Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Seraphim · Post by **Seraphim** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:00 pm

[quote="LQDMTL";p="718375"][quote="StruckingFuggle";p="718367"]So could I.[/quote]
There are many more reasons for getting the US off of oil and onto alternative fuels (one of the big, big, big pushes of many global warming groups) than just global warming. National economy, is one. Cheaper transportation costs in the long run is another. The list goes on.[/quote]
This.

This among other reasons is why we might as well assume it's very real. Best case scenario, we save the earth for another disaster. Worst case scenario, we hurt the economy for a few years only to watch it soar. Among other neat things. Like cleaner air, which has been tied to asthma. Studies have shown that you're more likely to develop asthma in a city than a rural area. Of course I have no conclusive evidence tieing the two.

adciv · Post by **adciv** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:18 pm

This among other reasons is why we might as well assume it's very real. Best case scenario, we save the earth for another disaster. Worst case scenario, we hurt the economy for a few years only to watch it soar.

Unfortunately, almost all the proposed solutions to getting the US off of foreign oil are not the same as getting the US off producing CO2. There is a difference. If we set up enough coal->oil factories we could be self sufficient.

Also, most targets of CO2 elimination are the power plants. Most run off of coal. We could either make it so they only used US coal or change over to nuclear.

Among other neat things. Like cleaner air, which has been tied to asthma. Studies have shown that you're more likely to develop asthma in a city than a rural area. Of course I have no conclusive evidence tieing the two.

Which has nothing to do with CO2. CO2 does not cause an asthma attack. Particles in the air do. Pollen and other things, for instance. If all our cars ran on methane, we would still be producing CO2, just fewer particulates.

LQDMTL · Post by **LQDMTL** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:28 pm

Ethanol (E85, to get us off oil) produces CO2. However, that CO2 is considered "green" because it comes from, and feeds back into, the same natural process. So there's a difference between "cutting back on CO2" and "changing where our CO2 byproduct comes from". blanket statements suck

adciv · Post by **adciv** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:46 pm

Except that some of that CO2 comes from the soil, producing a net gain.

Also, by that logic (which I semi support, but love poking fun of people who embrace it whole hartedly), Houses made of wood are Carbon Sequestering Devices.

LQDMTL · Post by **LQDMTL** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:02 pm

Don't assume I embrace it wholeheartedly. And no, it's not the same thing. If we switch to say... 100% of all motor vehicle fuel being E85 derived from cellulosic process of Switchgrass and farm-provided excess biomass the end result would be a ton, TON of more green crop as we add field after field of switchgrass specifically for this process. Therefore, we're increasing the sheer volume of crop which pulls CO2 out of the air and returns oxygen. We then take that crop, break it down into base sugars, process it a bit more, mix it with 15% gas and then fill your tank with it. Your car burns it, spits out negligible amounts of CO2, which the Switchgrass then pulls out of the air and turns into oxygen, which then results in more crop for fuel, which produces more CO2, which results in... you get the drift.

I'm not saying it's perfect or that it's 100% equal tradeoff. And I'm not parading around the town/state/country up in arms about it. But I can say it's a far cry better than fossil fuels and would mean we'd be exporting excess fuel and importing... none. And, it'd be much better on the environment than the standard fuels we burn now.

E85 and BioDeisel are a much easier transition than hydrogen or pure electric, if big companies decide to drop the dime and build the plants. And especially if some politicians get off their ass and change farm subsidies from (we pay you not to grow corn) to (we pay you to grow switchgrass for ethanol rather than corn). Although I do feel that some combination of hydrogen, methanol fuel cells and electric is where we should be looking in the long term.

Posted Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:05 pm:

Oh and, Shell is working with Iogen in Canada on prototype plants right now, and other companies have expressed interests in licensing the results... so it's only a matter of time. And Iogen's process actually results in byproduct that is used as fuel for the conversion process to make more ethanol, which produces more byproduct that is used as fuel for the next process, etc... it's the most cyclic, profitable (energy ratio-wise) process devised to date. Even Bush's slow-on-the-uptake science advisers finally caught on recently and had him start pushing for cellulosic ethanol.

adciv · Post by **adciv** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:47 pm

E85 is about as hard as electric. Regular engines can't burn E85, only up to about E10. One might as well make electric cars with generators.

Currently, it appears we're going to have to wait for the current generation of cars to wear out before we'll be able to get to something other than E10.

LQDMTL · Post by **LQDMTL** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:58 pm

[quote="adciv";p="718425"]E85 is about as hard as electric. Regular engines can't burn E85, only up to about E10. One might as well make electric cars with generators.

Currently, it appears we're going to have to wait for the current generation of cars to wear out before we'll be able to get to something other than E10.[/quote]
Correct. However, there are over 8 million flex fuel vehicles on the road that can burn E85 right now. I drive one. There are no public E85 stations, however, so I can't fuel with it.

So, next argument?

adciv · Post by **adciv** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:09 pm

8 million isn't that much. It's only about 3.3% of the total vehicles. One might as well use a hybrid for all the good an E85 does in most of the US. I'm looking forward to the Chevy Volt more than anything on E85.

LQDMTL · Post by **LQDMTL** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:38 pm

Well, either everyone in the nation has to buy a new car to go electric or hydrogen, or 3.5% of the population, and growing, can start making a difference now. Not to mention http://e85vehicles.com/converting-e85.htm and other such relatively cheap conversion techniques to get any normal ole car to run on E85... Yeah, let's all wait for magical fairy dust to convert cars to electric. That's productive! lol

adciv · Post by **adciv** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:43 am

Yeah, and void your warranty at the same time.

Post by **Blaze** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:59 am

My 2000 Taurus can take E85, and I can get it here, but I stopped filling with it. I don't know if it's still the case or not, but E85 stations were so rare in 2000 that they tuned the cars majorly towards regular gas. Instead of being 5 to 10% worse fuel efficiency, it's closer to 25 or 30.

adciv · Post by **adciv** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:16 am

A computer controlled one today should be able to change the timing and detect the change in gas type.

LQDMTL · Post by **LQDMTL** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:14 am

E85 is higher octane. You definitely have to get our computer set to burn it right, or you'll rip through it. And... it's not the point of voiding a warranty. If I magically dropped a E85 station and full supply system across the US and made it instantly available (Walmart is trying to do this), everyone could go spend 400 to 600 to convert and start burning green fuel immediately. Compared to dropping the same dime on supply systems and stations for hydrogen, and everyone spending 15 grand and more on a new car. Face it, E85 IS the more readily, widely available tech and should be our focus for quicker removal of our reliance upon oil, and by side-effect movement towards cleaner burning fuel.

Waiting for electric to be widely accessible (spending the tons you need on it, having recharging stations... people in apt not being able to charge at home, etc etc etc..) you'll be waiting 10 years longer, at best, for your solution to take hold. Hydrogen will be mainstream before electric is. And if we play our cards right, E85 will help us along the path to hydrogen.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:31 am

We've been over the problems with hydrogen and energy densities in other threads, including the problem of reaching a 300-mile range on one tank. Hydrogen is a dead-end, consuming far more energy than it should, reducing overall efficiency. Pluggable hybrids supplemented with pure or nearly pure ethanol derived from cellulose or algae are the far better long-term solution.

adciv · Post by **adciv** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:53 pm

The car computer, as programmed by the manufacturer, should be programabmle to be able to switch between E85/E10/Regular.

Chevy Volt:
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
Electric Car with a gas tank. That is the next gen car. Whatever powers it. Not hybrids or anything that burns E85.

Real Life Forums

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Who is online