Study: Ethanol may cause more smog, deaths

[IDemo]

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 2 hours, 40 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - 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.

Nearly 200 more people would die yearly from respiratory problems if all vehicles in the United States ran on a mostly ethanol fuel blend by 2020, the research concludes. Of course, the study author acknowledges that such a quick and monumental shift to plant-based fuels is next to impossible.

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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_he_me/ethanol_health_risks;_ylt=AvrM3Z.6BtmzabU24vBiTUzMWM0F

[jpak]

1. This study assumes that E85 will replace *all* US gasoline by 2020 - this is not possible

If the *entire* US corn crop was devoted to ethanol production, it could only satisfy 12% of current gasoline demand. And even with cellulosic ethanol added to the mix, ethanol cannot replace petroleum for transportation fuel.

Other researchers have criticized the assumptions and conclusions of the study...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_he_me/ethanol_health_risks

<snip>

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."

<snip>

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.

<end snip>

Peak oil and the subsequent reduction in gasoline consumption will more than offset any increase in smog and smog precusor emissions resulting from use of ethanol...

[poopfuel]

3. in Brazil, despite what Dr. Jacobson says

air quality improved considerably in the 80s despite the increase in acetaldehydes. Eventually, they had to put catalytic converters on their cars.

Did Dr. Jacobson do all his tests without catalytic converters? Seems dishonest to me. Acetaldehydes are totally restrained when catalytic converters are in the car. Formaldehyde is a byproduct of methanol emissions. What exactly did he use here? As pointed out, ozone difference was very small.

BTW, in the San Francisco Chronicle report, they talked to David Pimentel who said
"the use of ethanol as a fuel releases formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, plus benzene and butadiene"

The latter two, Dr. Jacobson SPECIFICALLY said, were reduced considerably versus gasoline-see release below
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/apr/science/ee_ethanol.html

Dr Pimentel is a dishonest charlatan who took money from Mobil Oil and can't even do basic math in his research on ethanol.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. The ethanol lobby (and its fans) have a Cheneyan hard-on for Pimentel

1. "Dishonest charlatan"? Why is this? Because he said something bad about something you support?

Why do we demand that scientists blow smoke up our asses all the time before we consider them honest?

2. "Took money from Mobil Oil" (sic)? I thought that was one of his co-authors, Tad Patzek, a petrochemical engineer. IOW, why the hell shouldn't he "take money" from an oil company? Most petrochemical engineers are employed by oil companies. Patzek was also one of the first scientists to publicly demand that the Bushistas stop their jihad of pseudoscience, at considerable personal risk. Pimentel has also been politically active, mainly on "our" side -- and it has cost him.

Interestingly, the oil companies are deeply invested in ethanol and other biofuels, in spite of the fantasies of its pop-culture fans.

Next, you'll be whining that Pimentel is just a "bug scientist", the other big ethanol lobby talking point. Then again, so is E.O. Wilson, so he'd be in good company.

On the other hand, Pimentel was the first scientist to notice that soil erosion and nutrient loss was becoming critical. I guess he's taking money from the dirt companies, too, and refuses to recognize that as soon as everybody installs a compost heap in their garage, everything will be hunky-dory.

Quick question: what is the eeevil Perfesser Pimentel's position on nuclear power?

--p!

[poopfuel]

6. the man lies, pure and simple

Farmer cooperatives make up the majority of ethanol producers in this country.

No, it was Pimentel. He admitted it on radio and when pressed. It was during his first attempt at understanding a subject he is hopelessly incompetent on: ethanol. Mobil Research funded him and Jack Anderson outed him in 1982. Wonder how Cornell kept getting funding for him to do his hopelessly inept and inaccurate studies, given the USDA only just hired someone to work on organic agriculture issues a couple years back? Now just who do you suppose might have given bucks to Cornell for this? Could it be, I dunno... Satan?????

I doubt strongly Dr. Pimentel was the first on soil erosion and research but you say so so it has to be true, right> (sarcasm) How about Barry Commoner? How about other ecologists before the revered Mr. Pimentel became the darling of the Peak Oil movement? Oh, they don't count, I suppose.

Oil companies only like ethanol now as an additive. States are requiring them to replace poisons they used before with ethanol. Oil companies have a long history of crushing any and all ethanol movements. They lied time and time again to keep ethanol out of gas. From lead to MTBE. The amount they are investing in biofuels is negligible in the grand scheme of things and for good reason: why fund a competitor? Do some homework instead of making insults.

Professor Pimentel, by the way, supports methanol from coal. Look it up. He's said so many times. Love those polluting fuels!

There will be plenty of evidence of his terrible scientific research on the question of ethanol in a new book out soon.
permaculture.com

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Dude, seriously

You're trying to make a point about how someone is an industry tool.

