SEE UPDATE BELOW FROM MONCKTON
I’m out of the political loop, and have no way of judging the merit of the claim, so I’m just going to link to this story. If it is true, it shows just how bad the treatment of different viewpoints has become in Washington. Perhaps Lord Monckton can give a comment or two here to either bolster or refute this story.
Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
Thursday, April 23, 2009 By Marc Morano
‘House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated’
Climate Depot Exclusive
Washington DC — UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
UPDATE 8:30PM PST Lord Monckton weighed in on this story in comments. I thank hi for his candor and for telling his story firsthand here. He writes:
Once again I’m most grateful to Anthony Watts and his hard-working team for their kindness in exposing the less than democratic tactics of the Obama Democrats. The story circulated by the indefatigable Marc Morano is – as one would expect – accurate in every particular.
Early this week the Democrats told the Republicans they would have a “celebrity witness” for this morning’s hearing on the Waxman/Markey Bill, but they would not say who. The Republicans immediately contacted me and asked if they could tell the Dems they too were putting forward an undisclosed celebrity witness – me.
When the Dems eventually revealed that their “celebrity” was Al Gore, the Republicans told them I was to testify at the same time. The Dems immediately refused to allow the Republicans their first choice of witness. By the time they had refused, my jet was already in the air from London and I did not get the message till I landed in the US.
At first the Dems tried to refuse the Republicans the chance to replace me with a witness more congenial to them, but eventually – after quite a shouting-match – they agreed to let Newt Gingrich testify. The former Speaker of the House gave one of his best performances.
I attended the session anyway, as a member of the public, and tried to shake hands with Gore when he arrived, but his cloud of staffers surrounded him and he visibly flinched when I called out a friendly “Hello” to him.
His testimony was as inaccurate as ever. He repeated many of the errors identified by the High Court in the UK. He appeared ill at ease and very tired – perhaps reflecting on the Rasmussen poll that shows a massive 13.5% swing against the bedwetters’ point of view in just one year.
My draft testimony will be posted at http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org shortly, together with a brief refutation of Gore’s latest errors.
Finally, I have never said what one of your less polite correspondents has said I said about HIV. However, in 1987, at the request of the earliest researchers into the disease, I wrote articles in journals on both sides of the Atlantic recommending that AIDS should be treated as a notifiable disease, just like any other fatal, incurable infection. Had that standard public-health measure been taken – immediate, compulsory, permanent, but humane isolation of the then rather few carriers – many of the 25 million (UNAIDS figures) who have died and the 40 million who are currently infected and heading for death would have been spared. Sometimes, unfashionable points of view are right, and sometimes ignoring them can be a matter of life and death.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Roger Sowell (08:33:16)
Thanks for your response.
Very difficult if the technical and scientific aspects of a subject are ignored and ruling
bears evidence that you are dealing with idiots.
It’s hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys.
Those that have studied it have concluded that the availability of ethanol Lowered the price of Gasoline by approx. $0.35/gal last year. One Study:
http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp467.pdf
We Import over 9 Million Barrels of Oil, Daily.
While, only 2.3 Million Barrels/Day came from the Persian Gulf, we spent, at least, $200 Billion last year protecting that oil. And, about 600 young, American Kids’ Lives.
Kim, I am a Vietnam Veteran, and an Ex-Marine. I’ve earned the right to discuss Casualties of War. I’ve, also, never voted for a Dem for Pres in my life.
Ellie, your numbers don’t take into account the DDGS. We only use the “starch” in ethanol production. We Retain 40% of the animal-feeding capacity of our corn.
Also, don’t confuse BTUs with the “ability to perform work.” They tell most of the story if all you want to do is “boil water.” If you want to power an Internal Combustion Engine you, also, must consider Octane. Ethanol is about 30% Higher than Gasoline in Octane Rating. That means it can be compressed to all get-out, thus enabling it to deliver Much More Power. You can, actually, get More Miles per Gallong of Ethanol than you can gasoline in a properly designed engine.
Kim, above you confused field corn with finished, processed food. There is much less energy invested in field corn.
Look folks, Oil is a finite resource. So is coal. We don’t have nearly as much of the “Good Coal” as many folks think. Batteries will only take you so far. Many people think Oil Production has already “peaked.” Most other analysts think we’re getting pretty close. Everyone knows there are about 2.5 Billion Chinese, and Indians that want their share of the “Prosperity (read – private transportation) Pie.
