Study says ethanol fuel could cause more health problems than gasoline

Now This Is Corn-fusing

Time to trot out Alanis, cuz this is what the kids call "ironic": a study from Stanford University says widespread use of ethanol in vehicles could have serious health effects. Atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson ran computer models comparing air quality in 2020 based on use of both gasoline and E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline currently seeing a big old political and industrial push. He found that the ethanol blend would produce more ground-level ozone than gasoline, estimating that it could lead to a 4 percent increase in ozone-related deaths nationwide by 2020. The study, published in the online edition of the journal Environmental Science & Technology, also says hospitalizations for respiratory issues could increase and fuel-related cancer rates would likely remain the same. "We found that using E85 will cause at least as much health damage as gasoline," says Jacobson. "The question is, if we're not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote ethanol?"

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Janet Wilson, 18 Apr 2007

straight to the source: BBC News, 18 Apr 2007

straight to the source: Science Daily, 18 Apr 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (8 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

corny fuel

Renewable fuel sources are, by their description, superior to oil based fuels. They generate oxygen. Any comment to the contrary is either ignorance or bad manners, either or both of which are unacceptable behaviour.

Corn may not be the most efficient means of producing energy for motor cars, but still singularly superior to killing young Americans for oil reserves, which is decidedly bad for your/ our health.

Lucien E Forbes Chairman & CEO Forbes Energy LLC

by LEForbes at 1:21 PM on 18 Apr 2007

local ethanol vs. foreigh oil

The question is, if we're not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote ethanol?

Less dependence on foreign oil?

by bgeerdes at 1:57 PM on 18 Apr 2007

don't mix a b ad fuel with a good one

Dear Dr.Jacobson,

Get rid of that noxious 15 percent gasoline, then do the study over. Although evaporative emissions do increase when gasoline is added to ethanol. But adding ethanol to gasoline drops vehicle's tailpipe emissions of CO2 and other more horrid pollutants substantially!

Running neat (96-98%)ethanol would result in a 90% drop in emissions over gasoline in even a simple conversion. A well-designed dedicated alcohol engine would actually emit cleaner air than the air entering the engine.

Vaporizing pure ethanol will increase mileage and cut emissions further. Vaporization can't happen with gas because it burns at too many different temperatures.

And modern three-way catalytic converters strip all traces of acetaldehyde from the exhaust of a properly tuned alcohol vehicle. Formaldehyde? Definitely from the gasoline.

Brazil's air was so much cleaner in the early 80s that they barely paid attention to the acetaldehyde increase. Only reason they had the increase was no catalytic converters in the cars. That changed later.

All this is a lesson: Don't doctor a good fuel (ethanol) with a bad one (gasoline).

by permafuel at 7:38 PM on 18 Apr 2007

Oh snap

Another good reason to get away from liquid fuels entirely.

Rather than attempt to bale out the Titanic, we should abandon ship.

New electric cars can recharge in under 10 minutes, drive hundreds and hundreds of miles, and use 3-4x less energy per mile than hydrogen.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 12:57 PM on 19 Apr 2007

By the way

If we were even going to do a biofuel.

Ethanol is a crappy option in terms of raw performance and compatibility.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 12:58 PM on 19 Apr 2007

Expand options

Studies reveal that ethanol's potential as a future fuel would vary widely based on whether it would be used alone or in combo with other substances, and in which kinds of vehicles. I agree with GreyFlcn. Why not focus on other, genuinely cleaner options and stop wasting time and energy on "debatables"? Time is, after all, of the essence.

Positive change begins with each of us

by Liara Covert at 3:32 AM on 22 Apr 2007

Temporary fix

I'm not going to google the web for specific figures here...just hope that you all know them. If all the crop land in the U.S. were converted to corn, specifically for the purpose of ethanol, it would reduce our foriegn dependence by a minute amount. Very little. Ethanol has also been shown to have greater smog forming emissions. It is a step in the right direction, but definitely not a huge leap for a country w/300 million people.

My money is going on electricity. Tesla roadster anybody? GM Volt concept? These ideas show promise. Now we just need that magic battery pack...

pax-

by mikeyd at 7:02 AM on 24 Apr 2007

Ethanol still lowers emmision's and is less toxic

Atleast it's not MTBE which used to be added to gas to increase Octane back in the day when I was trying the U.S and Canada to use ethanol instead.

IF ethanol(AKA: alcohol) leeked out in a ocean or lake it would not really be as hard to clean out or as toxic as gas or MTBE which would leech cancer causing chemicals into it for years.
I wonder what the test result would be if it was 100 percent ethanol.

by Shaggy123 at 6:26 PM on 30 Apr 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?