With this post comes the end of an EAR-a (a little play on words...since I've been talking about corn a lot, I thought it appropriate). I really hope that I've created some intelligent discussion about ethanol and E85. I also hope that I have not seemed like I am against ethanol. I have said it once and I will say it again: I think ethanol is a great beginning. It shows that we, as a people are putting forth effort and are not just willing (well, at least not ALL of us) to sit around and deplete our petroleum reserves. If one thing should be clear, it is this: it may not be in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime, but someday alternative fuels are going to be the way of life. Traditional petroleum, as it is used now, is probably not going to last forever. You could start asking yourself "well, what is 'forever'" but that's missing the point. Alternative fuels are a promising technology, and one that could reap siginificant benefits in the future.
I have enjoyed blogging about this topic a lot. I hope that I will be able to find the time after I graduate in January to keep blogging about this topic.
As a parting gift of sorts, I will leave you with a wonderful resource concerning the automotive "green scene" (yes, even us "gearheads" are not against being green). AutoBlogGreen's category on ethanol contains the latest news concerning ethanol and the automotive world.
One last thing to think about (and remember!):
Alternative fuels are not going to save the world. They are not going to be the thing that weans the U.S. off of its foreign petroleum consumption. They are, however, the gateway to something that will help our planet, and the people that live on it.
Thank you very much for reading. This "EAR-a" has come to an end...
...for now.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
E10...No, it's not a type-o
You may have noticed a change in the gas that you are putting into your car when you stop to fill it up; then again, maybe you haven't. Governments all over the world, from Austrailia to India and yes, even here in the U.S., are mandating the use of E10 instead of traditional gasoline. E10, like E85, is a blend of gasoline and ethanol. This time, however, the blend consists of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline (in lieu of E85's 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline). While this switch has not been highly publicized, it is certainly not insignificant.
A recent study completed by the American Coalition for Ethanol found that the 4 vehicles they used in the study actually got better gas mileage when running on E10. It should be emphasized (in case they didn't do it enough, I am right now) that this study is preliminary, and it only used 4 vehicles. It is true that this evidence to prove the claim that E10 improves gas mileage is a lot more concrete than anything that has been presented in the past; even so, more research needs to be conducted before this claim can be taken as truth.
Something to think about:
Do you think that mild fuel blends, such as E10, are more of a viable alternative to gasoline than E85 is?
A recent study completed by the American Coalition for Ethanol found that the 4 vehicles they used in the study actually got better gas mileage when running on E10. It should be emphasized (in case they didn't do it enough, I am right now) that this study is preliminary, and it only used 4 vehicles. It is true that this evidence to prove the claim that E10 improves gas mileage is a lot more concrete than anything that has been presented in the past; even so, more research needs to be conducted before this claim can be taken as truth.
Something to think about:
Do you think that mild fuel blends, such as E10, are more of a viable alternative to gasoline than E85 is?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
At the risk of beating a dead horse...
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to point out an article in Tuesday's New York Times about how ethanol plants are starting to be met with some resistance. Again, I do not want to always present the negative aspects of ethanol; I merely want to present the side that I do not think is represented as often as the other. As time goes on, people are coming down off of the "ethanol is our savior stage" and are realizing that we, as a nation, better think about the different alternative fuels and the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Something to think about:
Do you think all of the talk about ethanol and other alternative fuels is just hype? Or is there real substance (and possibility) behind it?
Something to think about:
Do you think all of the talk about ethanol and other alternative fuels is just hype? Or is there real substance (and possibility) behind it?
My head is spinning
The Green Car Congress is a forum for alternative motive technology. Their self-stated goal is to "provide timely, high-quality editorial about the full spectrum of energy options, technologies, products, issues and policies related to sustainable mobility." Basically, it's a place to read and comment on a very broad spectrum of stories relating to "green" technology.