All Recession, except one, since WWII have been preceeded by a “Spike” in Oil Prices. The “Next” one will, almost certainly, be No Different.
Monckton, warm thanks.
Rephelan and Fuelmaker (and others)
Re. the suspect CO2 hockey stick that the ice core record reveals, see here for what looks like a fair way to reclaim higher and more reasonable CO2 figures for the past
Re. recent CO2 figures, today I utterly, mind-bogglingly surprised myself. I found, from the MLO and CDIAC graphs, that postulating a very low “emissions absorption” rate of 16.4% per decade, gives an extremely high fit with the MLO curve and a curve of a constant 57% of total cumulative emissions. Weird. But in the interests of good Science, I would like this out in the open – and please, if possible, in a skeptic blog like this one – since this finding would appear, at first sight, to strengthen the warmist position, or at least the CO2-is-our-emissions part. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/MLO-emissions.htm I know perfectly well that “correlation is not causation” and I still think we have a weird coincidence here, and that natural factors are also at work; but this deserves further investigation IMO, without bias as to causation.
Maybe there is a case to be made, Adolfo, that certain people emit soot as they exhale. The solution, as with any dirty emission problem, is to take a bath. Carbon soot may be easily solved by passing the gases through a water filter bath. For other solutions, a catalytic converter is a simple solution.
But cleaning up the irritants, particulates and scrubbing the truly toxic gases is not in that agenda.
Imposing Consumer Energy Use prohibition is.
They would even outlaw agriculture, the horse and animal husbandry.
Liquidation sale: Everything must go. The Temple of AGW must be sacrificed upon.
I have wondered what if Ca. was allowed to implement higher emission standards and one of the major car companies simply said “no.” “We’re sorry, but we simply can’t build vehicles to meet those requirements.”
Just Want Truth… (01:03:09) :
“D. King (23:05:09) : What a noble man! He’s going to give all that money away!”
He said the money is going to global warming “awareness”.
Are you kidding me? I was being sarcastic!!! This guy is as corrupt as they come!
Ellie, Ron, Smokey, Adolfo, Kim, and others who see through the ethanol BS:
Keep shining the light of truth on those who present bad science. I love it!
Btw…the Federal Register published EPA’s CO2 proposed finding. The clock is ticking for public comments.
Rephelan
Fuel maker
Presumably you two are newcomers if you haven’t previously come across the enormous amount of information on Beck -much of it posted here.
As this is a general thread on Monckton -who is very interested in Becks findings- I guess it is ok to repeat a long post I made on this subject here last year. It consists of a piece of information from me, then my replies to several people who had raised interesting questions during the long discussion that ensued. Hopefully it should all make sense even if it is not in a linear format.
As Smokey mentions, Ernst is very willing to reply to anyone who wishes to discuss this subject with him. For the record -and after a very thorough investigation-I think Ernst is essentially correct with his findings. However, if this post gathers any momentum you can be sure that Ferdinand will be over to dispute Becks findings! Hope you find this of interest.
” TonyB (10:39:58) :
My message to Chris V
Sorry, you obviously didn’t see my original post which would have explained the background much better. I took a complete data set (from Becks findings) as a first pass and inserted them on the graph. I then looked at each record individually from within the group.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.xls contains
the information in an active excel spread sheet-hover your mouse pointer over a figure to read its values.
The measurements shown come from a variety of sources and a number were discounted at the time and are a matter of historical record only (for example only one measurement taken, equipment uncalibrated, taken over the water etc.)
Also a number of measurements were deliberately taken in known ‘co2 hot spots’-hospitals, mines and factories, for monitoring purposes and would be expected to be higher than those in free atmosphere.
I examined in considerable depth some 12 free atmosphere measurements with regards to the scientist, methodology, weather conditions at the time etc, and have no reason to believe they weren’t accurate.
Virtualy all the co2 ‘action’ seems to take place around 280ppm (very cold period ) to 380ppm (around as warm as today) and the difference is from 600gt to 800gt- Cdiac say that 1ppm equals 2.13 gt.
