Ethanol sucks

[BoredWithNoSB]

Just doesn't sound like it provides that much benefit outside of energy independance. I bet if we pumped all this money into solar or hydrogen instead, we'd be much better off. Ethanol sounds just as doirty and I have images of a dust bowl in my head for some reason due to over-farming.


http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/health/index.ssf?/base/national-8/1176873694109150.xml&storylist=health

Switching from gasoline to ethanol — touted as a green alternative at the pump — may create dirtier air, causing slightly more smog-related deaths, a new study says.
Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.

"It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds. It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."

His study, based on a computer model, is published in Wednesday's online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology and adds to the messy debate over ethanol.

Farmers, politicians, industry leaders and environmentalists have clashed over just how much ethanol can be produced, how much land it would take to grow the crops to make it, and how much it would cost. They also disagree on the benefits of ethanol in cutting back fuel consumption and in fighting pollution, especially global warming gases.

In January, President Bush announced a push to reduce gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 years by substituting alternative fuels, mainly ethanol. Scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that could mean about a 1 percent increase in smog.

Jacobson's study troubles some environmentalists, even those who work with him. Roland Hwang of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that ethanol, which cuts one of the key ingredients of smog and produces fewer greenhouse gases, is an important part of reducing all kinds of air pollution.

Jacobson's conclusion "is a provocative concept that is not workable," said Hwang, an engineer who used to work for California's state pollution control agency. "There's nothing in here that means we should throw away ethanol."

And Matt Hartwig, spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, the largest Washington ethanol lobby group, said other research and real-life data show "ethanol is a greener fuel than gasoline."

But Jacobson found that depends on where you live, with ethanol worsening the ozone problem in most urban areas.

Based on computer models of pollution and air flow, Jacobson predicted that the increase in ozone — and diseases it causes — would be worst in areas where smog is already a serious problem: Los Angeles and the Northeast.

Most of those projected 200 deaths would be in Los Angeles, he says, and the only place where ozone would fall is the Southeast because of the unique blend of chemicals in the air and the heavy vegetation.

The science behind why ethanol might increase smog is complicated, but according to Jacobson, part of the explanation is that ethanol produces more hydrocarbons than gasoline. And ozone is the product of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide cooking in the sun.

Also, the ethanol produces longer-lasting chemicals that eventually turn into hydrocarbons that can travel farther. "You are really spreading out pollution over a larger area," he said.

And finally, while ethanol produces less nitrogen oxide, that can actually be a negative in some very smoggy places. When an area like Los Angeles reaches a certain high level of nitrogen oxide, that excess chemical begins eating up spare ozone, Jacobson said.

Hwang agreed that that is a "well-known effect."

While praising Jacobson as one of the top atmospheric chemists in the nation, Hwang said he had problems with some of Jacobson's assumptions, such as an entire switch to ethanol by 2020. Also, he said that the ozone difference that Jacobson finds is so small that it may be in the margin of error of calculations.

Jacobson is also ignoring that ethanol — especially the kind made from cellulose, like switchgrass — reduces greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. And global warming will increase smog and smog-related deaths, an international scientific panel just found this month, Hwang said.

[Vegas]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/18/MNG7EPAN601.DTL

If ethanol ever gains widespread use as a clean alternative fuel to gasoline, people with respiratory illnesses may be in trouble.

A new study out of Stanford says pollution from ethanol could end up creating a worse health hazard than gasoline, especially for people with asthma and other respiratory diseases.

"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution," Mark Z. Jacobson, the study's author and an atmospheric scientist at Stanford, said in a statement. "But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage."

The study appears in today's online edition of Environmental Science & Technology, a publication of the American Chemical Society. It comes at a time when the Bush administration is pushing plans to boost ethanol production and the nation's automakers are required by 2012 to have half their vehicles run on flex fuel, allowing the use of either gasoline or ethanol.

Jacobson used a computer to model how pollution from ethanol fuel would affect different parts of the country in 2020, when ethanol-burning vehicles are expected to be common on America's roadways.

He found that ethanol-burning cars could boost levels of toxic ozone gas in urban areas, but that Los Angeles residents would be by far the hardest hit because of the city's reliance on the automobile and environmental factors that tend to concentrate smog there.

His study showed that the city would experience a 9 percent increase in the rate of ozone-related respiratory deaths -- 120 more deaths per year -- compared with what would have been projected in 2020 assuming continued gasoline use.

