Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials
24 ethanol vs 35.8 MJ/litre for diesel/gasoil, so a tank after a fill up would have 33% less range, which is still much more range than any EV and it's easy peasy to make a tank a smidge bigger.
Interestingly any idea who is exposed to their most ionizing radiation? It’s not the people living in or around Chernobyl or Fukushima, not riadation workers or astronauts.... It’s smokers. People who smoke cigarettes are exposed to more ionizing radiation every year than anyone else.
In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.
Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materialsYou probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.
At no time during the period between 1943 and 1946 were facilities allotted, or time provided, for the Medical Section of the Manhattan Engineer District to prepare a comprehensive history of its activities. Regulations forbade notetaking. Official records were scanty. There were few charts and photographs.
[...]
-Very large numbers of person were crushed in their homes and in the buildings in which they were working. Their skeletons could be seen in the debris and ashes for almost 1,500 meters from the center of the blast, particularly in the downwind directions.
-Large numbers of the population walked for considerable distances after the detonation before they collapsed and died.
-Large numbers developed vomiting and bloody and watery diarrhea (vomitus and bloody fecees were found on the floor in many of the aid stations), associated with extreme weakness. They died in the first and second weeks after the bombs were dropped.
-During this same period deaths from internal injuries and from burns were common. Either the ehat from the fires or infrared radiation from the detonations caused many burns, particularly on bare skin or under dark clothing.
-After a lull without peak mortality from any special causes, deaths began to occur from purpura, which was often associated with epilation, anemia, and a yellowish coloration of the skin. The so-called bone marrow syndrome, manifested by a low white blood cell count and almost complete absence of the platelets necessary to prevent bleeding,w as probably at its maximum beTween the fourth and sixth weeks after the bombs were dropped.
In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.Interesting. Do you have a reference?
In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.Interesting. Do you have a reference?
Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materialsYou probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.Yes, you are right, I must have been too tired when I wrote that.
Etanol: 24 MJ/L
Gasoline 34 MJ/L
So when comparing volume it's 70% less for ethanol. (30/46 is per mass)
Using this corn-waste-bio-fuel method you could replace about 0.5% of fuel used in cars today?
[...]
In 2016, an estimated 4.2 million people died as a result of high levels of ambient air pollution."
Ouch
Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materialsYou probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.Yes, you are right, I must have been too tired when I wrote that.
Etanol: 24 MJ/L
Gasoline 34 MJ/L
So when comparing volume it's 70% less for ethanol. (30/46 is per mass)
Using this corn-waste-bio-fuel method you could replace about 0.5% of fuel used in cars today?Corn is just the start. Other plants like Wheat and Soy are next. The reason corn was choosen probably has to do with POET already using corn to produce Ethanol from so they already had a relationship with corn-farmers. That makes it easier to get the feedstock needed. With a running plant and a demonstrateable business model it will be easier to persuade other farmers to also harvest different parts of their crops for bio-fuel production.
There are 922 million acres of land used for agriculture in the US. Using a number of 80 gallons per acre that amounts to a potential of 73 billion gallons of bio-fuel per year. This can easely cover the US fuel consumption for cars if the government bans vehicles with a very poor MPG rating. The current average fuel economy of the cars in the US is appallingly bad and can easely be cut by half.
Bio-fuels are likely to put a nail in the EV's coffin.
The 3rd generation bio-fuels have been kind of a holy grail for a long time but it seems the last hurdles have been overcome by at least two seperate companies. I like the elegance of the process. Take leftovers from the field which aren't useful for anything else (not even feeding cattle) and use a process very similar to brewing beer to make fuel.
The United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total at about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States. After spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for a permanent disposal site, including at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has a license application pending to authorize construction of a nuclear waste repository, the future prospects for permanent disposal remain unclear.
Current Storage Sites for High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel and Repository with License under Review
[...]
In 2016, an estimated 4.2 million people died as a result of high levels of ambient air pollution."
Ouch
I doubt that figure very much, but even if it were true, Do you realize how many billion humans aren't starving to death thanks to fossil fuels? Don't you realize that without fossil fuels it's impossible to feed 7 billion people? Can't you imagine what a shitty quality of life we'd have without fossil fuels? You better pray to the gods you do not get to see the end of the fossil fuels because it's not going to be anything nice.
Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.
About nuclear waste:QuoteThe United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total at about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States. After spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for a permanent disposal site, including at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has a license application pending to authorize construction of a nuclear waste repository, the future prospects for permanent disposal remain unclear.
Current Storage Sites for High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel and Repository with License under Review
That's quite a large amount of nuclear crap to me.[...]
In 2016, an estimated 4.2 million people died as a result of high levels of ambient air pollution."
Ouch
I doubt that figure very much, but even if it were true, Do you realize how many billion humans aren't starving to death thanks to fossil fuels? Don't you realize that without fossil fuels it's impossible to feed 7 billion people? Can't you imagine what a shitty quality of life we'd have without fossil fuels? You better pray to the gods you do not get to see the end of the fossil fuels because it's not going to be anything nice.Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.
We can do something about the amount of fossil fuels now, and preserve them for other uses instead of burning them. That requires political commitment, however.
But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.
But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.
Ok, 4.2 million (*) out of 7500, but, how many would starve to death if we stopped using fossil fuels?
(*) I don't believe it.
But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.
Ok, 4.2 million (*) out of 7500, but, how many would starve to death if we stopped using fossil fuels?
(*) I don't believe it.
I suspect about the same number if we stopped using synthetic/artificial fertilizers and GMOs. Thank you Fritz Haber and the Haber-Bosch process and creator of gas warefare in World War I.
About nuclear waste:QuoteThe United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total
{...}
That's quite a large amount of nuclear crap to me.
When coal is burned it leaves behind a grey powder-like substance known as coal ash. Although the exact chemical composition depends on the type of coal burned, all coal ash contains concentrated amounts of toxic elements, including arsenic, lead, and mercury.
More than 100 million tons of coal ash and other waste products are produced by coal-fired power plants in the United States every year (see a map here). About a third of that waste is reused in some way (often in concrete); the rest is stored in landfills, abandoned mines, and hazardous, highly toxic ponds.
Recent estimates state that the amount of municipal waste disposed of in US landfills is about 265 million tonnes (261,000,000 long tons; 292,000,000 short tons) as of 2013.
But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.
Ok, 4.2 million (*) out of 7500, but, how many would starve to death if we stopped using fossil fuels?
(*) I don't believe it.
- 4.2 million deaths every year as a result of exposure to ambient (outdoor) air pollution
- 3.8 million deaths every year as a result of household exposure to smoke from dirty cookstoves and fuels
Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.
Great... but, many many many more people can live THANKS to the fossil fuels, so what? It's not perfect, but almost. Are you against vaccines too because a small % die when vaccinated?
Get your priorities right, because fossil fuels do much more good than bad.
I'm not a MD and I can't explain it, but I trust the scientific process. The WHO isn't the only ones producing similar figures. Everyone has a political agenda. The WHO is a international organisation, part of UN and thus owned by all the words nations together. If they were spreading blatant lies then all of the worlds governments would have to be in on it. Not very likely in my opinion.
We should be moving towards replacing fossil fuel with something that is cleaner and still serves the purpose of providing energy. Ironicly we may need to use fossil fuel in that process (ex: heavy equipment to build solar farms), but eventually the new technology should be self sustainable.