Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fleebut

Hydrous ethanol saves planet Earth

Recommended Posts

While doing a google search for ethanol regulation hit upon a this site:

 

The Lorton Show

 

Seems to have much a bunch of alternative global warming science writing. Not that it exist or not, but from a historical political development slant i.e. NASA climate science politics: Hansen -v- Shindell.

 

Anyways, this guy puts anhydrous ethanol as a terrible pollutant of Global Warming. But, describes hydrous ethanol as a completely different combustion chemistry not a problem, but a solution.

 

Has anyone heard of this theory? I just did some quick review of site and will go back for more. The site claims more scientist are leaning toward the Shindell theory, who also an employee of NASA. That CO2 not as bad as thought. Other fossil gases and VOCs combined with water vapor the culprit.  That the phenomenon not an global atmospherical condition but pops up upon local or regional atmospheric conditions.

 

Anyways, I don't know what its all about? Just very interesting to read about hydrous ethanol being the savior of Global Warming. Wow, would that catapult ethanol to the front. Anybody know something of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the Lorton Show....my first post was a miss spell.

 

Its quite a read, but written for non technical people.  May the science be on a tipping point to solve this Global Warming? The postings seem to be as accurate as my understanding of this science. Wow, if its that simple and the whole global science just had a bad start, ran off the track mostly by political aspirations and desires.....well may we still be able to dodge the bullet? Even though most encourage immediate disassembly of our energy infrastructure to save Planet Earth. It could have whole sale destroyed national economies in attempt to chase a popular environmental boggy man.

 

If the science on the web site has merit....well hydrous ethanol would be top national priority.  If the science on the  "Lorton Show" is correct, but not the entire reason for Global Warming...well hydrous ethanol would still be a very high national priority.

 

Anybody else know anything of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is like anything else in this country, For Sale. Do you need numbers distorted we can do an analysis and and come out with the answers someone wants for the right price. Yes numbers can be manipulated, thats why we get so upset when Dufus ( I can't or don't want to remember his name) and his anti ethanol stance using outdated numbers to prove the GMA and oil stance. I have worked with statistical analysis and seen how statistics can be manipulated to prove anything you want correct or incorrect unless you seen the raw data used to draw that conclusion. So we found a good report. Hip hip hooray. Later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you on statistics. Two types of liars, dam liars and statistics.

 

However the article more of a history of what happened and why. Also, reflecting the present science upon Global warming. From my research appears up to date and accurate.

 

The article from "Lorton Show" based on NASA Goddard scientist Shindell who appears to be non political low key guy and the man of Global Warming science. This guy expert on computer modeling and ozone. His peer we all know to well, Hanson is hyper political and trying to lead the band of Global Warming political CO2 alarmist, (friend of Al Gore). Note even Hansen has a backup theory on global warming....ya that's right Shindell's theory.  

 

Here is the nutshell version, 2rd source from science site:

 

So graphs have been drawn up and spread all over Washington DC and capitol cities throughout the world showing parallels between warming trends and CO2 levels. But what this view of the issue ignores is that these other pollutants of chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, low level ozone, and ozone precursors of nitrogen oxides and non methane volatile organic compounds that Hansen says is his second theory is causing weather pattern changes. This theory is Shindell first and only theory,  is that they are naturally occurring pollutants as well as manmade while they all eventually turn into carbon dioxide as they break down in the atmosphere to become inert.

 

 

What it all means:

 

CO2 is present at higher concentrations during global warming as scientist check history, but CO2 not near the biggest culprit. Meaning those other low level pollutants the bad boys, but break down and become CO2. Probably by degradation from sun radiation.  We can't check upon history the culprits as they break down to soon.

 

Also, particulates (diesel and coal ) increase warming while rain droplets (within clouds) if clean reflect heat to outer space.

 

Many postings out there expressing concerned with inadequacy of now outdated computer models.....truth was we did not know how climates acted before man made pollutants.

 

This all ties in on ethanol and gasoline additives greatly adding to global warming problems and why hydrous ethanol the champion.  This science was delivered to Obama, recently.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyways, I don't know what its all about? Just very interesting to read about hydrous ethanol being the savior of Global Warming. Wow, would that catapult ethanol to the front. Anybody know something of this?

 

Well you are opening a big can of worms here but will make some comments:

 

The debate on hydrous ethanol vs anhydrous ethanol has been going on for 30 years. In Brazil they have used hydrous ethanol for many years. It works just fine as a fuel (has several advantages in fact including reduced energy expenditures) but also has disadvantages being much more corrosive. It is also more suitable for warmer climates like Brazil.

 

The issue about pollution and anhydrous ethanol is mostly political and driven by hard core green agendas not science. The pollutants they are worried about appear in extremely low quantities so even though the increases when expressed as percentage increase are large you are still talking about a very low pollution rate. a 100% increase in something that only exists in parts per billion quantities is still vanishingly small. They also fail to mention the reduction in known carcinogens like benzene that exist in conventional gasoline. It is a classic example of technically accurate but useless information put out as propaganda to serve an agenda. Even if the extremely low levels of aldehydes produced were a significant issues they can be managed by catalytic converters just like unburned hydrocarbons, and careful control of the combustion process.

