Quote:Study: Ethanol possibly more harmful than gas
By KEAY DAVIDSON
San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, April 19, 2007
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 Wednesday'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, Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-California, and 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."
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."
not to mention what i does to you fuel system in your vehicle. There are snowmobiler out here that had their engines blow on brand new sleds because on a 2stroke engine you have mix oil into the gas to run the engine. With the ethanol and oil, the oil separates in the tank and doesn't provide the engine any lucubration. Not to mention the tons of vehicles out there that are going to need a fuel system overhaul.
I'm 100% against the production of Ethanol, not only is it not helping the problem its also taking food of the plates of millions of people. Also it doesn't help with fuel mileage at all, it may be cheaper to to run in your car but your using more of it to go places.
Not that I disagree about ethanol (I've never seen the end benefit of watering down gas with something les efficient), but if you are concerned aboout the environment you should be lobbying sled manufacturers to stop using 2-stroke motors.
OAC_Sparky,Apr 28 2007, 05:41 PM Wrote:Not that I disagree about ethanol (I've never seen the end benefit of watering down gas with something les efficient), but if you are concerned aboout the environment you should be lobbying sled manufacturers to stop using 2-stroke motors.
[right][snapback]236640[/snapback][/right]
i was using that as an example of what ethanol is doing to an engine and what damage it does.
if you're going to use ethanol in a sled, you should be mixing it with a different oil, such as castor oil -- take a lesson from the R/C crowd on that one.
e85 can work, and even though it's less efficient than gas, it also has benefits as being produceable locally.
e85 isn't a bad thing, but like CFLs, I don't think all the research has been done, and it'll take a while for technology to address all the unique problems introduced by e85.
FocusGuy7476,Apr 28 2007, 02:51 PM Wrote:i was using that as an example of what ethanol is doing to an engine and what damage it does.
[right][snapback]236648[/snapback][/right]
Don't take it as a personal knock --
I've been saying that two strokes have been outmoded for years for ATVs, sleds and such. Used to be that the production cost of a two stroke outweighed the cost of adding the oil, but that's not the case any longer.
I always heard the argument of the two-stroke crowd was "4-strokes don't have enough torque". My brother-in-law, way more of a motorcycle guy when asleep then I'll ever be when awake, says that argument died about 10 years ago for dirt bikes. Same thing for ATVs and sleds.
Ethanol produced from non-food crops should be fine. I disagree with ethanol crop-producing plantations that displace large portions of necessary food crops.
We've come to a point where oil itself is becoming unmanageable as an energy source for the masses. We either find alternative fuel / energy sources, or we keep letting the "free market" rape and pillage our wallets as far as oil goes.
China and India's demand for ALL base commodities that support massively-ramped industrialization forces the hand of first-world nations. If we continue to stall, bitch and bellyache about it... we'll just be that much worse off down the road.
FocusGuy7476,Apr 28 2007, 01:14 PM Wrote:not to mention what i does to you fuel system in your vehicle. There are snowmobiler out here that had their engines blow on brand new sleds because on a 2stroke engine you have mix oil into the gas to run the engine. With the ethanol and oil, the oil separates in the tank and doesn't provide the engine any lucubration. Not to mention the tons of vehicles out there that are going to need a fuel system overhaul.
I'm 100% against the production of Ethanol, not only is it not helping the problem its also taking food of the plates of millions of people. Also it doesn't help with fuel mileage at all, it may be cheaper to to run in your car but your using more of it to go places.
[right][snapback]236635[/snapback][/right]
There are no snowmobiles made anymore that don't have oil injection. There haven't been for at least 10 years or more. Just top up the oil tank and be on your way. The reason the ethanol blows up 2 strokes is because it runs the engine leaner. You have to add more fuel to compensate. Since virtually everyone who owns a sled tunes it to the limit adding ethanol will burn a piston in no time.
^--- guess that solves the 2-stroke issue...
i guess that that solves that issue, i also should add i know nothing about snowmobiles, and was getting this info from the mechanics that worked on the sleds.