According to Endersbee, the following scale of outgassing is possible;
“Ocean area is 360,000,000 sq km = 360 x 10^12 sq metres
Mass: 1 gigatonne (Gt) = 10^9 tonnes = 10^12 kg = 10^12 m^3 water
Volume of oceans to 3m depth = 360 x 3 x 10^12 m^3 ie approx. 10^15 m^3
Mass of oceans to 3m depth = 10^15 / 10^9 Gt = 10^6 Gt
CO2 dissolved to 3m at 15ºC = 10^6 x 0.2/100 Gt = 2,000 Gt
CO2 outgassed for 0.1ºC temp rise = 2,000 x 0.3/100 Gt = 6 Gt ie one year’s emissions
CO2 outgassed from 30m depth for 1ºC global temp rise = 600 Gt ie near-total atmospheric content.”
So if temperatures fluctuate considerably from one year to the next-as happens frequently as can be seen in the chart-then a substantial movement in co2 levels appears possible.
Perfectly reliable figures were recorded in the warm 1940s of around 380ppm, Keeling took a first measurement of 315ppm in the relatively cooler 1950’s-see below;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-global-warming-stop-in-1998.html
Since then the temperature has climbed steadily and we are (were!)as warm again as the 1930/40’s and the co2 levels have returned to the levels of that time-surely this is to be expected if the co2 levels are a reasonable
indicator of temperatures?
Now the main conundrum is we don’t know if the reliable free atmosphere records in the group are responding to contemporary temperatures, or those from many years ago -some people say temperatures rise first then co2 follows up to 800 years later.
Personally I think the cause and effect is much quicker than that, but whether that is a few months or a couple of decades I dont know. IF response time is quick and IF global temperatures are dropping notably, we should expect to see a stumble in the co2 figures from Mauna Loa as oceans take up co2 at levels far greater than humans emit them-but whether that will be next year or much later I don’t know.
I would also point out that mixing is not as comprehensive as many think; cdiacs and Noaa’s own maps show a differential of up to 20ppm at any time, so that could acount for a substantial proportion of any unexpectedly large co2 differential between one year and the next.
I think it is important also to recognise that co2 levels are an indicator of temperatures but are not a thermometer-so correlation is unlikely to be exact.
To see for yourself a very small part of the co2 science available over the last century and a half take a read of ‘Air and water’ by renowned chemist R Smith (who discovered acid rain). This book was written in 1872 and demonstrates the high quality of the science available at the time and the meticulous manner of the often world famous scientists who took readings.
http://www.archive.org/stream/airrainbeginning00smitiala
Numerous other documents by other famous scientists are available that illustrate they knew what they were doing. The report from Mr Giles Slocum of the US Weather bureau in 1955 is particularly interesting as it directly contradict GS Callendars 1938 assertions that 1900AD co2 levels were some 295ppm-from which pre industrial 280ppm was extrapolated and which Charles Keeling joined up to his own 315ppm in 1958 to demonstrate the ‘Keeling curve’.
Further reading on the reliability of records can be seen here -this refers to a British parliamentary report around 1890 on the monitoring of Cotton factories, who had been set emission levels of 900ppm in 1889
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7GHLv-rLifgC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=prosecution+co2+cotton+factory+1889+factories+act&source=web&ots=rPD5OFQUIG&sig=3wPlj-HR9A-B2aEr0H1yk9xXJQM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA154,M1
According to ice cores the pre industrial co2 levels were at a constant 280ppm-which obviously contradicts this data completely and supports GS Callendars selected data.
However, if that is so why did the temperatures vary so much in the past-surely if co2 if a good indicator the temperatures should also be fairly constant throughout the last tens of thousands of years?
(There were then several responses to which I responded as follows)
Sorry everyone, in the time I took to reply and post my reply to Chris V many others have commented-hope I have covered your points.
Anna
Keelings organisation has the virtual monopoly on calibration and of reference gases-I am not a supporter of conspiracy theories so that may or may not be of any significance. I have posted a little in my reply to Chris about the selective data that G S Callendar used. On Charles Keelings admittance in his autobigraphy, Callendar influenced his early work and he accepted the figures of 280ppm pre industrial and 295ppm in 1900. This was contrary to other published information which consistently showed much more variable figures
Chris V
Yes you can ascertain exactly who the scentists were and the circumstances in which they took their readings-they are either in my data or in the material posted about Becks website referenced earlier. Unlike some other people Beck actually details his sources and puts them online without someone needing to file a freedom of information notice to obtain the information.
