What about CO2 and CO emissions, you know, the stuff that's killing the planet? Also, we'll be less dependent on foreign oil. I understand that it's a targeted study, but it seems like it's following an agenda.

Oh great. Now Ethanol is not the answer. I am back to the turbo disel wagon. Disel Power!!!

The blurb says it compared a 100% gas fleet was compared to one with E85. Every gas station I've seen, at least in the midwest, is E10. That can throw off the numbers published in the article. I don't really care for future predictions because they are usually wrong. Last I checked, 2000 came and the world wasn't totally underwater due to global warming.

The solution has always been electricity as the answer to gasoline. We have the distribution system in place to support this transition. Reductions in pollution could then be carried out at the power-plant level (either by new technology to make fossil fuels cleaner or new power plants based on renewable resources). The Plug-in-hybrid models are the answer to all our oil addiction.

1) Big Oil donates to Stanford
2) Big Oil runs ad promoting cooperation with Stanford to study the climate
3) Big Stanford donor pulls funding from Stanford because of their sleeping partners
4) Stanford releases study slamming a major threat to Big Oil - ethanol

Hmmmmm...follow the money, I always say.

I want an ELECTRIC car! F hydrogen/gasoline/hyrbrids. An electric motor is the most fuel efficient at 99.6 percent(something like that). Damn you GM! Damn you Dick & W, DAmn you all to hell!!!

It mentions that what he suggests is electric... So I wouldn't exactly call him in the pocket of Big Oil.

This is highly unrealistic because of the simple fact that there is not enough raw material to EVER provide E85 to all cars.

I haven't read the article, just this teaser and previous comments, but: ...

"ethanol is not the answer" - it never has been, ethanol has always had toxic emissions

"back to turbo-diesel" - diesel is a lot better than it used to be, due to better engines and filters, but regular diesel still emits harmful particulates ... bio-diesel may be a lot better (they say you can safely drink it) but I'm not really knowledgeable to say ...

"world wasn't underwater" - well this is pure flamboyant politicking - NO serious source has EVER talked about the entire world EVER being underwater ... but Net Global Warming (as I call it) is already manifesting in major climatic, weather and agricultural consequences around the world.

"plug-in hybrid" ... eh, what?! There's no such thing as a plug-in hybrid. A *hybrid* is a vehicle you put petrol in (that's gasoline) and the petrol motor then generates re-charge for an electric motor - the point being that at low speed, the electric motor gives you greater efficiency for the PETROL that you've BURNT to RECHARGE the BATTERY. Then at higher speeds the petrol motor takes over because it's more efficient.

"plug-in" - I guess you're talking about a "dual-fuel" vehicle that takes petrol OR can be plugged into the wall.

"plug-in...are the answer" - well, not really if the electricity is generated by burning of fossil fuels, then it still pollutes, but not into the next driver's face ... or nuclear power, well that's just switching from fossil fuels to mineral fuels - it will still run out, and it generates waste that's far, far more toxic for *literally* millions of years. We bury it underground to try to keep safe ... or rather, some poor sod in a lead suit has to.

If we can generate that electricity in a *truly* RENEWABLE and non-polluting way, then the plug-in car becomes a fantastic solution.

Here are my ideas:
*Solar-thermal generators in abundant-sun deserts
*Domestic roof solar panels on suburban homes wherever possible - govt. assistance welcome - making the stuff at the place it's going to be used reduces the waste of transport ... did you know power lines are only 10-30% efficient?!!
*Wind turbine farms where we can
*Look into tidal power
*Solar (or renewable) electrolysis of water (sea-water?) to produce hydrogen gas, which can be liquified for use in hydrogen fuel-cell motors (for vehicles and industry)

Oh, and rooftop gardens on all the MacMansions - I mean, think of it as a personal penthouse garden forest thingy.

When you run E85 in your flexfool car the ethanol is only consumed at 67% efficiency; you are being lied to.

Listen, as a civil engineer, I know virtually nothing about the toxicity of different fuels. What I do know, however, is that centralized processing plants, such as water treatment plants are infinitely more efficient than having everyone treat their own water. Apply that same logic to power, and that brings you to plugging in electric cars. It is much more efficient to plug your car into a power grid that uses virtually all potential power out of the fuel it uses than it is to use a low efficiency power plant such as the internal combustion engine. Regardless of the fuel, lets use it wisely.

This problem will never be solved until we HAVE to change. We won't figure out a way to get off of oil until it runs out. That is why I drive a Hummer H2, to dry up the oil faster. What are you doing to help the Earth?

Keep in mind that this is a hypothetical simulation testing a "what if?" scenario.

