Ethanol may raise ozone levels more than gasoline, study says

[peejay 327]

Ethanol may raise ozone levels more than gasoline, study says

By SETH BORENSTEIN

Associated Press

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 today's online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology and adds to the messy debate over ethanol.

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.

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.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4724901.html

[homesick_american 1]

This is why electric is the way to go.

[peejay 327]

This is why electric is the way to go.

As long as you are not using a dirty old coal plant to generate all that electricity.

[almaty 19]

use that coal..f##k canada and acid rain

[Robor007 0]

This is why electric is the way to go.

What about hydrogen? TBH I'm not up on the 'alternative fuels' these days. Is hydrogen still under discussion?

[almaty 19]

This is why electric is the way to go.

What about hydrogen? TBH I'm not up on the 'alternative fuels' these days. Is hydrogen still under discussion?

no $$$ for the oil companies in hydrogen

[zyggy 9]

This is why electric is the way to go.

What about hydrogen? TBH I'm not up on the 'alternative fuels' these days. Is hydrogen still under discussion?

Remember the Hinderburg... It's highly volaitle and explosive. There's no easy way to store it, transport it, or transfer it from a filling station to your vehicle...

[GaryC 7]

This is why electric is the way to go.

What about hydrogen? TBH I'm not up on the 'alternative fuels' these days. Is hydrogen still under discussion?

It also takes energy to make hydrogen. If you use a fossil fuel based energy to generate the hydrogen then you gain nothing.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

This is why electric is the way to go.

As long as you are not using a dirty old coal plant to generate all that electricity.

yup. use nuclear, solar, wind or hydro.

P.S. making hydrogen requires energy.

hydrogen production

[GaryC 7]

P.S. making hydrogen requires energy.

hydrogen production

I thought I just said that!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is why electric is the way to go.

As long as you are not using a dirty old coal plant to generate all that electricity.

yup. use nuclear, solar, wind or hydro.

P.S. making hydrogen requires energy.

hydrogen production

There is the possibility of using photovoltaic power (solar) to extract hydrogen atoms from water.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Remember the Hinderburg... It's highly volaitle and explosive. There's no easy way to store it, transport it, or transfer it from a filling station to your vehicle...

Not quite. Yes, hydrogen is extremely flammable. But, test have shown that the coating of the Hidenburg disaster could've also been the cause. Nonetheless, today's technology have eliminated that risk of spontaneous explosion. Along time ago, cars use to run on steam. Consumers were paranoid that having a car with an engine that explodes every second is a time bomb waiting to go.

Hydrogen when burned about the Hidenburg wouldn't have burn all of it in less than a few seconds. The Hidenburg came down in about 30 seconds. If hydrogen were the accelerante, than it would've burned slower than was mentioned.

The risk with hydrogen storage within automobiles have been eliminated to fare with storage with gasoline. But, the most important reason is that hydrogen is more expensive in producing than gasoline engines. It takes more energy to split the water molecule to oxygen and hydrogen than it is to just get gasoline. Another factor is that upgrading current infrastructure also requires large amount of money.

It's more about economics more so than the science.

Edited April 19, 2007 by consolemaster

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

P.S. making hydrogen requires energy.

hydrogen production

I thought I just said that!

You did!! I was just elaborating.

[homesick_american 1]

So...keeping these energy problems in mind, wouldn't it be a good idea to cut back on the gas we use NOW, in order to make it last longer? Just a thought.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Regardless of this bogus report (200 extra deaths in a country of 300 million, what's your margin of error there exactly?) corn based ethanol is a bad idea, and the only reason anyone is considering it is because of the massive corn lobby in this country. Corn based ethanol means more massive subsidies for corn growers, coming out of tax payers pockets masked under a veneer of "green" ness to try to make it appeal to the general public.

For this country to become truly green, it needs to come up with solutions from scientists, not lobbiests.

Honestly, we'd be better off just going with oil for now, its not going to run out any time soon.