Generally, from the people I have talked to, and from the research that I have gathered, there are two main opinions on ethanol: 1) Ethanol is our savior and will be the thing to wean us, as a nation, off of fossil fuels OR 2) Ethanol is an absolutely horrible idea contrived without considering the detrimental environmental impacts that it is going to have. There is no middle ground. That all may seem a bit exaggerated, but you'd be surprised how true it is. Naturally, the people involved in promoting corn based ethanol are going to think it is wonderful; conversely, those who do not like it are not going to change their minds. It does begin to make one's head spin, after hearing this from so many different people.
The following are two posts from people with different viewpoints on ethanol. They are very representative, I think, of the trends in opinion that I have been seeing througout my research.
"I protest the inclusion of ethanol as a green product. It may not be pumped from below the ground, but it accelerates the spread of agricultural land at the cost of the natural world which is not experiences the extinction of species at a rapid pace. It raises the cost of corn which starves people already starving to death all over the world. And it perpetuates the illusion that we can continue to spread our footprint on the earth without consequence, without increasing global warming and backing us into a corner we cannot get out of. And lastly it is as polluting as gasoline or worse. Ethanol is greenwashing. It is a false hope. It is the antithesis of green. " --Paul Richards (posted 4/28/07)
"Whether u guys like it or not, Ethanol is the fastest spreading fuel and has the capability to challenge. It spreads in the form of E10, E25 and E85. Currently Corn & Cane is used, pretty soon the corn stalks and agro waste will be used and that will reduce the land usage. Give some time. Any fuel that comes from source other than Crude Oil is considered an alternative. High oil prices are big trouble for everyone." --Max Reid (posted 4/28/07)
I encourage you to read some more of the comments on the story, and to look over the rest of the site. It has A LOT of different stories regarding alternative motive technology and where things might be going in the next ten or 20 years.
Green Car Congress also has a blog. (The link here is to the ethanol section of the blog.) It contains all of the latest stories on ethanol from all over the country.
My head is still spinning a little bit. How about yours?
Generally, from the people I have talked to, and from the research that I have gathered, there are two main opinions on ethanol: 1) Ethanol is our savior and will be the thing to wean us, as a nation, off of fossil fuels OR 2) Ethanol is an absolutely horrible idea contrived without considering the detrimental environmental impacts that it is going to have. There is no middle ground. That all may seem a bit exaggerated, but you'd be surprised how true it is. Naturally, the people involved in promoting corn based ethanol are going to think it is wonderful; conversely, those who do not like it are not going to change their minds. It does begin to make one's head spin, after hearing this from so many different people.
The following are two posts from people with different viewpoints on ethanol. They are very representative, I think, of the trends in opinion that I have been seeing througout my research.
"I protest the inclusion of ethanol as a green product. It may not be pumped from below the ground, but it accelerates the spread of agricultural land at the cost of the natural world which is not experiences the extinction of species at a rapid pace. It raises the cost of corn which starves people already starving to death all over the world. And it perpetuates the illusion that we can continue to spread our footprint on the earth without consequence, without increasing global warming and backing us into a corner we cannot get out of. And lastly it is as polluting as gasoline or worse. Ethanol is greenwashing. It is a false hope. It is the antithesis of green. " --Paul Richards (posted 4/28/07)
"Whether u guys like it or not, Ethanol is the fastest spreading fuel and has the capability to challenge. It spreads in the form of E10, E25 and E85. Currently Corn & Cane is used, pretty soon the corn stalks and agro waste will be used and that will reduce the land usage. Give some time. Any fuel that comes from source other than Crude Oil is considered an alternative. High oil prices are big trouble for everyone." --Max Reid (posted 4/28/07)
I encourage you to read some more of the comments on the story, and to look over the rest of the site. It has A LOT of different stories regarding alternative motive technology and where things might be going in the next ten or 20 years.
Green Car Congress also has a blog. (The link here is to the ethanol section of the blog.) It contains all of the latest stories on ethanol from all over the country.
