Ethanol vs Greenhouse Gases

In 2006, ethanol saved 0.054% of US greenhouse gas emissions. A 100 fold increase would bring us to 5.4%, still not enough. But 20% of the 2006 corn crop was used for ethanol, so a 100 times increase would require 20 times the entire corn crop, and cost a fortune. These numbers are 50% more optimistic than those from UC Berkeley's Sustainable Energy Lab. They are not difficult to check.

To calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) savings for ethanol we need to know how much GHG emission are reduced when 1 gallon of gasoline is replaced with ethanol. This key value has been reported recently in Science magazine (Jan '06) and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (July '06). The Science article is a survey (of all previous ethanol studies) done by a pro-biofuels group of professors in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources group and its Sustainable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. Their published value is a 13% reduction in GHG, but they corrected this value to 7.4% in May, 2006. The National Academy study found a 12% GHG reduction, and zFacts has used this more optimistic value.

The simple calculation of the 0.054% GHG reduction for the US is presented here: ethanol GHG, along with simple one-click documentation of all input values. The calculation takes into account the following factors.

1. Gasoline production and delivery uses fossil fuel, so saving a gallon of gas in the tank saves as much GHG as from burning 1.23 galllons of gasoline.

2. 8228 grams of CO2 are produced by burning a gallon of gasoline.

3. 1.53 gallons of ethanol has the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline.

4. 4.885 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in 2006.

5. 7.122 trillion grams of CO2e GHG emissions in 2004 (most recent value).

That's all it takes to prove corn-ethanol is a hopeless approach to fighting climate change. In the next two days, zFacts will show that corn ethanol does little for energy independence and is enormously expensive.

Read more!

Ethanol energy balance?

Forget it! You hear a lot about the energy it takes to make ethanol. Is it more than you get from the ethanol produced, or is it less. Is the energy balance positive or is it negative. Enough! It doesn't matter. It's not energy we care about. What matters is (1) energy imported from dangerous places, and (2) greenhouse gases. Here' why neither matches the energy balance.

Suppose ethanol production used tons of coal and had a terrible energy balance. Since coal is not imported, ethanol would still reduce energy imports (oil) from dangerous places. Bad on energy, but good on energy independence.

Again suppose the heat for ethanol comes from coal, but less is used, so its energy balance is nicely positive. But the nitrogen fertilizer used for corn releases N₂O, a potent greenhouse gas. Depending on how much coal and how much N₂O, ethanol could be: Good on energy, and bad on greenhouse gas emission.

Energy balance is useless. It's not what we care about and it cannot be used to calculate what we care about which is only (1) Energy imports, and (2) Greenhouse gases. Tomorrow—the shocking saga of ethanol's gases. (from Chp. 3.3 Ethanol)
Read more!

Iraq: Good Money After Bad

The "Coalition" suffered more hostile fatalities in the first 50 days of year five than during the first 50 days of the invasion (source). The surge is not a plan, it's just 20% more of the same. The problem is still Dick Cheney. He's had no idea what he was doing from the start (quotes).

In Baghdad, a rocket exploded near the US embassy in the fortified Green Zone during Mr Cheney's visit. The AP reports that the latest attacks have been unnerving because of their frequency, the size of the ordnance and the accuracy of some hits. As result embassy employees were told that, "outdoor movement" must be "restricted to a minimum," and they must wear helmets and flak jackets.

Cheney, 3/16/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, …Weeks rather than months." (Three days before the invasion.)

Cheney, 5/29/2005. "They're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." Transcript. Gen. Myers had just warned that insurgencies last up to nine years.

Cheney, 12/18/2005. "The elections were the turning point. … 2005 was the turning point."

Cheney, 3/18/2006. "Q: Do you still believe the insurgency is in its final throes? Cheney: Yes."

Understanding the graph. The fith year of the war started 3/19/2007, and the graph shows the annual rate of hostile fatalities through May 9 (52 days). The extra fatalities in year 2 were due to fighting the Shiites. Take that out and you see a smooth upward trend of Sunnis (insurgents and Al Qaeda) killing Coalition troops. The surge has now brought the Shiite's back in, so the trend may accelerate a bit. The surge is no change of strategy, it is just more of the same as the situation gets worse. (more graphs)
Read more!

