X Prize: Electric Vehicles-Two, Biofuel Vehicles-One

The $10 million dollar X Prize was split between two electric car designs and a design that runs on biofuel (E85) called the Edison 2.

In the above video the Edison 2 is hyped by the guy who bankrolled it. He tells us the main reason the wheels stick out is to enhance crash safety. Actually, they stick out for stability and aerodynamic reasons as they did for the defunct Aptera and the popular Cessna 172 aircraft. To be more accurate, they are hoping the wheels will also act as a kind of bumper, unless the car striking you from the side happens to land between the wheels.

When you cut through the hype, there isn't really anything new about the Edison 2. Take a deep breath and ask any mechanical engineer worth her salt, "If allowed to compromise crash safety, acceleration, payload, and cost (a low-weight body costs more than a steel body), and if you bolted a modified single piston turbo charged motorcycle engine running on a high octane fuel using exhaust gas recirculation to reduce pumping losses to a very light aerodynamic body, would you get great gas mileage?"

Her answer would have been, "Duh?!"

The marketability of a car having these compromises has always been the only unknown, and remains unknown. And because the Edison 2 can't run on regular gas, you would be stuck looking for gas stations that sell E85 (assuming you could buy one of these cars today).

Every story written about this prize tells you that the Edison 2 gets 102 MPGe (although most laypersons have no idea what that means). Robert Rapier took the time to look at the formula for calculating MPGe and realized that the Edison 2 would only get 73 miles on a gallon of E85 (73 MPG). Confused? Well, I don't really blame you. You can download a spreadsheet to verify Rapier's epiphany "here".

To put this in perspective, an ordinary Prius gets 50 MPG running on E10, and it's a five-passenger, mid-sized hatchback, with power windows and air bags all over the place. And unlike the Edison 2 (assuming you could buy one of these cars today), which is not capable of running on regular gas, you would not be stuck looking for gas stations that sell E85.

Corn ethanol can't ever provide more than about 10% of our fuel. If it were all converted into E85, about one in ten gas stations could carry it. But the vast majority of available ethanol is blended into our gas already at much lower percentages, so in reality, only a fraction of a percent of gas stations will ever sell E85 (an 85 percent blend).

This is not a flex fuel car. It is a car optimized to run on a fuel that is not readily available (E85), which is kinda dumb for more than one reason, and it would actually get worse mileage if modified to run on gasoline. I am a big fan of smallish, lightweight, aerodynamically clean cars like the Edison 2 but would never buy one because of the fuel it burns.

If I had a choice, I would not use a fuel that exacerbates the negative ramifications of agriculture (corn ethanol). Few people understand the scale and scope of the damage being wrought by our global need to provide ourselves with food, fiber, and housing (agriculture). Adding fuel to that demand is just not very smart.

Had the MPGe formula taken into account the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of the fuel it uses, the Edison 2 would likely have been eliminated at the get go.

Put an electric drive train in it and I may reconsider, even with the additional cost and more limited range.

Click here--to see a list of articles and to subscribe to future posts or subscribe by email:

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

People Will Believe Whatever They Want

Science--One, Chiropractor Assn--Zero



Here is Penn explaining why he used the term "baby twisting motherfucker" in a short clip in defense of Simon Singh back when he was first being sued by the British Chiropractic Association. [Update--the original video was removed, possibly under threat of a lawsuit? I've replaced it with another one. Hang in to the end to see the snails]

From Wired:

Losing the case would have cost Singh both his reputation and a substantial amount of his personal wealth. Such is the state of science, where sometimes even stating simple truths (like the fact that there’s no reliable evidence chiropractic can alleviate asthma in children) can bring the wrath of the antiscience crowd. What the British chiropractors didn’t count on, however, was Singh himself. Having earned a PhD from Cambridge for his work at the Swiss particle physics lab CERN, he wasn’t about to back down from a scientific gunfight. Singh spent more than two years and well over $200,000 of his own money battling the case in court, and this past April he finally prevailed. In the process, he became a hero to those challenging the pseudoscience surrounding everything from global warming to vaccines.

Wahoo! Haven't been this elated since a judge smacked down the Intelligent Design fruitlogs.