My head is still spinning a little bit. How about yours?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Ethanol IS a good thing
I hope that my blog hasn't seemed too alarmist so far. I do not want to suggest that ethanol is this horrible thing that will irreparably damage the Chesapeake Bay and will make beef and poultry $15 per pound. I just want to give air to certain things in regards to ethanol that I feel aren't emphasized enough. The main things that are being emphasized (more than others) are that ethanol reduces our dependency on foreign oil (it could) and that it reduces harmful emissions from the cars that everyone drive (it does).
Of course, if you are trying to sell a car to someone, for instance, you are not going to say "this car is worthless. It breaks down when I just look at it, much less drive it." If you say this, and still think that you are going to sell the car, well I wish you the best of luck. This idea applies to "selling" the idea of ethanol. The proponents of ethanol are not going to emphasize what is bad about it. My goal is not as much to emphasize the bad about ethanol, but rather to present a balanced picture of it.
I just wanted to make that clear. Now, on to how ethanol can be a good thing. Ethanol will undoubtedly contribute to the economy. More ethanol being produced means an increased demand for corn. An increased demand for corn means farmers will have bigger and better profits from their corn crops.
However, as I've mentioned, higher corn prices do drive up the price of poultry and beef. Ethanol will not be THE thing that will wean our dependence on foreign oil. But, as I've also said, it is a good place to start.
Of course, if you are trying to sell a car to someone, for instance, you are not going to say "this car is worthless. It breaks down when I just look at it, much less drive it." If you say this, and still think that you are going to sell the car, well I wish you the best of luck. This idea applies to "selling" the idea of ethanol. The proponents of ethanol are not going to emphasize what is bad about it. My goal is not as much to emphasize the bad about ethanol, but rather to present a balanced picture of it.
I just wanted to make that clear. Now, on to how ethanol can be a good thing. Ethanol will undoubtedly contribute to the economy. More ethanol being produced means an increased demand for corn. An increased demand for corn means farmers will have bigger and better profits from their corn crops.
However, as I've mentioned, higher corn prices do drive up the price of poultry and beef. Ethanol will not be THE thing that will wean our dependence on foreign oil. But, as I've also said, it is a good place to start.
Runoff = Bad!
Okay, I suppose the title of this entry might give it away, but hear me out. Something that I hope that I've established so far is that the main problem with planting more corn for the production of ethanol is that it would increase the runoff from the fertilizers (containing phosphorous and nitrogen) that are applied to the corn.
Chesapeake Renewable Energy, LLC is planning the construction of an ethanol production plant in Somerset County, Md. (Click on "Somerset County" to see a more detailed map of the county.) Russell Brinsfield, executive director of the Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc, based out of Queenstown, Md., is concerned with the runoff that would come from the corn being planted. More corn would equal more runoff entering the Chesapeake Bay. More runoff entering the Bay could endanger the wildlife and have more severe effects if left unmanaged over time.
Dr. Brinsfield is quick to emphasize that the management of the crops themselves, along with the promotion of conservation programs, is the best chance that we have to limit runoff entering the Bay. He also mentions that moving to alternate methods of producing ethanol would also help in terms of reducing runoff. "If managed right the impact could be minimal, if not the impact could be significant. In the long term, I believe we need to move towards cellulose ethanol from native grasses like switchgrass and gamma grass," he said.
Like Dr. Brinsfield said, management is key. It's easier to prevent the runoff than having to clean it up later. Remember, hindsight is always 20/20...let's hope that things don't come to that.
Chesapeake Renewable Energy, LLC is planning the construction of an ethanol production plant in Somerset County, Md. (Click on "Somerset County" to see a more detailed map of the county.) Russell Brinsfield, executive director of the Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc, based out of Queenstown, Md., is concerned with the runoff that would come from the corn being planted. More corn would equal more runoff entering the Chesapeake Bay. More runoff entering the Bay could endanger the wildlife and have more severe effects if left unmanaged over time.
Dr. Brinsfield is quick to emphasize that the management of the crops themselves, along with the promotion of conservation programs, is the best chance that we have to limit runoff entering the Bay. He also mentions that moving to alternate methods of producing ethanol would also help in terms of reducing runoff. "If managed right the impact could be minimal, if not the impact could be significant. In the long term, I believe we need to move towards cellulose ethanol from native grasses like switchgrass and gamma grass," he said.