If you want a bibliography of the other suppliers of measurements, Beck has included them. I suggest the comprehensive papers from Benedict and the 1917 paper would make as illuminating reading as ‘Air and Water’ that I referenced in my last post. Taking co2 measurements was common and reliable from around 1820 when Saussure took a long series by Lake Geneva in Switzerland.
The measurements weren’t being taken out of context by third rate practitioners using primitive equipment but by noted people as part of the scientifc and social life of the age. We even have pictures and adverts for the equipment!
If you are really interested in how embedded co2 readings were in everyday life I can cite a variety of documents.
I am sure Beck can be selective-as we all are to prove our point-however there are far too many readings by far too many good scientists who really knew what they were doing, to be able to turn round and say ‘it is garbage.’
The real story revolves round the highly selective measurements taken to prove his AGW theory by GS Callendar, and Charles Keelings endorsement of them in 1956 because he was a young man, in a new job, who knew nothing of climate science or co2 measurements and accepted what he was told by a respected meteorologist. This is not an AD Hom attack-Keeling seemed a genuinely nice man and Callendar was a very interesting and extremely worthy person in his professional life. However he was an amateur meteorologist -I suggest you go over to Real Climate tell them you’re an amateur with a new theory and see how long they take to rip you to pieces!
Bill
you said;
“I imagine there could have been lower CO2 than the 280 ppm imagined. Maybe CO2 was higher during the MWP as well but the 1800s were cold so CO2 levels of 350 and higher couldn’t be explained by this.”
Using the real world rather than manufactured global temperatures it can be seen that the 1800’s were an extremely variable century with great warmth and great cold-so co2 levels would fluctuate considerably
This graph from Hadley back to 1660 covers the 1800’s which confirms the warmth almost equal to todays at times (two out of the Uks top three warmest winters ever occured in the 1800’s)
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken_hobgoblin.xls
This one covers Switzerland from 1850 and again shows considerable warmth.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_zurich_uhi.jpg
According to the highly variable temperatures shown we could have expected co2 readings exactly in the range that have been measured”
TonyB
I see a pattern in the ethanol debate. Since some link it with AGW then it MUST be bad. That is shortsighted.
I looked at Ron’s first reference and the headline was “Bioethanol’s Impact On Water Supply 3x Higher Than Once Thought”. Sounds horrible, right? However, if you actually read the article it states that ethanol in the mid-west only requires about 40% of the original estimates that the 3x number was based on. Sounds a lot like a typical AGW scare article. Look at the worst case scenario, make that your headline and only give modest reference to anything that disagrees with your view.
I see ethanol as a first step into some reasonable bio-fuel solutions although I think the subsidies should be phased out. The more recent estimates has ethanol providing a 1.3 going to 1.7 energy ratio. Certainly not good but it’s still positive.
Finally, one needs to look at the problems with oil many years ago. The fact is we have improved the refining process and engines over 100 years. We are just starting with bio-fuels and we should solve many of the current problems over time as well. Advancing the technology can only help us in the future.
PS. I’m also a firm believer in “drill baby, drill”.
Mark_0454 (11:26:42) :
“I have wondered what if Ca. was allowed to implement higher emission standards and one of the major car companies simply said “no.” “We’re sorry, but we simply can’t build vehicles to meet those requirements.”
That is exactly what happened on diesel cars for the past few years. No car company could make a diesel car that met California specs. Only this past November did Volkswagen finally introduce their Jetta TDI.
California has proposed higher emission standards for gasoline cars, and is waiting for approval from EPA to make them law.
I wrote on my blog, “Under AB 32, the Pavley standards require 43 mpg by 2016, and 49 mpg by 2020. Pavley standards are the California alternative to the federal CAFE mileage standards, designed to cut CO2 from the California skies. These are not yet law, pending a ruling from the federal EPA. With Obama as president, a favorable ruling is expected any day now.
The key point is that CAFE standards, and the Pavley standards, apply to NEW car sales, not to existing fleet on the road. Therefore, it is impossible to achieve the 1990 gasoline consumption by 2020, as there is a graduated or sliding scale of increased mpg for each year between 2008 and 2020. The above analysis was based on having the high-mpg cars available in 2009 and every year after that. Clearly, that is impossible.”
