Posted by Dee Norris
This article concerning the Nobel Prize for Chemistry caught my attention this morning:
Twenty years ago, Douglas Prasher was one of the driving forces behind research that earned a Nobel Prize in chemistry this week. But today, he’s just driving.
Prasher, 57, works as a courtesy shuttle operator at a Huntsville, Ala., Toyota dealership. While his former colleagues will fly to Stockholm in December to accept the Nobel Prize and a $1.4 million check, the former Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientist will be earning $10 an hour while trying to put two of his children through college.
Shuttle driver reflects on Nobel snub – Cape Cod TImes
Are we starving science research in other areas to pursue accelerated and possibly needless research into Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and the dire consequences of AGW at the expense of other more productive and beneficial areas of study?
We have recently heard from Richard A. Muller justifying the distortions and untruths of Al Gore (I guess if the untruths were committed willingly, one could call them LIES) as necessary to stir the public to combat AGW, but at the same time are these tactics shifting funding away from more deserving science projects?
While it was perfectly within his rights not to share the cloned gene with others, Prasher said he felt an obligation to give his research a chance to turn into something significant, even if he was no longer a part of it.
“When you’re using public funds, I personally believe you have an obligation to share,” Prasher said.
How many researchers like Douglas Prasher are under-employed while others like Hansen and Mann receive lecture fees and yet continue to obfuscate data and research paid for by public funds simply to protect their ’empires’?
Your guess is as good as mine, but I ask if spending money on research the explore to the link between global warming and kidney stones really a good use of a limited resource?
In a final thought, I hope some research facility sees this article and offers Doug a job that pays better than $10 an hour. Clearly, he is a more deserving scientist than many of the AGW researchers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Garron, from your link:
The quarterly grain stocks report estimated corn stocks at 1.62 bil. bu., up 25% from year earlier levels, representing the old crop carryout. On-farm stocks totaled 500 mil. and off-farm stocks totaled 1.12 bil. bu., which was 33% more than 2007 levels.
I could also find a link for you showing where the yield is coming in much better than was anticipated a couple of months, ago. It seems that, since the floods, the midwest has had wonderful growing weather.
Also, corn crops that were “not so hot” globally, last year, are very good this year.
I don’t know who that guy was, but a lot of this looks pretty “fundamental” to me. G’nite. It’s been a pleasure chatting with you. 🙂
Kum,
Your numbers from ISU may be correct but misleading since you forgot to mention that oil imported from the Middle East or produced by oil majors brings much more tax money to the Government (just compare Exxon’s annual profits to what it pays in taxes) than biofuels.
If corn ethanol is profitable and generate jobs, so the market would take care of it, it doesn’t need subsidies.
The idea that artificially increasing oil price by government schemes may reduce dependance is unsustanciated : In France (and in Europe in general), we pay >$8 /gallon gasoline.
Are we less dependant of Russia, the ME, Venezuella and other rogue states ? No.
Are we less vulnerable to price spikes ? No.
[snip]
Debates are to be moderated which doesn’t happen around here [yes it does, maybe not as tightly as you like~charles the moderator]. I’m not going to play “shouting match” with a [snip].
You win. I’m out of here.
Reply: Personal attacks are off limits ~ charles the moderator.
Kum Dollison (20:46:01) :
>Codetech, you mapped your computer in your Turbo car to
>run a little rich. It gave you more power. Okay. Now, when
>you put 94(?) Octane (what would that be in the states?) in
>it it doesn’t burn all the fuel, and it smokes some. If you
>had never made that conversion you would get a little less
>power on E10, but you would burn the straight gasoline
>more efficiently. (Is 94 octane in Canada the same as 87
>octane in the states?)
If it was a simple matter of tuning slightly rich, that would be no challenge. Heck, fuel injected cars could simply turn up the fuel pressure slightly. The difference is that Ethanol contains oxygen, and you can use that oxygen as a component in combustion. A more aggressive timing schedule extracts enough more power from the charge that you can offset the increased fuel use with an approximately equal increase in power and actually use LESS fuel at idle and low power operation. As a bonus, I run 24psi of boost and make a LOT of power, and I get 35-40 MPG on the highway, 25+ in the city if I restrain my go-pedal.
Octane numbers are the same everywhere. Did you think it was metric? 87 octane is poison to a supercharged engine. At high altitudes (ie Denver) they even sell 84 octane, which almost eliminates the ability to use a turbo.
Incidentally, the mods I’ve made to my car (and hundreds of others across the US and Canada via the magic of the internet) are about what the car companies are now offering with Flex fuel. The only difference is with more expensive sensors they can automatically adapt to different fuels whereas my mods require that you commit to a specific grade of fuel.
I like that you think things are all so simple. If the mods don’t mind me asking, I’m curious how old you are.
@CodeTech:
I have a 60 Chevy that still prefers Leaded Gasoline. She knocks and hesitates without it. It is only gets worse on E10.
My Dodge Ram is pinging on when the local E10 blend.
And I drive the extra 15 miles to get standard 94 Octane for my Saab 93.
OT, and not the best place to put this, but it’ll do.
http://www.physorg.com/news142863483.html is titled “Scientists resolve long-standing puzzle in climate science” and is about the tropical tropospheric temperature mismatch.
The story is not the whole paper, but it seems to center on
1) Measurement error is worse than thought, increase the error bars and mismatch between model output and observations goes away.
2) New, better datasets show better a better match with the models.
Or, in the article’s words:
“Even under the most optimistic projections that see world population growth rates slowing significantly, the global population is projected to be 9 billion by 2050, nearly 50% more people than are on the Earth today! ”
Sunny,
Where are those 2 billion extra people going to come from? Europe? The UK’s fertility rate is about 1.3/couple; in Russia, Greece, Italy, and Spain it is 1.1/couple; in Germany, France, Holland, Finland, Sweden and Norway it is 1.8/couple. Japan, it is 1.1 couple. In Canada? It is 1.7/couple. China has had a one child law since 1979, and even accounting for those brave souls who ignore it, it would be had press for them to exceed 2.1/ couple.
Even in India, where the fertility rate has been 4.3/couple, the rapidly growing middle class has a fertility rate that plummets below 1.5/couple. In the US, the fertility rate is 2.1/couple, we are helped by illegal immigration. Subsaharian Africa has been devastated by war and AIDS. That leaves, East Asia and South America. These two areas would have grow beyond what is numerically impossible.
A fertility rate of 2.1 is needed just to maintain society. The US has grown during the last 140 years primairily due to immigration. The point of no return in population decrease is 1.1 or less. Russia, Japan, Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, and Greece will see thier native populations halved during the next 2 generations. If the US cut-off all immigration, out population’s rate of growth would level out during the next generation and begin to fall. Even India will see a rapid leveling off after 2030. China is a question mark, for I don’t think they have an idea where they stand.
The population growth rate plataued recently. The rate of increase is rapidly slowing in all areas but South America. In Japan it has stopped; Russia is soon to follow, as is Europe and Canada. In 2050, there could very wells be food shortages, but it won’t be because of too many people -but the exact opposite. You need people and capital to grow food. Both could very well be missing. Capital is key. Raising enough capital to invest in large industrial sized farms will be difficult when a society is transferring most of its wealth to support a very large group of elderly.
In the future, children will be the biggest assest of any society.
Ric (06:49:02) Manipulate and malign the datasets. Same old same old lame old excuse. Why on God’s Green Earth can they not re-examine the mistaken assumptions built into the model a la Spencer?
==========================================
Codetech, I’m 61, and, believe me, I realize that many/most things are much too complicated for my poor little, redneck, pea-brain to understand. However, in Europe they use the RON rating system for Octane. It runs about 4 to five points higher than the Ron + Mon/2 system we use in the states. In other words 87 Octane in Ms would be about 92, or 93 in France. I wasn’t sure about Canada. Here’s a “quick and dirty” synopsis of Octane ratings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
I asked because I read quite a bit from another guy that runs a Saab turbo car, and your observations seemed a little different from his. I’m sure you are aware that if you splash-blended one part ethanol to the standard 87 octane fuel available in the states you would end up with approx. 89 octane fuel by the AKI index. However, the 87 octane is Not pure gasoline. Pure gasoline is approx. 85 octane. The 87 octane includes octane-enhancers. Most of the 10% ethanol blends you are buying is 85 Octane + 10% ethanol = 87 octane.
If you’re set up to run on 94 octane I’m surprised you can run on 87 octane At All. I’m guessing you’re “tuned in” for about 92 – 93 Octane (are you running a variable-ratio turbo?) which would cause you to run like a pig on 87 Octane (but, most of the E10 sold in the States IS 87 Octane 85 octane + 2 Octane from the ethanol.) Anyhoo, that’s Way too much “Inside Baseball.”
JP (07:53:24) I agree with what you say, but would add that children have always been the most important asset of any society. Why do you think the most primitive religious icons are always women with swollen bellies?