Ethanol has a lower molecular weight than gasoline. Since not all of the fuel burns completely when it is combusted, it flies out of the tailpipe as soot and smog. Ethanol would make more of one kind and less of another because its lower molecular weight would cause it to create smog particles with lower molecular weights.

So if you think that plugging your car into the grid is the answer, maybe you should ask yourself "How do they make electricity?" Every process that involves converting energy from one form into another is not 100% efficient. Think about this:

Fuel => Kinetic Energy => Electricity => Electric Potential In A Battery => Kinetic Energy

In all honesty it really isn't much more efficient than running off of gas. Gas powered cars have ~25% efficiency. Converting fuel to electricity is ~50% efficient. Using Kinetic energy to move your car is about ~50% efficient (wind resistance), which makes a grand total of ~25% efficiency. Go figure!

I agree... Funding probably plays a little bias in a report. It may have produced a few more death but the report probably didn't mention the lower amounts of other gases or the money not spent on foreign oil.

Ethanol has always been a bad choice. However, electrics actually still make plenty of sense even if our power plants are fission or fossil fuel based. This is because the pollution is put into smaller areas. I.E. above the power plants instead of spread out over the entirety of our transportation networks AND power plants.
This makes it much easier to control, recycle, etc etc. However, no alternative fuel will make much sense until we have FUSION based power plants and hydrogen fuel cells.

1) Ok, compare a mature technology implementing decades of improvements in reduction of polluting emission, like gasoline, with... just burning something else without taking in account any possible or upcoming emission reduction technology for the new source of energy before introduction in mainstream market.
Anything including wood would seem more polluting than gasoline in such a "fair" comparison!

2) Extraction and refinement of gasoline is a very polluting activity, while cultivation for producing ethanol, biodisel, biomasses etc has a positive impact on atmosphere, would you trust a model not even taking in account this and figuring that gasoline and ethanol just magically appears at the petrol pump?

3) Come on, he is speaking of lifecost of 200 people per year, but how many are dying for petrol wars?
Again, fuel doesn't magically appears at the pump, and side factors like this should be carefully taken in account.

How many respiratory deaths will there be when the southern states are turned into a desert beacuse of this study

-> Kryo: plug-in hybrids are defined as "any vehicle powered by a combination of internal combustion engine and electric motor with storage batteries that can be recharged by connecting the vehicle by plug to an external electrical power source".

I can't believe they put these stories out there. E85 could never be achieved as a mass fuel for the American market. Just couldn't grow enough corn to do this if you wanted to.

The one thing every pushing the "plug-in" electric keeps forgetting is it is only good for short (Currently max 250 miles) distances before requiring a long (usually 8 hours) stop for a recharge. Until battery technology improves electric cars can't replace gasoline engines. I mean lets think about it how long would a trip from California to NY take if you had to stop every 250 miles for 8 hours? Your talking at least 96 hours just in recharge time. So maybe we need to start looking for better battery tech!

E85 is a horrible solution in my opinion.. MEANING, how on earth are we gonna grow that much corn??? someone explain that to me.
2. Plug in car, even more HORRIBLE.. Comments from such selfish people just get on my nerves.. So for people in florida, we are looking at 3-500 a month electricity? whatever,, and even worse.. Our electric grid in america could not support that kind of DRAW, hence more money being spent to improve the grids, and ADDING a number of nuclear reactors just to handle the draw.. AND to top that, how are trucks gonna deliver the FAT peoples food, the nerdly peoples games to gamestop, the makeup to the pretty women..

Lots of people just think of their petty selves, instead of looking at the big picture..
Hybrid cars.. YAH, where are the dead batteries gonna go.. AND IDIOTS QUIT thinking small, we are talking about 100 million vehicles out there. not your piece of sheit toyota. So think of a big plan, instead of YOUR plan

If everyone used solar energy, then eventually 5 percent or somewhat of the earth will be covered by black silicone substrates (or whatever they'll be using)
This will lower the Earth's albedo and increase the overall temp. Because black absorbs heat and light, and our little planet wont be capable of releasing it.
"Welcome to La" (Kurt Russel)
But by then, they'll probably be able to beam heat out into space using a laser of some sort to penetrate the atmosphere.

I can create a car that runs on water(aka hydrogen off of the H202 seperation, aka hydrolysis), but this company called the United States has me working way to much to pay WAY too much for my house... support me and the research for a year, i'll get you a car that runs on hydrogen without any risk of mass combustion(explosion) or having to pay anybody for any services(aka taxes)

I've always been skeptical of using ethanol over gasoline, as it takes a fair bit of energy to produce the ethanol and, well, if we're using corn to produce ethanol we're using food. I'd still rather have ethanol being burned over gasoline...bear in mind the additional cancer rates having benzene in the air from burning fossil fuels. But really, we need to get away from dragging an inefficient 400lb power plant and 1500 extra pounds of steel everywhere we go. It's just a waste of energy.

