Ethanol cars unhealthier than petrol ones?
By Lewis Page
Published Wednesday 18th April 2007 14:50 GMT

An American academic has published research (pdf) suggesting that bio-ethanol vehicles could be more damaging to human health than ordinary fossil-fuelled ones.

Mark Jacobson of Stanford University in California used two computer models to predict American air quality in the year 2020. In the first scenario, it was taken that all vehicles ran on petrol. In the second, it was assumed that the motors would instead use E85 – a mix of 85 per cent ethanol and 15 per cent petrol.

Jacobson found that the E85-driven model forecast 200 more deaths per year across the USA, the majority occurring in Los Angeles. The extra deaths would occur in places where the amount of surface-level ozone could be expected to increase as a result of ethanol use. There would be other places where ethanol vehicles would actually reduce the amount of ozone present, but overall the health consequences would be negative.

Ozone, the triple-atom oxygen molecule, is vital for human health when found high above the earth's surface as it absorbs harmful UV radiation. But when breathed in too-high concentrations, it can trigger asthma attacks and other respiratory problems.

"We found that using E85 will cause at least as much health damage as gasoline, which already causes about 10,000 premature deaths annually from ozone and particulate matter," said Jacobson.

"The question is, if we're not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote ethanol and other biofuels."

Another way of looking at those figures, of course, is that the sims showed a two per cent difference between deaths from petrol and deaths from ethanol. Most of that variance was the result of a cluster in LA, a region for which Jacobson seems to have used a different sim structure than he did for the rest of the States. Just how statistically significant all this is could be open to debate, especially as E85 advocates would point out that ethanol could potentially be carbon-neutral one day – unlike petrol.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/18/ethanol_jolly_bad_says_windmill_booster/

We need to remember that just because it is alternative that it is not alway's better for the environment. Take Bio-diesel it produces as much NOX and particulate matter as regular diesel....so why use it? it reduces our dependency on imported oil.That in my book is better than what it does to the environment. It does not surprise me that E-85 vehicles are proving to not be as envionmentally friendly but if it gets us away from depending on the middle east then I am all for it.

__________________
Keith Schuster
2006 E350 98K miles
2013 Ford Explorer 15K miles

ethanol?

it is political. i suppose maybe a payback for the midwest and western states for voting for w.

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Then again, alternative is alternative, not a substitute.
Seems that the study was done assuming that all the petrol would be changed to E85.
The way I look at it, is that E85 is on of many alternatives to plain old petrol.

Natural, propane, and methane gas is another alternative.

Compressed air vehicles are also being developed - not sure if you can call air a fuel, since it is not being burned....more like consumed.

Anyway, to assume that E85 will take the place of regular petrol/Gasoline is absurd and myopic - alternative fuels should be varied, and certainly more than just of one type.

__________________
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. Robert A. Heinlein


09 Jetta TDI
1985 300D