impractical to pack much H2 into a vehicle.

    About how the tank explodes, do not forget the H2 tank is highly pressurized, and therefore poses a great danger by itself. That is, before we start talking about the hydrogen explosion.

    This world has too many ignorant people talking. This is what is wrong.
  73. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'X. T.', I may have misjudged you. My response was based on your flippant comment about ethanol as it relates to drinking. I was responding more to your posting that stated 'If they subsidize the ethanol in LCBO, I would support the policy. Otherwise, no deal' than to your earlier argument about the physics of the storage of hydrogen as a fuel.

    As to that argument, while I agree that there are dangers with highly compressed H2, I suggest that less damage would be done by a quick explosion, contained within a cage and rapid vertical dispersal than unreinforced tanks of liquid which blaze on for minutes rather than seconds.

    As to my credentials - well, how does a B.Sc. in Mathematics and Physics sound? Don't be quick to condemn, please.
  74. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Thanks, 'A. Gammage' for your confirmation.
  75. X. T. from Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa:
    I have a M.Eng. My first 2 years of university is heavy on chemistry.

    As an engineer, we have to think the feasibility. Pressurizing has many problems. First, a 500L tank that could bear at least 30 atm pressure is simply heavy and dangerous. The propane burning is not as dangerous, because it cannot burn efficiently due to local lack of oxygen. It will likely produce a lot of black smoke and maybe CO. Hydrogen tank explosion on the other hand, is no joke at all.

    Just think how heavy that tank has to be. How much care it requires as a pressurized container, and how much has to be put into safety measures. This thing is simply wrong.

    On ethanol, I still believe that the only good one is from liquor stores. Preferably from cheaper and lighter taxed sources. LCBO is really the last place for me to shop.
  76. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'X. T.', have you seen studies about the sequestration of hydrogen in other lattices? They tend to mitigate the risk of high compression factors. Less efficient, yes, but they work.
  77. xhilda lajune from Canada writes: To reply to 'ss dd from vancouver' when they wrote:
    'Growing corn (i.e. food) for filling car's fuel tank is the singlest idea even more idiotic than the entire Kyoto thingie.Whomever came up with it, is a genius NOT !'

    Ethanol, the fuel of the future - At least, that is what Henry Ford thought when he built the Model-T.
  78. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: While I do not mean to diminish the discussion here about alternative energy sources, and I thank you 'X. T.' for a reasoned response, let's remember that the main point of this article is about the downstream chemical effects of ethanol farming.

    If the agricultural industries had shown more responsibility about those effects, especially about chemical pollution, I might be more sympathetic to the move towards ethanol fuels.

    We cannot afford for much longer the 'tragedy of the commons'.
  79. Andrew E from Canada writes: This is just fear-mongering by 'Big Oil' and GWB. I know that the Chairman of Exxon eats kittens.
  80. from somewhere from Canada writes: I worked in an ethanol plant for 8 years ,if people want to know the truth about ethanol just ask how much fresh water is used to make a liter of ethanol,soon people will think oil isnt so bad,if ethanol plants become the norm we will have no fresh water left and food prices will be through the roof. I think this ethanol thing is a farce and i was one of the people makeing it.
  81. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Thanks, 'Andrew E' for your comedic insertion. We all need to smile a bit.
  82. X. T. from Canada writes: Alan,
    Ethanol fuel has no future in US or Canada. Let me get this started with this:
    http://www.sprott.com/pdf/climate.pdf

    Also, I have read the report that in order to replace significant amount of gasoline, the farm required for corns is simply impractical in North America. I forgot the exact numbers.

    Plus, that ethanol industry will not be profitable as far as I can see. Why we should use our tax dollars to fund white elephants like this is beyond me. I thought the fine companies like Nortel and Bombardier is enough for us already.
  83. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: And on topic, 'from somewhere', once that fresh water passes through the process, how 'fresh' is it afterward.

