Ethanol may create dirtier air?

[transplant99]

I found this and was, to say the least, quite surprised. I had always thought this was a much much better alternative to gasoline if it could be implemented on a large scale.

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.

"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."

The science behind why ethanol might increase smog is complicated, but according to Jacobson, part of the explanation is that ethanol produces more hydrocarbons than gasoline. And ozone is the product of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide cooking in the sun.

Also, the ethanol produces longer-lasting chemicals that eventually turn into hydrocarbons that can travel farther. "You are really spreading out pollution over a larger area," he said.

And finally, while ethanol produces less nitrogen oxide, that can actually be a negative in some very smoggy places. When an area like Los Angeles reaches a certain high level of nitrogen oxide, that excess chemical begins eating up spare ozone, Jacobson said.

Fascinating stuff really.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...ol-study_N.htm

[Displaced Flames fan]

Yeah, fascinating to be sure...but I'm tired of articles like this that say things like "ethanol produces more hydrocarbons than gasoline. And ozone is the product of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide cooking in the sun."

Ethanol and gasoline ARE hydrocarbons, the statement doesn't make sense in the way they present it.

[killer_carlson]

well I think what this is saying is that while it might affect Greenhouse gases, it won't have an influence on smog.

It really frustrates me at work when people talk about how we need kyoto to stop smog, acid rain and other airborne particulates.

They are different things. Greenhouse gases are only one piece of the puzzle.

[Barnes]

Looking at the performance stats of new ethanol driven vehicles makes me think this is nothing more than farm subsidies and make work projects, which is fine. I was in Mennedosa, Man last summer and that area is benefiting greatly from the ethanol plant.

Ethanol is NOT the answer though. Not even close.

[Flames in 07]

I think it will be very interesting to what extent we create a dependance to Ethanol, and how we manage emmissions in general.

The is a large and growing gap between how much people think they know about how to help with reducing emissions and how much they really know. People mean well but it is absolutely surprising how poor we are at dealing with a real problem.

With ethanol trading in food for fuel may make sense to this part of the planet, but go tell that to the hundreds of millions who don't know where their next meal is going to come from.

[Daradon]

I always thought Ethanol to be more of a gasoline substitute who's biggest benefit is that it is renewable, not that it's 'green'.

I guess it's green in the fact that you don't have the enviromental damage when you drill for it, but as far as burning it, it still releases it's emissions too.

The biggest way to help the planet is still less waste, the use of energy in general.

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I always thought Ethanol to be more of a gasoline substitute who's biggest benefit is that it is renewable, not that it's 'green'.

I guess it's green in the fact that you don't have the enviromental damage when you drill for it, but as far as burning it, it still releases it's emissions too.

The biggest way to help the planet is still less waste, the use of energy in general.

GM sure wants you to think it helps the Green house gas 'problem'

http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/energy/index.html

[SoCalFlamesFan]

Don't forget that the entire Ethanol lobby is paid for by the US government, as a way to justify their massive subsidies to US corn farmers.

It's a (somewhat debatable) fact that adding up the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of ethanol, then the burning of ethanol, are far higher than the production and burning of gasoline... and that creating ethanol uses more energy than ethanol produces.

Not that it matters. What matters is that the population become green conscious and that corporations and governments become more green conscious so that our culture changes, and more money is spent on research so that we can find alternative fuel sources that don't pollute and are economically feasible.

[tanguay'sstillgood]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yeah, fascinating to be sure...but I'm tired of articles like this that say things like "ethanol produces more hydrocarbons than gasoline. And ozone is the product of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide cooking in the sun."

Ethanol and gasoline ARE hydrocarbons, the statement doesn't make sense in the way they present it.

Ethanol is not actually a hydrocarbon, it's an alcohol, which are hydrocarbon derivatives. It doesn't seem like much, but substituting that one hydrogen for an oxygen really changes a lot of a substance's properties.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

GM sure wants you to think it helps the Green house gas 'problem'

http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/energy/index.html

I bet they do, lol

[Bill Bumface]

I don't know too much about ethanol as a fuel, but how much C02 is produced when it is burned compared to how much C02 is absorbed by the corn grown to produce it?

