A Head Scratching Event

June 3rd (originally written here)

This morning we are scratching our heads over some number which was released yesterday.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for up to $130 million over three years, subject to Congressional appropriations, to advance the development and use of fuel cells for automotive, stationary, and portable power applications.

The head scratching comes into play when we take the other side and say: the government is perhaps doing the right thing to get us away from our addiction to oil. Away from the devastating effect that has now been proven to destroy our environment. A step towards the promise of a far cleaner future.

But then we see the number which is $130 million dollars of your tax paying money, over 3 years.
Wait just a sec... didn't the government spend some $1BILLION dollars beginning sometime near the President Carter administration to develop Hybrid Technologies? As seen from another fairer perspective, $130 million X 3 which is the nine years for the $1 billion formerly used for hybrid technologies... comes out to a small $390 in today's money. Hmmm...390 million in today's money vs. 1 BILLION dollars starting in the Jimmy Carter era.

Perhaps even with the flawed idea of fuel cell technologies, perhaps this is just a diversion making it look like our leadership is doing the right thing when in fact it may be quite the opposite.

This can be seen as a way to prolong the use of oil and combustion engine production until we can show as we have here that we already have proof that this isn't the best way to go in reducing our addiction to oil. That perhaps then, we throw some paltry amount of money at another idea that doesn't quite fit the Eco bill and even further prolong our addiction. A kind of bait and switch tactic if you will.

What was the effect of the U.S.A. producing a clean electric car all those years ago?
It scared Toyota and Honda to produce a good electric car on their own w/o anyone's help.
They only took it off the roads when our government was willing to sue it's own State of California to cause the electric car to disappear off the roads. Why? Because there was not enough profit in it for the car manufacturers and most especially for the big oil companies. Some of you may argue that BP and perhaps other oil companies now have an alternative energy division. So why aren't they using these windfall profits to boldly and swiftly change from oil addiction to a healthy future for all? Because it isn't as profitable maybe?

Hmmm

Shows you how an effective Leader and administration can be changed away from doing what is absolutely right for the consumer, for our health, for the environment, and for our entire human population and the planet.

We are in a sad state of capitalism when leaders have to create laws to help capitalists get away with criminal and some would say immoral acts. Acts which hurt the entire planet and put billions of people at great risk just for a few more years of windfall profits.

This is what has prompted the head scratching event today.

Also, did you know that the White House once had solar panels on the roof? It did during the time of Jimmy Carter but they were removed when Ronald Reagan and his Vice President took office.

More head scratching.....

If you can possibly take one more minute; watch the first minute of this video before it disappears.

If You Say It Enough They Will Believe You

June 2nd (originally written here)

Or some semblance of those words. This comes supposedly from one of our current leaders as I'm told. Well luckily every piece of actual evidence can not be destroyed. I found this at Reuters and Planet Ark. I had trouble highlighting to show the differences between the pros and cons. You may wish to go to the original site that I published this on. To do so, just click on the date link above.

This article is in its entirety.

WASHINGTON - Supporters of ethanol like to describe it as a cleaner-burning fuel additive that helps keep the air clearer, but critics say its environmental drawbacks may outweigh some of the benefits.

While ethanol made from corn gives a boost to the incomes of American farmers, the alternative fuel poses complex trade-offs for US oil refiners, environmental groups and federal regulators trying to find cleaner gasoline to curb pollution.

"The short answer is ethanol is both good and bad for the environment," said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming and energy program.

Ethanol is in the spotlight because Congress and the administration of President George W. Bush are grappling with US energy problems, and supporters of ethanol tout the fuel as one of the solutions.

Unlike other fuel additives, ethanol does not contaminate ground water supplies but it produces more smog in some circumstances and tiny amounts of sulfur result when it is blended into gasoline.

"The benefits are that ethanol does reduce carbon monoxide when used in the winter time, but it increases smog when used in the summer," Becker said.

That's because a key drawback to ethanol is that it evaporates more quickly in certain conditions, which results in higher emissions of smog-forming compounds, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

When compared to conventional gasoline, ethanol yielded lower emissions of carbon monoxide than motor gasoline but higher emissions of nitrogen oxide that causes smog, EIA said.

"We are more concerned about solving the smog problem than about solving the carbon monoxide problem," Becker said.

Ethanol is a renewable resource that the Bush administration wants to help reduce US dependence on foreign oil imports. It also can raise octane in gasoline and prevent annoying engine "pings."

Ethanol is one of the main so-called "oxygenates" or oxygen booster added to reformulated gasoline to meet federal clean air requirements. The extra oxygen helps the fuel burn cleaner.

The Environmental Protection Agency requires most major US cities to use the cleaner-burning gasoline with more oxygen by weight during the hot summer months to reduce smog and air pollution.

Ethanol is the second most popular oxygen booster for fuel among refiners - ranking only behind MTBE, which is now used in almost 9 out of every 10 gallons of reformulated gasoline.

However, Ethanol use will soon soar now that a dozen states have decided to ban MTBE because that fuel additive can leak from underground storage tanks into drinking water supplies.

ETHANOL AND SULFUR PROBLEMS?

Separately, finished fuel-grade ethanol contains small amounts of sulfur, between 2 and 8 parts per million, to help distinguish it from drinkable alcohol, according to EIA.

This could become a problem for refiners when they begin meeting new federal low-sulfur requirements in a few years, EIA said. Beginning in 2006, the sulfur content of gasoline must be reduced to an average 30 parts per million.

In addition to environmental concerns, ethanol blended gasoline is more complicated to transport to markets.

