Posts
The Des Moines Register has a story about Charles Grassley saying we should be using coal to produce ethanol to lessen the demand on natural gas. One of the main advantages of using ethanol is that it produces less greenhouse gases, but using coal to produce ethanol cancels out the gains.
Ethanol distilleries should consider running on coal to lessen demand for natural gas, says Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia.By using coal to produce ethanol, your basically making the only advantage of using ethanol is that it helps Iowa farmers. Why limit the benefits?
Some analysts have expressed concern that the proliferation of ethanol plants around the country will drive up the cost of natural gas, the facilities’ chief source of heat.
“We’ve got to use things that we have in greater supply. We need to use more coal in place of natural gas,” Grassley said Tuesday.
Environmentalists have opposed the use of coal in ethanol plants, arguing that it produces more pollution than natural gas and could undo the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that occurs when ethanol is used as a gasoline additive. Burning natural gas releases less carbon than burning coal.
“Fundamentally you’re negating any greenhouse gas improvement by using coal to distill” ethanol, said Dave Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs for the Sierra Club.
1 comment:
Actually there are still benefits to ethonol, even if produced using coal. Yes the carbon emmisons from a coal fire would largely negate ethonol's greenhouse advantage.
For some (myself included) the climate change impact is less important then the energy independence issue. I'd rather use American coal to produce American ethonol then rely on imported oil.
Post a Comment