Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Colloidal Silver Chemistry

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

Colloidal Silver is a popular home remedy for a host of ailments. It can be purchased at health food stores, and of course on the internet. It is expensive though considering a pennies worth of silver may cost $10.

For that reason, many people attempt to make it themselves through a simple process of electrolysis. The most common method is simply to put two silver wires into a glass of water and connect the wires to a couple of 9 volt batteries. There are two important variations in the process though, one very good, and one very bad.

So what do people actually make and call Colloidal Silver?

Well, that depends on the method they use. Here are the three main methods I hear of people using:

I) Distilled water + silver anode at room temperature.

In this method, free hydroxyl ions in the water initially react with the positive silver electrode to make silver hydroxide (AgOH). Silver hydroxide is unstable and rapidly decomposes to silver oxide Ag2O. If you remember your high school chemistry, the reaction forumula would be:

2AgOH –> Ag2O + H2O

Silver Oxide is slightly soluble in water, and after electrolyzing for a while you have an ionic silver solution, not colloidal silver. You can prove that silver ions exist at this point by adding a small amount of table salt as a test. The salt will form silver chloride which will precipitate out to form a cloudy liquid because the solubility of silver chloride is 5 times less than silver oxide.1

If the electrolysis is continued, the silver oxide will reach saturation, and then will start to precipitate as colloidal silver oxide. At this point, the solution will start to show the Tyndall effect. This is not strictly colloidal silver, although it does have anti-microbial properties according to the EPA2 Silver oxide is what gives CS its metallic taste which is another indication you have made silver oxide instead of colloidal silver.

This is what most people make and call colloidal silver.

II) High Temperature Colloidal Silver method

If the same method as above is performed while the water is close to boiling temperature, an additional reaction happens. Silver Oxide reduces to metallic silver when close to boiling in the absence of free oxygen3. This makes a straw colored colloidal silver product. The yellow color is caused by the plasmon effect of the extremely small silver particles.

The spontaneous reaction that reduces the silver oxide to silver is:
2Ag2O –> 4Ag + O2

The result is then a solution containing very little silver oxide (ionic silver) and a majority of metallic silver particles. This can also be tested by the addition of some salt. Unlike the CS made at room temperature, this CS does not turn cloudy with the addition of chloride ions showing that it contains few silver ions. This is true colloidal silver.

III) Distilled water + salt + silver anode.

Some people add a little table salt to jump start the electrolysis process. This method produces silver chloride, which has very low solubility and thus produces a cloudy solution. Silver chloride is very photosensitive, and is used in the production of photographic paper. When ingested, silver chloride ions travel into the skin, and are photo reduced by sunlight to metallic silver which then becomes trapped in the skin and cannot be removed. This causes the skin discoloration called Argyria as the amount of silver trapped in the skin increases over time. Ingesting silver chloride is definitely not a good idea.

Which method is better?

Definitely not method III, with salt. Ingesting silver chloride is simply asking for trouble in my opinion.

Method I, the most common way of making CS would seem to be safe however it probably does not remain silver oxide when ingested. The stomach is a chloride rich environment which will convert silver oxide to silver chloride as soon as it is swallowed. Do people take enough silver oxide to be a problem? I don’t know. Perhaps silver chloride is not readily absorbed by the body, but then why is that the people who developed argyria use salt to make their CS? Maybe its simply the dosage.

Method II is my personal preference, as I know the true CS will not react with stomach acid to make silver chloride, and it has an excellent shelf life, even when exposed to light. I have a sample over 2 years old in a clear glass bottle exposed to light every day, and it has not yet degraded.

What I do not know is which product is the better bactericide/antibiotic. There are lots of reports about the effectiveness of CS, but without knowing the production methods, its not clear whether the reports are actually talking about silver oxide, silver chloride, or true metallic colloidal silver.

For a detailed look at how to make Colloidal Silver, see my Colloidal Silver page.