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/ab-32-and-gasoline-consumption-by-2020.html
Kum: Ethanol is about 30% Higher than Gasoline in Octane
Wrong again: Ethanol is like this: C2H5OH
Octane is like this: CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3
Any resemblance?
Once again: That rolly polly out there is fooling you!!
Now, seriously talking; back in 1952 the french magazine “Science et Vie” published the blueprints of a compact electric generator, using a radioactive isotope source. Years after the SNAP series was developed in the USA.
These could be easily applied to automobiles, but no words about it.
“I attended the session anyway, as a member of the public, and tried to shake hands with Gore when he arrived, but his cloud of staffers surrounded him and he visibly flinched when I called out a friendly “Hello” to him.”
-Lord Monckton
I don’t know why but as I read this two or three times, I just kept seeing Dracula flinch as he sees Van Helsing invade his castle in Transylvania. Perhaps the bloodsucker has met his match. As Van Helsing said, “He cannot be killed, he must be destroyed.”, figuratively speaking, of course.
Mike Bryant
Roger Sowell (11:44:21) :
Not only are the California standards unrealistic, but the Air
Resources Board has thrown reduced carbon fuels into the mix.
They should just set the standard at: 1 bazillion gazillion MPG!
I wonder if they know how stupid this looks.
Corn based ethanol is only an interim step in any case, as we are rapidly moving toward 3rd generation processes that will produce ethanol by other means such as algae to ethanol or cellulosic ethanol. These will have much better energy production profiles, and less impact on farm production.
Regardless, ethanol is already a better deal than gasoline on several counts.
You quote a net energy gain of 46%, this is certainly better than the net loss in energy from fossil fuels.
For each unit of energy pulled out of the ground as fossil fuel (oil) you only get .81 of it to your fuel tank. The rest is used up in processing, shipping losses etc. .
For the same energy input of fossil fuel to ethanol production, you get back at least 1.35+ (2005 efficiencies) and with newer processes that energy efficiency has been increasing continuously over the years.
energy balance circa 2005
http://www.ethanolmt.org/images/argonnestudy.pdf
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/hof/HofJuly07.html
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/347.pdf
Outright efficiencies continue to increase. Likewise water usage being reduced. Many people forget that it also takes a lot of water to process oil too.
The newer generation ethanol plants are rapidly moving to co-generation or using bio-mass energy inputs. Some burn crop waste or process stream waste in fluidized bed reactors. Some are moving to co-location with their users, so that one process uses the waste stream of the other.
For example an ethanol production operation co-located near a live stock feeding operation. This allows the wet by products of the ethanol plant to be fed directly to the cattle without drying (saving process energy). The Cattle manure is then used to feed bio-gas digesters to provide process power for the ethanol production.
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_5107090
Regardless of above, the farm industry is currently easily able to meet corn demands for ethanol (which uses industrial feed corn not sweet corn used for human consumption).
The ddgs byproduct produced by the ethanol production actually has more food value than the original corn thanks to the fortification provided by the yeast used in brewing the ethanol. Rather than reducing food value, ethanol production actually increases food value by this means.
More importantly, everyone forgets that the true measure of energy usage is how much usable work you can get out of the fuel, not its raw energy content.
As shown above, ethanol already returns more energy than oil by a substantial margin thanks to solar energy captured during the growing of the feed stock.
If I offered to sell you an “gasoline energy bond” that you paid a dollar for and I promised to buy it back at $ 0.81, or an “ethanol energy bond” that you paid $1.00 for and I would buy it back for $1.36 which do you think you would choose?
Even though the ethanol delivers more energy to the fuel tank of the consumer for a given energy input in production, there is also the issue of usable work returned for the fuel energy burned.
In the case of internal combustion engines you also need to consider how much actual usable work do you get out of the fuel energy available. This is often measured by the thermal efficiency of the engine. In this case a typical gasoline powered spark ignition engine delivers about 30% – 35% of the energy contained in the fuel to its crankshaft. In the case of the reciprocating piston internal combustion engine, its thermal efficiency is strongly influenced by the burning characteristics of the fuel.
