5 ms·

Yeah, it was sensible until the part where we're supposed to believe that corn ethanol can save us. Aside from the fact that the net energy gain is almost zero

Yeah, it was sensible until the part where we're supposed to believe that corn ethanol can save us. Aside from the fact that the net energy gain is almost zero or less once you account for the fuel, fertilizers, and the fact that its susceptible to drought, flood, and pests it really starts to make OPEC not look so bad. The future is electric, hydrogen and ethanol are just more problems looking for a solution.

chollida1 18y ago
> The future is electric, We'll that's a nice idea, but you didn't explain where we get electricity from.
- bjelkeman-again 18y ago
  There are several different implementations of solar power that are suitable to produce the electricity we need. It is going to take time and money to implement, but it can be done without inventing something new.
- sratner 18y ago
  Nuclear reactors. See above.
  - lutorm 18y ago
    Nuclear power is only commercially viable because of huge subsidies (up to 80% in the US) and because the state usually assumes the liability for disasters. And even then, it's the most expensive form of power in wide use. I suspect that with the same amount of subsidies, wind and solar would be very competitive. And as far as its environmental sustainability goes, even if we ignore the fuel storage problem, look at what uranium ore mining looks like. Then imagine what it would look like if the whole world was powered by it.
    - sratner 18y ago
      I don't know anything about economic viability of nuclear power, so I won't comment. I understand that wind and solar both receive substantial subsidies in the U.S. as well. There is also a possibility that were nuclear power as trendy as wind and solar, it would receive more development unhindered by politics, potentially leading to lower costs. This is of course pure speculation. As for the environmental impact and total carbon footprint, that of wind farms is not small either. Vast areas of otherwise-usable land concreted, carbon expended on building, maintaining and dismantling wind mills, backup power required to buffer against weather conditions, and the like. I haven't seen any comparison of various energy forms with all the costs included, but would certainly like to take a look at one. [edit: A quick search led me to this: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp It seems that while existing nuclear power plants (constructed over 3 decades ago) provide marginally cheaper electricity than fossil fuel based powerplants, new nuclear powerplants are indeed not viable economically, at least as compared to fossil fuels. The report suggests that including a carbon emission tax of $100/tC will bridge that gap.] [another edit: A paper (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Annex_IV_Dones_et_al_2003.pdf http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Annex_IV_Dones_et_al_2003.pdf) claiming that total carbon footprint of nuclear power, from mining to waste disposal, is in the range of 6-12g CO2-equivalent per kWh, mostly attributable to mining, compared to 500g/kWh for natural gas and >1000g/kWh for coal. Hydro weighs in at anywhere from 3 to 3000g CO2-equiv per kWh depending on region (alpine hydro stations are clean, flooding tropical forests is not) with weighted average somewhere in the 300g range, wind is at 14-21g/kWh depending on weather conditions, and finally solar at 79g/kWh with potential to fall to 30-40g with future technologies. The concluding graph shows only [European] hydro beating nuclear in terms of total carbon footprint. Lots of other interesting reports on that site (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/lca/ http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/lca/), most offering similar results. One 2007 paper also considers land use, ecotoxicity, and radiation emissions, allowing certain types of wind generators to approach nuclear in terms of total environmental impact. Solar is still way off due to high levels of inorganics and toxic non-greenhouse air pollutants. ]
      - lutorm 18y ago
        About the subsidies, I found this discussion interesting: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/15/104213/829 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/15/104213/829 Thanks for the nuclear link. Haven't had time to digest the swiss documents.
maxwell 18y ago
Not sure where you got the idea the article advocates corn-based ethanol. The emphasis is on methanol, which would use the existing infrastructure, cost about the same as gasoline, and be made from any biomass. Could be a viable "transitional fuel" to get us off gasoline.
watmough 18y ago
Right, corn ethanol won't save us. In fact it's not doing anything but pushing up the price of corn, with all the bad effects we are currently seeing. However, methanol produced from 'biomass', sugar cane, other plant matter, etc., does have a pretty good shot at saving us. Brazil have done great using sugar cane to produce fuel.
- rbanffy 18y ago
  Just to correct you, we make ethanol, not methanol, from sugar cane. By now, it's proven technology: In my whole life I had, perhaps, two cars that ran on gasoline and could not run on ethanol. The other ten or so all ran on ethanol. My wife has one of the newer "flex-fuel" models that, I joke, can run on anything flammable, while my own car runs on ethanol only. According to local auto magazines, ethanol running engines last longer and are in general better shape after long-duration tests than gasoline running ones. After having a major engine problem (I was 19 and I pushed it waaaay too hard) I can tell you the blown engine was very neat, with little to no sign of carbon build-up or corrosion. Even after a very unhealthy period of abuse by a then much more adventurous motor sports fan.
lutorm 18y ago
A distinction should be made between corn ethanol (which most studies say has a net energy gain of ~20% compared to gasoline) and cellulosic ethanol, which has enormous potential. Certainly more potential than nuclear.

