backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 143 comment(s) - last by Frallan.. on Apr 28 at 7:36 AM


Chevrolet's Silverado pickup is available with a FlexFuel Vortec 5.3L V8 engine
A new study authored by a Stanford University professor questions the "greenness" of ethanol-based fuel

A recent study from the Environmental Science and Technology journal raises some new concerns about ethanol-based E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) which can be used in automobiles. The study finds that if much of the country's fuel supply would switch from gasoline to E85, the number of deaths from respiratory failure (due to ozone) in the United States would rise from 4,700 people a year to nearly 4,900 per year.

"It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University environmental engineering professor and author of the study. "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."

Jacobson used computer models to determine the effects of an increased use of ethanol in automobiles and how they would impact air pollution. The models determined than an increased reliance on E85 would result in increased smog levels -- especially in Los Angeles and major cities in the Northeast.

Jacobson contends that the increase in smog levels is due to the fact that more hydrocarbons are released into the atmosphere from the combustion of ethanol than from gasoline. Jacobson also notes that ethanol produces less nitrogen oxide which most often is a positive side effect. However, in smog-filled areas like Los Angeles the decreased nitrogen oxide levels can be harmful to the atmosphere.

Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, says that he respect's Jacobson's work but takes issues with some of his findings and methodology. Hartwing notes that when using real-world data instead of computer models "ethanol is a greener fuel than gasoline."

President Bush laid out plans earlier this month for the United States to reduce its dependency on gasoline. "We have laid out a plan that will affect greenhouse gases that come from automobiles by having a mandatory fuel standard that insists on 35 -- using 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017, which will reduce our gasoline uses by 20 percent and halt the growth in greenhouse gases that emanate from automobiles," said President Bush.

Bush's plan would require that auto manufacturers dedicate more of their resources into producing more E85-capable, hydrogen fuel-cell, gasoline-electric hybrid and all-electric vehicles.

Brazil uses sugar cane as the main component for ethanol used in automotive applications. Brazil is also the largest producer of ethanol as a fuel and nearly half of the vehicles running in the country are powered by ethanol. The United States uses corn instead of sugar cane to produce E85 fuel. Less than 3 percent of new vehicles available for purchase in the United States can run on E85.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Gee! You think . . .
By Quryous on 4/20/2007 12:06:31 PM , Rating: 3
You think all this E85 crap is politically based, rather than science based?

Brazil's eth use is a LOT more complex than most people realize, as are the disadvantages to their economy. But, the pols never bring that up. Getting away from all that nasty foreign oil is a LOT more useful to the pols, politically, that the possibility that they are messing up the economy, as a whole.

I have nothing against alternative energy sources, but certainly wish that the pols would get their hands out of the pie and let REAL science take over, not politically motivated and biased "science," either. REAL Science. That questions EVERYTHING! That TESTS everything with a critical eye to what the pols are spouting.




RE: Gee! You think . . .
By BMFPitt on 4/20/2007 12:10:37 PM , Rating: 4
Don't forget: Iowa is the first primary state. Everybody trying to get into the White House goes there and sucks up to the ethanol lobby to get that edge.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By Jetster on 4/20/2007 12:23:49 PM , Rating: 4
the study also forget to mention that increasing eth use drives up corn price, and more land for corn, which in turn drives up all the other food price, search the news it's well documented.It also makes american export food more expensive, which means more people in developing countries will go hungry. People in Mexico already went on street to complain about rising corn and tortilla price


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By hands on 4/20/2007 12:53:00 PM , Rating: 1
Have you ever spent a significant amount of time in Mexico? I have, and the economy is significantly agricultural in nature. I knew many people who grew corn for a living. Higher prices for corn definitely wouldn't be a bad thing for them, and less money being spent on imported goods such as corn or other foods generally helps a country's economy in the long run.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 1:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "Higher prices for corn definitely wouldn't be a bad thing for [Mexico]"

Oops, you forgot the fact that Mexico imports large amounts of corn from the US...well over 8 million metric tons a year now. Corn is also a primary staple diet for a majority of Mexico's population, people who are severely hurt by a near-overnight doubling in the price of corn.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By IndyJoe on 4/20/2007 1:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot the fact that the US government pays farmers not to farm. They could stop doing that and then farmland that is not being used can be used to produce more corn. In doing so they will offset the additional usage and keep the price flat.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 1:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "You forgot the fact that the US government pays farmers not to farm..."

You misunderstand the current nature of federal farm subsidies. The US government sets a minimum price floor for subsidized commodities, If the market price falls below the price floor, the government pays the farmer the difference. This encourages overproduction and drives down the market price.

