It is an interesting question. And many of you are wondering what pipe I've partaken of in asking it. How can broadband save the environment and money? I ran across an older Real Estate related article on the demand for broadband broken up by categories of use. And I mean an old one, 2002 I believe it was. In it there was an assertion that 17% of broadband demand was for telework - working from home. See, there are the light bulbs.
Let us just run a few quick, back of the envelope calculations. Assume that 15 of that 17% could/would work from home at least 75% of the time. That would mean that using March of 2005's daily gasoline usage in the US (yes I know about Diesel, but they are fewer. Yes I also know about E85 - much more so than many reading this!) of about 320,500,000 gal/day we could use 24,037,500 less gallons, about 7.5% (assuming I did that right ;) ). Figuring 20 gallons of oil is roughly a barrel (bbl) of oil, that would be a direct reduction of about 1.2 Million bbl/day (again all general BOTE). We import about 10Mbbl/day. Not too shabby.
To put that into perspective, that is roughly half of our Persian Gulf imports.[1]
And this could be done without a single change to fuel economy standards, vehicles, or increased gasoline taxes. But the effects don't end there. If this 7.5% reduction were to occur, we would save more than that 7.5% usage figure I just used.
Here is where it saves local governments money. I'll try to run through this and we can revisit it later. Fewer cars on the road leads to less traffic congestion. Less traffic congestion means lower "demand" for more and larger roadways. It also means less stop and go traffic. Less stop and go traffic means less time spent idling (wasting fuel), less time starting from a dead stop (relatively wasting fuel compared to a smooth flow), and less time on the road running an engine.
All of these result in better fuel efficiency in today's vehicles. Even yesterday's vehicle benefit from this - and do so without costly retrofitting. How much is difficult to say. So I'll draw from some anecdotal evidence from my personal experiences. Yes, I've compared the economy I get in light traffic to that in heavy traffic. I've done this in the Vette and the Suburban. The Vette shows a rough average of about 10-15%. That is not small potatoes here folks. The Suburban shows a difference of roughly the same, leading toward 20%.[2]
So let us figure an additional overall drop of about say 5%, for a total of a 12.5% drop in gasoline usage. That would bring us to about 1.8M Bbl/day less, or about three quarters of our Persian Gulf imports. Is it enough to end any "crisis" mode? Absolutely not. But is it enough to make significant difference? Absolutely.
If the assertions about US "Defense Spending" being heavily influenced by and a form of subsidy to the oil industry are true, then there would be the opportunity for a lower defense budget. But that doesn't really help local governments out, does it? Still, I would not object to lowering operations abroad and subsequently lowering the military budget.
Local governments are assisted by widespread broadband by the fewer cars on the road == less traffic congestion aspect. With fewer cars on the road during peak hours the existing infrastructure would fare much better. This means reduced impact and reduced "need" for widening the roads, "traffic" cameras, etc.. Not an end to end solution by any means. But then again you don't see me pitching this to get mass funding either - an act so typical of the proclaimed 'solutions' to these matters.
But are there enough jobs of the kind that people could "work from home" a few days or more per week for this to "work"? I believe there is more than plenty to do it. You might be surprised at the number of jobs that could be done from home if so desired/allowed.
Tech support from home? Been there, done that. Heck, if we can ship it to other countries, why not ship it into the home instead? For well over a decade we've had the phone technology to do this. Indeed from what I've heard/learned much of the infamous 1-900 phone system operators worked this way. Broadband could take this and extend it. Picture the support person side of it being done over Voice Over IP (VOIP) such as Skype, Vonage, etc.. You the customer place the call, the call is routed from your phone to the support company's network and shipped over broadband to the support person's VOIP phone.
By combining this with VPN technology (Virtual Private Network: it allows your laptop at home to be "on" the company network), tech support or even non-technical customer service support could be distributed. The technology for this has been around for quite a while. This application of it could reduce the size, scope, and city service infrastructure requirements for call centers.
Perhaps instead of an 8,000 square foot facility, a Dell or HP could instead use a 2,000 square foot facility and have their support representatives work from home say 60% of the time. Then by good scheduling they would have less people on site at any given time (training, meetings, supervision of critical accounts, etc.), thus "fitting" into the smaller facility.