 

That of course all depends on the assumption that global warming (climate change) is a real problem and not another political foot ball to serve a hidden agenda for control.

The evidence is mounting that the entire AGW agenda is based on manipulated science and faulty models that do not work. CO2 is not a "pollutant" and is not a significant driver of global warming and never has been. Global historical CO2 levels of 280 ppm which they are trying to get back to, are in fact dangerously close to the point where plant growth is seriously impaired. Plant growth is seriously impaired at 220 ppm, and at 150 ppm they die. We are doing the planet no favors by trying to cut CO2 levels. It is an essential plant food, necessary for their growth, and increasing CO2 levels are one of the reasons we have been able (just barely) to stay ahead of mass starvation in the face of world population growth. There is a reason green house owners add CO2 to levels near 1000 ppm (three times the current levels) to increase plant growth, reduce water use by the plants, and increase production. Trying to control human emissions of CO2 is a fools errand and will have absolutely not effect on global temperatures. Even if we could get other nations to actually do what  they have agreed to do, but that is not likely because to do so would be political and economic suicide for them --- simply not going to happen in our life time.

 

AGW and dire predictions about world wide temperatures and CO2 are based entirely on bad science and sophisticated computer models that not only do not work but cannot work. They simply do not have the capacity to digitally model the climate complexity even if they had perfect data.

 

Use of fuel ethanol is an energy security issue not a global warming or pollution issue. We absolutely must broaden our energy supply basis as we are critically exposed to a huge impact if off shore oil was ever cut off or even seriously reduced.

 

Biofuels are about maintaining our energy security and keeping our wealth at home not about changing world climate. That argument is an irrelevant red herring argument to make people ignore the energy security, and financial drain issues.

 

Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This alternative Global Warming hypothesis based on Shindell, whom mostly believes weather events not caused by burning fossil fuel producing CO2, but of ozone inter actions and production from CH4 methane. Also, actions of water vapor, sunlight, VOCs, and nitrous oxide.

 

Some how the oxygenated fuel additives not good, but does appear to remove air smog. MTBE additive was horrible, anhydrous ethanol not as bad. This guy is promoting hydrous ethanol as a better fuel as not propagating GHG. He states all the concerns you speak of as far as energy independence and benefits of domestic produced energy. He claims taking out the last few percentages of water makes for a highly reactive fuel upon metals and environment. I'm guessing some talk of water in ethanol hazardous to metal in terms of water corrosion....others talking of chemical activity of pure ethanol....meaning two different concerns.

 

May the global warming argument be a problem for ethanol? May the chemical reactions within atmosphere be of concern irregardless? If so, for a myriad of reasons would hydrous ethanol be superior product? Actually, presented as a GHG solution? If it were to prove out, well, ethanol would get a big bump in production. Renergie has made news lately of managing a large real world study of hydrous ethanol fuels. They have good info on their web blog promoting hydrous ethanol purely from economics and fuel quality. Little did they know the fuel may also be superior upon GHG production. Note, the fuel need not actually produce GHG as much as produce O3 or O2 for problems if you know what I mean.

 

Ya, I don't think CO2 myself much of a problem, but willing to listen and read the experts. Of course if the experts go political as so fashionable nowadays be very wary. Science by definition should be held to rigorous review.  Example; listen to archeologist defend Evolution creation theory and know these folks fighting to protect lively hoods and reputations as so invested upon the science. Watch the movie Expelled to gain some insight of corruption of science. To many problems with PC, politics, university biases and gov't grants bequeathed to those in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering where the hockey stick went. Remember the hockey stick graph? According to that graph we should all be original recipe or extra crispy by now. Its only been ten years since that graph came out and put the burr under everyone saddle, so where is the hockey stick?

 

For what its worth, I dont take much stock in most computer models, especially when they attempt to model something as complex as and engine, or even more complex like the atmospheric conditions and changes based upon presumptions. Leave out things like solar input and why bother even doing the model?

 

Is it getting warmer? I dunno. Is it global climate change caused by man? I don't know. Is ethanol with or without water cleaner than gasoline? That I know, yes it is. Do we need to change the way we live and get around? Yeah we do. Is a knee jerk reaction and subsequent legislation outlawing carbon dioxide emissions an exercise in futility? Pretty sure of that one..

 

Humans have tried to have an impact on the direction of their lives, even to the point of attempting to control the weather and bubble wrapping kids lest they bump a knee or scrape an elbow. This entire movement appears to be a similar exercise, with very different interests motivated by very different agendas, all under the guise of making the world better or safer. We cant stop a hurricane no more than we can stop a comet from wiping out life as we know it, no matter how much we try. We are along for the ride here with very little input if any at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...