—————————————–

1) Solubility of silver species
Silver Oxide 0.00250 g/100 ml (20C)
Silver Chloride 0.00052 g/100 ml (20C)

2) US EPA Registration Review Schedule: Antimicrobial Pesticides of October, 4, 2006

3) I first discovered this when attempting to make CS using one submerged silver electrode, and one silver electrode suspended 1/8th inch above the water. I then applied 4000 volts from a transformer to create a plasma arc from the suspended electrode to the water surface. This created a clear CS (as tested by the salt method). I noticed that after a time, a yellow to brown layer would form at the top of the solution as it heated up from the plasma arc. As the arc continued to heat the solution, the brown layer would grow further down from the top. I did not know why until recently when I found reference to the decomposition of silver oxide to pure silver at boiling temperature in the absence of oxygen.

Posted in Alternate Health, Science | No Comments »

Cataracts, Lens Implants, and Disappointments

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Last year, I began having trouble seeing well at night. This was especially troublesome when driving. I would see a lot of glare, and multiple images, especially of headlights and taillights. I knew this was caused by worsening cataracts, and my Optometrist recommended that I have the cataracts removed. He recommended an eye surgeon in Wilkes-Barre to do the surgery.

My initial visit with the surgeon confirmed that I did indeed have cataracts as the source of my trouble, and he recommended that I get multi-focal implants. He told me that with these implants, I would be able to see well at distance, intermediate, and reading distances. His recommendation was to put a Technis lens in my left eye, and a ReZoom in the right (at an additional cost of $2400 per eye).

According to the surgeon, I should expect to have good vision with some halos around bright lights and some glare with these lens. He also told me that he could not correct my astigmatism with the implants, so I would either have to wear single vision glasses, or have Lasik surgery later to correct the astigmatism. He said the cataract surgery and lens implantation was quick and painless.

I arrived at the surgery center early in the morning, and the nurses started putting drops in my eye almost as soon as I got there. I think there were over 10 different drugs they were putting in my right eye. They also started an IV drip containing mannitol. When it was time for the surgery, an anesthetist administered IV Versed, a drug which induces amnesia so you don’t remember too much.

During the surgery, I was awake, and remember the event even with the Versed. I was instructed to look at 3 lights which I assume was in his microscope. I felt no pain when he made the incision, and when my lens was removed. I know when the lens was removed because the lights I was looking at quickly went out of focus, and all I could see was light. Shortly after that, I did feel pain. I think this happened when he injected the implant lens and positioned it in my eye. The implant is rolled up like a taco and inserted through a syringe like device.

The entire procedure only took a couple of minutes, and they wheeled me out of the operating room. A few more minutes to remove my IV, and I was on my way to breakfast. As soon as the operation was over, I had some vision in my eye. Since my glasses no longer worked and I still had the astigmatism, nothing was clear though.

My wife drove me the 30 mile trip back home, and I rested the remainder of the day. I had some strange visual experiences in that eye the rest of the day, probably because of the meds or irritation. For about an hour, it looked like there was a mound of worms crawling around in the upper right quadrant of my visual field. After that effect dissipated, my eye became foggy, like looking through a smoke filled room. This lasted a couple hours also.

The day after surgery, I removed the right lens from my eyeglasses so I could see well with my left (unoperated) eye. I had an appointment scheduled with the surgeons partner who provided post surgery follow up. He evaluated my incision, and the interior of my eye. The interior pressure had spiked dangerously, so he prescribed a glaucoma drug called Combigan to lower the pressure.

I had several more followup visits with the surgeons partner, and he said I was healing well. However, my vision was not improving, and if anything, was getting worse. However, the doctor assured me that it was too soon to evaluate, and it would get better.

Two weeks after the first surgery, I had the left eye done, with a Technis lens.

The first problem I noticed was a starburst pattern around anything bright. This looked like a Fourth of July firework exploding when I looked at a bright point source of light. For example, when viewing an ordinary LED light from a distance of 20 feet, I see the LED, with 16 more just like it arranged in a pattern around it. This was certainly not what I expected and not what I would call a halo.

The second major problem I noticed is that solid objects appear to have transparent edges when viewed from distances greater than arms length. This is really annoying when looking a people’s faces, and TV images, and cannot in any way be considered normal vision. The only time this effect goes away is in very bright light, like broad daylight outdoors.