Pollution from ethanol would be riskier than pollution from gasoline because when ethanol breaks down in the atmosphere, it generates considerably more ozone. Ozone is a highly corrosive gas that damages the delicate tissues of the lungs. In fact, it's so corrosive that it can crack rubber and wear away statues, Jacobson told The Chronicle.

Jacobson's study focuses on the health effects of an ethanol type called E85, a highly publicized fuel composed of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

Last month, California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein, along with Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both R-Maine, introduced a bill to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. The bill would "require fuel suppliers to increase the percentage of low-carbon fuels -- biodiesel, E85 ... hydrogen, electricity, and others -- in the motor vehicle fuel supply" by 2015, according to a March 30 press release from Feinstein's office.

Reacting to Jacobson's study, Feinstein issued a statement Tuesday.

"We should proceed with caution," she said. "All of these fuels emit certain pollutants, and those pollutants have to be known and evaluated for their health effects. There can be no real rush to judgment about these fuels.

"We've got to find a way to develop low-carbon fuels that do not have adverse health effects."

A spokesman for the state Air Resources Board said officials there were still studying prepublication copies of the Jacobson paper and would have no immediate comment.

"This is the first we've heard of it," said board spokesman Dimitri Stanich. In the meantime, he said, "there are multiple avenues for reducing California's carbon 'footprint,' (with) hydrogen and ethanol being part of that plan. We consider (E85) as part of the strategy."

The study also attracted the attention of environmental scientists.

The basic principles of Jacobson's paper are sound, David Pimentel, an ecology professor emeritus at Cornell University, wrote in an e-mail.

"The burning of ethanol releases large quantities of ozone, a serious air pollutant," he said. "In addition, the use of ethanol as a fuel releases formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, plus benzene and butadiene. All of these are carcinogens and are a threat to public health."

Jacobson's study, however, concluded that the cancer-causing effects of ethanol would be roughly comparable to those of gasoline.

Chris Somerville, a Stanford professor who chairs the executive committee for the recently announced BP-funded Energy Biosciences Institute at UC Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois, said the study was interesting and it "should be followed up with experimental work."

It is "possible that ethanol will not be the major biofuel in 2020," he said. "I see ethanol as a transitional fuel that will eventually be replaced by ... second-generation fuels. I am just uncertain whether it will be done by 2010 or whether it may take longer."

The institute is slated to develop a new generation of carbon-neutral biofuels, including ethanol.

Alex Farrell, a Berkeley professor of energy and resources, was also complimentary of the study.

"It's a good scientific paper that has taken the first look at the air-quality impacts of ethanol in a worst-case scenario," he said. "It is definitely my opinion that ethanol is not the only solution to air pollution."

Jacobson's computer model for Los Angeles is extremely high-resolution, as such models go. It breaks the Los Angeles atmosphere into a three-dimensional grid akin to 100,000 "boxes" stacked more than 10 miles high. Each box measures 3 miles wide and a few hundred feet deep.

He said he isn't surprised that no one previously tried to model the long-term health impacts of ethanol in such detail "because it's very complicated."

"The only reason I was able to do it is because I've been building this model for 18 years now," he said. "You really require a humongous model."

[LSU]

Here's more from SciAm...

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=07520EDF-E7F2-99DF-3F39F759D467DFCD


Want to Reduce Air Pollution? Don't Rely on Ethanol Necessarily

Fueling the automobile fleet primarily with ethanol rather than gasoline might increase air pollution, a new study finds

Ethanol as a fuel offers a host of potential benefits, according to its supporters. It can be grown and refined primarily in the U.S., whether made from corn, switchgrass or cellulose. It is already being used as a fuel additive—to help gasoline burn more completely and, thus, cut down on air pollution. And, because it is made from plants that pull carbon dioxide from the air, it does not add additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which are driving climate change. But a new study shows that it will not help clear the nation's skies of smog; on the contrary, it could increase the levels of that dangerous pollution.

Environmental engineer Mark Jacobson of Stanford University used a computer model to assess how the air pollution in the U.S. would react if vehicles remained primarily fueled by gasoline in 2020 or if the fleet transferred to a fuel that was a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, so-called E85. Under the latter scenario, levels of the cancer-causing agents benzene and butadiene dropped, whereas those of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde rose: In other words, it was a wash.

Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year. "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Jacobson writes in the study published in Environmental Science & Technology. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles."

