Stanford (CA) - A new Stanford University study finds that a switch to ethanol vehicles would likely increase the number of respiratory deaths in the United States. Stanford University scientist Mark Jacobson published his findings in the Environmental Science and Technology Journal and says that ethanol poses an “equal or greater” risk to public health over gasoline.

Jacobson simulated widespread ethanol usage with a mainframe computer, but focused his attention to the Los Angeles area because of its high pollution and population density. His computer model combined the effects of tailpipe emission chemicals with temperatures, sunlight, clouds and precipitation. He also calculated wind effects and the ethanol’s reaction with other airborne chemicals.

The simulation calculated two future scenarios set in the year 2020 that compared an all gasoline vehicle fleet versus one fueled by ethanol 85 which is a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. In the E85 scenario, the levels of the carcinogens benzene and butadiene were reduced, but two others formaldehyde and acetaldehyde rose. Ozone also significantly increased in some parts of the country.

Jacobson points out that the increase ozone would account for an extra 200 respiratory deaths per year which is about 4 percent more than the deaths that would have been caused by gasoline vehicles.

You can read the abstract of the study here . http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/e.../es062085v.html

How much did big oil pay him to come up with that conclusion?

How much did big oil pay him to come up with that conclusion?

No need to pay anything.

If all American maize production went into the ethanol, that would cover 15% of the gasoline consumption in the US.

ALL, not some, nothing to eat, feed to the cattle or process for human consumption. A far cry.

Where have you got those figures from? Also, you can use other crop than maize. Brazil has been using ethanol for decades, about half the population uses it. The main reason not everybody use it is not avilabilility but that the fuel economy and engine output is a bit worse than with petrol.

Where have you got those figures from?

From The Economist. The Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal also quoted them.

Where did you get your knowledge to confront it?

Edited April 19, 200719 yr by think_too_mut

From living in Brazil.

Doesn't Brazil get its ethanol from cane sugar, rather than from corn (maize)? The US can't grow much sugar cane, and probably can't grow enough corn. Already, Mexico complains that ethanol production is causing increases in corn prices.

From living in Brazil.

Fine. Please tell the board what you have learned there re ethanol. And how you can save the world.

Edited April 19, 200719 yr by think_too_mut

You're just full of the usual yank BS ... we're the worlds biggest nation so we can pollute as much as we like. There are no substitute for petrol fueled big engines, etc....

'

Doesn't Brazil get its ethanol from cane sugar, rather than from corn (maize)? The US can't grow much sugar cane, and probably can't grow enough corn. Already, Mexico complains that ethanol production is causing increases in corn prices.

It does. I didn't hear any complains about it when I was there.

How much did big oil pay him to come up with that conclusion?

No need to pay anything.

If all American maize production went into the ethanol, that would cover 15% of the gasoline consumption in the US.

ALL, not some, nothing to eat, feed to the cattle or process for human consumption. A far cry.

No one believes that corn ethanol is going to solve the State's need for alternative fuels. It's going to take ethanol from all types of biomass (switch grass, corn stalks, wood chips etc). Cellulosic ethanol will take a few years to become cost effective, but it will happen. I think the price went from around $4 a gallon, and is now around $0.25 a gallon. Once it gets down to $0.10, it will be cost effective.

We aren't going to make up enough in diesel either making biodiesel from oil seed crops. Many algae species contain more oil per acre than any oil seed crop (in some cases over 250 times as much).

Would it be too much to ask that we try to focus this to Thailand, and stop the nation-bashing?

Well, the OP was about USA ...

Stanford (CA) - A new Stanford University study finds that a switch to ethanol vehicles would likely increase the number of respiratory deaths in the United States.

Pardon me for being thick.

But I thought that the combustion products of ethanol were water and CO2, neither of which is particularly hazardous.

Pardon me for being thick.

But I thought that the combustion products of ethanol were water and CO2, neither of which is particularly hazardous.

While, those are the two main consituents, other by-products of buring ethanol include formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Both are particularly nasty in large amounts (millions of cars burning Etoh).

Pardon me for being thick.

But I thought that the combustion products of ethanol were water and CO2, neither of which is particularly hazardous.

While, those are the two main consituents, other by-products of buring ethanol include formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Both are particularly nasty in large amounts (millions of cars burning Etoh).

Got it, incomplete combustion

This is also worrying (from Wikipedia):-

Acetaldehyde, sometimes known as ethanal, is an organic chemical compound with the formula CH3CHO or MeCHO. It is a flammable liquid with a fruity smell. Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in ripe fruit, coffee, and fresh bread and is produced by plants as part of their normal metabolism. It is probably best known as the chemical that causes "hangovers".

Getting a hangover from the alcohol the car is drinking, scary.

Edited April 21, 200719 yr by Crossy