The main bill in Oregon’s Legislature to address global warming is coming down to the wire.
Senate Bill 488 would lift a 2015 sunset date for Oregon’s “clean fuel” program, which aims to cut the carbon in car and truck fuel 10 percent a gallon by 2025.
Oregon Legislature’s top global warming bill sits on shaky ground | OregonLive.com
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- William on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- gordon vigurs on “Siberia might stay livable”
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- conrad ziefle on “Siberia might stay livable”
- Timo, not that one! on “Siberia might stay livable”
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
This is World-Class Stupidity from Obama and the Krazy-Kats. I thought that Australia had a lead in the Contest with its Carbon Tax under Julia Gillard. However now that she has been removed the way is open of Obama and the Krazy-Kats and they have the pedal to the metal in pursuit of World Supremacy in the Stupidity Struggle.
Do these dopes not realize that if you adulterate gas by adding ethanol the user just has to buy more of the stuff for the same result. The overall effect is probably just as much CO2.
It doesn’t matter, science doesn’t matter. It’s all political grandstanding.
I am not sure, but since ethanol is an oxidizer (C2H6O). , it may mean that the more ethanol you mix into a hydro-carbon fuel like gasoline, the more H2O (Carbon Dioxide) and DO (Carbon Monoxide) you create when that ethanol enriched hydro-carbon fuel is burned. Some of you chemist types help me out here, I am almost as scientifically illiterate as Skeeter.
Ethanol is not as energy dense as gasoline. It takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to give energy equivalent to one gallon of gasoline. However, one molecule of ethanol contains just two carbons. Gasoline is mostly a mixture of 6,7,8 carbon chain alkanes.
1 combusted molecule of ethanol yields 3 molecules of CO2.
C2H5OH + 3O2 -> 2CO2 + 3H2O + heat
1 combusted molecule of hexane yields 6 molecules of CO2
C6H14 + 9.5O2 -> 6CO2 + 7H2O + 50% more heat
There is a non-scientific reason to burn ethanol as a fuel. It reduces reliance on foreign oil.
Below is a link David Pimentel’s paper, that shows it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than you get back.
http://www.energyjustice.net/files/ethanol/pimentel2003.pdf
When you evaluate the number of steps necessary to grow and convert the corn to useful energy, you may use more energy than you produce. Fuel is needed for fertilizer production, tractors, harvesters, transportation and ethanol processing. In addition, CO2 is released during the conversion from starch to sugar to alcohol.
Below is a link to a criticism of Dr Pimentel’s analysis
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/102100
Hope this helps.
RE: “1 combusted molecule of ethanol yields 3 molecules of CO2.”
Clarification…
2 molecules of CO2 come from combustion, and 1 comes during conversion of sugar to ethanol.
C6H12O6 -> 2C2H5OH + 2CO2 + heat
Am I reading this correctly ?
They aim to “to cut the carbon in car and truck fuel 10 percent a gallon by 2025.”
And to do this they add a different hydrocarbon fuel to the mix ??
Don’t talk nonsense – if they want to claim turning food into fuel is a good “green” idea say so.
But adding short chain hydrocarbons to a mix of predominantly long chain hydrocarbons could actually increase the “carbon” in the mix.
Roscoe wrote:
“But adding short chain hydrocarbons to a mix of predominantly long chain hydrocarbons could actually increase the “carbon” in the mix.”
Sorry, Roscoe. You’ve got it bass ackwards. Ethane (C2H6) is a relatively short chain hydrocarbon. The H:C ratio is 3.
In contrast, n-octane (C8H18) has a longer chain. Its H:C ratio is 18:8 = 2.25.
The ‘good’ news: Yes, you can decrease the proportion of ‘evil’ carbon in gasoline by adding short-chain alkanes.
The not-so-good news: Why bother?
26 years ago, short-chain alkanes were added to gasoline in California. During hot Summer months, much of it evaporated. The upshot? During the Summer, I had to use premium gasoline in my little pickup truck, whose engine was designed for regular, in order to avoid destructive pre-ignition, aka ‘pinging’.
Ethanol is not an alkane. Were they adding (pentane, butane, propane) to the gasoline mixture? If so, that is ridiculous, as vapor pressure would cause a significant loss of lighter alkanes, and increase the chance for a deflagration.
They would like to replace fossil derived fuels with “renewable” fuels, which were produced by plants absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. This is so-called “carbon neutral” because CO2 released upon combustion balances the CO2 absorbed. Of course, when land use and other factors are accounted for this is not exactly true.
With regard to ethanol, for a given volume, it produces less energy than fossil derived gasoline because it is already partially oxidized. So, ethanol gives poorer mileage.