On the other hand, this is a struggle that can't be won. Self-deception is built into our genes. From an article by George Monbiot where he vents about the stupidity of his fellow environmentalists:

"...each of us exists in our own world of meaning, constantly at risk of being shattered by inconvenient facts. If we acknowledge them, they can destroy our sense of self. So, to ensure that we won't be "overwhelmed by the uncertainty inherent in living in a world we can never truly know", we shut them out by lying to ourselves."

Evidence plays a small role in what we choose to believe. The ubiquitous belief in an afterlife is all the evidence needed. If we are going to find a way out of the global warming trap we will have to find a way to do it without wasting all of our energies trying to get the public to read, understand, and accept science. In any case, that isn't a scientist's job.

You can lead a horse to water ...

A case in point would be an excellent article over on Class: M called "An elegy for the oceans."

It's about ocean acidification caused by high atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I may not sleep well tonight. It seems to me that the public might accept ocean acidification as evidence for the need to do something about CO2 emissions. Warmer winters and slowly rising sea levels just don't put the fear of God into most people. Could this aspect of global warming have an impact? Probably not. The vast majority of Americans would very likely find a way to blow it off, assuming there was a way to get them to read anything as boring as a science blog. If we lose the oceans, the game is over.

Click here--to see a list of articles and to subscribe to future posts or subscribe by email:

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Adirondack Adventure--No Bats, One Rabid Fox

In the above Animal Planet video, a man tries to defend himself from a rabid fox ...with a loaf of bread.

I just spent a week with my family in a cabin on the shore of Brant Lake in the Adirondacks. While walking along a main road we were met by a guy walking up his driveway with a 2 x 4. He said that a pregnant woman had just been bitten by a fox with rabies. She had to hit it with a paddle to get it to let go of her leg.

He graciously loaned me his 2 x 4 for the rest of our walk. I found fresh Fox scat on the road.

The next morning there was fresh fox scat a few feet from our cabin door. A Google search found this article:

Woman attacked by fox near Brant Lake

This got us to wondering how long a rabid fox will live once it reaches this late stage in the disease. Not long I think because I did not see any fresh scat for the rest of the week.



I also didn't see any bats. The insects were still there, banging on the screen door under the porch light but there was not a bat to be seen, anywhere. Coincidentally, two papers in the August 6 edition of Science discussed rabies transmission from bats to other species, and the potential for white nose syndrome to cause extinction.




No shortage of bullfrogs in the wetlands.

Click here--to see a list of articles and to subscribe to future posts or subscribe by email:

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Corn Ethanol's Enemy List

Photo courtesy of, er, Hidinhumiliation via Flickr

A short, relatively innocuous post on an obscure farming blog created a small stir last week when it caught the attention of some less obscure bloggers, Robert Rapier in particular, who was was on the corn ethanol enemy list presented in this article.

I didn't want to open a can of worms in that blogger's comment field, but the can got opened anyway so I finally chimed in. Mine was comment number 41.

I outed an anonymous commenter named "Cindy" who was critical of anonymous posts:

Cindy,

"If you believe so strongly in what you are saying, put more than just your first name on it!"

Ah, internet espionage. I suspect you are Cindy Zimmerman, the corn ethanol lobbyist who publishes the Domestic Fuel blog, and by using only a first name without a link, you can deny this should someone point it out, or have another person named Cindy deny it ...tricky ; )

These anon posters are taking reasonable precautions. Note that the corn ethanol lobby does not limit itself to critiquing research, they publicly attack individuals including the lead authors of published research (Pimentel, Searchinger, etc).

Note also the hint of militarism here (Corn Corps with Kernels in charge) as well as in the Domestic Fuel blog where a recent post talks about a general (Wesley Clark of Growth "Force") addressing the "troops."

The fact that corn ethanol enjoys broad support from both Democrat and Republican politicians (Bush, McCain, and Obama all used it to buy votes from the farm belt) is the only thing keeping this debate from degenerating into another intractable culture war.

Ironically, and irrationally, science-based debate is being drowned out to garner government handouts for the same crowd that purports to reject global warming and government handouts.

The bottom line is this. All through human history, our species has banded together into cooperating groups to take resources from other cooperating groups. The most extreme form of this is called warfare. In this case, the corn and corn ethanol lobbies are out to raid America's public larder (taxes collected from other citizens).