And you're using industry propaganda to do it.

Your post was a nearly point-by-point recitation of ethanol lobbyist factoids. I've seen the exact same arguments, in the same order, at least a dozen times -- in this forum. You didn't even change the phrasing on the (context-free) Anderson "charge", which I've never seen substantiated. And there are the several more pre-packaged slurs against Pimentel, each without a basis in fact.

"Pimentel's a charlatan, Pimentel's a liar, Pimentel's incompetent." Such strong words, all because he harshed on your mellow. Pimentel IS a major obstacle in the energy cartels' plans. But fortunately, they have people to do their bidding -- people who think that they're crusaders for all things green and against "corporatism", but who don't know when they've been played.

By the way, try to rein in your "withering sarcasm" a little. It makes you sound silly.

--p!

[poopfuel]

12. No "dude" I am not using industry propaganda

For Jack Anderson, it's the Washington Post, May 24, 1980.

For his support of coal see
www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sep05/running.htm

Pimentel's numbers are wrong for farm equipment, corn yield, application of fertilizer, transportation distances for grain, cost of nitogen fertilizer, ddgs being the same quality as soybean meal for feed, and so on. The 2006 Kammen report from UC Berkeley ridiculed him, saying he and Patzek used out of date data or data so lacking in backup as to be unable to be evaluated. Yes, this is the work of a competent scientist.

I'll give him this, he knows about soil and bugs. Not farming or ethanol.

I have not been played, and believe me, the energy cartels want nothing to do with ethanol. Read your history- "Forbidden Fuel- Power Alcohol in the 21st Century." The journalists were not tools of the oil companies when they wrote this. Nor of the ethanol lobby. Oil companies care about ethanol as an additive but only because of Peak oil and because govenments are requiring them to use it.

I am against corporate ethanol. But right now most of the ethanol is produced by farmers' coops. Small to medium sized plants nationwide are the way to go.

"Pre-packaged?" No, just ignored by those who choose not to thoroughly examine someone's record.

[Daedelus76]

8. their conclusions are faulty, pure and simple

Ever been around a vehicle burning ethanol, E85? It even smells clean.

Sure, if we have a nation of Chevy Suburbans burning E85, I can imagine the environmental air quality won't be much better. But hopefully by 2020, such wasteful vehicles will be illegal or unaffordable. Ethanol is only one half of the solution, the other half should be to encourage people to drive more fuel efficient cars and use public transportation or other low-pollution methods of travel (walking, biking, motorcycles, etc.).

Most of the deaths in the US due to air pollution are caused by asthma. Lots of things can set of asthma attacks. Should we ban extra cute kitty cats and puppy dogs too?

[NNadir]

2. Biofuel is one of the world's major killers.

Mostly it involves burning wood indoors and mostly it's in the third world and so our Tortilla Curtain environmentalists will launch into a bunch of blather basically ignoring and denying the problem, but it is still a problem.

Sixteen million people died in the last decade from biomass based air pollution if one is to believe the WHO:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/index.html

[Dogmudgeon]

5. It killed 16 million people! You must be talking about NUKKKULAR power!

Stop lying !!!1!!!!!1!!!!!1!!!1

Only KKKorpr0ate NuKKKular power kills!!1!!!1!!!

And what is this WHO, anyway?!?!? I c1icked the 1ink and it didn't say n0thing about Pete T0wnsend or J0n Entwis1e or Kieth M00n or Ringo Daltry.

We need HEMP and we need it N0W!!1!!1!!1!!1!1!!!!

--p!

[NNadir]

9. Oh. I forgot.

People who die from causes other than nuclear power don't count.

Hemp. Ethanol. Cellulose. Wood. Palm oil. Soybeans. Switch grass. Canola. Rapeseed. Wood. Ethanol. Hemp. Hemp. Hemp.

I often forget that all of our problems have been solved.

For a Pimentel suck up oil company shilling in-the-pay-of-Exxon exploiter of the just and honorable desires of the Cuban people's liberationist ruling class smashing dictatorship you can be pretty funny.


:woohoo:

:rofl:

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Well, Dick Cheney promised he'd give me a nickel

--p!

[razzleberry]

7. better ethanol crops... than suburban sprawl ..nt

[wtmusic]

13. "if we’re not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote

ethanol and other biofuels?

There are alternatives, such as battery-electric, plug-in-hybrid and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, whose energy can be derived from wind or solar power,” he added. “These vehicles produce virtually no toxic emissions or greenhouse gases and cause very little disruption to the land - unlike ethanol made from corn or switchgrass, which will require millions of acres of farmland to mass-produce. It would seem prudent, therefore, to address climate, health and energy with technologies that have known benefits.”

http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=633&akst_action=share-this

Internal combustion keeps giving internal combustion a bad name.