Study: Nationwide E85 Use Could Worsen Public Health . . .
04-19-07, 10:53 AM
#1
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Study: Nationwide E85 Use Could Worsen Public Health . . .
Study: Nationwide E85 Use Could Worsen Public Health
18 April 2007
Fleet-wide use of E85 in the United States could increase the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations, according to a new study by Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson. His findings are published online in the journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T).
Jacobson combined and air pollution/weather forecast model with future emission inventories, population data, and health effects data to examine the effect of converting from gasoline to E85 on cancer, mortality, and hospitalization in the US as a whole and Los Angeles in particular.
After accounting for projected improvements in gasoline and E85 vehicle emission controls, the study found that E85 may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9% in Los Angeles (120 deaths/year with a range of 47-140/yr) and 4% in the US as a whole (185 deaths/yr with a range of 72-216/yr) relative to 100% gasoline.
E85 also increased hospitalization by about 650 and 990 in Los Angeles and the US, respectively, and asthma-related emergency-room visits by about 770 and 1,200 in Los Angeles and the US, respectively.
While the simulations found that E85 vehicles reduced atmospheric levels of benzene and butadiene—two carcinogens—compared to gasoline vehicles, the E85 vehicles increased levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde—two other carcinogens. As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline.
Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline. However, because of the uncertainty in future emission regulations, it can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles. Unburned ethanol emissions from E85 may result in a global-scale source of acetaldehyde larger than that of direct emissions.
The projected health effects of E85 would be the same regardless of feedstock or process.
18 April 2007
Fleet-wide use of E85 in the United States could increase the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations, according to a new study by Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson. His findings are published online in the journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T).
Jacobson combined and air pollution/weather forecast model with future emission inventories, population data, and health effects data to examine the effect of converting from gasoline to E85 on cancer, mortality, and hospitalization in the US as a whole and Los Angeles in particular.
After accounting for projected improvements in gasoline and E85 vehicle emission controls, the study found that E85 may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9% in Los Angeles (120 deaths/year with a range of 47-140/yr) and 4% in the US as a whole (185 deaths/yr with a range of 72-216/yr) relative to 100% gasoline.
E85 also increased hospitalization by about 650 and 990 in Los Angeles and the US, respectively, and asthma-related emergency-room visits by about 770 and 1,200 in Los Angeles and the US, respectively.
While the simulations found that E85 vehicles reduced atmospheric levels of benzene and butadiene—two carcinogens—compared to gasoline vehicles, the E85 vehicles increased levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde—two other carcinogens. As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline.
Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline. However, because of the uncertainty in future emission regulations, it can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles. Unburned ethanol emissions from E85 may result in a global-scale source of acetaldehyde larger than that of direct emissions.
The projected health effects of E85 would be the same regardless of feedstock or process.
04-20-07, 12:50 AM
#2
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Wait - who doesn't know that burning alcohol results in formaldehyde? I guarantee you, you liver knows it well!
04-20-07, 07:31 AM
#3
Why the US continues to make these mistakes is beyond me. Why the push for E85? Everyone else is trying to go electric hybrid. But no. We have to go take all the friggin corn to make ethanol that is not healthy for us, in the meantime driving up prices for milk, bread, and every other staple food. Yeah sounds like a great idea to me. Bring on the Toyota hybrids.
04-20-07, 10:58 AM
#4
Super Moderator
We'll never get that stuff in Mexico...we recently had the tortilla price increase issue due to the corn being sold for ethanol production in the U.S., plus we have bad enough pollution where I live as it is.
04-20-07, 12:18 PM
#6
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: northern ca
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in the real world, where suburbia and work are rarely close by, it is next to impossible to have adequate coverage by mass transit system, let alone it being practical.
I live in the Bay Area (North Cal), and there are places you can get to by BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), such as SF downtown. But you also need to get to the BART station (which means a drive or a Bus ride). If you don't work in downtown, you need then to take some form of public transportation to get to where you work. If you add up the time that it takes to get to BART (departure station), to ride BART (arrival station), to get to your final destination, it is just not practical IMO. And SF has pretty good public transit.
