Because those that don't work and don't understand simple economics don't want anyone else to either.
Oshawa ethanol plant will go ahead despite objections
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Because those that don't work and don't understand simple economics don't want anyone else to either.
It's better to employee people as park maintenance than it is to employ them making products to sell and earning a far higher wage. Didn't you know that?
The arrogance of the CPC knows no bounds. Apart from the cronyism and the CPC yesmen who made this decision, it is against the interests of the community; of the environment; and of the food supply mechanism,
Using corn to produce fuel is nothing short of criminal. Despoiling the city's waterfront and building a theat to one of the few remaining wetlands is vandalism.
Flaherty should be keelhauled under one of the tankers that will ply this trade.
Using corn to produce fuel is nothing short of criminal. Despoiling the city's waterfront and building a theat to one of the few remaining wetlands is vandalism.
Flaherty should be keelhauled under one of the tankers that will ply this trade.
Well that's obviously what the people who want to build the plant are saying. You're comparing apples and oranges by switching the discussion, though if that's your game you never had to even quote the article about CO reductions. The analogy is a company is making apple juice with reduced acidity, and you're guffawing their claims because of some attributes of orange juice and grapefruit juice.
A word of advice, if you want to refute someone's claim, how about you address it specifically. Durp.
That's completely irrelevant to whether or not ethanol blended fuels reduce carbon monoxide compared to gasoline. Do you have a point? Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide. If you want to ramble on about something else, have at er.
You might want to research, or at the very least, read the OP, before you shoot your mouth off, and your own foot, at the same time, lol.
The site in Brock is unbroken ground.
The site in Oshawa, is an existing port facility.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Why on earth would anyone free burn either ethanol or gasoline? I burn mine in my truck and the emissions aren't CO but CO2 thanks to the cationic reaction of the converter.
Why on Earth would you think that is a relevant point of discussion?
What's the efficiency Pete? Do you even know? I doubt it. It must be purely coincidence then that areas of high traffic have elevated levels of carbon monoxide in the air. :roll:
Seriously, use your head. Or a search engine. The web has the information to cure you of your ignorance.
Did you get a bug in you non-crossed eye? I already posted efficiency Ethanaol is 10-30% LESS efficient meaning consumption increases by 10-30% eliminating any gains.
That is moot. It stays the same whether ethanol or gasoline. and does nothing to alter the fact that I'm consuming more fuel to do the same job thus increasing emissions whether CO or CO2.
How then is it moot, if one fuel type produces more carbon monoxide? If the efficiency is say 95%, and ethanol blended fuel produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, which it does, then it is not moot at all. The only case where it would be moot is if your catalytic converter is 100% efficient, which it most surely is not.
That's a fail Pete.
Consumption and inefficiency cancels the reduction out meaning I have to burn MORE ethanol than gasoline.
I am in the process of buying a new car that is able to burn ethanol....but I will be using high octane gasoline in it over low octane or ethanol simply because it is more efficient money wise if you factor in the increased MPG of high octane.
BINGO! Your're starting to get it. It has always been apples to apples. The end goal is mechanical energy.
Now for the oranges....
Does ethanol reduce pollution?
I'll get to the grapes and CO in high traffic areas soon enough.
I'll wrap this up quickly. GM is investing 750M in research & development. Once the ethanol plant is built the imagineers will be able to look across the marsh do imagineering to the tune of whatever the dollar figure is write it down as R&D and continue to downsize.
As far as the ethanol plant goes the Oshawa harbour area is derilect, not much going on it might be just the thing to kick Oshawa on a new path.
As far as the ethanol plant goes the Oshawa harbour area is derilect, not much going on it might be just the thing to kick Oshawa on a new path.
Environmental engineer Mark Jacobson of Stanford University used a computer model to assess how the air pollution in the U.S. would react if vehicles remained primarily fueled by gasoline in 2020 or if the fleet transferred to a fuel that was a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, so-called E85. Under the latter scenario, levels of the cancer-causing agents benzene and butadiene dropped, whereas those of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde rose: In other words, it was a wash.
Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year. "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Jacobson writes in the study published in Environmental Science & Technology. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles."
Want to Reduce Air Pollution? Don't Rely on Ethanol Necessarily: Scientific American
Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year. "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Jacobson writes in the study published in Environmental Science & Technology. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles."
Want to Reduce Air Pollution? Don't Rely on Ethanol Necessarily: Scientific American