=======================================
JP, The reason the world population will keep increasing despite lower fertility rates is that the population growth rate is still positive. That’s because, for example, a fertility rate of 2.1 translates to an annual population growth rate of 0.9%, given current average life expectancy and infant mortality rates. Currently, the global population fertility rate is 2.3% and annual growth rate is 1.2%. If all goes well, the projections are that by 2025, the world fertility rate will be 2.1 and the annual population growth will be 0.9%, given projected average life span and infant mortality rates. And hopefully, the fertility rate can be further reduced to 1.9% by 2045 to result in an annual population growth rate of 0.3%, again given given projected average life span and infant mortality rates. If you use these figures, which were provided by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (2003), and do an annualized calculation of global population, you end up with a global population of more than 9 billion by 2050. Try it yourself, starting with the current world population, estimated by the US Census to be about 6.73 billion (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html). It is easy to set up in a spreadsheet, just like doing a annual compounded interest calculation. You simply multiply the global population for that year by the projected growth rate, add the result to the current population and you have the projected world population for the next year, and so on for each year. Thus, you will have a total of 42 calculations for world population to span 2009 through 2050, each based on the current projected growth rate and the total population of the previous year. You will end up with a world population of almost 10 billion by 2050.
It is disturbing to envision that the population growth might not be as large as has been projected because so many people will have dramatically shortened life spans due to starvation, war, and disease. This seems to me to be a greater concern than a little global warming, whatever the cause.
A little OT…
At Jennifer Marohasy website, http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
There is a link to an intersting article on AGW as a political movement co-opting science – or “politicisation of science”. The link is here http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1405/2008-harold-clough-lecture-%27the-politics-and-science-of-climate-change-the-wrong-stuff%27
Cheers G
Kum Dollison (09:28:44) :
>Codetech, I’m 61, and, believe me
Okay, that makes sense. And no, I don’t even think about running 87 swine-urine in my baby, she gets the highest octane available. 94 under normal circumstances, 92 during one of the increasingly frequent fuel shortages, 106 during racing season (you can run a lot more leaded gas past the O2 sensor than most people realize).
It used to be that I could ONLY run a particular brand of 94, which has been E10 for 20 years, but lately with all fuel switching to E10 I can grab 91-92 octane from Esso or Shell without blowing it up.
The vast majority of things such as octane are North American. The only exception is the metric garbage imposed upon us by a liberal government that thought we should be more like europe and less like the US.
I tuned it for 94, and have a race-only cal that is very happy with 106. Unfortunately, my tires aren’t as happy with it. I’ve actually been years developing this computer, I removed the ROM from the engine controller, completely disassembled it, determined what everything (yes, EVERYthing) is doing, and rewrote several sections for accuracy. For example, the factory fueling is very sloppy and they seemed to be okay with relying on the O2 sensor to clean it up. I changed it to 100% calculated accurate, and even without the O2 feedback operating my A/F ratio is dead on to what I set it. This is one of the reasons I’m able to benefit from the Ethanol content, since normally Ethanol will skew the output from the O2 sensor, causing the computer to attempt to compensate in the wrong direction.
I’ll never understand how a giant corporation with billions in development funding can do a worse job than some individual working from his house. Then again, they were probably more interested in allowing any idiot to come along and pump whatever they could into it, and not blow it up (warranty vs. fuel efficiency).
Yes, in a litigious society such as ours they definitely have to “keep it simple.”
There’s a group of enthusiasts, and tuners at
http://e85vehicles.com/e85/
that would probably appreciate your insights. You might want to stop in and share some of your experiences.
Kum Dollison wrote:
“I think what you’re missing is that when you replace 700,000 Barrels/Day of a substance (petroleum) with another substance (ethanol) the price of the First Substance is likely to fall.”
The conclusions of the paper from IU can only be valid if the assumptions on which it is based are true. The 700,000 Barrels/Day isn’t even close. From the paper they state a production of 7.22 billion gallons of ethanol/year. That works out to 627,963 barrels of ethanol/day. The fallacy in your argument is you are comparing apples to oranges. What we are interested in is the energy content, not the volume.
The energy content of gasoline is about 125,000 btu/gallon. For ethanol it is about 77,000 btu/gallon. By this alone 700,000 Barrels/Day gets reduced to 386,825 barrels/day gasoline equivalent. Even this number is wildly optimistic.
The most optimistic energy in to energy out ratio for the production of ethanol from corn is 1:1.35. Subtracting the energy input from the energy output the net gain in barrels/day gasoline equivalent from the production of ethanol is 100,288 barrels/day. From the EIA we find our use of gasoline in 2007 was about 9.286 million barrels/day:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgfupus2a.htm
A study that claims a negative effect of $0.29 to $0.40 per gallon on retail gasoline prices, due to ethanol which effectively adds only 1% to the supply of gasoline energy content at a higher cost, simply fails the smell test.