Other places would be even worse off.
04-20-07, 12:49 PM
#7
Lexus Champion
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a perfect world, yes.
But in the real world, where suburbia and work are rarely close by, it is next to impossible to have adequate coverage by mass transit system, let alone it being practical.
I live in the Bay Area (North Cal), and there are places you can get to by BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), such as SF downtown. But you also need to get to the BART station (which means a drive or a Bus ride). If you don't work in downtown, you need then to take some form of public transportation to get to where you work. If you add up the time that it takes to get to BART (departure station), to ride BART (arrival station), to get to your final destination, it is just not practical IMO. And SF has pretty good public transit.
Other places would be even worse off.
But in the real world, where suburbia and work are rarely close by, it is next to impossible to have adequate coverage by mass transit system, let alone it being practical.
I live in the Bay Area (North Cal), and there are places you can get to by BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), such as SF downtown. But you also need to get to the BART station (which means a drive or a Bus ride). If you don't work in downtown, you need then to take some form of public transportation to get to where you work. If you add up the time that it takes to get to BART (departure station), to ride BART (arrival station), to get to your final destination, it is just not practical IMO. And SF has pretty good public transit.
Other places would be even worse off.
I could also eat some breakfast, read the paper, or whatever, and leave the driving to someone else. I also saved huge on gas, mileage, vehicle wear and tear, and parking fees.
Commuting on the bus was making a difference, because for every rider (and there were a lot of them) there was 1 less car on the highway, and a lot less exhaust being spewed into the atmosphere.
Everyone wins.
Trending Topics
04-20-07, 02:49 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
In a perfect world, yes.
But in the real world, where suburbia and work are rarely close by, it is next to impossible to have adequate coverage by mass transit system, let alone it being practical.
I live in the Bay Area (North Cal), and there are places you can get to by BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), such as SF downtown. But you also need to get to the BART station (which means a drive or a Bus ride). If you don't work in downtown, you need then to take some form of public transportation to get to where you work. If you add up the time that it takes to get to BART (departure station), to ride BART (arrival station), to get to your final destination, it is just not practical IMO. And SF has pretty good public transit.
Other places would be even worse off.
But in the real world, where suburbia and work are rarely close by, it is next to impossible to have adequate coverage by mass transit system, let alone it being practical.
I live in the Bay Area (North Cal), and there are places you can get to by BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), such as SF downtown. But you also need to get to the BART station (which means a drive or a Bus ride). If you don't work in downtown, you need then to take some form of public transportation to get to where you work. If you add up the time that it takes to get to BART (departure station), to ride BART (arrival station), to get to your final destination, it is just not practical IMO. And SF has pretty good public transit.
Other places would be even worse off.
04-20-07, 03:40 PM
#9
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ca
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
200 people dieing a year is better than thousands dieing world wide in wars fought over oil.
Some day we will have nuclear plants making hydrogen, doesn't get much cleaner than that. Store the nuclear waste where we know where it is, instead of releasing the waste into the air we breath. I'm sure we will see this at the end of our lifetimes.
Some day we will have nuclear plants making hydrogen, doesn't get much cleaner than that. Store the nuclear waste where we know where it is, instead of releasing the waste into the air we breath. I'm sure we will see this at the end of our lifetimes.
04-20-07, 04:34 PM
#10
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
You're obviously not familiar with the occupational disease rates in the urnanium mining and milling industry. Imagine an industry where the workers die of cancer 95% of the time and 75% of the time it's lung cancer.
Besides, there isn't anywhere near enough radioactive material on the planet to generate enough hydrogen to provide transporation.
I like my commute. Walk down the hall from the bedroom to the office. Commute done. It rocks. I only sit in traffic when I can't plan around it. That's not very often.
Besides, there isn't anywhere near enough radioactive material on the planet to generate enough hydrogen to provide transporation.