The third major problem is additional images of objects. For instance when looking at a newsprint sized letter, I see an additional letter slightly to the left, another above, and 2 more diagonally down to the right. These images are not as strong, but nevertheless are quite noticeable.

It was obvious that the starburst pattern was an aberration of the ReZoom lens itself, because of its inherent symmetry. However the other ghost images had no symmetry, and I believe are not really caused by the implants themselves unless the implants are defective. I believe they are caused by wrinkles in my cornea resulting from the surgical incisions causing my eyes to focus the same image at multiple points on my retinas.

After the second eye was implanted, I had no eyeglasses to improve my poor vision. Neither of my doctors offered to make me new glasses, so I took it upon myself to make my vision as good as possible under the circumstances. By carefully measuring the starburst aberration in my right eye, I was able to mathematically compute a prescription to correct the astigmatism in my right eye. Knowing that the astigmatism had always been the same for both eyes, I ordered glasses to my homemade prescription from an internet company. When the glasses came, they were indeed a huge improvement, and they corrected my right eye for distance in bright light very well. The left eye remained fuzzy at all distances. BUT, I still could not read with them even though my astigmatism was corrected. (If a circle looks eggshaped or a square appears to be a rectangle, it indicates uncorrected astigmatism. If it appears to be the right shape the astigmatism is corrected.)

At this point, I was very concerned that all was not going well, and I feared that I would never see correctly again. So I scheduled an appointment with the surgeon, and I took all my notes and drawings of what I actually see along so he would have as much information as possible. It had been 6 weeks since my right eye surgery, and I still had pain, and poor vision.

The doctor sent several technicians to measure my eyes and visual acuity. He totally was uninterested in the drawings and notes I had made, and told me I needed to have Lasik to correct my astigmatism. He also told me I needed bifocals. I reminded him that the entire purpose of paying $4800 extra was to have good vision without bifocals, whereupon he completely ignored that fact. Instead, he blamed me for not trying hard enough to see. I told him the starbursts were much worse than the cataracts, and that I did not feel comfortable driving at night. I told him that people should not have transparent edges. Instead of helping me, he got visibly irritated and left me sitting in the exam room for over 3 hours. In the end, he prescribed more eye drops and told me to give it more time. How long? Months to a year.

The one thing that I can see clearly is that this doctor and I are not going to have a good relationship. The ability of these multifocal implants to provide good vision at any distance was greatly exaggerated, and the downside of the aberrations was minimized.

I asked the doctor if they could be removed and single vision implants be installed. He really discouraged that idea and implied that the trauma could cause permanently damage my retinas because they could swell up from the released prostaglandins.

So here I am, unable to read a newspaper, with no hope of restoring good vision, and no faith in my eye surgeon. I will report again if there is any change.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Product Review, Science | No Comments »

Flying Pig Flu

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

I have been following the news about Swine Flu all week, and I have to ask myself, whats this all about? It seems that this flu might have been engineered in a laboratory, as it is a combination of swine, avian and human flu strains. Its hard to imagine how such could happen in nature.

Some reports from Mexico said the death rate was 2 out of 10, 20%, and the news made this sound very high and alarming. Well, thats what sells news isn’t it?

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 200,000 Americans contract flu each year, and on average, 36,000 people die of flu and its complications. So, lets see, less than a hundred confirmed cases of this Swine Flu, and normal flu cases are 200,000. 20% death rate reported, and average is 18% for ordinary flu strains.

Maybe we are overreacting a little. But the bigger question is: “Why is our attention diverted to this flu, and what else is going on that we are not supposed to see?

Posted in Nature, Science, Society and Government | 2 Comments »

Colloidal Silver (Silver Nanoparticles) Banned as a Pesticide

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Who would have thought that a washing machine would bring down the scrutiny of the EPA regarding silver nano-particles?  That is what happened though with Samsung’s Silver Wash machine which was claimed to inhibit bacteria in clothing by its ionic silver technology.

It seems that the Environmental Protection Agency has decided that Silver Nanoparticles are pesticides and need to be regulated.  This is another blow to health freedom, intended or not.

The Environmental Protection Agency has decided to regulate a large class of consumer items made with microscopic “nanoparticles” of silver, part of a new but increasingly widespread technology that may pose unanticipated environmental risks, a government official said yesterday.