What further discredits the validity of the paper is the assumed energy gain (pg.3) for corn:
page 3
“… and will use approximately one-tenth as much fuel energy to produce as it contains (Wang et al. 2007).”
Not only is this assertion not even remotely supported by the Wang et al study, it is completely out of line with any published study on the energy balance of producing corn ethanol.
I’ve always run 87 in my vehicles (one a 2005 Toyota Matrix, the other an F-250 V10 gas, no knocks or pings in either), because that’s what the manufacturer called for. 99.9% of the time higher octane isn’t needed. I’m assuming you’ve checked your owner’s manual?
Sonny,
“It is disturbing to envision that the population growth might not be as large as has been projected because so many people will have dramatically shortened life spans due to starvation, war, and disease. This seems to me to be a greater concern than a little global warming, whatever the cause.”
I said that sentiment. But previous point was that the wealthiest nations on earth currently are on a crash course towards negative growth. EIghteen of the twenty wealthiest nations have fertility rates below 2.1 (the US and Austrailia being the exceptions. And one wonders how much immigration is proping up the US numbers). About 90% of the world’s wealth is tied up in nations that will age rapidly in coming years. One would expect a huge transfer of wealth from the younger generations to the older ones in order to fund health care and retirement. Also, these 20 nations contributed nearly 85% of the worlds industrial GHGs. Are we in the twlight years of GHG growth? Can the West and Asia sustain thier current industrial activity without large numbers of younger producers and consumers?
Already Europe is seeing the effects of this in many areas. The average age of an Italien farmer is 64, and so much pasture land in Greece has gone fallow that summer brush fires are as normal as they are in So Cal. Feeding Europe may be a problem in a few decades unless they can attract a younger generation of farmers -but where are they going to finds them?. I have two German friends who are under 35 and have emigrated (Austrailia and Argentina) . From what they tell me, this is becoming a normal thing in Europe. What young people there are in Europe are fleeing if the oppurtunities arise.
Jeff Alberts (09:07:46) :
>I’ve always run 87 in my vehicles …
Thing is, a turbo changes the whole mix. As I’m sure you know, the turbo exploits the pressure differential between the high pressure exhaust and the low pressure atmosphere to spin a compressor, which increases the volume of air getting into a cylinder. This means that detonation is a VERY serious possibility, since the charge is hot, the combustion chamber can have hot spots, and compressing a larger volume of air/fuel mix results in a very VERY hot charge.
87 octane is for normally aspirated engines only. 89 and 91 are for normally aspirated engines with higher compression (static compression), 91-94 are suitable for supercharged engines which usually have lower static compression but high dynamic compression.
As I mentioned before, I get extremely good mileage, and have a lot of power available on demand, which is the benefit of a turbo engine. The trade-off is that I have to use more expensive fuel.
Greg, this is what I’m talking about. If you’re going to denigrate a University Study you should at least have your “Facts” straight. Here is the amount of ethanol we CURRENTLY produce:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/
It’s 10 Billion, 635 Million Gallons/Yr Add to that about 400 Million Gallons from Brazil and you get 11,035,000,000 gallons. Divide by 355, and then by 42 and you get 719,830 barrels/day.
The “energy content” of the gasoline you buy at the filling station is NOT 125,000 btu. It is about 116,000 btu. And, it’s Octane is 87, compared to Ethanol’s 115 (Octane is very important in that it governs how much the fuel can be compressed and, thus, how much horsepower it can generate.) For this reason you can achieve the same mileage/horsepower from ethanol in a smaller high compression engine as from gasoline in a larger lower compression engine.
This paper referred to “fuel” energy. Virtually all of the energy inputs connected to ethanol is either nat gas or coal. This, however, is changing in that the refineries are moving toward biomass, rapidly. Poet’s “Project Liberty” plants will, probably, be in the equivalent range of 15, or 20 to 1 for fossil fuel conversion.
In short, we ARE replacing close to 700,000 barrels of oil/day with ethanol, and the number is increasing every month. Interestingly, Garron was onto something when he pointed out that the difference between 500,000 and 700,000 probably isn’t nearly as big as the difference between, say, 300,000, and 500,000.
Whatever CO2 savings ethanol produces is consumed in the distilling and transportation of ethanol. Ethanol cannot be transported via our pipelines due to the high content of water (corrodes the pipeline fixtures), and must be transported via diesel semis. I can only imagine what ethanol might do to an engine over a period of 4-5 years.