High octane fuels that allow high compression ratios and high Carnot efficiency get more useful energy out of the fuel. This is why racing engines try to use high compression engines. In this regard fuel ethanol with a fuel octane near 118, far surpasses common pump premium gasoline with an octane of 91-92 (depending on where you live). The blend E85 which is commonly used in the FFV’s has an official octane rating of 105 although it behaves in the real world more like a 112 octane fuel. This is because the Motor Octane standard uses test procedures that are not appropriate for an alcohol fuel and under rate it.
So at this point, you have a fuel that returns 1.36/0.81 = 1.679 times the fuel energy for a given fossil energy investment in producing it and getting it to the users fuel tank. You also get a fuel in the tank that allows the engine to operate at higher thermal efficiencies.
The ideal engine for an E85 fueled FFV is a high compression engine on E85 but a low-moderate compression engine on gasoline. Thanks to the way the CAFE standards are set up, the car manufactures have no incentive to optimize the engine for use of E85. They get the same exact credit regardless of its E85 efficiency. The result is, they optimize the engine to run on gasoline and make it sort of efficient on E85, throwing away the value of the E85 high octane fuel.
There is a simple way around this problem. Use a small displacement turbocharged engine that uses different boost levels depending on the fuel. That allows you to run the E85 under high effective compression ratios (8:1 mechanical compression ratio but high manifold boost pressure) and at more moderate effective compression ratios on gasoline by turning down the peak boost.
This has already been done, and works quite well. Many home experimenters are easily beating Detroit FFV fuel economies by making home brew FFV conversions to conventional cars.
I converted a 2002 WRX to run on E85 or any mix of fuel from full gasoline to E85 using a couple hundred dollars in parts. All I had to do was to have the ability to adjust fuel delivery and boost pressure (it is a turbo charged engine). If driven for economy, I got fuel mileage per gallon on E85 in the low 90% range of my gasoline fuel economy even though E85 only has 72% of the fuel energy per gallon of fuel.
It does not take a math wizard to understand that that would be impossible unless the engine was extracting more useful work from the E85 than from gasoline.
When you calculated out the actual fuel energy used to go a mile in my car on E85, it was burning much less fuel energy to go a mile than it did on gasoline. (it also ran much better with substantially better performance if I wanted to “hotrod” it a bit — hence my screen name)
Here are the fuel energy per mile numbers in BTU/mile I achieved with a very simple home conversion to run E85 in a small displacement turbocharged engine.
gasoline mileage Gasoline 125,000 Btu/ gallon / 24 mpg = 5208 BTU/mile
E85 conversion @ur momisugly 92% of gasoline mileage or 22 mpg
E85 90,500 BTU/gallon/22 = 4114 BTU/mile
As you can see, I was using only 78.99% of the fuel energy to go a mile on E85 that I used on gasoline. Add to that, the higher return on energy invested in the fuel vs energy delivered to the fuel tank, and you have a very high return on investment, both monetary and energy budget wise by using E85.
E85 fuel is inherently a much better fuel for use in a spark ignition piston engine than gasoline on just about every measurement you can make. You can make between 5% and 20% more power for a given engine displacement on E85. You make more power for a given amount or air consumed in combustion (smaller displacement engines do the same job).
You (if properly tuned) will burn about 20% less fuel energy to go a mile. The E85 engine also has better road manners than an equivalent gasoline engine due to its willingness to pull under load.
Experimenter conversions to E85 consistently report that in towing applications and on highway cruise control the E85 fueled engines do not lug down like they do on gasoline when pulling hills, because the fuel produces better torque characteristics for the engine. This prevents down shifting in cruise control and drivers modify how they both shift and use the accelerator on E85, because they need less accelerator to get up to traffic speed, and can up shift to a higher gear sooner on E85 than they can with the same engine on gasoline. Cruising in higher gears on the highway yields fuel savings not possible on gasoline. Engines run cooler on E85 so a smaller displacement engine can be pushed harder on E85 than it could on gasoline with out burning it up.
The performance community is falling all over themselves to run E85 because it is such a superior fuel. They get performance on E85 better than even high octane racing gasoline costing up to $10 a gallon.
Do not under estimate fuel ethanol, it has a lot going for it, and we would be wise to move toward an E85 based fuel system for spark ignition engines, as our fuel infrastructure builds out 3rd generation ethanol production capability.
Larry
Someone said:
I wonder if it is illegal to refuse to register vehicles purchased in other states? How about charging higher registration fees for vehicles purchased in other states?