The decision — which will affect the marketing of high-tech odor-destroying shoe liners, food-storage containers, air fresheners, washing machines and a wide range of other products that contain tiny bacteria-killing particles of silver — marks a significant reversal in federal policy. It also creates an unexpected regulatory hurdle for the burgeoning field of nanotechnology, which involves the creation of materials just a few ten-thousandths the diameter of a human hair.1

So while the FDA’s stance is that Colloidal Silver is ineffective, the EPA’s stance is that it is too effective, and might wipe out all the beneficial bacteria in the environment.   It is interesting that the EPA does not seem to care about the tons of antibiotics that get flushed away and pissed down peoples toilets every year, or chlorine which is another substance that kills beneficial bacteria, but it is allowed in our water supply.  This seems terribly inconsistent to me. That is, unless there is another hidden agenda.  Perhaps the government does not want citizens to be able to take care of themselves in the event of a pandemic disease outbreak.

According to the EPA, CS generators may not be sold without approval after March 21, 2008.   The EPA website describes the rule as follows:

Any person distributing or selling such equipment on or before the date of publication of this notice may continue the distribution or sale of such equipment for 6 months from the date of publication of the notice (March 21, 2008).

You may be affected by this action if you sell or distribute ion-generating equipment that uses electrodes to emit chemical substances for pesticidal purposes. Potentially affected equipment include but are not limited to, washing machines containing electrodes that emit silver, copper, or zinc ions and ion generators used in swimming pools to kill algae and as an adjunct to the chlorination process.2

Obviously, CS generators fall under this description.  Interestingly though, the EPA’s definition extends only to metal ions.  Metallic (non ionic) CS seems not to be covered by this rule yet3.  It is hard to understand how silver metal could be banned, as it is naturally occurring in nature, albeit not usually in nano-particle form.

Since CS generators are still available for purchase, the EPA has apparently not taken any action against the manufacturers yet.  However just as the FDA has attacked CS producers, it is reasonable to expect the EPA to do likewise.

At some point, providing information about making CS at home may become illegal.  If so, the instructions about building your own, which is incredibly easy, will disappear from the internet.

In times past, I would have recommended writing your Senators and Representatives about this issue, but alas, in view of the governments responsiveness on issues much more important, I feel that it is a useless waste of time.  (You probably know what I mean.)

1) Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, November 23, 2006; Page A01

2) Pesticide Registration: Clarification for Ion-generating Equipment

3) An ion is simply an atom that has lost or gained one or more electrons giving it an electrical charge.  This electrical charge changes the atoms reactivity and properties.

Posted in Alternate Health, Nature, Science | 7 Comments »

Record Low Temperatures — More global warming?

Wednesday, December 17th, 2008

I just found this site with a listing of the record low temperatures for 2008.  I had no idea that so many records were broken on the low side this year.  I do know that here in the Pocono Mountains of  Pennsylvania that it is no colder or warmer now than last year according to my heating bills, but so far this winter we have had more precipitation than normal.

Iceagenow.com proposes that ice ages start because precipitation increases, not because it is colder.  Once snow cover starts to build up, the white surface will reflect the sun’s radiant heat back out into space and cool the Earth.  Global precipitation has increased by about 20% since the middle of the last century, and many glaciers are actually expanding.

Got long johns?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Energy, Nature, Science | No Comments »

Global Warming: Cult?

Thursday, December 11th, 2008

Once again, the UN IPCC global warming cult is meeting to try to decide how to convince us that we are responsible for global warming. At the same time, 650 international scientists are challenging the IPCC’s claims. There are now 12 times more scientists refuting the man-made global warming hypothesis than originally supported the report. Nevertheless, the UN continues to try to legislate our energy use and to send us back into the dark ages.

There is one thing for certain though: the climate is changing. In fact, the climate is always changing. The geological records and ice cores are strong testament to that fact. According to the geological record, the earth has two stable temperature phases, a cold one of about 12 degrees centigrade, and a hot one of about 22 degrees. Presently, the earth is in its cold phase. Knowing this, it is reasonable to assume that at some time, the earth will switch again to its hot phase. Its also reasonable that humankind was not the cause of the temperature fluctuations in the past, and therefore is probably not the reason for any real or imagined temperature changes in the present.

Carbon dioxide has been named the chief green-house gas, but in the past there has been no relationship between CO2 and the temperature of the earth as read by the geological record. CO2 is a gas which is very necessary to life, as all life depends on plants, and plants breathe CO2 just like we breathe oxygen. In fact, greenhouse operators normally supplement CO2 in their greenhouses to increase crop yields. Its very possible that the slight increase in manmade CO2 has been a factor in increased world wide crop yields over the last few decades.

Further, astronomers have noted that all of the planets in our solar system have shown planetary warming in the past decades, from the melting of Mercury’s polar cap to the increase in the atmosphere of Pluto. Man does not drive Hummers on other planets; and it is ridiculous to think that a solar system wide process heating up other planets and moons would not also include Earth.

It seems to me that global warming has become a new religious cult with Al Gore as its high priest; and governments across the world are signing on so as to have another excuse to further regulate the populace.

For more information, I recommend Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective and The Paleopmap Project climate data.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Economy, Energy, Nature, Science | 1 Comment »

Cost of production

Friday, November 21st, 2008

When you buy something, what were the costs that went into it?

Most people would say raw materials and labor, plus profits. I say this is incorrect.

The real cost of anything can be broken down into just Labor, Taxes, Profits, Rents (including Royalties and interest), and the depreciation incurred  on capital. Of these, labor is usually the largest by far.

Raw materials are free. The raw materials existed freely before man even mastered fire. Sure, GM has to buy steel products, and yes they treat that as a raw materials expense. However, the cost of that steel was the labor it took to mine the iron ore and other metals, the profits from the sale, a portion of the taxes paid by the steel companies, and the various rents and depreciation cost paid by the steel companies.

Capital equipment also reduces to the above category.  A lathe for instance is simply the product of the labor required to create it, taxes, profits, and so forth. However only the portion of that capital equipment that was used up (depreciation) is part of the actual cost of the goods made with it.

This same analysis can be done at every step of the supply chain, no matter what the goods or services. In some cases, the profit is the dominant expense. For instance, it costs only about $1.00 to extract a barrel of oil from the ground in Libya resulting in huge profits for Khadafi. In the majority of other cases though, its labor that predominates. This is important to know because a very large proportion of all money spent goes to pay for someone else’s labor, whether it be a janitor, a lumberjack, a steelworker, or a security guard.

Taxes make up a smaller but significant portion of the price of an item also, even when not including sales tax.  Since every business must pass along any taxes it must pay to its customers, the final price of an item must include a portion of the business taxes of every business involved in the product.  For instance, there is a 15% Federal excise on vehicle tires.  The trucking company that delivers materials to a manufacturing plant passes this tax along to its customer in the form of higher prices.  The point is that all business tax is paid for by the consumer, and although the average Joe likes to see the the greedy corporations get higher taxes, Joe is the one who is actually paying the bill.

The cost of anything made includes all the costs of its components, and those costs all reduce to labor, taxes, profits, interest, and rents / royalties.

So, the next time someone tells you it only took $2,000 worth of labor to build that new car; or taxing businesses does not impact the man on the street; you should know that to be untrue and be able to explain why.

It should also be evident why the US cannot compete against other countries in the global marketplace, as evidenced by our dismal balance of trade. The global economy will cause an equalization of labor rates world wide eventually, and that means Americans will end up on the losing side of that equation. Along with that equalization will come decreased standards of living, lower life expectancies, and no doubt a further erosion of our civil rights.

Tags: ,
Posted in Economy, Science | No Comments »

Honda Civic Hybrid Review

Saturday, October 13th, 2007

For the past year and a half, I have had the pleasure of owning a 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid. I thought I would give the car a review, and tell of my experiences owning it. I wanted a hybrid because I see the cost of fuel rising ever higher, and perhaps gas pump shortages on the horizon.

I had first considered buying an Insight, known for its 60+ mpg economy. But, the Honda Insight is only a 2 seater, and as I was buying the car mainly for my wife, I decided she would not really want a 2 seat car. Of course, this was totally irrelevant, as there were no Insights to be had in my area. But, I did see the Civic in the showroom of my local dealer. The Civic is EPA rated 49/51 mpg.

I took my wife to look at it. Basically, it looks like every other Civic except for a few minor details like the radio antenna, side view mirrors, and the special spoiler on the trunk lid. Unlike the Toyota Prius, most people never notice that this car is a Hybrid.

After a 15 minute test drive, we were sold, and bought the car. We now have about 25k miles on the odometer.

Driving the car took a little time to get used to, because it sometimes does things the driver is not expecting. When coming to a stop in traffic, or at a light, or stop sign, the engine turns off. This was quite a surprise the first time it happened. (It doesn’t always do this, it depends….) It restarts immediately though as soon as the drivers foot leaves the brake pedal. The engine is ready to go by the time the foot is at the gas pedal, but the natural reflex is to distrust it at first. The CVT transmission seems strange at first because it is so smooth. (Many cars now use this technology, not just hybrids).

The battery that runs the motor that assists the gas engine is usually recharged by braking. Instead of squeezing the brake pads to slow the car, the electric motor is turned into a generator which recharges the high voltage traction battery. If more braking is required, then the computer actuates the mechanical brakes. Also, when coasting with the foot off the gas pedal, the motor/generator charges the battery, which provides a little drag like the gas engine does in regular cars. It does not plug in to the house to charge. That is not even possible.

Most of the time though, it drives like any other car: Gas pedal makes it go, brake pedal makes it stop.

The instrument panel has some new guages that other cars do not. My favorite is a bar graph display of the instantaneous gas mileage. It is very inspiring to be cruising along at 65 mph, and the guage showing 75 mpg. Another guage which standard cars do not have is a charge/discharge guage for the high voltage traction battery, the one which assists the gas engine, and there is one more guage which shows how much energy is currently in the high voltage battery (State of Charge).

Its competely possible to just ignore these extra guages and totally forget the car is a hybrid, but that takes the fun out of it. Once in a hybrid, driving tends to become a game to see how high one can push the mileage. In fact, I think if the Instantaneous Mileage Guage were installed in regular cars, drivers would be far more aware of how much fuel they waste.

While the gas engine in the Civic is smaller in size than a Harley Davidson V-Twin, it is quite adequate for the car because of the added 20 horsepower from the electric motor. I live at the top of a 4 mile 7% grade, and the car has no trouble pulling the hill. My wife and I often travel the interstates, and the car has plenty of acceleration to merge with high speed traffic. Its no race car, but it is no problem driving the mountains and interstates.

How much gas mileage do we really get? Well, the EPA says 49/51, but that is for one 150 pound driver with no passengers in 70 degree weather, without air conditioning. I hate to say it, but with both of in the car, we are 300 pounds over the EPA test weight. However, we still average 44 to 45 mpg under that condition, and when my wife drives it without me in the car, she gets 48 mpg. That works out right according to the physics. I have no doubt that a 150 pound driver would get the rated mpg by driving sensibly.

The Civic is rated as a sub-compact car, but has more room inside than the Dodge Stratus we had before. Why it is rated a sub-compact is a mystery to me. I would call it at least a compact, or a mid size car. It weighs in at about 3000 pounds which is no lightweight.

I find no faults with the handling or braking, and have had no mechanical problems with the vehicle in the 20 months that we have owned it. I did replace the tires because the tires that come with the car just have no traction in the snow. For me, the biggest downside of the Civic is its low ground clearance. Here in the snowy North East, 4 inches of ground clearance does not help traveling in the snow. Fortunatly, I also have a Ford Escape 4wd for bad weather.

The technology of the Civic Hybrid is totally different than that used in its competitor, the Toyota Prius. For that reason, the Civic does not have a pure electric mode of operation. The electric motor only assists the gas engine. However, real life figures show there is only about 1 mpg difference in mileage between the two cars in real world driving. (See www.greenhybrid.com for real world data).

Minor nits I have with the car are:

1) It didn’t come with floormats, so I had to purchase rubber mats separately. I also purchased a rubber cargo tray for the trunk.