With this scenario, HP (for example) would find it easier to get approval from the city/county. The city (as in residents as well as government officials) would have much fewer concerns about the environmental and infrastructure impact of the facility. HP would enjoy lower costs that they could pass on in benefits or higher wages and salaries for the support reps (HAH!).
Some other effects of this scenario is that you have less people wanting to be close to that facility. This could lower density. From what I recall, it is not population totals that are a significant factor in crime rates, but population density. Naturally, reduction in crime rates (or less of an increase) is not only good for the area, but can save the local government money in ways I don't need to describe here. ;)
This reduced traffic goes much further than just teleworkers. Given the apparent assumption by many online shopping sites that we all have broadband, if we actually did we should see more online shopping. More online shopping reduces local traffic. Sure, we've got the delivery trucks to contend with. However, while FedEx trucks would be seen more often on the road, there would still be a significant reduction in the number of vehicles on the road. One FedEx truck making a delivery to 25 houses is certainly less of a traffic congestion contributor than 25 cars all out shopping. Further, for many there is no "one-stop shopping" sites in the world of brick and mortar stores. So that single FedEx truck goes directly where he needs to deliver packages and that's it. So Mom and Dad aren't out hitting five or six stores looking for Junior's presents.
Fewer cars on the roads means less congestion means less expansion pressure, means less road surface to maintain means less infrastructure expenditures. Fewer cars on the road during "rush hours" means less congestion means better fuel economy means less fuel consumed. Less gasoline consumed means less oil used/imported. Less gasoline consumed means less pollutants in the air. Whether Global Warming is man-made or man-influenced or not, less known-hazardous particulates in the air is A Good Thing[tm].
Less pollutants in the air means better air quality for the local residents and visitors. It also means less enforcement costs for temporary measures. For example when The Inversion hits Boise, burn bans go into effect. Hypothetically speaking, if telecommuting and it's myriad of synergistic effects could reduce vehicle emissions onto the Boise air and minimize/eliminate the health risk of The Inversion, the burn ban could be eliminated. Along with this would go away the enforcement costs of it. Not to mention the intense unpopularity of it among wood stove owners.
So why is it so few people have considered broadband as a contributor to lower civilization and environmental costs? Most of the effects are not direct, obvious, and large on their own. Too many people, particularly those in politics and those seeking big fat research grants, are only looking to the "big Hail Mary" play. They seem to forget that by moving at least 10 yards total every three downs, you will reach the end zone. People who want to control your life (so-called "environmentalists". We refer to them around here as Environazis), or preach conservationism (yes, preach is the right word) would rather you drive a car of their choice, would rather you give something up to achieve 'conservation". They, too, forget that incremental but synergistic drops in usage/demand work. As a result they are blind to such changes.
For an example, I'll stray a bit off my topic here for a moment to mention another way to cut fuel consumption in this country. Big Rigs. By raising the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, trucks can carry more per load. More cargo per load means fewer trips are needed. Fewer trips represent tremendous fuel savings. Michigan did this. They went to a GVWR of 164,500 pounds. For one of their larger (private) trucking fleets, they increased their load by a factor of 2.5 and lowering their fuel costs by the equivalent of going from 5MPG to 12.5MPG[3]. For those concerned about safety and road damage, adding an axle (or two) solves the "damage" problem as it is pressure not weight that causes it. More axle(s) means more brakes means more stopping power. There are more savings to be had from such a change but this isn't the post for that. Let me know if you'd like to know more about it.
But where are the so-called environmentalists proclaiming that to save the world we have to immediately do this across the board? Why is it that an effective 40% reduction in the trucking industry's fuel use does not make them salivate at the idea? Not to mention the 40+% reduction on costs to the transportation industry (and fuel is one of their two largest costs). Why indeed.
How would traffic congestion be affected in your area? Just to get a (very) rough idea the next time you are out in traffic, count off ten cars and imagine two of them no longer on the road. Don't imagine too hard, they are still there after all! How much better would your commute be? How much better would it be if there were less tractor trailers on the road?
Even better: the next time you are walking to your car to go to work imagine not needing to.
1: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
2: How does a Suburban owner get off talking about fuel economy? Simple. It's E85 powered. If I get 10MPG on E85, I am getting 67MPG of Gasoline (MPGg). Who's burning more oil now?
3: Winning the Oil Endgame published by Rocky Mountain Institute.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
No disagreement with your overall thesis but you're certainly not getting any equivalent of 67 m.p.g. in your E85 Suburban.
For every gallon of ethanol in your tank, somewhere around a gallon (a little more or a little less depending on whose figures you believe) of oil input is used for fertilizer, machinery, etc., etc.
Petroleum also uses energy to produce gasoline but the return on energy invested is much better.
I'm not trying to say E85 is all bad but it's certainly not the case that you reduce your use of fossil fuels by 85%.
For every gallon of ethanol in your tank, somewhere around a gallon (a little more or a little less depending on whose figures you believe) of oil input is used for fertilizer, machinery, etc., etc.
Yet you don't count how much is used in the production of your gasoline, do you? Until you include that, you can't count it against Ethanol - that would be biased. BTW, a gallon of gasoline is not equal to a gallon of oil, as I will show you below.
Petroleum also uses energy to produce gasoline but the return on energy invested is much better.
A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. Of that 42 gallons of oil you will get 19-20 gallons of gasoline. So how much oil per gallon of gasoline is consumed in *just* the refining process? About a two to one ratio, meaning every gallon of gasoline requires *two* gallons of oil.
Even if we accept your claim that one gallon of oil is used to make one gallon of ethanol, that is still better than using that oil for one gallon of gasoline. Considering the above, using one gallon of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol represents a 50% reduction in oil use compared to using two gallons of oil to produce one gallon of gasoline.
Note that this does not take into account the oil and gasoline used to transport the oil to the refinery, then the refinery to the stations. How much is used is hard to say as the oil industry has never published a study on that. But we do know how much oil is used in the refinery process to make a gallon of gasoline. We also know that the oil needs pumped and shipped. Surely you don't think the tankers don't consume petroleum based fuels, right?
Now on to your energy content. Again, you couldn't be more incorrect. Ethanol produced from corn, which is not it's best source only it's best known, has a positive energy balance. Gasoline does not.
Gasoline has a net energy balance of about .8. That means the resulting fuel contains 80% of the energy put into making it. Corn Ethanol has a net energy balance of approximately 1.35. That means you get more out than you put in. Cellulosic ethanol has energy balance on the order of 2.6-15+.
According to Argonne National Laboratory it takes .74 million Btu of fossil energy to produce 1 million Btu of Corn-based Ethanol at the pump. The same source tells us it takes 1.23 million Btu of fossil energy to produce 1 million Btu of gasoline at the pump.
So while I did not make the claim that I reduce my FF consumption by 85%, it is nonetheless true that I do not. In fact, the reduction is greater considering the FF inputs for a gallon of gasoline are much higher than for a gallon of Ethanol (and thus a gallon of E85). In fact, the reduction is more than 85%.
Indeed, when you consider that Ethanol based fuels used for automotive transport in an engine designed to run only E85 (for example) can be up to 50% more fuel efficient than a like engine running straight gasoline, the savings that are available are truly significant - well above 85%.
If a gallon of gasoline takes you 20 miles in a non-hybrid vehicle, but an E85 one takes you 30 in the same vehicle designed to run E85 only what is the approximate drop in fossil fuel use?
The gasoline powered car is achieving an MPG(oil) rating of 10. The E85 vehicle is getting 26MPG(oil) - 2.6 times as good. Note that this represents the best case for each fuel source in an identical car and engine size, gearing, etc. The only thing different is the fuel and changes required in the engine (primarily combustion ratio).
So how about my Suburban? Using the figures I get in the real world, on Straight gasoline I get 45% more miles per oil of gasoline. That is about a 31% reduction in usage based on the full cycle for ethanol from seed to pump and ONLY the refinery process of gasoline.
