Gasoline consumption has been criticized heavily over the last couple years. People have taken stabs at the major American car companies for not moving toward alternative fuels. Ethanol was proclaimed as a champion and words of praise fell over the use of ethanol. Electric was also sung ballots of love from the "environmentally conscious" Americans. This engineer has a particular doubt about their ability to crunch the numbers. Alternative fuels researcher Marc Jacobson, of Stanford University, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than burning gasoline. Hydrocarbons (molecules made solely of hydrogen and Carbon molecules bonding together) contribute to the greenhouse gas in the biosphere -- the hydrocarbon methane for instance is indeed a greenhouse gas, and one with significant effects. One thing which was possibly overlooked by the average person is that ethanol provides less energy per part used. More ethanol is burn to provide the same power as a lesser amount of gasoline. Jacobson concludes "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline."
Why? He claims that the increase in ozone would cause "roughly 200 extra deaths a year" due to extra strain on lungs and impaired immune system (most likely in already highly vulnerable people). The chart at the top was made from data from wikipedia Further, ethanol produces 2/3 the energy that gasoline does. If you want to get into the details, a good place to start is here (warning, it's a pdf). I for one am moving to criticize electric cars and praise alternative ways to produce electricity.
Electricity is a great thing; we live in an electric world. The problem is that electricity isn't as powerful as we'd like because it is hard to store. It naturally depletes when not in use(though slowly). Here is the problem: electric cars use electricity which obtained mostly from coal. If you live in an area where hydro power, or wind power generate the electricity, then no harm. If not, then you are most likely helping eat away at he environment. In 2006 289 tonnes (british unit) of Carbon per GWh consumed (i'm aware the data is from the Uk, but it's not an unreasonable figure to use). That's without the integration of electric cars. In areas such as California, where a large amount of energy is produced from alternative methods, then the cars are worth it. . . providing that the alternative energy can sustain the excess strain on the system.
About 49% of U.S. electricity is generated using coal. The electric vehicle in some senses is a coal burning vehicle. Coal when burnt produces sulfer dioxide, a poisonous gas. The excess sulfer can cause acid rain as well. When coal is mined, it can contain (and does with marginal frequency)radioactive isotopes. These radioactive nuclei are relatively stable and definitely not harmful when in the rocks. When coal is mined, the radioactive materials are separated off and leave the coal plant in the waste stacks. The pollution which leaves the stacks is reduced with a filtering process, but it's unlikely that they all have removed all. The materials then find their way back into the environment.
Whats so appealing about electric cars then? (oh, by the way, they are about $2,000 more expensive then a normal car when things are factored in . . . not to mention the handling of foreign cars in my experience is quite awful, especially in snow or rain.) Most people want to lose the dependency on foreign oil, and I'm guessing they use environment as an ethos argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment