I examined whether "ethanol is more bad for the environment than gasoline?"

Well, the other day I posted on GIGAZINEIs ethanol more environmentally friendly than gasoline?Although it is an article saying that it is an article saying, "It is not different from just after publication" It was pointed out that Tsukkom pointed out. Certainly, what is commonly said is that "ethanol fuel is less environmentally friendly as it emits less carbon dioxide". On the other hand, since this article says the opposite thing from the straight forward, is it also inevitable that an indication of "funny" comes, or is this article itself wrong?

So I tried to find out what the truth is about.
First of all, that gasoline itselfChemical formula, That isOctaneIt is impossible to express it with only.gasolineBecause it is a mixture of many things, pure gasoline like chemical formula does not exist. Nevertheless, no nitrogen compound nor carbon monoxide has emerged in this formula, and incomplete combustion has not occurred either. However, if the reaction occurs according to the chemical formula of this octane even in reality, it will be this way. In reality this is not the case. This is the point.

On the other handethanolIf you areChemical formulaIt is thought that almost the same reaction as that expressed in the reality occurs even in reality. Because, because it is a matter of purity. For ethanol and gasoline, the purity of ethanol is obviously higher. A high degree of purity means that almost the same reaction as chemical formula occurs.

Then,Reference source articleIs it wrong? Chemical formulas are not wrong. It is certainly correct if this chemical formula is compared with each other. But like thisThe conclusion that too simple a chemical formula "ethanol is more bad for the environment because it emits more carbon dioxide" is wrongis. In addition, if you actually compare the impact on the environment, it will not be compared unless you compare and compare the total carbon balance from production.

Moreover, whyOctaneHowever, because it is notation "C12H26", because the left side of the formula is aligned to compare octane and ethanol. Even if it becomes a multiple, since the meaning of the chemical formula itself does not change in this case, there is no problem. That means "Octane (n - dodecane)". So, chemical formula is still wrong.

That is, the content of the article is "The expression is correct and what you are saying is correct, but it is just a desk topicThat 's why.

2007/09/01 2:10 Addendum
Comparing only ethanol and gasoline, as already mentioned, it is meaningless unless we consider ethanol, not ethanol, but so-called "bioethanol", that is ethanol made from sugarcane etc., if we think with "environment" too. That's the meaning of Tsukkomi, is not it an expression, not the previous stage is touched at all? Since there was an indication that it was pointed out, I will write about that as well. Apparently it was not a simple fuel story, it seems that there was not enough consideration from the viewpoint as "environment".

"In the case of ethanol refined from sugarcane etc., sugarcane etc. incorporates atmospheric carbon dioxide during the growth process, so no matter how we burn ethanol derived from sugar cane etc, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will eventually Is plus or minus 0. That is, no matter how burning the fuel derived from ethanol, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not increase "(it does not increase, but does not increase) ... well-known logic is"Carbon neutralIt is the idea that.

Carbon neutral I understand well! Technical explanation Glossary

Carbon neutral is a concept of carbon cycle that balance of carbon dioxide emits in the same way as fossil fuel, but carbon dioxide is absorbed in the atmospheric carbon dioxide due to photosynthesis during growth process, so the balance becomes positive / negative It is.

But this theory itself seems to be convinced because it is correct on words as it is heard, but this is also the same as the previous reference source article, and in fact it is "a desk paradigm" made in the "Kyoto Protocol" There is doubt. I think only by reasoning, and I do not think much about what actually happens.

Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia

As European countries oppose, in the logic that forests inserted by Japan and Canada claims argue that carbon dioxide is absorbed, the forest eventually mediates animals and microorganisms in the forest in the course of growth → maturity → death Since carbon decomposition reaction occurs, the viewpoint that the absorbed and immobilized carbon finally returns to carbon dioxide by decomposition, fire, etc. is lacking, and as long as the forest continues to expand, the effect of carbon dioxide absorption is recognized Absent.

This is the same in sugar cane as well as in forests, so long as you continue to grow and grow more and more, it is the logic "It should be plus or minus zero." However, there is also an opinion that it is not sugar cane if this is the case, and it is good just to increase nature normally. When examining it, many points are discussed about this point in every direction, and it seems that unreasonable circumstances such as cutting down tropical rain forest which absorb carbon dioxide more efficiently than sugarcane to grow sugarcane seems to occur .

Brazil / Cerrades crisis due to a surge in ethanol demand, deforestation serious from Amazon | Ameba News

"Cerado's deforestation is faster than the Amazon rainforest," ConaVation International (CI) warns of international NGOs. Cerrado has changed its appearance in the last 40 years, already the original vegetation is destroyed in 57% of the whole area, but the demand for ethanol is further accelerating the speed of destruction. According to the survey of the NGO, CI warns that the area equivalent to 2.6 football fields disappears at the current 3 million hectares per year, and it will disappear by 2030 as it is There.

Certainly, it is not a matter of chemical formula, but it seems difficult to see realities unless we consider it from many directions. In addition to the multiple factors intertwining with environmental problems, it seems that it will become unlikely to be circulated endlessly because we can add conditions as "when it actually becomes"? In addition, there are few objective data and demonstrative examples, and there is a groundwork that allows mechanisms to determine correctness only by speculation and speculation, so it seems that further attention is required from now on. In fact it would be nice if there were alternatives to be solved concretely, but unfortunately I could not find it.

As for the burning efficiency of this bio ethanol itself, the following article was easy to understand as it examined it.

Will auto fuel exceeding oil appear (07/07/04) - Column: Nikkei Ecolomy

So thanks to those who gave us opinions via email before posting.