Study: Ethanol May Cause More Smog, Deaths
Posted on: Wednesday, 18 April 2007, 03:00 CDT
By SETH BORENSTEIN
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."
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.
---
On the Net:
Jacobson's study: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85PaperEST0207.pdf
Renewable Fuels Association: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/
Source: Associated Press/AP Online
Related Articles
- Study: Pollution Raises Exercise Risks
- Alkermes Announces Initiation of Phase I Clinical Study of AIR(R) Parathyroid Hormone
- Study: Polluted Air Raises Heart Risks
- Study: Polluted Air Raises Heart Disease Risks
- Air Products' Hydrogen Fueling Technology in Use at BP Station in Beijing Filling Buses in Preparation for 2008 Olympics
- Study: Yellowstone Air Quality Worsening
- Octane, Clean Air, and Renewable Fuels: a Modest Step Toward Energy Independence
- Blacks, Poor Most Likely to Breathe Polluted Air
- SCAQMD Study Details Air Pollution Problems
- Poor Hit By Most Smog, Says Study
User Comments (8)
| 8. |
Posted by dubs on 04/19/2007, 15:51 just a small point... the article and study suggest that ethanol increases levels of nitrogen oxide, this is false because ethanol burns at a lower temperature than gasoline, and nitrogen oxide is formed inside the engine at extremely high temperatures which causes the nitrogen gas naturally present in the atmosphere to bond with oxygen... lower burning temp with ethanol means less nitrogen oxide produced |
| 7. |
Posted by Adam on 04/18/2007, 23:02 Why not use water powered cars? I believe my eighth grade science teacher told me (I'm in 10th grade now) that a certain type of water powered engine had already been patented and gasoline companies were paying them NOT to release the engine so they could have their precious profit. Not entirely sure if that's true, but recently I remember on the news a company in New York created a water powered sports car. If people could implement a water-distillation system in their car (not a full out factory, a practical size [Just for clarification]), though it would obviously raise the sticker price, couldn't not only our environment but lots of people's money be saved through that? Or would that completely bankrupt the gasoline industries, because assuming if we switched from gasoline to water-powered engines, how much profit really is there in harvesting sea water? Also, would we be harming our environment in that essence by collecting masses of sea water? Though with global warming and the polar ice caps melting, would their be enough water available to safely collect water? Just a bunch of wishful thinking, I'm interested to see some answers. |
| 6. |
Posted by Munoz on 04/18/2007, 22:05 Jeremiah, you're not paying attention. The study was based on a computer model, not on actual quantities of ethanol-added gasoline. (Read the article again.) So what the oil companies put in ethanol-added gasoline is irrelevant: the study was addressing ethanol as a chemical in and of itself, as compared to gasoline in general. |
| 5. |
Posted by humanbeing on 04/18/2007, 20:41 It is a cop-out to think that Global Warming will be stopped by such band-aid methods as is being proposed - ethanol fuel being one of them! It is time for Governments to start thinking in human terms instead of selfish greed and power-mongering. Stopping overpopulation is the only way to stop Global Warming -- wake up people, or you will be forced to wake-up in a most unpleasant way as Earth takes her revenge on the ignorant and foolish. |
| 4. |
Posted by SunnyDiaz on 04/18/2007, 18:52 I think burning gas and ethanol should be phased out in time. Hydorcarbon production is not good period. We should make a push towards hydrogen powered vehicles. All we get is water out of it. I find that much more appealing than ethanol. |
| 3. |
Posted by AZtraveler on 04/18/2007, 18:06 I still would like to see E85 be widely available for most people in all of America. Yes it is not as efficient as regular gasoline but that is just a minor inconvenience to me. I would rather be affected by smog than terrorists. A lot of our oil and gas comes from the Middle East where the vast majority of terrorists come from to harm us. I am all in favor of an ethanol fuel supply that America can produce and control. Now if only E85 was available in Phoenix, Arizona that would really be good for me. |
| 2. |
Posted by Jamie on 04/18/2007, 13:43 What he is really saying is burning ethanol in cars is similar to buring good quality gas with some differences. I would like to know if he included the pollution released making both the gasoline and ethanol in to the calculations? Two, the increased energy required to handle ethanol including increased evaporation rates? Three, the poor energy yield (i.e. fuel efficiency) of ethanol in cold weather (less than 30 F) and high altitude (Denver)? Just shows quick fixes DO NOT exist. But if it reduces the oil we buy from the middle eastern terroists, that is a plus. |
| 1. |
Posted by jeremiah on 04/18/2007, 11:04 Dont be fooled by this. its not the alcohol that is the problem, its the poor quality gasoline in the mix. The oil companies use alcohol to raise the octane rating of their much polluted and very low octane fuel. Alcohol burns clean and only gives off water as a byproduct. Solution take out the gasoline and just burn alcohol. |



RSS Feeds