Like Dr. Brinsfield said, management is key. It's easier to prevent the runoff than having to clean it up later. Remember, hindsight is always 20/20...let's hope that things don't come to that.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Developments...and concerns
Is the Chesapeake Bay in danger because of three ethanol plants that could (and in one case, is) be constructed in Maryland?
First of all: this blogger has some good points that I think you should read.
Second of all: Is the supply of corn for corn-sourced ethanol running low already?
Now, back to the bay. In May of 2007, the state of Maryland approved the construction of a $136 million ethanol plant in the Curtis Bay area of Baltimore. The plant, expected to have a production capacity of 52 million gallons a year, will be built off of Pennington Avenue in Baltimore. After hearing the news, residents immediately pointed out that the Curtis Bay area already has too much air pollution. The residents cited other concerns that the plant will produce a bad odor, and that it will attract rats from the corn used to produce the ethanol. Officials were quick to allay these fears, but they are valid fears nonetheless.
Other sites being considered for the construction of an ethanol plant is in Sparrows Point, MD as well as on the eastern shore of Maryland, in Somerset County. Officials for the three companies interested in all three sites (Atlantic Ethanol, LLC being one of those) are not addressing as well as they should the environmental concerns in regards to the construction of ethanol plants in Maryland.
Will the plants produce increased pollution in Baltimore (adding to the city's preexisting problems)? Will there be runoff from these plants? Will the prospective plant on the eastern shore be cost effective? (It will receive its supply of corn from the midwest.) All these are questions that need to be answered.
I get the feeling that there is a great deal of haste involved here. Government and business officials are so quick to leap onto the E85 bandwagon that they are (seemingly) not considering what could happen if they hurry and slap these three ethanol production plants in Maryland. The construction for the Curtis Bay plant could begin as soon as the year 2008. Is that enough time to allay the fears of people in this state?
I hope that I am not seeming like too much of an alarmist here. I am all for finding alternative sources of fuel. I just am trying to point out things that I do not think are getting mentioned enough, such as the environmental impact of these three plants.
Something to think about:
If you found out that an ethanol plant was going up close to where you live, what would your reaction be?
First of all: this blogger has some good points that I think you should read.
Second of all: Is the supply of corn for corn-sourced ethanol running low already?
Now, back to the bay. In May of 2007, the state of Maryland approved the construction of a $136 million ethanol plant in the Curtis Bay area of Baltimore. The plant, expected to have a production capacity of 52 million gallons a year, will be built off of Pennington Avenue in Baltimore. After hearing the news, residents immediately pointed out that the Curtis Bay area already has too much air pollution. The residents cited other concerns that the plant will produce a bad odor, and that it will attract rats from the corn used to produce the ethanol. Officials were quick to allay these fears, but they are valid fears nonetheless.
Other sites being considered for the construction of an ethanol plant is in Sparrows Point, MD as well as on the eastern shore of Maryland, in Somerset County. Officials for the three companies interested in all three sites (Atlantic Ethanol, LLC being one of those) are not addressing as well as they should the environmental concerns in regards to the construction of ethanol plants in Maryland.
Will the plants produce increased pollution in Baltimore (adding to the city's preexisting problems)? Will there be runoff from these plants? Will the prospective plant on the eastern shore be cost effective? (It will receive its supply of corn from the midwest.) All these are questions that need to be answered.
I get the feeling that there is a great deal of haste involved here. Government and business officials are so quick to leap onto the E85 bandwagon that they are (seemingly) not considering what could happen if they hurry and slap these three ethanol production plants in Maryland. The construction for the Curtis Bay plant could begin as soon as the year 2008. Is that enough time to allay the fears of people in this state?
I hope that I am not seeming like too much of an alarmist here. I am all for finding alternative sources of fuel. I just am trying to point out things that I do not think are getting mentioned enough, such as the environmental impact of these three plants.
Something to think about:
If you found out that an ethanol plant was going up close to where you live, what would your reaction be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)