ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
It’s not helpful for ACS to publish chemical information that violates the laws of thermodynamics (C&EN, July 15, page 15). On an equal-energy basis, the savings in burning ethanol compared with hydrocarbons such as octane are on the order of 0.8%, not 50%. It absolutely does not create 50% fewer emissions.
What burning ethanol does is recycle the emissions. And if you do not use any fossil fuels in growing, refining, or transporting the wheat starch, you might claim a net reduction in the accumulation of excess CO2, but it will be much less than 50%. The wheat starch used in the bioethanol hopefully is produced and refined within 25 to 50 miles of the new plant and not imported.
Misconceptions about “green energy” do not help the environment. They simply make people feel good and avoid the real issue of looking at the thermodynamic efficiency of the entire energy generation system. Renewable fuels and systems are a positive move in decreasing environmental impact. But let us be scientists and not accept at face value statements that mislead the public.
Bill Farone
Anaheim, Calif.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter