"I AM going to hold in this swamp gas."
Posted on 07/02/2007 7:13:44 PM PDT by texanyankee
A Blight On Ethanol
Ethanol is unlikely to improve air quality and may even increase health risks. Or so says a controversial report on the human health effects of converting gasoline-powered cars and trucks to run on this plant-based alternative.
Proponents of ethanol say that it will reduce global warming, air pollution and U.S. reliance on foreign oil, says Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric researcher at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., and author of the study, published April 18 in Environmental Science & Technology. As air pollution is the seventh leading cause of death worldwide, it is important to find out whether ethanol actually is cleaner and better for people and the environment than gasoline before the United States plunges further into developing the fuel, Jacobson says.
Jacobson used a sophisticated atmospheric model to compare the emissions of various chemicals from automobiles running on E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, with those running on traditional gasoline in the year 2020, when ethanol-fueled automobiles are expected to be widely available in the United States. The model then estimated the complex environmental interactions that occur with emissions to determine the impact on public health. Such interactions vary based on the amounts and types of chemicals released, ambient temperatures, sunlight, clouds, wind and precipitation, among other factors. This is the first atmospheric model to incorporate this many factors and complex chemical reactions, says Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis, who specializes in economic, environmental, engineering and planning analyses of current and future transportation systems.
Jacobson modeled the atmospheric reactions for the entire United States, as well as specifically in the Los Angeles, Calif., area, as it is home to 6 percent of the U.S. population and historically has had the most polluted air in the United States, therefore lending itself to being the test bed for most U.S. air pollution regulations.
Jacobson’s calculations showed that if the entire U.S. fleet were replaced by vehicles running on E85 in 2020, ozone-related deaths would increase by 4 percent across the United States and by 9 percent in Los Angeles. Furthermore, ozone-related hospitalizations would increase by nearly 1,000 people per year across the United States, and emergency room visits caused by asthma and other breathing complications would increase by more than 1,200 people per year. Cancers caused by emissions would stay about the same with either ethanol or gasoline, as ethanol emissions increase some carcinogenic chemicals but reduce others, he says.
The overall conclusion of this modeling research — that ethanol will not significantly improve air quality and may even worsen it — is “unassailable,” Delucchi says. “The epidemiological results follow” from the assumptions Jacobson included in the models, Delucchi says.
Although this study is creating quite a stir, Delucchi says, this is the first model sophisticated enough to reach a conclusion about future air quality and human health ramifications from the use of ethanol. Furthermore, he says, the study supports research Delucchi and colleagues at Davis have done on the emissions of biofuels throughout the fuels’ entire lifecycle, which suggests that biofuels are not nearly as clean as is publicly portrayed.
Other researchers have found similar results, says David Pimentel, an ecology and agricultural sciences professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. Even the Environmental Protection Agency recognized that certain ozone precursors, such as volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, could increase with ethanol usage, as published in the agency’s April 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard Program report. “It’s not a clean fuel,” Pimentel says, and promoting it as the answer to energy security and climate change challenges is “a major boondoggle,” brought about by “big money and politics.”
Others, however, tout evidence of improved air quality since ethanol has been blended into fuels in California, New York and Wisconsin, among other states. According to a March 2006 report by the Better Environmental Solutions and Renewable Energy Action Project, tests show a “consistent association between ethanol blending and reduced ozone pollution.” However, the authors of the report caution that they cannot say that the air is cleaner solely because of ethanol.
Jacobson offers the same caveat on his research. The question of causation is indeed “very hard to prove from data analysis alone,” he says. “But then again, after Brazil converted to ethanol in the 1970s, ozone levels spiked,” he says. Models can determine cause and effect to a degree, he says, and his models show increasing ethanol usage as a cause of the increased pollution.
The bottom line, Delucchi says, is that mounting evidence suggests that it would be “virtually impossible” to prove that ethanol will significantly improve our air quality and climate in the future. Instead, Jacobson says, “it’s important to look at gas and ethanol in comparison to other nonpolluting sources, such as electric and hydrogen vehicles powered by renewable energy.”
i should just drink more of it to you know save the world
environmental/global-warming ping!
Always the same names, always the same lightly quoted and vaguely referenced studies. You’d think the Saudis themselves write this stuff.
"I AM going to hold in this swamp gas."
Ethanol is not the solution or even a bridge fuel to solve our energy problem. It has less BTU per gallon, which means fuel economy will decrease, maybe by as much as one-third. Production of ethanol from corn will drive up the price of corn-based foods and as crop land now producing other crops is planted with corn, prices for those commodities will also increase. Finally, as more corn is planted in semi-arid/arid areas requiring irrigation by groundwater, that irreplaceable resource will be mined at a faster rate.
Beware of unintended consequences arising from non-market driven choices made by politicians based on short-term/popular solutions.
If you’ve ever been near an alcohol-fuelled racing vehicle, you’d know that ethanol/methanol are non-starters because the fumes they put out will burn your eyes until you wish you were blind, in minutes.
Don’t believe me? Go to your local dragstrip and hang out near the top fuel dragsters for a while.
cornohol is an expensive fraud.
Seriously.
I volunteered to push the funny cars back after their burnout once at a drag strip as a kid, once was enough and all they got from me.
But, but, but... But I thought OZONE was a good thing, and we're getting "global warming" because the ozone is going away???
(hehehehe...)
It’s my impression biodiesel actually has some merit, unlike ethanol. Is that your understanding?
Most of the farmers hereabouts are now growing corn for ethanol. Beef, milk and hay prices are rising. I predict pork, poultry and all dairy product prices will also rise. Gas prices will not decrease. End result; gas costs the same or more, and food costs go up. Net loss for the american consumer, again, due to govt meddling in economic matters.
Here’s one drawback. A single Iowa corn refinery uses 300 tons of coal a day to make ethanol. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0323/p01s01-sten.html
Talk about strawmen. There is no way we could all be driving E85, anytime. Ethanol is projected to replace 20% of gasoline, max. However, if the Muslims slap us with a fuel embargo, ethanol will seem like liquid titanium and all of the critics will be glad we have it. Nothing is perfect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.