The additive poses logistical problems because gasoline containing ethanol cannot be shipped in the nation's vast network of multi-fuel pipelines.

Moisture in pipelines and storage tanks causes ethanol to separate from gasoline.

As result, the petroleum-based gasoline components must be shipped separately to a terminal and then blended with the ethanol when the product is loaded into trucks.

Those higher shipping costs, which would likely be passed on to consumers, are a major reason California sought a federal waiver from having to use ethanol after the state banned MTBE.

The Bush administration denied the request last month, even though environmentalists insisted the White House decision would spew additional smog-forming pollution into the state's air.

"This will mean dirtier air and price hikes at the pumps in California," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust.

The ethanol industry defends the environmental benefits of its product.

The Renewable Fuels Association, the industry's trade group, acknowledged that when ethanol is blended with gasoline it slightly raises the volatility of the fuel that can lead to increased evaporation of smog-forming emissions.

However, blending ethanol reduces carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions that are responsible for 20 percent of smog formation, the renewable fuels group said.

TRADE GROUP SAYS ETHANOL CUTS OZONE

In addition, ethanol-blended fuel cuts tailpipe emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, that form ozone in the atmosphere, according to the trade group.

"Thus, the use of ethanol plays an important role in smog reduction," the association said.

However, some of ethanol's VOC reduction benefits have been scaled back.

Last week, the EPA finalized a rule allowing ethanol-blended gasoline sold in Chicago and Milwaukee to contain larger amounts of VOC pollutants.

The VOC standard was raised to 0.3 pounds per square inch Reid vapor pressure - a measurement of the volatility of fuel - from the previous 0.2 pounds. The EPA move was intended to reduce the cost of gasoline in the two cities, which depend almost exclusively on ethanol-blended motor fuel.

Environmentalists are also concerned over the amount of energy, and therefore the pollution, needed to make ethanol from processing corn.

The industry's trade group said ethanol generates more energy than used during production, and cites an 1996 Agriculture Department report that found ethanol contains 34 percent more energy that is used in the production process.

Story by Tom Doggett

Story Date: 16/7/2001

P.S.
Thats just 34 percent or barely over 1/3 more energy than that used to produce the product. So in other words, we must additionally continue to create a significant debilitating carbon footprint in the production of a product they are saying is better than say: electric vehicles or versus another bio-fuel which can produce far more energy than this from corn which produces only 34 percent.

Criminals Tend to Repeat Offenses

June 2nd

So now that you've watched the documentary entitled "Who Killed the Electric Car?" guess what happened today?

The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative was re-announced today. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for up to $130 million over three years, subject to Congressional appropriations, to advance the development and use of fuel cells for automotive, stationary, and portable power applications.

I'll make this as short as possible and instead of giving you my rant on the topic; I present reports from apparently reliable sources. But regardless, as in the Iraq war, when heavy research and experience has been reported to some of our key leaders, the research/reports have been ignored, joked about and/or ridiculed at great expense, consequence and death.

Title:		Environmental Impact of H2 from Hydrogen Fuel Cell on the Stratosphere
Authors:		Tromp, T. K.
Affiliation:		AA(California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 170-25, Pasadena, CA 91125 United States ; ttromp@dar.caltech.edu)
Publication:		American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract #A72C-0192
Publication Date:		12/2002
Origin:		AGU
AGU Keywords:		0330 Geochemical cycles
Abstract Copyright:		(c) 2002: American Geophysical Union
Bibliographic Code:		2002AGUFM.A72C0192T

Abstract

Hydrogen fuel cell technology seems poised to replace the internal combustion engine in the upcoming decade. Environmentalists tout the technology as environmentally friendly and stress its low tailpipe emissions resulting in cleaner urban air. At face value the technology should have a negligible impact because the major byproduct is water. What has not been considered is that it will take billions of liters of H₂ to power the future national (and international) fleet of fuel-cell vehicles and that the leading contenders to make that H₂ are the very fossil fuels that cause smog and greenhouse gases. If that does happen, there will be two important consequences. First, the current fossil fuel pollutants will not disappear, rather they will be shifted from tailpipe sources to where the fossil fuels are extracted and the hydrogen is made. In addition, the fuel to make the cells work, H₂, is an important trace constituent (~0.5 ppmv) of the atmosphere [Novelli et al., 1999] and participates in reactions involving pollutants and greenhouse gases [Crutzen, 1977]. Thus, anthropogenic H₂ emissions could have significant indirect environmental consequences. The global annual H₂ production from current sources, anthropogenic plus natural, could be doubled in coming decades with the development of a hydrogen fuel economy [Zittel, 1996]. Such an increase could significantly impact the hydrogen cycle and other cycles with which it interacts in both the atmosphere and biosphere. We have examined the potential environmental impact of additional H₂ release for several emission scenarios. We calculated the ODP of H₂. Given that the oxidation of H₂ is an important source of water vapor in the stratosphere, which is otherwise isolated from direct sources of H₂O by the `cold trap' at the tropopause. We calculated what kind of elevated concentrations of stratospheric water vapor could occur for the different emission scenarios. Not only will additional water vapor cool the stratosphere, but also it will allow heterogeneous chemical reactions to occur when it forms PSCs in polar regions. H₂ also reacts with atmospheric OH radicals, the premier oxidant in the earth's atmosphere. We will calculate how increasing fluxes of H₂ to the atmosphere will shift the balance of the earth's oxidation chemistry, potentially increasing the lifetimes of other more harmful gases.

Until next time:
Nuff said!