But estimates of the nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons released by ethanol combustion vary, according to Tim Gerlach, vice president of clean fuels and vehicle technologies at the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest in St. Paul, Minn. "We ran a couple of vehicles in multiple dynometer runs and measured tailpipe emissions," he says. "[E85] compared very favorably to a low-sulfur, low-benzene, oxygenated gasoline." Specifically, burning E85 resulted in fewer ozone-forming compounds than gasoline. And E85's benefits as far as combating global warming outweigh any impact in ozone pollution. "We need to have an orderly, sustained implementation of low-carbon fuels and a smooth transition to a low-carbon world," says Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "E85 is a part of the solution to global warming."

As a result of his ethanol finding, Stanford's Jacobson suggests that electric vehicles, such as hybrids that plug into the existing electrical grid or hydrogen fuel cell cars might prove a better solution to future vehicle energy needs from an environmental perspective. "We haven't reviewed the study here," says Julie Ruggiero, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Energy, which is currently pursuing ethanol research as part of President Bush's plans to increase its use as an alternative fuel. "Ethanol is just one part of a broader renewable portfolio."

Ethanol advocates agree. "Ethanol is not the silver bullet," says Matt Hartwig, a spokesperson for the Renewable Fuels Association, an industry group. "It's a very important tool in the toolbox to address energy security and to address the issues around global warming and the environment. But it's not the only answer." And Jacobson's study may have revealed one of the downsides to this alternative fuel.

[Vegas]

Fuels Rush In

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=262998513130177

Climate Change: A Danish commission looks at the negative effect of biofuels on the environment as a new study shows ethanol use may actually increase pollution. The Kyoto deal is full of unintended consequences.

The recently formed Cramer Commission, named after Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer, who chaired it before entering the cabinet, was formed to develop ways to ensure that crops used to create biofuels as replacements for oil and gas don't do more harm than good.

It seems that in the rush to develop these alternative fuels, forests in Asia have been burned to clear land for palm oil along with large swaths of the Amazon rain forest being stripped of diverse vegetation for soy and sugar plantations used to produce the raw material for making ethanol.

The commission's fears are justified.

Marcel Silvius, a climate expert at Wetlands International in the Netherlands, recently led a team that compared the benefits of palm oil to the ecological harm from clearing virgin Asian rain forests for new plantations.

He concluded that as a fuel palm oil was more like snake oil, noting: "As a biofuel, it's a failure."

Palm oil's attractiveness is that it is relatively cheap and can be used in existing power stations. It is even said to be, to use Al Gore's favorite phrase, "carbon-neutral," in that it absorbs as much carbon dioxide during growth as it emits when burned as fuel.

Certainly the European Union likes it, with palm oil consumption fueled by subsidies in many EU member states. EU imports have risen 65% since 2002.

The four-year study in Indonesia and Malaysia, where 85% of commercial palm oil is grown, by a team from Wetlands, Delft Hydraulics and the Alterra Research Center of Wageningen University, details the environmental harm caused by the use of palm oil as an alternative energy source.

The study found that 1.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide go up in smoke every year from rain forest fires set to clear new land for biofuel plantations.

Another 600 million tons seeps into the air from drained peat swamps. That 2 billion tons of CO2 constitutes 8% of the earth's total fossil fuel emissions.

In the U.S., the alternative fuel du jour is ethanol. It can be made from corn or sugar or perhaps even wood chips and leftover copies of the New York Times. But here too there are consequences to its use that may exceed any benefits.

We already know that ethanol consumes more energy in its manufacture than it produces when consumed, that it is difficult to transport and evaporates easily.

We also know that using virtually all available land to produce an ethanol crop like corn would make only a small dent in our energy mix, and that by competing with crops grown for food, raises food costs.

A study just published by Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology, adds another consequence — that 200 more people would die each year from respiratory problems if all U.S. cars ran on ethanol.

Most of these additional deaths would occur in, surprise, Los Angeles.

According to Jacobson, ethanol actually produces more hydrocarbons than gasoline and less nitrogen oxide. Ethanol produces longer-lasting chemicals that eventually turn into hydrocarbons spread over a larger area.

The actual science is complicated but in an area like L.A. when nitrogen oxide reach a certain level, it actually begins eating up some of the ozone. So less is bad, not good.

The first rule of environmentalism, like medicine, should be to do no harm. Or to put it in terms the greenies understand, are they destroying the earth in order to save it?

[Hotpapa666]

Ethanol is not the long term solution to our transportation needs. I think fuel cells will be the answer. There is allot of cool shit coming out that field of research...

[LSU]

There's corn fields starting to pop up down here where there used to be sugar cane growing. Kinda funny considering the sugar cane is supposed to be a better source for ethanol than corn...of course, we didn't get all the big processing plants around here, so...