    That aspect has not been held to account. That's the crux of 'the tragedy of the commons'.
  84. from somewhere from Canada writes: alan burke from ottawa. the fresh water becomes part of the waste.
  85. X. T. from Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: And on topic, 'from somewhere', once that fresh water passes through the process, how 'fresh' is it afterward.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Almost as fresh as that 99c/bottle cooking wine from certain Chinese groceries? Last time I saw someone drinking that 1.5% salt wine on Toronto street.
  86. X. T. from Canada writes: By the way, if someone really believes in hydrogen fuel, you should load up some precious metals, namely platinum. Hydrogen cells cannot run without (a lot of) it.

    See? That's how my school studies become useful.

    Also, rare earth elements will be in short supply. It is used in hybrid cars.
  87. X. T. from Canada writes: And for those who think you can use as much chemicals as you want on those ethanol crops: Soon there will be a concept of Certified Organic Ethanol on market, debut set in California the hippie country. Then the Fair Trade Ethanol. So get your money ready.
  88. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'X. T.', I recommend that report to all of you here.

    Form your own opinions and comment.

    Here's the link: http://www.sprott.com/pdf/climate.pdf

    Thanks for the link.
  89. xhilda lajune from Canada writes: Checked out the link from Alan Burke at www.sprott.com.

    After seeing who produced this I didn't see the need to read the whole thing. But it certainly seems from the introduction that nuclear is seen as a good place to put your money. Not exactly news. Rewind to an article in the Toronto Star on July 6th 2007 (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/233052) where a 49 percent sell-off of AECL, a Crown Corporation, would fetch an estimated $300 million. Not a bad return on investment when AECL has billions of dollars in sales waiting which the average joe on the street is unaware of. Sell off the future of energy production to private interests under the guise of off-loading risk so the tax payer loses the profit to off-shore interests.
  90. Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: Burning anything produces harmful emissions. Burning food is so unbelievably stupid with such scarce arable land on this planet and it is still burning something to produce energy. Corn requires so much water compared to other crops.

    Do you think the twits that support this are afraid to try solar, wind and tidal energy, or lazy, or greedy or what?
  91. t m from Canada writes: X.T. and Alan,

    You two arguing over hydrogen compression and storage while ignoring the real issue regarding hydrogen is misguided. The real issue is hydrogen supply. This is why H2 is not a realistic solution. Period. Now go argue about something worthwhile.

    TY come again!
  92. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Unnh? 't m'. Hydrogen is there in every drop of water that you drink. Supply doesn't seem to me to be a problem.

    Putting it into production as a fuel source might be.

    What do you propose as something worthwhile to argue about?
  93. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Thanks for checking the link, 'xhilda lajune', but I'm disappointed that you stopped at the authors. Perhaps the whole thing isn't worth reading but is it possible you stopped too soon, not going beyond the Authors' names into their ideas?
  94. t m from Canada writes: Alan, you sound like a smart person. I'm suprised by your gross oversimplification of the problem in your initial response to me.
    If burning hydrogen produces water, and you initially produce the hydrogen from water, it's basically a cyclic reaction.

    2H20 energy in -> 2H2 02 , 2H2 02 -> energy out 2H20

    Question: So what can you conclude about the energy in vs the energy out?

    Answer: energy in > energy out. It takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than you actually get out of it when you burn it. We'd be better off just using the energy in to run electric cars.

    I think spending hundreds of BILLIONS to expand H2 infrastructure is idiotic when you just be burning the same amount of fossil fuels as you did when you were running on gasoline.

    This is the real reason H2 is not a solution at all. To be honest I'm suprised more people don't realize this.
  95. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I suggest, 'Vickky Angstrom' that this article wasn't so much about the cost of production as seen from the producers' eyes as that we might all face downstream. Do you drink the water, unprocessed, downstream from a chicken, pig or turkey factory? We have not held accountable the meat factories for their downstream effect upon all of us. Or the chemical-addicted farms. We have also not held accountable the fossil fuel industries. That's the issue here, not the primary means of production but the stuff pushed downstream to the rest of us, regardless of the producer,