I ride a bike to work about 50% of the time...I hate driving. Still waiting for an affordable, small electric vehicle. I like the NMG Myers (formerly Sparrow), but it's still $25k and can only carry one person and has a 30 mile range. It's all electric.

...there's already major power spikes on the grid during superbowl half time just because people open fridges and use their microwaves. Do we really have the infrastructure in place to support everybody coming home at the same time and plugging in every night? How do you address on street parking situations? Not to mention the fact that the majority of non-rural areas would see major hikes in energy costs due to line congestion alone.

Most of you are correct in the assumption that centralizing vehicular power (ie in a power plant) is by FAR the most efficient solution. Ethanol, as confirmed in several studies on the subject, is actually far less efficient then straight gasoline. With current agricultural practices, especially in the cultivation of corn, more CO2 is released through the Havre-Bosh reaction needed to fix nitrogen in chemical fertilizers, and other farming practices, then could ever be offset by burning the ethanol corn may produce... even at a 100% biomass conversion rate. There are some weedy grasses which are much more efficient carbon fixers / unit input (land, nutrients requited etc), but are still not ideal. If the power grid was non polluting, like nuclear (no CO2 anyways), then all our problems could be solved. Anyone who uses biodeasel or ethanol in their gasoline is only encouraging ridiculous agricultural subsidies, and is in no way helping the environment.

well, then look back to the old day, use steam. yeah yeah yeah, it's slow, but not much pollution and no need charging time.

We can Use Compressed Materia From the Life Stream

Again, posters are comparing a mature technology with a new one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indy_Racing_League
Gives hint on what performances are reachable (since decades) using alchool based fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel
Shows a rising economy fueled by ethanol...

maybe for USA and other "petrol pushers" countries it is time to go back to school and learn that photosinthesis does not produce more CO2 of what it consumes, that it is one of the most effective ways to tesaurize energy from sun without massively altering atmospheric composition and surface albedo, and that produces energy rich liquid fuels wich can be distributed far more efficiently than electricity or gases.

Those petrol-funded researches resembles more and more tobacco-funded researches as the petrol industry nears the inavoidable decline!

You can make a hydrogen powered car? Great, where are you going to get the hydrogen?

Electric cars aren't the answer unless we have a breakthrough and can make batteries that aren't 10,000 times less efficient than gasoline like the ones we use today. Hydrogen cars are a nice idea, but do some research and you'll find that it's really not any better than gasoline. We use gasoline because it's the best bang for the buck we have now.

I would love to see a plutonium economy, but given the amount of terrorism and needless fear from the public, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

> or nuclear power, well that's just switching from fossil fuels to mineral fuels - it will still run out, and it generates waste that's far, far more toxic for *literally* millions of years. We bury it underground to try to keep safe ... or rather, some poor sod in a lead suit has to.

Oh, what a crock. Just STFU until you actually know something about the subject. "Millions of years" my a***. Even if you ignore the fact that nuclear is the only one that even vaguely attempts to contain ALL its waste products (or CAN), the stuff is only "dangerous" to the point where its radioactivity level is higher than that of the orignating ORES, it is derived from, which is ca. 10-20k years. Not trivial, no, but quite a bit different from the proposterously inflated "millions". Once you start looking at how ridiculous that latter claim is, you start to see just how inflated all the rest of the crap is.

Nuke works. It's always been the interim power source until we actually figure out more advanced fusion systems or other like. The total potential waste in question is easily able to fit inside one-mountain repositories in places like Nevada with no serious risk to anyone for the 10k-20k years it takes to be "just as dangerous" as the randomly-placed deposits nature has made (which ALSO wind up getting dumped at random into the environment by natural forces)

> or the money not spent on foreign oil.

Or the excess food not sold to starving people the world 'round cause we made it into biofuels.

Yep, let's starve more people. Nice to know y'all care so much about the world.

> 2) Extraction and refinement of gasoline is a very polluting activity, while cultivation for producing ethanol, biodisel, biomasses etc has a positive impact on atmosphere,

Demonstrating intense ignorance of the fact that modern cultivation tends to be fairly energy-intensive and produces its own pollution in the form of agricultural run-off....

If you want to have biofuels then the only intelligent form of these tie themselves to using spoilage -- the side wastes of bioproduction -- like corn stalks, etc. Anything else is flat out stupid.

Not to suggest that the above isn't, only that anything based on "extra" production is total-fuel-cycle foolish -- and the total fuel cycle, from creation to disposal of waste products -- including the devices themselves -- is the only thing that matters.

Clue