2) The car requires 0W-20 oil which is rather hard to find. I make it a point to use Mobil 1 synthetic in my cars, and the only place that carried 0W-20 Mobil 1 was Wally-world, and they have discontinued it. Amsoil sells 0W-20 online, but the price is astronomical. The manual does say that 5W-20 can be used in a pinch, but it will probably decrease gas mileage.

3) Unlike a standard Civic, the rear seat does not fold down for carrying long or large cargo. The battery pack is actually inside the rear seat, which is the reason it does not fold down.

4) The electrics don’t work until the engine is up to operating temperature. I partially solved this problem by installing an engine block heater so it is ready to go on cold mornings. Of course, after setting all day while my wife is at work, the engine still has to heat up. This is a problem/feature of all hybrid cars as I understand it.

5) The cars computer reminds the driver when maintenance is due. This is a nice feature, but unfortunatly, it fails to remind the driver when his inspection sticker is out of date. :) I am kidding about this of course.

Would I buy this car again? You betcha, in a heartbeat. The only thing I would like better is a fully electric version that I could plug in at night, and skip the gas station altogether.

My next car: Ford Escape Hybrid to replace my regular Ford Escape.

Posted in Energy, Science | 2 Comments »

Whats wrong with Ethanol from Sugar Cane

Wednesday, September 6th, 2006

Much has been said about Brazil’s success in using ethanol made from sugar cane to help them become energy independent. They have been very successful in growing sugar cane and converting it ETOH (ethanol, ethyl alcohol). Does this mean though that the US could do the same and preserve our current wasteful lifestyle? Unfortunately, I doubt it.

Lets look at some energy consumption numbers (data from the year 2003).

In the US, we produce 11 barrels of oil per year per person. We use 27 barrels per year per person, so we need to make up the energy equivalent of 16 barrels per year per person if we are to achieve energy independance.

Brazil, produces 3.35 barrels of oil per year per person, and use 4.2. So in Brazil, they need to make up only .85 barrels. That is almost 20 times less per person than in the USA.

Their real success is in the fact that they use so much less energy per capita than we do. If we (in the US) used the same amount of energy per person as Brazilians, the US would be an oil exporting nation, and would be energy independent. In fact, we can use 3 times as much oil per person as Brazil, and still be energy independent. However, that would not support our present lifestyle.

Brazil produces 420 million tons of sugar cane each year compared to 25 million tons grown in the USA (including Hawaii)1. That is almost 17 times the amount the US produces. Under ideal conditions, 1 ton of sugar cane can be processed into 18+ gallons of ETOH2 , which is the energy equivalent of 13 gallons of gasoline. If we used the entire yearly US crop of sugarcane to make ETOH, it would make at most the equivalent of 325 million gallons of gasoline. Since we use 8 million barrels (336 million gallons) of gasoline per day, the entire sugar cane crop amounts to less than 1 days supply of fuel. Can we ramp up our sugar cane production by a factor of 400? Of course not. Sugar cane only grows well in a tropical climate. Most of the US is not tropical, and is not suitable for sugar cane production.

Outside of the geography issue itself, there is also an issue of water. Brazil is a tropical country, with plenty of rainfall. Sugar cane requires an annual rainfall of at least 2 feet, which means we would have to heavily irrigate the cane while Brazil does not. How much water is that exactly? Well, here are my calculations:

50 square yards will grow 2-3 tons of sugar cane per year so an acre will grow about 250 tons (3250 gallons of gas). Two acre-feet of water equals 650,000 gallons of water. So we are talking about using 650,000 gallons of fresh water to gain 3250 gallons of fuel, or about 200 gallons of water per gallon of fuel. Considering water is also a scarce resource, does that make sense?

For these reasons, I do not see how sugar cane is going to be a major energy source for the USA. Instead, the hype about ETOH from sugar cane, or worse, from corn does nothing except allow people to believe that they will be able to continue their present energy usage into the future. What we should be promoting instead of alcohol is conservation first.

References
1 Sugar Cane Production

2 Conversion to Ethanol in Brazil

Posted in Economy, Energy, Science | No Comments »