Article on Ethanol polution

[Bruce]

By Seth Borenstein

Updated: 1:09 a.m. ET April 18, 2007
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.

[mike ohlstein]

Saw that on the AP wire yesterday.

I wonder how many of the 60's, 70's, and 80's environMENTALists are wondering whether the global warming / acid rain / sky is falling stuff could have been mitigated by building more nuke plants way back then, and burning a billion tons less coal.

THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS UNSHAKABLE

Next up............ light bulbs. Soon we won't be able to buy an incandescent bulb in this country. They'll force us to switch to florescent, as has been done 'down under'.

What they fail to mention is that those florescent bulbs contain mercury, which winds up in the land fill.....and the ground water.....then the cows.....then the milk.....and finally in your babies.

You heard it here first.

[Peter]

It is unfortunate when our country doesn't educate our citizenry well enough to understand the difference between science and hype. Most voters probably can't reliably solve a simple equation, much less sort out the REAL science from the politically motivated and paid for studies that promote one particualr point of view....and our politicians exploit that fact for the financial gain of their constituents and themselves.

When ADM mentions in an add that the Japenese have a lower rate of heart disease and suggest that this is because they happen to eat more soy products, they leave out that Japenese also have a high incidence of having perfectly striaght black hair. Maybe their lack of heart disease has more to do with their genetics than with their diet? But who knows because it would be politically incorrect to make that study.
This is a perfect example of replacing the basis of real science, deductive reasoning, with inductive reasoning. (The "I washed my car and then it rained. So washing my car must make it rain" sort of thought process)


The same is true for global warming. If there wasn't global warming we would all be living in the ice age......but wait a minute.....the world was semi-tropical all the way up to the far northern and down to the far southern lattitudes before the last ice age. Hmmmm. What is your base line for deciding what Global Warming is? The last ice age? The tropical environment prior to the last ice age, or the egocentric base line of your own lifetime?(a completely insignificant amount of time in a geological sense.) And why should anyone think that there is one perfect, set, and steady temperature range for the planet. Obviously it has and will continue to ocsillate back and forth based on natural circumstances. Such is the underlying nature of any stable system.

So ethanol....who thinks it is a good idea to burn a basic staple of the worlds' food supply instead of the waste products of a bygone era?

They sell the ethanol concept on the idea that it is environmentally green. It is not. They sell the idea on the concept that it is better than buying foreign oil. It is not. They sell the idea on the hype that ethanol can be made from waste products. So far it is not. And almost no American voters are capable of seeing that they are being led by the nose because they are not educated enough to know how to find out the difference between an actual proven fact and a pile of politically motivated, paid for by lobbyists, hype.

It is a fundamental failure of our education system that is to balme for our present mess. Nothing less. We do not teach or citizens enough to think for themselves. And some days I think the politicians actually prefer it that way.

Just my rant for the day!

Peter

[dougl33]

I LMAO when I read that comment about having straight black hair!

Good one.