Cornell University recently did this with the deep water of Cayuga Lake (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000839.html ). As you can imagine, it caused quite a spirited debate in such a liberal town as Ithaca. In the end it was approved and the University is gauging the environmental effects very carefully(http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/PEZ%20proje cts/Lake%20Source%20Cooling/lake_source_cooling_mo nitoring_p.htm). So far, there's been little effect. Although some (http://www.cldf.org/tt_981216/chap1.html) might disagree.
I would like to point out to the concept's cheerleaders that there's nothing wrong with asking questions about the fundamental ecological effects of our engineering projects. Those questions should be answered thoroughly and carefully. Yes, global warming appears to be a severe problem, however let's not replace it with a bigger problem by stifling debate and rushing in with an ABCO2 (Anything But Carbon diOxide) attitude that might be more harmful than the disease.
Many thanks to the slashdot community for your interest in my article. It's now available online at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/040 7.jaffe.html
Here's a few quick responses to some of your comments:
*Ethanol is carbon neutral--By its very nature as a biological product, it's impossible to release more carbon into the air by burning ethanol than the carbon that was already absorbed by the plants that created the ethanol.
*Cellulosic ethanol is different from corn ethanol--if we can really make it economically viable, cellulosic ethanol uses waste products of the agricultural process to create energy for our cars. If more is needed, we can use land that is now unused (the great plains), to grow switchgrass without the need for any tilling, fertilizers or irrigation. Therefore it wouldn't add to the water shortage and soil erosion problems and it wouldn't have to replace food crops.
*Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells require 100% pure hydrogen. They're finicky, expensive and tend to degrade quickly. Yet that's where most efforts are in automotive fuel cells. Solid state fuel cells can take very impure streams of hydrogen and turn them into electricity. Unfortunately, they operate at extremely high temperatures. The point in my article is that we should be concentrating our national fuel cell research budget on ways to make solid state fuel cells cooler and on materials research to find cheap building blocks that can withstand such temperatures. Just last week a University of Houston researcher reported a breakthrough that cuts the operating temperature of solid state fuel cells in half. That's a huge step.
*We're Not Anywhere Close to Being Ready for Fuel Cells--the technology is immature and may never be economically viable. My article puts forth a game plan to provide a halfway step (cellulosice ethanol to be burned in internal combustion engines) as a halfway step to a fuel cell transportation economy.
*Biodiesel Works Too--Biodiesel is a great technology that also makes a lot of sense to continue to research. Unfortunately it's nowhere near as close to being economically viable on a large-scale basis as ethanol. In addition, it requires the use of food-rearing agricultural land to grow energy crops (safflower, soybean). Future biodiesel might be harvested out of genetically engineered algae grown in seawater pools in deserts. Cellulosic ethanol is far more advanced.
*Kerry's Energy Plan--It is an extremely timid version of what I lay out in my article. He wants 20% of our fuel to come from renewable resources by 2020. That's easily achievable. A presidential candidate with some vision could make us petro-import-free (except for Canada and Mexico) in ten years.
Slashdot Mirror
Cornell University recently did this with the deep water of Cayuga Lake (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000839.html ). As you can imagine, it caused quite a spirited debate in such a liberal town as Ithaca. In the end it was approved and the University is gauging the environmental effects very carefully(http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/PEZ%20proje cts/Lake%20Source%20Cooling/lake_source_cooling_mo nitoring_p.htm). So far, there's been little effect. Although some (http://www.cldf.org/tt_981216/chap1.html) might disagree.
I would like to point out to the concept's cheerleaders that there's nothing wrong with asking questions about the fundamental ecological effects of our engineering projects. Those questions should be answered thoroughly and carefully. Yes, global warming appears to be a severe problem, however let's not replace it with a bigger problem by stifling debate and rushing in with an ABCO2 (Anything But Carbon diOxide) attitude that might be more harmful than the disease.
Many thanks to the slashdot community for your interest in my article. It's now available online at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/040 7.jaffe.html
Here's a few quick responses to some of your comments:
*Ethanol is carbon neutral--By its very nature as a biological product, it's impossible to release more carbon into the air by burning ethanol than the carbon that was already absorbed by the plants that created the ethanol.
*Cellulosic ethanol is different from corn ethanol--if we can really make it economically viable, cellulosic ethanol uses waste products of the agricultural process to create energy for our cars. If more is needed, we can use land that is now unused (the great plains), to grow switchgrass without the need for any tilling, fertilizers or irrigation. Therefore it wouldn't add to the water shortage and soil erosion problems and it wouldn't have to replace food crops.
*Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells require 100% pure hydrogen. They're finicky, expensive and tend to degrade quickly. Yet that's where most efforts are in automotive fuel cells. Solid state fuel cells can take very impure streams of hydrogen and turn them into electricity. Unfortunately, they operate at extremely high temperatures. The point in my article is that we should be concentrating our national fuel cell research budget on ways to make solid state fuel cells cooler and on materials research to find cheap building blocks that can withstand such temperatures. Just last week a University of Houston researcher reported a breakthrough that cuts the operating temperature of solid state fuel cells in half. That's a huge step.
*We're Not Anywhere Close to Being Ready for Fuel Cells--the technology is immature and may never be economically viable. My article puts forth a game plan to provide a halfway step (cellulosice ethanol to be burned in internal combustion engines) as a halfway step to a fuel cell transportation economy.
*Biodiesel Works Too--Biodiesel is a great technology that also makes a lot of sense to continue to research. Unfortunately it's nowhere near as close to being economically viable on a large-scale basis as ethanol. In addition, it requires the use of food-rearing agricultural land to grow energy crops (safflower, soybean). Future biodiesel might be harvested out of genetically engineered algae grown in seawater pools in deserts. Cellulosic ethanol is far more advanced.
*Kerry's Energy Plan--It is an extremely timid version of what I lay out in my article. He wants 20% of our fuel to come from renewable resources by 2020. That's easily achievable. A presidential candidate with some vision could make us petro-import-free (except for Canada and Mexico) in ten years.