Just a quick comment – all the biofuel references I’ve seen posted here so far seem to believe that biofuels require 1) fertilizer and 2) diversion of cropland from food production to fuel production. However, neither is necessarily true. Biofuel can be produced using such sources as prairie forbs and grasses. These are perennials (don’t need to be replanted) don’t require fertilizer and are just one example of non-food production sources. I know there are information sources out there on the topic – for example I heard from some biologists, that there are efforts in SAmerica (Brazil?) where they’re using the ‘leftover’s from processing other food sources (sugar cane maybe) to produce biofuel. If someone can track that down I’d like to read it, but I’m not a biologist myself and don’t know where to find it.

I’m not necessarily a proponent of biofuel as THE solution, but I do think it makes sense to focus on technologies for renewable energy – the sooner the better.

IMO the largest barrier in the US to increased energy efficiency and creation of energy from renewable energy is our individual and group insistance on ‘choice’. Especially with regard to transportion and lodging. It’s almost curious that there isn’t much discussion of the benefits of increasing access to mass transportation, or of requiring individual residences or small businesses to be more energy efficient. Yet those probably have larger effects on global warming than individual transportation to and from work. However people would rather pay more individually for transportation in the short-term than ‘invest’ collectively in increased efficiency from mass-transit or support anything that limits their choice.

I’d also say that the overall movement toward electric solutions is coming from individuals who WANT to do the right thing – and see an electric or hybrid vehicle as a way that they can personally contribute to the right thing. (Whether it is the right thing or not is -almost- beside the point!)

I think people focus most on what they think can actually be done. Addressing the issue of heating and cooling billions of residences, stores, and workplaces as well as transporting GOODS from place to place (and not just getting individuals to work) is beyond most people’s vision – so they focus on the personal vehicle.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata Harley

Yep. The Climate is so much more complicated than Gore and his ilk want us to believe, in order to control our lives and con us out of our money.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Lots of stellar opines here. And just to reiterate, while I wasn’t concerned about increased water vapor into the air, I did find it interesting that the enviros being fully behind increasing the levels of the #1 reason for warming was quite ironic.

But then I ran across a blog for the Science Policy at the U of Colorado. And oddly enough, several there had the same question… what is the effects of increasing water vapor on the global climate, and what results would the wide use of hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles have?

Their point was that further research should be conducted to explore whether or not (and to what degree) such effects would be significant, even if such research leads to a dismissal of concerns. So perhaps my hypothetical jump, asking if increased water vapor was such a good idea, isn’t such a dumb question afterall.

A global fleet could have the potential to emit amounts large enough to affect local or regional distribution of water vapor. Variation in water vapor affects local, regional, and global climates

(1). Data on such effects are sparse because of complexities in the water vapor life cycle. However, our preliminary calculations indicate that a complete shift to fuel cell vehicles would do little to slow water vapor emissions, which presumably have increased perceptibly in some metropolitan locations through the growth in use of internal combustion engines. In some locations, changes in relative humidity related to human activity have arguably affected local and regional climate

(2, 3). Depending on the fuel cell technologies actually employed, relative humidity in some locales might conceivably increase by an amount greater than with internal combustion engines. This increase could lead to shifts in local or regional precipitation or temperature patterns, with discernible effects on people and ecosystems The broad environmental effects of fuel cell vehicles are an issue worth addressing via a technology assessment before implementing a solution

(4). Not all problems can be anticipated in this manner, but if some can, then the effort will have been well spent (5). In the case of hydrogen cars, the cure may indeed be better than the disease, but we should make sure before taking our medicine.”

Their point was not that the increased vapor would, or would not be significant, as they hadn’t done that research. But they certainly believed more research was necessary before implementation.

Three of them wrote a letter to Science magazine, addressing the wisdom of hydrogen cars, and the lack of data for their impact. This was printed in the letters to the editor section. They got one of those “we are skeptical” type responses from the editors. Of note in their rebuttal was:

We are skeptical, however, that water vapor produced by combustion can have any important effect except when it is emitted into the stratosphere.

Again, we come back to water vapor in the upper layers of the atmosphere, and it’s effect. Evidently, there is just not a lot known about this global vapor flow. For example in 2006, NASA found that that thunderstorms over Tibet provide a main pathway for water vapor and chemicals to travel from the lower atmosphere, where human activity directly affects atmospheric composition, into the stratosphere, where the protective ozone layer resides. They also found that even tho there was more thunderstorms over India, the storms over Tibet transported nearly three times more water vapor into the lower stratosphere than happened in India.