I like my commute. Walk down the hall from the bedroom to the office. Commute done. It rocks. I only sit in traffic when I can't plan around it. That's not very often.
04-20-07, 04:40 PM
#11
Lexus Test Driver
04-21-07, 12:00 AM
#12
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is nothing new. First, your injctor issues with ethanol are a result of the simple fact that ethanol is an alcohol. Thus, it is hydrophobic and corrosive. Hence, running it in a car not designed to do so will deteriorate the injectors, fuel lines, etc... Even older cars not built around the knowledge that up0 to 10% ethanol will be added to gasoline.
Second, yes ethanol produces fewer btu's in combustion than gasoline. So invariably the mpg will be worse with ethanol than with gasoline. This is also really old news.
Finally, I'm not sure what the point of posting this was. No disrespect StefanZ, but it is the opinion of one scientist out of thousands that have done similiar studies for years. The only byproducts that occur from ethanol combustion are water and CO2. The CO2 is a greenhouse gas, bt not as much of it is produced from Ethanol combustion than with current gasoline standards. Of course, perfect combustion does not occur, but we don't have engines designed fo ethanol- we have engines designed for gasoline that can use ethanol.
I think if you want to find some damning evidence about ethanol as a viable alternative in the future, then there are better stories to dig up than this one. Like how CAFE standards for the big three are met because they produce enough flex fuel vehicles to raise their averages, because flex fuel vehicles that run E85 aren't graded on the 85% ethanol but on the 15% gasoline and thereby skewing the actual mpg average. Or perhaps on the numerous articles that detail how taxpayers pay twice for ethanol at the pump by paying farmers more to grow ethanol fuel crops and paying oil companies incentives to buy said ethanol. Or the best bet yet, all the scientific reports that show there is no way in hell we can ever grow enough switchgrass, corn, or make synthetic cellulose to ever replace gasoline to an appreciable extent with ethanol- so why bother with ethanol at all?
Second, yes ethanol produces fewer btu's in combustion than gasoline. So invariably the mpg will be worse with ethanol than with gasoline. This is also really old news.
Finally, I'm not sure what the point of posting this was. No disrespect StefanZ, but it is the opinion of one scientist out of thousands that have done similiar studies for years. The only byproducts that occur from ethanol combustion are water and CO2. The CO2 is a greenhouse gas, bt not as much of it is produced from Ethanol combustion than with current gasoline standards. Of course, perfect combustion does not occur, but we don't have engines designed fo ethanol- we have engines designed for gasoline that can use ethanol.
I think if you want to find some damning evidence about ethanol as a viable alternative in the future, then there are better stories to dig up than this one. Like how CAFE standards for the big three are met because they produce enough flex fuel vehicles to raise their averages, because flex fuel vehicles that run E85 aren't graded on the 85% ethanol but on the 15% gasoline and thereby skewing the actual mpg average. Or perhaps on the numerous articles that detail how taxpayers pay twice for ethanol at the pump by paying farmers more to grow ethanol fuel crops and paying oil companies incentives to buy said ethanol. Or the best bet yet, all the scientific reports that show there is no way in hell we can ever grow enough switchgrass, corn, or make synthetic cellulose to ever replace gasoline to an appreciable extent with ethanol- so why bother with ethanol at all?
04-21-07, 12:41 AM
#13
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: northern ca
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because ethanol is an alcohol, it is hydrophilic. That's why it can't be transported in pipelines - because it picks up water along the way. Or, closer to home, you wouldn't be able to enjoy your favorite alcoholic beverage, since it would separate into two distinct layers: water and alcohol - if alcohol was hydrophobic 
.
Actually, E85 is 85% gasoline, 15% ethanol.
.
flex fuel vehicles that run E85 aren't graded on the 85% ethanol but on the 15% gasoline and thereby skewing the actual mpg average.
Last edited by Vlad_Stein; 04-21-07 at 12:46 AM.
04-21-07, 06:56 AM
#14
Lexus Champion
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