CA might simply be sending the message to capable people that they should move to another state.
Adolpho,
NOT wrong, again. Not wrong the first time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
gasoline octane rating with 10% ethanol 87
ethanol octane rating 116
“And this suprises you … Why???”; Said Timebandit; 23 April (23:19:22) .
Al Gore visited the North Pole by Nuclear Submarine before he became Vice President about 1990, Lord Monckton did not. More at: http://www.oceanclimate.de/, referring to Al Gores North Pole visit as follows:
“We were crashing through that ice, surfacing, and I was standing in an eerily beautiful snowscape, windswept, and sparkling white, with the horizon defined by little hummocks, or ‘pressure ridges’ of ice that are pushed up like tiny mountains ranges when separate sheets collide. But here too, CO2 levels are rising just as rapidly, …As the polar air warms, the ice here will thin; and since the polar cap plays such a crucial role in the world’s weather system, the consequences of a thinning cap could be disastrous. ” (Gore, Al (Albert), (1992); “The Earth in Balance”, London, 1992.)
For more see reference link.
Kum Dollison (12:31:38) :
That is right. Better for drinking!!
Aber: Al Gore visited the North Pole by Nuclear Submarine
Sure?, not a tale as the internet one? .Check it out, just in case…
Kum Dollison,
I do take your point about DGGS; the energy required in drying it (if this is done) is about 30% of the parasitic energy load of the plant. But this is corn and this benefit disappears with lignocellulosic ethanol, grass and other non-food feestocks. The net energy yield remains low.
TonyB,
thanks for those outgassing calculations. I’ve also wondered on other threads how much CO2 outgassing a small pH drop in the oceans would cause – but I have not felt up to calculating it.
Richard M,
My preference is for biomethane rather than ethanol as a first step to sustainable biofuels for many reasons:
1) It can be used readily by a number of viable end use options today including transport fuel.
2) There very many potential feedstocks able produce it; many of these are wastes for which other treatment options, such as composting, consume energy.
3) The net energy yield is good: up to 70% of the fermentable fraction of feedstocks can be converted to biogas and a 20% parasitic energy load or less is achievable for even very small plants. This is partly because methane as a gas requires little to separate it from water.
4) There are good future prospects for more efficient clean up and upgrading and for increasing the end use options. For example direct use in fuel cells is possible as catalytic conversions to liquid fuels, although the energy requirement for the latter and the scale at which it is viable is currently very large.
Robert van der Veeke (09:01:17) :
Ron de Haan (14:20:36) :
Nobody protested the flight-tax.
The public simply traveled from airports located in Belgium and Germany.
The only protests came from the Airport Holding and KLM, but only after they were confronted with decreasing passenger numbers.
Why protest if you have work-around as the ultimate protest, voting with your feet? The fact that Dutch travelers where relocated by travel-agencies and airline operators like Ryan-air is the just one of the reasons that this tax failed.
KLM, Transavia (also Dutch) and Air Farce protested, and Ryan Air, Volare Airlines, Corendon, El Al Cargo stopped flights from the Netherlands, Easy Jet reduced the number of flights, other organisations that protested: ANVR, MNP, Nederlands Bureau voor Toerisme & Congressen, Chamber of Commerce and VNO-NCW, especially that last organisation is very important since it is the Dutch employers’ federation and they represent some 80% of the smaller companies in the Netherlands and nearly all the larger companies.
No protests?
No, not from the Dutch Public, that is what I stated and you can’t argue that.
By the way KLM = Air France
I would definitely pay more for ethanol-free gas, simply to avoid certain problems it causes.
We had a severe ice-storm in southern NH last December, with many going over ten days without power. People were cursing ethanol by the end, primarily for two reasons:
1.) As folk sweated to clear fallen trees from roads they discovered ethanol burned out the piston-rings of 2-cycle chainsaws, because the engines ran much too hot. What people began doing was upping the amount of oil that was mixed in the gas. It made for smoky sawing, but at least the saws weren’t burned out so swiftly.
2.) Gas-powered generators also ran too hot, but the main problem people faced was water-in-the-gas, (or ice, it being winter.) This problem isn’t seen as often in cars, because cars don’t sit around for long periods with the ethanol in their gas tanks slowly sucking humidity from the air. You tend to refill a car’s gas tank quite often. However, in the case of emergency-generators, both the gas in their tanks, and the gas cans out in garages, held corrupted gas.