The days of paying farmers for refusing to grow food are pretty much over. Some farmers do get a per-acre payout anyway...but its paid whether or not they farm. They're still free to grow food, and doing so will pretty much make them a guaranteed profit, so anyone that was planning on farming without the subsidy, still does so with it.

I'm not a big fan of farm subsidies, but claiming they act to raise grain prices is 180 degrees incorrect.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By PrimarchLion on 4/20/2007 4:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder how I can become one of those "some farmers". Buy a few hundred acres and just collect the payout. Probably get killed by taxes anyway. Need to look into that.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By Cogman on 4/20/2007 9:26:08 PM , Rating: 3
lol, it is nowhere near that simple. I currently work on a farm of about 100 acres, most years we barely break even (farm is a "Hobby" farm as my dad puts it, he has a business). There are subsidies out there where you get paid not to farm, but as far as I know there are no or few Paid to farm or not farm subsidies. The most popular paid not to farm subsidies here in Idaho is CRP, basically you get paid to let your land go wild so you can make a natural habitat for wildlife (but they want you to partially manage the growth, very confusing you can't touch the land but at the same time you have to make sure it does not go too wild....). You are also limited to the amount of time you can keep a farm in CRP, I believe you have a 10 year contract and after that they re-evaluate if they want to renew the contract further.

Farming is a bad career choice unless you have well over 1000 acres and a good amount of hired hands. Food prices are just way to low to make a living off of it. (Beef is the best place to start with a smaller farm as it give a bit higher profit right now, but cows are miserable creatures to work with.)


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By Bladen on 4/21/2007 5:34:21 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
but cows are miserable creatures to work with.


Tell me about it, I used to work for one name Karen.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By masher2 (blog) on 4/21/2007 1:01:42 PM , Rating: 4
> "as far as I know there are no or few Paid to farm or not farm subsidies."

According to this Washington Post story, such subsidies not only exist, but now encompass over half of all total payments. There are few if any restrictions on the money...you can grow the crop being subsidied anyway, you can grow something else entirely, or do nothing whatsoever.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By Dfere on 4/20/2007 1:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
In the short run. In the long run, countries that can make land available for corn would benefit. Certainly the US. But I thought ethanol can be made from many crops. If so, this is a win for farmers and agriculture in any country, I would think.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By Christopher1 on 4/20/2007 8:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
It can be made from many crops, ranging from soy, to wheat, etc.

Basically, any plant can be used to make ethanol, it's just how much trouble and expense it would have to make that ethanol, and the difference in the AMOUNT each could make.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2007 11:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
Life's a bitch. Consider it payback for millions of them coming to the US, driving down wages, and sucking billions of dollars out of our federal welfare programs despite not paying any taxes (99.9% of them at least) and then holding protests about how they don't like how they're being treated.

Feel free to rate me down. I really don't care. I also really don't care about the problems Mexico is having considering all the problems Mexico's citizens are causing the US.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By ogreslayer on 4/20/2007 2:04:41 PM , Rating: 4
Its moot as you wouldn't want them growing corn to make ethanol anyway its one of the least efficient per acre, ton, and amount of energy used to make ethanol. The best stuff to use is sugar beets and sugarcane which yield roughly 2x the fuel per acre.

If the US is serious about moving over to an E85 structure; corn is not the answer. Moving all viable areas over to sugar beets would probably be the way to go. To top it off sugar beets work decently in a rotation system with corn. So it would be easy to appease those who have the fields to do it.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By mendocinosummit on 4/20/2007 8:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
I have read and heard many times that Switchgrass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass) will actually be the most efficient in the near future. I think that it produced more than two times more ethanol. It can also grow almost anywhere and faster.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By Ringold on 4/20/2007 4:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
You haven't been there lately, or you'd know some parts are furious about the rise is corn prices as they can't afford to make their traditional foods the same way they're used to. If prices continue higher, riots are not at all out of the question.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By jskirwin on 4/20/2007 2:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the study also forget to mention that increasing eth use drives up corn price


And you forget to mention that higher prices led farmers to plant more corn over the winter, which resulted in a supply overshooting demand - thereby pushing down prices.

Corn prices are way off their peaks now (see http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/cfutu...

The supply of corn is much more elastic than oil. A farmer can plant more and bring more corn to market in three months; it takes 10 years for an oil company to bring a new oil field on line.


RE: Gee! You think . . .
By grenableu on 4/20/2007 2:12:06 PM , Rating: 3