chollida1 18y ago

> The future is electric, We'll that's a nice idea, but you didn't explain where we get electricity from.

bjelkeman-again 18y ago
There are several different implementations of solar power that are suitable to produce the electricity we need. It is going to take time and money to implement, but it can be done without inventing something new.
sratner 18y ago
Nuclear reactors. See above.
- lutorm 18y ago
  Nuclear power is only commercially viable because of huge subsidies (up to 80% in the US) and because the state usually assumes the liability for disasters. And even then, it's the most expensive form of power in wide use. I suspect that with the same amount of subsidies, wind and solar would be very competitive. And as far as its environmental sustainability goes, even if we ignore the fuel storage problem, look at what uranium ore mining looks like. Then imagine what it would look like if the whole world was powered by it.
  - sratner 18y ago
    I don't know anything about economic viability of nuclear power, so I won't comment. I understand that wind and solar both receive substantial subsidies in the U.S. as well. There is also a possibility that were nuclear power as trendy as wind and solar, it would receive more development unhindered by politics, potentially leading to lower costs. This is of course pure speculation. As for the environmental impact and total carbon footprint, that of wind farms is not small either. Vast areas of otherwise-usable land concreted, carbon expended on building, maintaining and dismantling wind mills, backup power required to buffer against weather conditions, and the like. I haven't seen any comparison of various energy forms with all the costs included, but would certainly like to take a look at one. [edit: A quick search led me to this: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp It seems that while existing nuclear power plants (constructed over 3 decades ago) provide marginally cheaper electricity than fossil fuel based powerplants, new nuclear powerplants are indeed not viable economically, at least as compared to fossil fuels. The report suggests that including a carbon emission tax of $100/tC will bridge that gap.] [another edit: A paper (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Annex_IV_Dones_et_al_2003.pdf http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Annex_IV_Dones_et_al_2003.pdf) claiming that total carbon footprint of nuclear power, from mining to waste disposal, is in the range of 6-12g CO2-equivalent per kWh, mostly attributable to mining, compared to 500g/kWh for natural gas and >1000g/kWh for coal. Hydro weighs in at anywhere from 3 to 3000g CO2-equiv per kWh depending on region (alpine hydro stations are clean, flooding tropical forests is not) with weighted average somewhere in the 300g range, wind is at 14-21g/kWh depending on weather conditions, and finally solar at 79g/kWh with potential to fall to 30-40g with future technologies. The concluding graph shows only [European] hydro beating nuclear in terms of total carbon footprint. Lots of other interesting reports on that site (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/lca/ http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/lca/), most offering similar results. One 2007 paper also considers land use, ecotoxicity, and radiation emissions, allowing certain types of wind generators to approach nuclear in terms of total environmental impact. Solar is still way off due to high levels of inorganics and toxic non-greenhouse air pollutants. ]
    - lutorm 18y ago
      About the subsidies, I found this discussion interesting: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/15/104213/829 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/15/104213/829 Thanks for the nuclear link. Haven't had time to digest the swiss documents.

maxwell 18y ago

Not sure where you got the idea the article advocates corn-based ethanol. The emphasis is on methanol, which would use the existing infrastructure, cost about the same as gasoline, and be made from any biomass. Could be a viable "transitional fuel" to get us off gasoline.

watmough 18y ago

Right, corn ethanol won't save us. In fact it's not doing anything but pushing up the price of corn, with all the bad effects we are currently seeing. However, methanol produced from 'biomass', sugar cane, other plant matter, etc., does have a pretty good shot at saving us. Brazil have done great using sugar cane to produce fuel.

rbanffy 18y ago
Just to correct you, we make ethanol, not methanol, from sugar cane. By now, it's proven technology: In my whole life I had, perhaps, two cars that ran on gasoline and could not run on ethanol. The other ten or so all ran on ethanol. My wife has one of the newer "flex-fuel" models that, I joke, can run on anything flammable, while my own car runs on ethanol only. According to local auto magazines, ethanol running engines last longer and are in general better shape after long-duration tests than gasoline running ones. After having a major engine problem (I was 19 and I pushed it waaaay too hard) I can tell you the blown engine was very neat, with little to no sign of carbon build-up or corrosion. Even after a very unhealthy period of abuse by a then much more adventurous motor sports fan.

lutorm 18y ago

A distinction should be made between corn ethanol (which most studies say has a net energy gain of ~20% compared to gasoline) and cellulosic ethanol, which has enormous potential. Certainly more potential than nuclear.