The study also found that the same pathway is responsible for transporting carbon monoxide, an indicator of air pollution, into the upper atmosphere.

“There’s almost no carbon monoxide production in Tibet, so it’s widely believed that carbon monoxide is transported to the tropopause over Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent,” Fu said. The tropopause divides the lower atmosphere from the stratosphere, and is located at an altitude of about 18 kilometers (11 miles) above Earth over the tropics and Tibet.

Fu added, “Our study finds thunderstorms over Tibet transport as much carbon monoxide to the lower stratosphere as do those over India. When long-lived pollutants are transported out of the lower atmosphere, they can move rapidly. Pollutants from Asia, for example, can wind up on the other side of the world.”

In the 2nd paragraph of this article, they point out they really need to learn more about how water vapor reaches the stratosphere. Which basically asserts the U of Colorado Science Policy group’s suggestion that far more needs to be learned before we “take our medicine.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

MARK

That’s what nits are for, to be picked. Good work! (Better to make a small mistake looking for the truth, then to do nothing and think you are avoiding errors, because that is the biggest mistake of all.)

And note that I didn’t say it was “the same”, just “about the same.”

Also, don’t forget that H2 is (alleged to be) about twice as efficient as gasoline, so if that is true you only have to “burn” 1/2 as much to get the same amt of work as for gas containing the same energy equivalent, which then makes it about 4.5 Kg H20 produced instead of 9 Kg, or “about the same” as for gasoline. — a LOT closer than I thought, actually!

And, even if gas produced less, that would indeed make gas “better” by that criterion, which is the wrong way for the eccofreaks (is that why they don’t talk about it?) who really aren’t interrested in making things better, just feeling better about themselves, regardless of the damage they do (as I’m guessing you know).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sure enough, I screwed up the math.
2.5 Kg C => 9.2 Kg CO2 (2.5 Kg C + 2×2.5x(16/12) Kg 02)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were something dreamed up and then touted by big oil proponents. Hydrogen would most likely be produced by natural gas, and is not feasable because of the high conversion cost of producing hydrogen, something like 2X more expensive then gas. 100% electric plugin, now that is the answer! Superior technology, since there are 1/10th the moving parts VS an internal combustion engine, and 1/4th the cost to run (2 cents a mile) check out tesla motors dot com.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Several people have mentioned that burning gasoline also produces water vapor. However, they imply that it produces the same amount of water vapor that burning hydrogen would. This is not correct.

1 Kg of Hydrogen is about equal in energy to 3 Kg of gasoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density).

Atomic weights:
H = 1
C = 12
O = 16

3 Kg C8H18 (pure octane) contains 2.5 Kg Carbon and .5 Kg Hydrogen

1 Kg H2 => 9 Kg of H20 (1 Kg H2 + .5×16 Kg O2)

2.5 Kg C => 6.7 Kg CO2 (2.5 Kg C + 2×2.5x(16/12) Kg 02)
.5 Kg H2 => 4.5 Kg H20

So, unless my math is off. Gasoline outputs half the water vapor as hydrogen for the same energy output.

Frankly, tt doesn’t mean much to me because I don’t thing that we have a problem with human caused greenhouse warming anyway, but I just wanted to pick a few nits.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Harry Bergeron

Is your source on-line? If so I would like to take a look at it. Actually, no one knows the precise number, although there are ranges that many researchers accept as valid. In fact, no precise number exists, because the effect of each component varies by season, latitude, topography, etc., and concentration of itself and other components. And since the dynamics aren’t understood, the models are flawed. I don’t believe a model even if it tells me everything is ok, so I’m certainly not going to believe one that tells me there’s a problem. Anyway, thanks in advance for any link to that # you can provide.

@MataHarley

In addition to wasting water and wasting food, there is another problem with biofuels.
Biofuels Produce More Greenhouse Gases Than Oil and Gasoline It has to do with the Nitrogen fertilizers that result in Nitrous Oxide production. And, unlike OmegaPaladin’s claim about water being a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, Nitrous Oxide really is. Ooops!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“[water vapor] is much, much, much less of an greenhouse gas per molecule than CO2.” — OmegaPaladin

My source says water vapor is 44X as potent but it’s not clear whether it’s per molecule or in total.

I’m glad someone mentioned that all burned fuels generate water vapor. In the case of methane, twice as many molecules of water are created than of CO2.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] MataHarley asks whether the electric-car “cure” is worse than the Gorebal “Warming problem”. If you thought the “science” was shaky on CO2, wait until you check out the lack-of-science on H2O. [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0