Even in a comparison biased very heavily toward oil by using one of the lower performing ethanol feedstocks and only using the refining process' oil consumption, and accepting the one gallon of oil per gallon of ethanol claim; E85 comes out head, shoulders, and torso above gasoline. Take an E85 vehicle and make it E85 only and it gets even better. Throw in a hybrid drive system and yet again we see significant gains. It should be noted however that hybrids are less useful on an "pure" E85 engine than a "pure" gasoline engine. This is due to hybrids working in an area that the pure gasoline engine is less efficient than an pure E85 engine is. So beneficial, yes, just not as much. Enough to couple them? probably.
And finally, the gallon of oil per gallon of ethanol is actually on the high side for the ethanol source my E85 station uses. The source uses syngas which cuts a major portion of petroleum based usage out. Further as the cellulosic process is more uhh "refined" ;) and the conversion of farm machinery to biofuels such as biodiesel and E85/Ethanol increases the amount of oil used to produce a gallon of ethanol will go down tremendously. Additionally, the location of ethanol plants in immediate proximity to their feedstock, combined with the use of solar thermal energy to provide the temperature rises used, will further reduce oil based energy inputs in the processing of ethanol. The same type of cost reductions can not be made in the production of gasoline.
Therefore, Ethanol and E85 start out several positions ahead and as the race goes on will get faster and faster, to use a race car analogy.
Well, of course I don't want to get into all of your misconceptions, suffice it to say that the EROEI of ethanol, even cellulosic ethanol, is about 1.3, versus about 6 currently for petroleum.
As to the 19 gallons of gasoline per 42 gallon barrel, I don't suppose you think the other 23 gallons of "stuff" are thrown away or are consumed in refining gasoline from crude? From the California Energy Commission:
Finished Motor Gasoline 51.4%
Distillate Fuel Oil 15.3%
Jet Fuel 12.6%
Still Gas 5.4%
Marketable Coke 5.0%
Residual Fuel Oil 3.3%
Liquefied Refinery Gas 2.8%
Asphalt and Road Oil 1.9%
Other Refined Products 1.5%
Lubricants 0.9%
In fairness, the byproducts of ethanol refining are also used to a certain extent. However, they are used primarily as animal feed, which could hardly be considered an energy efficient use.
According to the Argonne National Laboratory, the input for 1 million b.t.u. at the pump for ethanol is 740,000 b.t.u. of fossil fuel. For gasoline it is 1,230,000 b.t.u.
However, the remainder of the barrel of oil goes as shown above while the remainder from ethanol production goes for animal feed.
I'm not saying ethanol is bad, quite the contrary in fact. However, to assume that it increases overall energy efficiency by 600% is clearly incorrect.
Well, of course I don't want to get into all of your misconceptions, suffice it to say that the EROEI of ethanol, even cellulosic ethanol, is about 1.3, versus about 6 currently for petroleum.
Care to cite sources? How about you start here:
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf
In fairness, the byproducts of ethanol refining are also used to a certain extent. However, they are used primarily as animal feed, which could hardly be considered an energy efficient use.
First, the feed produced via other means consumes more energy than getting it from ethanol plants. Therefore, yes it is more efficient than the existing method. Particularly since the other methods also use more petroleum energy (and overall more energy) to produce. This is why the energy credits are used.
Furthermore, considering only the feed aspect is short-sighted. Among ethanol co-products are:
Industrial alcohol
Dietary fiber from corn bran Nutraceutical oil
Carotenoids (antioxidants)
Natural snow-melting products
Additionally there is MinAqua, a company that produces Tilapia, the single most imported fish in the US and one of the most consumed fish. They utilizes the warm water from the local Ethanol plant instead of consuming additional energy to heat their water.
Additional uses of ethanol co-products include ceral derivatives. These are used for human dietary fiber, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical uses such as fighting heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Depending on the feedstock used, additional products include clothing fibers, fats, vitamins, and amino acids.
Furthermore, distillers grain has uses beyond feed. Since it has a good value for slow-release nitrogen and is low in phosphorus it make s abtter lawn fertilizer than much of what is now used. In the event you don't know phosphorus is a major factor in algae growth in lakes and waterways that may contain significant lawn runoff. By using distillers grain for this you displace more petroleum based fertilizers while reducing impact on the local waterways. Of course, returning it to the fields it grew in may be a better use as it reduces the need for petroleum powered fertilizer in the production of ethanol.