The power brokers know they are raiding the larder and being at the top of the pyramid scheme are planning to get out with their bag of money after riding the pony as far as they can.

Their propaganda machine has convinced the minions that corn ethanol is God's gift to humanity. They have been convinced that it creates jobs, which it does, in the same manner a single mom with kids who spends the welfare check on food and housing for her children will create jobs.

Welfare is a good way to help a struggling single mom care for her kids but it isn't hard to see why we can't all be on welfare. Do corn ethanol refiners deserve welfare? The corn ethanol lobby is hoping to net $100 billion of it in the next decade.

There are people out there now who have actually been convinced that corn ethanol is creating more food than it is consuming and it goes on and on.

It has always been this way. Power brokers all through history have found ways to get the little people to go to bat for them. Usually it is done by promising them riches and by controlling knowledge, keeping them ignorant and away from the truth. This is getting harder to do in the age of the internet.

The closing comment in the blog post shows how effective propaganda can be:

Waterman also notes that the number one slot could have easily gone to “mainstream media” who publish uninformed articles and are too lazy to complete adequate research, but he was trying to be more specific.

Although it's true that the mainstream media is generally quite inaccurate and definitely not the place to go for reliable information, it is still far preferable to reading websites published by lobbying front groups and blogs by dupes who have been brainwashed by them.

One commenter was appalled by all of the negative comments. In my experience, ethanol articles always draw about 95% negative comments. She just doesn't know that is the norm outside of her smaller world of corn farmers.

She also somehow managed to take the critique of corn ethanol to be a critique of farmers in general, and by association, herself in particular, as a farmer.

She has also bought hook, line, and sinker, the party line that farmer's are God's chosen people because they are in the business of providing food. But, restaurants are also in the business of providing food. When one goes bankrupt, another quickly fills the hole left behind, just like with farms. Farmers, like restaurateurs, are just businesspersons with thin profit margins, which are the norm for all mature industries.

Who do you suppose it was that convinced farmers that they are somehow better and more deserving than restaurant owners? Hint--somebody who wants to use them.

Click here--to see a list of articles and to subscribe to future posts or subscribe by email:

Subscribe to Biodiversivist by Email

Corn Ethanol Propaganda Blitz Backfires

For the full effect, turn your speakers on and click on the box with four arrows in the lower right-hand corner of the video before playing it.

I see it has already drawn a video response from a company that retrofits cars to run on E-85. I cringe at the thought of the hateful comments this video will elicit. Human nature can be an ugly thing to behold.

I put the above video together as an example of anti-propaganda propaganda. The truth is complex; propaganda is simple. The $13.7 billion number in the concluding Google search applies to all lobbying in the united states, not just corn ethanol or biofuels.*

About $8 million was spent on lobbying by various biofuel groups in 2009.

Also note that my title is, ah, presumptive and with a little time may grow into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Propaganda hit its zenith during the World Wars. All sides used it to garner support from the public by fanning the flames of xenophobia. Germany's propaganda in particular was appallingly effective at this.

The concept of evil is all in our minds. In reality, everyone thinks they are the good guys. Here's a recent article on that subject.

Growth Energy has launched this $2.5 million dollar campaign to secure an additional $30 billion in subsidies in the next five years and to get the amount of ethanol blended into our gas increased by 50%, oh, and they are also planning to get our government to fund a dedicated ethanol pipeline to the coasts (so they can export it) making corn ethanol too big to fail.

General Wesley Clark is one of the main players behind this blitz. He has a typical militarist's "us against them" worldview, which I'm guessing overrides the rational, scientific, environmental, and economic arguments against government support of corn ethanol.

IMHO, he's being used by the corn ethanol industry, which would happily export every drop of corn ethanol if they could get a higher price for it overseas as the biodiesel producers were doing (before being slapped with countervailing import duties). And if he protests when they start doing that he will more than likely have to find a new job because this is not really about national security; it's about profit. He just doesn't know that yet.

The following is a screen shot of a Google search I did yesterday on "food vs fuel:"



Note at the top the three sponsored links meant to deflect what you will find with this search term. Is Google being used as a propaganda mill by the highest bidders?

Go here to their $2.5 million dollar propaganda blitz er, ad campaign you have probably already seen on television (note that the word "corn" never precedes the word "ethanol" even though 99.8 percent of all ethanol produced in the United States comes from corn and that the word "food" is also conspicuously absent):

ETHANOL has not shipped a single job overseas--AMERICA'S "ECONOMIC" FUEL--Growth Energy

Well, that's not entirely true. The fertilizer, pesticides, and diesel fuel used on farms and the trucks that transport ethanol, and many of the components in farm equipment as well as the ethanol refineries came from overseas.

I'm not a big fan of fossil fuels but let's be honest here. Which fuel is worse? Imported oil is refined in America, creating many jobs. Saudi Arabia imports its refined gas and diesel. Oil does not send jobs overseas, although buying a Prius or any computer certainly does.

We don't have to wait millions of years to replenish our ETHANOL reserves--AMERICA'S "RENEWABLE" FUEL--Growth Energy

Roughly 75% of the energy contained in a gallon of corn ethanol came from non-renewable fossil fuels. Not to mention, the corn is wholly dependent on fertilizers and pesticides derived from fossil fuels. You can't call a fuel that is utterly dependent on fossil fuels renewable. Well, I guess they just did, but not with a straight face.

ETHANOL has contributed $0 to the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela--AMERICA'S "SENSIBLE" FUEL--Growth Energy

Here they are fanning the flames of xenophobia to hawk their product. Last time I checked, Saudi Arabia was our ally in the Gulf war and even paid for half of it. We still have five air bases located there.

We have not imported oil from Iran for decades. Note, however, that they still manage to sell every last drop to someone. That's because the world is now flat and oil is highly fungible (look it up). We can't crush our "evil" enemies by not buying oil from them.

No wars have ever been fought over ETHANOL--AMERICA'S "PEACE" FUEL--Growth Energy

...yet. Corn ethanol only represents about 2% of our supply. Using all of our cropland for corn ethanol would replace maybe 12%. To replace all of our imported oil with ethanol will require a lot of imports from places like South America where sugarcane ethanol is about ten times more energy efficient to produce.

The "NO WAR FOR OIL" bumper sticker was invented by big biofuel. If you have one on your car you are a dupe. Corn ethanol is not a ticket to world peace and note that our military budget has not been impacted by increased ethanol production.

Our efforts to maintain peace in the Middle East has to continue, oil or no oil, because the world is now flat. Mutually interdependent trading partners are the best chance for maintaining world peace. An energy shortage that brings our trading partners down would bring us down with them, as our banking and housing debacle just did to them.

No U.S. soldiers have been deployed to defend our ETHANOL reserves--AMERICA'S "INDEPENDENT" FUEL--Growth Energy

...yet. According to George W. Bush, our soldiers were deployed to root out weapons of mass destruction and to punish the guy responsible for bringing the Twin Towers down (who actually had nothing to do with it). Is Growth Energy saying our president lied to us? Are they saying he really went to war to protect our oil "reserves?" I'm stunned.

No beaches have been closed due to ETHANOL spills--AMERICA'S "CLEAN" FUEL--Growth Energy

...yet. Remember, corn ethanol only represents about 2% of our supply. Ethanol tanker spills have been causing their share of damage already. The largest fish kill in Illinois history occurred last year when a train pulling corn ethanol tankers derailed. The year before that 25,000 fish were killed and an entire population of an endangered mussel species was wiped out when another biofuel refiner dumped waste into a river in Missouri.







*I tried to replace the words "total spent on lobbying 2009 ...$13.7 billion" with something less potentially misleading like "$30 billion in subsidies, a 50% blend increase ..." in an updated video but was abruptly censored by somebody at Google (who I suspect is a big corn ethanol proponent) with the message, "We're trying to keep these appropriate for everyone ..."

Click here--to see a list of articles and to subscribe to future posts or subscribe by email by adding your address to the box in the upper right hand corner of the blog.

Where's Biodiversivist, Part II

I won't be back in the States for another day. My video and photos of this trip are on another computer at the moment. The above photo was borrowed from the Kingsnake reptile forum. I saw one of these that was about the same size as seen in this picture walking along the road ...very exciting.

I'm presently in a city with a population of 13 million people.