JP, biofuels aren’t about CO2. Never were. Ethanol and biodiesel are all about depleting oil supplies, and high energy prices. As for pipelines: although, most ethanol is moved by rail, today, kinder Morgan is making a few mods to their pipelines to allow for the shipping of ethanol. Brazil ships a LOT of ethanol via pipeline.
Those materials that are sensitive to ethanol have, pretty much, NOT been used in automobiles since 1973. As I stated above, Minnesota has been blending 10% ethanol in ALL of their gasoline since 1996. The truth is engines that have run ethanol are, by and large, cleaner, and in better shape than engines that have run 100% gasoline.
Kum (15:45:49) Buy a gallon of ethanol, starve a dozen children. My Daddy told me 25 years ago that only subsidies make ethanol feasible for the market, and it is still true. If my taxes and your’s weren’t being wasted on this boondoggle, ethanol would only be drank, not burned.
===============================
Kum Dollison (15:45:49) : says
“JP, biofuels aren’t about CO2. Never were. Ethanol and biodiesel are all about depleting oil supplies, and high energy prices. ”
Kum, I always find your posts interesting even when they are inaccurate. The following comment comes from the DOE website and clearly states the CO2 emissions as an incentive for reducing CO2:
“Biofuels & Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Myths versus Facts
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is committed to advancing technological solutions to promote and
increase the use of clean, abundant, affordable, and domestically- and sustainably-produced biofuels to
diversify our nations energy sources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce our dependence on
oil.”
Kum, you are right however that there are other factors, but you failed to mention the other significant factor; namely congress pandering to the corrupt Archer Daniels Midland and the farm lobby. You can believe what you want, but there are numerous studies that give information on both sides of the argument. I am not naive enought to believe a study by any university from the corn growing states. Also refering to a site that is dedicated to renewable fuels is tough to swallow.
For me the bottom line is the free market. As long as the governments are providing huge incentives and tax breaks for ethanol from corn, I find it hard to believe it makes economic sense.
If the incentives for ethanol and other (expensive) biofuels are cost and supply the following questions remain:
1) Why do we refuse to develop our own oil and natural gas resources in the USA especially offshore and in ANWR? Contrary to the MSM spin, there are huge oil and gas resources in the USA that we refuse develop. These resources could not only replace a lot of foreign oil but could also reduce energy cost, provide high paying jobs, reduce flow of dollars overseas, and increase the security of supply. Every other country taps it’s resources, even Cuba will be tapping our oil off Florida coast using the Chinese.
2) Why are some politicians pushing for a carbon cap/tax on fossile fuels and touting renewables believing they are carbon neutral?
3) Why are resources such as tar sands and shale put off limits in the US and Canadien Tar sands shunned by Congress?
4) Why does the Senate Majority leader and the speaker of the house call oil and coal “dirty” while pushing for huge expenditures in biofuels plants that are far from clean?
5) Why has the congress mandated 4 to 5 times increase in ethanol? If it made sense the market would dictate the increase.
25 Yrs. ago? In 1983?
Did he have anything to say about gene/splicing? cloning? Laptops? The Internet? Nano-Technology? Decoding the Genome?
Kim a gallon of ethanol contains a little less than six pounds ($0.42) of field corn. ( People don’t even Eat field corn. Cows eat field corn.) How can a dozen children die of starvation due to the lack of forty two cents worth of somethng they don’t eat, anyway?
How are any visitors to this website pay any attention to anything you say about climate when you make statements like these?
I am not naive enought to believe a study by any university from the corn growing states. WOT?
Don, the oil companies get all kinds of subsidies, and tax breaks. Does that meant they’re not viable business enterprises? Look, the ethanol/biodiesel industry is up against the combined might of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela, all the rest of OPEC, Russia, all the rest of the non-Opec countries, Exxon, Shell, Conoco, BP, ad infinitum. And, THEY own the distribution network. And, Oil, two months ago, was $147.00/Barrel.
So, we gave them a little help, and, by all estimates, we were returned a sizable profit in the form of lower gasoline prices. And, Tar Sands? Have you ever, actually, seen pictures of the “Tar Sands?”
Sure, Don, we have some oil left. Do you have grandkids? Do you think Maybe we should try to leave them a little bit of oil? Just in case there’s something they really need it for? Ethanol/ and biodiesel will do a lot of work. And, it IS clean. And, once you study it, you will see that it IS cheaper than $80.00 Oil (much less $147.00 Oil.)
Bedtime for Bonzo – Good Night, and Nice Chatting With You.