Bush admits income gap

From the Wall St. Journal: "This isn't a sudden change in Mr. Bush's economic philosophy, but rather a change in tactics." Why doesn't Bush see the income gap as a problem?

As the graph shows, most of the workforce got left behind during the last five years of recovery. This fits with two other pieces of the jobs puzzle. (1) Outsourcing has been growing, and (2) about 7 million jobs failed to materialize after the recession. These jobs were predicted year after year by the Bush economists, but they never materialized.

Outsourcing helps explain the missing jobs, and fewer jobs per worker means workers will settle for lower pay. And that's one big reason wages have not kept up.

But why doesn't Bush think that's a problem? The Wall St. Journal tells us: "Top White House economic officials still don't consider today's inequality -- the growing share of income going to those at the top -- an inherently bad thing; they believe it simply reflects the rising rewards accruing to society's most skilled and productive members." The reason: Bush's economists tell him it's not a bad thing.

Where did they get this idea? It's half the standard economic theory--the half conservatives like. Economics says every one gets paid their "marginal product." So if you get paid more, it means your marginal product is higher, and if you don't it's lower. It's sounds fair because it sounds like "your marginal" product is all your doing: you're lazy or you're good.

But, real economics doesn't say that. It's say it's only part you and it's part the market. If lots of jobs go overseas, or foreign workers come in, then there are too many workers per job. Adding one more worker is worth less when there are too many already--so by economic definitions they all have lower marginal products even though they are just as good as they ever were. Skilled economists like those it the White House know this, but they will never, ever, say it in public. Conservatives like to pretend the individual is 100% responsible, and the market is 100% fair.

What will happen in the next recession? We lose another 7 million jobs? Read more!

Austin's Electric Car Folly

Turning Cars into Power Stations. Austin's mayor Duncan has spent $1 million promoting his scheme to have cars suck up electricity at night so they can act as electric power stations by day.
Works great, except for the $10,000 battery cost. It seems Austin forgot that batteries wear out. They figure just the cars have batteries anyway, so they are free.

In reality, hybrid batteries are long lasting only because they are not heavily used. They are rarely fully discharged and normally charged only to 60% so they have room for regenerative breaking energy. Here's a rough cost analysis. The new Prius batteries hold 1.8 kWh of electricity. Bought at night and sold in daytime this might save 7¢. These batteries are pretty much the same as in your laptop and are pretty well kaput after 1200 full cycles. That's an electricity saving value of $84. The Prius batter costs over $3000.

The problem is that once cars are used as power stations every day, their batteries will no longer last the life of the car and will have to be replaced at huge cost to the car owner. Excerpts from Wall St. Journal ♦ Battery life
Read more!

Sunnis: Stay ... and Be Shot.

Bush tells us the Iraqis don't want us to leave. That's about right. Only 30% want us to leave immediately. But figure this out. 94% of the Sunnis think its acceptable to shoot at US troops, ...

Sunnis think we should not have invaded by 98 to 2, but 44% want us to stay till things settle down. Why? So they can shoot at us?

Probably not. Although 94% think that's fine, the Sunnis are afraid of the Shiites and think we provide some protection. They don't want us to stay because they like us.

Here's another mystery. Only 6% of Sunnis want an Al Qaeda style religious government. So why have they been supporting Al Qaeda? Same answer. They like Al Qaeda shooting at the US and the Shiites. Al Qaeda would have almost no support in Iraq (6% of about 18% Sunnis is only 1% of the population) if the US left and the Sunnis had some territory they felt safe in. ABC Polls Read more!

Un-De-Baathification

It works just like unscrambling eggs. In May 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority, sent Saddam's army home with their guns and sacked the rest of the Baathist party. Out of work, many joined the insurgents. This was known to be mistake by all but Cheney's neocons even before it was carried out.

Finally, the US is backing a law to reverse the blunder. Shiites who dominate the Iraqi parliament, claim the point is to put Baathists back into key positions of power. This makes some sense as Saddam's army cannot be re-hired, nor can most former government employees, since the government has been completely reorganized and re-staffed. Sources Read more!