Indeed if you combine the DG with the aforementioned Tilapia farm's fish manure you get an even better fertilizer. In both cases you improve overall energy efficiency by achieving same or better production with less overall energy.
That aside, there is BRI. BRI is a company that uses produces ethanol by going to synthesis gas and anaerobic bacteria to convert it to ethanol. Along the way electricity and "waste heat" is used. The end result is that all of the physical inputs except the metal and ash become ethanol. The process is ingeniously simple and the catalyst is natural repopulated by bacteria growth.
Furthermore, a major feedstock for ethanol production is urban and agricultural waste. By diverting the ag-wastes from land fills to ethanol plants, major savings in energy use are achieved according to State of California Energy Commission. Furthermore, ethanol production is a local phenomenon. It's capacity for distributed and efficient local production represent another advantage. This reduces transportation costs in the process of seed to wheel ethanol production. This will only increase ethanol's existing positive energy balance.
However, to assume that it increases overall energy efficiency by 600% is clearly incorrect.
You seem to have a lot of straw. Would it not be more energy efficient to convert it to fuel instead of strawmen?
Some additional points of research for you:
http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/articles-aquaculture/1997-Wu- Use of corn-derived ethanol--.pdf
Let's be clear. It isn't my intention to denigrate the benefits of ethanol, only to demonstrate that your claim
2: How does a Suburban owner get off talking about fuel economy? Simple. It's E85 powered. If I get 10MPG on E85, I am getting 67MPG of Gasoline (MPGg). Who's burning more oil now?
that using E85 means you are getting 67 m.p.g. is untrue. Let me do so:
According to ANRL, to get 1,000,000 b.t.u. of ethanol in your tank, it takes 740,000 b.t.u. of fossil fuel. To get 1,000,000 b.t.u. of gasoline requires 1,230,000 b.t.u.
So the weighted average in E85 is (0.85 X 740,000) + (0.15 X 1,230,000) = 813,500 b.t.u. of fossil fuel energy to produce 1,000,000 in your tank.
So taking your 10 m.p.g. X (1,230,000/813,500) = 15.1 m.p.g. equivalent. That is, your vehicle using E85 uses fossil fuel at the rate of a vehicle using pure gasoline and getting 15.1 m.p.g.
I agree that every gallon of fossil fuel that is replaced by a gallon of ethanol is a benefit and that the emerging technologies for its production and use will only make that benefit grow.
But you're not achieving the fossil fuel savings of someone who achieves 67 m.p.g.
I've been waiting for you to go the "energy equivalent" route. It's the final destination of all who follow your line of argument. It is an argument that is useless and entirely academic at best.
Energy equivalent comparison is inaccurate. You see, you fail to realize the fact that first equivalent energy containment is an invalid comparison as it does not compare energy extracted merely energy available.
Second, the fact of the matter is that gasoline consumed is what the point is. A vehicle using 1.5 gallons of gasoline to go 100 miles uses less gasoline than one that uses 2 gallons. No amount of academic twisting will change that. Over the course of 10,000 miles the vehicle running E86 and using 1.5 gallons of gasoline per 100 miles will use 50 gallons less than a vehicle burning 2 gallons for every 100 miles.
This means that after traveling the "average" 12,000 miles in a year the Suburban will have consumed 180 gallons of gasoline. A Prius getting 50MPG(g) will have consumed 240 gallons of gasoline. No amount of playing with BTUs will change that fact. In the end, people buy fuel (gasoline, E85, Ethanol, Methanol, etc.), not BTUs.
In the end, the above scenario means the Suburban driver requires 60 gallons less gasoline and thus about 3 barrels less oil than the Prius driver. And no amount of twisting around in the world of BTUs will change that fact. Assuming a pure gas 13MPG in the suburban it would have consumed approximately 923 gallons of gasoline over that same 12,000 miles - a savings of about 80.5% over gasoline.
When the 'burb finally has the turbo installed, raising the compression level, the raw fuel efficiency will increase (E85 is a higher quality fuel, allowing higher compression and thus higher fuel economy) and the difference will get larger.
So while playing with equivalents may make the Prius owner feel better, at the end of the year s/he will have consumed more gasoline than the E85 Suburban driver.
Well, other than your original 67 m.p.g. claim, you had maintained some credibility up to now. I won't bother running through the calculations that show that every mile you drive in your Suburban results in the burning of about two and a half times as much fossil fuel at the end of the chain as a mile driven by a Prius owner (which I am not). The time may come when that is not true, but it hasn't come yet.
But it's clear that you are in no position to talk about someone manipulating selected numbers to make himself feel better.
The case for ethanol is good enough without making unsubstantiated and unsupported claims for it.
I certainly don't need credibility lessons from someone who doesn't allow posts on his blog that are not in full agreement with him. Nor do I need them from someone who puts strawmen forth like they were going out of style.
You claimed that Ethanol consumed more energy to produce than it contained. You also claimed gasoline was the opposite. Both of these claims have been shown false. SO in typical fashion, you switched to "energy equivalent" argument - an argument that is also invalid. Not all energy is the same, nor is all fossil fuel energy the same.
You've also tried playing with numbers in an intellectually dishonest fashion. Deleting your own posts doesn't change this.
The point you keep avoiding is regarding petroleum use. You construct strawmen and red herring arguments about BTU content, and energy equivalents in an attempt to support your incorrect assertions.
Use of E85 in ethanol flexible-fuel vehicles reduces petroleum use by about 70% (because E85 contains about 26% gasoline, on an energy basis). On the other hand, HEVs operating on gasoline or diesel reduce petroleum use by 20–30%, exclusively because of vehicle fuel consumption reductions.
Source (PDF)
In there you'll find a lot of good information. Including a BTU/mi comparison (since you are so hot to trot on BTUs). Result: Well-To-Wheel petroleum use for the various modes of fuel. Corn based E85 is in the 2,000 BTU/mi range. Gasoline is more than 3X as much.
You may also want to check the WTW fossil energy use based on BTU/mi as well. Again we see that corn E85 uses less BTU/mile than gasoline. Take note that cellulosic ethanol is a very minor fraction of either.
Since these are per-mile calculations they are more accurate and relevant than overall energy content comparisons.
But hey, feel free to ignore all the research and realities of it. Just do it on your own blog where you can prevent dissenting opinions from disturbing your reality.
I have no idea what you're talking about on my blog. You mentioned it twice so I thought it might be true, but the setting under "Who can comment?" is "anyone." I really don't know why you weren't able to comment if you tried. I don't have word verification turned on nor anything else that I can find that would prevent anyone - member, non-member, anonymous, identified, agree or disagree.
I do have "moderate" turned on - I'm not sure how that works, I assumed that it would only mean that I would have the ability to edit comments. I would want to do so in the event that someone posted spam, racism, etc. Certainly it is not my intent to only allow comments with which I agree.
Hmm.... I just looked. It turns out that I have comments under "moderate comments." I honestly didn't know how the notification worked and didn't realize there were comments there. I haven't read them but, other than one obvious spam, I published them. I honestly aplogize for that. I'm quite new to blogging and am not used to seeing comments.
In any event, I have no idea what you're referring to as a "straw man." I agreed with your original post, i.e., that huge resources could be saved using broadband much more universally for economic activity. I further agreed that ethanol is a net benefit.
I only disagreed that it was reasonable to ignore the resources used to create ethanol in finding the effect of using it in your vehicle. You took your mileage and divided by 15% of the liquid fuel you used to come up with 67 m.p.g. I pointed out that this is not a reasonable measurement of your overall energy utilization.
As to the posts I eliminated on your blog, the first was a way to come up with the same number that the accurate way I finally posted determined and which I certainly stand by. The second was a correction of the first. I decided that, rather than leave the error and a correction, just to write the accurate version. Note that I have left the erroneous comments regarding my moderation of my blog in the beginning of this post.
p.s. I can't imagine strawmen ever going out of style.
By the way, thanks for the link to the google sms tool. I didn't know about that and you are right, it's useful. Your link to it has an extra "http://" though.
Post a Comment