On his presidential campaign trail late in 1999 and in serious need of at least some farm votes, Al Gore boasted to a Midwest audience that it was he who had cast a tie-breaking vote in 1994 against a proposal by New Jersey Democrat Sen. Bill Bradley which would have cut tax incentives for ethanol fuel. “It’s well known that I’ve always supported ethanol. And I have not ducked when votes for … agricultural interests were on the floor.”
[…]
Now, we discover that, thanks to increased ethanol production, something else is turning “Green” — the Gulf of Mexico. A huge 8,543-square-mile dead zone, roughly the size of New Jersey, is growing off the coast of Mississippi and Louisiana. It is the result of a huge algae growth, fueled by nutrients flushed from the farmlands in the Midwest watershed.
Do keep in mind that these dead zones have appeared and will appear near any intensive farming region, so just blaming corn is a lie of omission.
Gotta dig in other avenues to find arguments against ethanol fuel. Shouldn’t be too hard.
Isn’t this the “law of unforeseen conswequences” at work, again?
The article linked to does plenty of that digging. It’s usually a good idea to at least skim them before commenting. 🙂
Algea uses a lot of carbon, and produces oxygen. If I remember correctly, something like 70% of the earth’s yearly oxygen output is produced by algae. So I’m not sure if this is a “good thing” or “bad thing”.
Some good old bullshit finding it’s way to water. There will be plenty more “Inconvenient Truths” coming down for Reverend Al to ponder.
One good thing though, the ethanol idea would sure make us less dependent on the Middle East for oil.
Alex wrote: Algea uses a lot of carbon, and produces oxygen. If I remember correctly.
Nope, Algae sucks oxygen from the water, suffocating any fish, shrimp or mollusks that become trapped in that area. As the algae die, the mass of cells sink to the seafloor, bacteria break down the organic matter consuming most of the oxygen at that level which, in turn, suffocates sea stars, corals, snails and other shellfish.
Liz J wrote: One good thing though, the ethanol idea would sure make us less dependent on the Middle East for oil.
But, we’re saving fossil fuels, you say? Less petroleum and less dependency on foreign oil imports? Well, the picture is not quite that pretty. It takes 1 acre of corn to produce 300 to 330 gallons of ethanol fuel. (To replace the 200 billion gallons of petroleum products we now consume yearly, we would need to commit 675 million acres of our farmland to its production. That would be 71% of all available farmland in which case we would have to start importing our food products.)
There’s much more in the article Kate linked to.
Kate, I read the article and it really doesn’t show a link between ethanol production and eutrophication.
I did a bit of digging and came up with this quote:
“It is too early to say with certainty that biofuel crops are the culprit behind the nutrient increase, but corn is hard on the land and requires more fertilizer than other crops, said Rabalais, of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium.”
Corn is a particularly “heavy feeder” – that is, it needs a lot of fertilizer. My Agrium stock (a fertilizer company) has done great in the last few years, in no small part due to the boom in corn production. Algae blooms in the Gulf put money in my pocket.
Even many environmentalists on the left are not excited by ethanol. The net production of energy is slight (in some cases nonexistant) and, as Largs mentioned, requires massive amounts of farm land. And it drives up the price of corn, a vital part of the Central American diet.
All those liberal politicians going around the world pumping all that CO2 into the air and blabbering about GLOBAL WARMING i mean AL GORE and i see BARBRA BOXER is just proving this do asa i say not as i do mentality of their own aragant behavior
Pet peeve of mine!
Corn grown for fuel is a great idea until you take into account the effects of:
– increased environmental damage from corn production
– increased food costs because of pressure on corn prices and displacement of land
– lost capital caused by government subsidizing of what corn producers
Is the displacement of foreign oil in the economy worth the costs? Maybe… but the proponents too often gloss over or dismiss the downside and negative consequences.
It is a best a stop-gap measure in a larger paradigm of problems and solutions.
Best possible combustible fuel = Hydrogen and that’s where all efforts should be directed.
OMMAG:
Hydrogen is only sort-of a fuel. It must be manufactured. It’s no good advocating its use without explaining how it will be made in environmentally sound and cost effective way.
I have yet to see such an explanation that makes complete sense.
Switchgrass outperforms corn for volume of ethanol per acre grown, less fertilizer as it’s a native grass and less energy consumed in the production of ethanol.
Nuclear people, nuclear. Build 10 – 12 nuclear reactors to power the oil-sands. Build a pipeline to the Arctic Ocean for water(the leftards say it is going to overflow anyway), and voila, no emissions created processing the fuel, and we can tell the ME states to take a hike. But forget it, the envirotards do not want efficient energy self sufficiency, they want us to live like friggin cave people.
Lifeless Dead Zones eh?
…OH! You mean down in the Gulf of Mexico, thought you were talking about the Ottawa valley…
Bruce: “Switchgrass outperforms corn…”
Oh, SWITCHgrass. Some reason I read SWEETgrass.
You know man, like the stuff you smoke man. I heard one flies farther on one tok…
Umm, never mind.