I was talking to an old fellow who repairs small engines locally, and he cursed ethanol up, down and sideways. He stated people should replace the gas in gas cans once every three months in cold winter weather, and once every three weeks in the most humid summer heat-waves.
What occurred here was that, in an ice-storm emergency, when people desperately needed their generators and chain saws, the ethanol made hardships worse.
The smart solution would be to allow people to buy pure gasoline for their small engines. (Apparently the ethanol dissolves the protective lining in boat’s gas tanks as well, so fishermen also ought be allowed to buy pure gasoline.)
Of course, law-makers tend to lose touch with the ordinary people who actually deal with the day-to-day details of running this nation. It is for this reason law-makers need to be nagged. You will likely get nothing but a form-letter in return, but I still believe it is worth writing congressmen. How else are they to have more than a vague idea of what is going on in the “real world?”
Sadly, I feel Al Gore is beyond reach. A million letters can’t penetrate a mind that is firmly closed.
I can’t claim I’ve figured the fellow out, however I wonder if Al Gore chose, at some point, to willfully distort the truth. There is a huge difference between debating with your fellow man, and purposefully lying to your fellow man. In the former case you are passionate, but are still open to persuasion. In the latter case you fear getting caught in your lie, and “what a tangled web you weave.” The latter case would explain Gore’s refusal to debate.
Around here I’ve known fellows who, when confronted, will just come out and say, “Oh blast and thunder, I confess: I told a fib. It seemed like a good idea at the time, especially ’cause I thought I’d get away with it. Who would have dreamed a little white lie could turn brown and stink so much.”
It would be great if Al Gore could be so humble and human, but after winning so many prizes and awards, and charging such huge fees, I doubt his pride could weather such a downfall. So I won’t hold my breath.
hotrod (12:30:10)
Thanks for a really excellent post. It is great to have someone who really knows about it arguing for ethanol. I know my figures are out of date – public domain stuff always is. I am inherently biased against ethanol mostly because of the size requirement for economic viability, because smaller scale solutions are required in many parts of the world including my own, but I guess that in 10 years we could could have a more rosy prospect.
And of course biogas is not perfect either and is definately unattractive because it is a gas.
hotrod, you have it all wrong on this one. More energy input for ethanol is required than is obtained as output. Every reputable agronomist and engineer agrees with this. Dreams and wishes do not overcome thermodynamics.
If any of what you claim is true, then we would never have seen subsidies for ethanol, and ethanol manufacturers’ stock prices will skyrocket. I will watch for that with great interest. (they are falling, and plants are closing). Oil company stocks will plummet, as they can never compete with this wonder-fuel called ethanol. I will also watch for that with great interest. There would also be no reason why Congress (Washington) would have to pass the ethanol mandate, as it would have been the clear winner in the market based on its obviously superior qualities. None of that happened on ethanol’s own merit, so what does that tell us?
Here is just one article dated April 20, 2009: “US-based Renew Energy announced that it will close its Wisconsin-based Jefferson ethanol plant, after filing for bankruptcy.
The company, operator of the state’s largest ethanol production unit in Jefferson, is set to shut down come the end of May unless a buyer can be found. The plant’s closure will be signal the loss of jobs for all 80 of its current employees.
Renew Energy is not the only ethanol producer to go under. The beginning of the month also saw Illinois-based Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings stop in its tracks as the industry’s once-large profit margins are diminishing due to a combination of excess supply and falling petrol prices.
Across the US the story is much the same as VeraSun, one of the country’s largest ethanol producers with 16 plants in eight states, has also hit the wall and Sacramento-based Pacific Ethanol recently revealed it is struggling to repay its lenders after posting large losses in fiscal 2008.”
http://www.biofuels-news.com/industry_news.php?item_id=723
The fact is that gasoline from oil is profitable and energy-efficient, despite huge government efforts to tax, apply environmental cost burdens, and interfere with the market in many ways over many years. Ethanol will never compete straight up, and every knowledgeable engineer knows this.
As to all the talk on octane of ethanol vs gasoline, please, do not confuse the three octane ratings: Motor, Research, and Road. The numbers quoted above are like comparing apples to oranges to peaches. I blended gasoline in major refineries for years. So much mis-information on this.