Manufacture Hydrogen then!
Step one – major investment into hydro and Nuclear electrical power! Coal Gasification is another avenue.
Step two – Build water to hydrogen cracking plants
Step three – build distribution infrastructure incorporating as much existing infrastructure as possible ( natural gas systems ? )
“All algae have photosynthetic machinery ultimately derived from the cyanobacteria, and so produce oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis, unlike non-cyanobacterial photosynthetic bacteria. It is estimated that algae produce about 73 to 87 percent of the net global production of oxygen[4] – which is available to humans and other animals for respiration”
Wiki
I believe it is only when these blooms rot do the bacteria involved in rotting the algae use up the oxygen that was put in the water while photosynthesizing and at the same time produce co2 as a by product of decomposition.
There is a dead zone very similar to this one in Lake Erie. (2 KM square, no life)
Many believe it is created by bacteria feeding on the tons of guanno produced by the exploding population of double crested cormarants.
OMMAG:
Fine, but how is this better than using the electricity directly, rather than going through the extra expense and inefficiency of producing hydrogen?
Producing hydrogen through electrolysis is considered too expensive. Commercial hydrogen is produced from natural gas.
Nuclear, hydrogen, corn, geesh. If you want to get off of hydrocarbon fuels the only answer is dilithium.
Beam me up Scotty. There doesn’t seem to be any intelligent life here.
There is nothing “green” about biofuels. You’re burning food. The intensity and extent of farming activity in North America is disruptive enough as it is to all manner of ecosystems just from food production. (I don’t happen to care a rip about that myself, but its still true.) Double or triple that and you’re going to see a hell of a lot more than a few algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Hydrogen is a frickin’ PIPE DREAM kids, as I’ve been saying here for ages.
1) It is expensive to produce because you take an efficiency hit from whatever energy source you’re using to make the hydrogen. Nuclear, coal, natural gas, doesn’t matter. You always get more BTUs if you just burn the stuff than if you make hydrogen and then burn that.
2) There currently exists no -economical- technology to store or ship hydrogen. Period. Mild steel tanks and pipes are fine for all manner of compressed gases, but not hydrogen. It leaks, it becomes brittle and fails unpredictably, and the valves don’t last long.
3) I have discovered a brand new deal breaker for hydrogen specific to fuel cells: impurities! If the hydrogen fuel isn’t astoundingly clean the impurities will poison whatever catalyst is being used in the fuel cell and degrade its performance. Here’s the linky to some guys working on the problem:
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2007/news070727.html
Hydrogen ain’t happening. Get over it.
Looks like we’ll continue to be oil gluttons, all other options are just too inconvenient to the status quo.
In a perfect world, we in Canada, small population, should be able to be independent of all outside suppliers of oil. The ME countries would not get a penny from us.
hydrogen is hard stuff to handle, essentially its two protons loosely held together . Hydrogen atoms can go through steel causing bubbles in pipe and making it brittle.
since the net calorific of methane is 43000 to Hydrogens 13000, natural gas is the safer and more energtic fuel.
thats kJ/m3 for calorific values. and 43000 is spec natural gas , pure methane is lower at 39000 but still three times the punch that hydrogen has.
Some day, the leftists that are trying to cram “green” solutions down our throats through law are going to figure out that more gets done through exhortation than through threats. If you bump into a non-threatening greenie, you might want to pass this by him/her: “How many green-compatible ideas would bloom if ordinary people were no longer shoved around by the government?”
Rabbit… not better than direct electric consumption. Just part of the overall energy requirement! There are needs for internal combustion fuels and hydrogen is the best bang for the buck.
I admit the infrastructure costs money … but the long term TCO and benefits are great….
Thanks for the specs on the energy potential Cal2 but at some point the economics will justify lower spec fuels.
The solution for today will not be the solution for tomorrow…. and I can see ethanol use on the increase for some time! However, the time will come when that will wain as well.
OMMAG, the problem with hydrogen infrastructure is that it hasn’t been invented yet. It literally cannot be done at this time. As in, how DO you store 20 million cubic feet of hydrogen without losing half of it in a week or two, and how do you make a pipe to transport it that doesn’t break in five years? Nobody knows.
Go read that link I left up above, its very interesting. They are inventing something that is absolutely necessary for the hydrogen economy and does not yet exist.
New record for oil today of $78.xx per barrel, that’s a smokin’ deal compared to hydrogen.
The Phantom,
The solution is easy … just get Mann to develop a computer model that shows a hockey stick efficiency effect for hydrogen. He has experience in doing this and is backed by the UN and thousands of consensus scientists.
One quick vote and the problem is solved.
Err … A correction.
One quick vote and the problem is solved !!!!!!
Refine fuel from HORSEREDISH i mean that stuff is potent
Kate – Why do you hate the farmers?
It’s incredible that you acknowledge an algae bloom in the gulf and that you agree it is caused by pollution, but you completely deny the entire global warming issue.
Just another sign of all the bu!!sh!t coming from this site.
km