[Ayrahb]

I am far from being an expert, but doesn't burning a molecule of ethanol produce two molecules of CO2 and 3 molecules of water? How do we get hydrocarbons in this? Is it because of the benzene used in dehydration?

Any chemists out there who care to clarify this?

On a side note, I just checked if my car is compatible with E85 blends (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) and it's not. I guess no increase in power for me.

[Cowboy89]

The Ethanol movement is wildly popular for three reasons:

1. The Environmental movement likes it because they have a hate-on for Hydrocarbon companies and would like to see any 'solution' that would remove them from the process. It plays nicely into their 'anti-corporate' agenda. They also romaticize with the 'cottage industry' notion that plants grown by individual farmers would be generating an alternative fuel.

2. Normally conservative rural farmers in the US Mid-West and Canadian prairies are seeing their property values sky-rocket as corn prices and corn futures increase dramatically in price. They don't really care about the environment any more than the next guy but this lines their pockets. They romaticize with an era in which their small-towns were bustling with activity and local people didn't move away to the big city. Ethonal plants give them hope that their dying farm communities will see new life.

3. The politicians that harness these two forces together under one tent. Think of the votes this issue has, it sucessfully combines the left with 'red-state' rural types. A power bonanza in many US States. This third point is what stops any attempt at rational thought that proves that Ethanol from corn in North America is a marginal alternative fuel in both economic terms and as a means of energy storage.

Fact is we use Crude Oil and Natural Gas because no other fuel on earth has as much energy potential and portability. We would reduce many more environmental evils and at a cheaper cost if we as a society plowed all of the money given to the ethanol crowd into making our current energy infrastructure more efficient. Still using fossil fuel, but using much less of it until a better alternative than Ethanol from corn comes around.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

I am far from being an expert, but doesn't burning a molecule of ethanol produce two molecules of CO2 and 3 molecules of water? How do we get hydrocarbons in this? Is it because of the benzene used in dehydration?

Any chemists out there who care to clarify this?

On a side note, I just checked if my car is compatible with E85 blends (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) and it's not. I guess no increase in power for me.

If combustion is complete and 100% efficient you are correct. It is not.

Has nothing to do with benzene which is not used for dehydration but rather for denaturing the ethanol (which can also be done with methanol). There is only a teeny tiny bit of benzene if that is what is used for the denaturation process. And it is just to put something nasty in it so it can't be used for moonshine (though it isn't hard to get absolute ethanol which doesn't have these things in it).

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The Ethanol movement is wildly popular for three reasons:

1. The Environmental movement likes it because they have a hate-on for Hydrocarbon companies and would like to see any 'solution' that would remove them from the process. It plays nicely into their 'anti-corporate' agenda. They also romaticize with the 'cottage industry' notion that plants grown by individual farmers would be generating an alternative fuel.

2. Normally conservative rural farmers in the US Mid-West and Canadian prairies are seeing their property values sky-rocket as corn prices and corn futures increase dramatically in price. They don't really care about the environment any more than the next guy but this lines their pockets. They romaticize with an era in which their small-towns were bustling with activity and local people didn't move away to the big city. Ethonal plants give them hope that their dying farm communities will see new life.

3. The politicians that harness these two forces together under one tent. Think of the votes this issue has, it sucessfully combines the left with 'red-state' rural types. A power bonanza in many US States. This third point is what stops any attempt at rational thought that proves that Ethanol from corn in North America is a marginal alternative fuel in both economic terms and as a means of energy storage.

Fact is we use Crude Oil and Natural Gas because no other fuel on earth has as much energy potential and portability. We would reduce many more environmental evils and at a cheaper cost if we as a society plowed all of the money given to the ethanol crowd into making our current energy infrastructure more efficient. Still using fossil fuel, but using much less of it until a better alternative than Ethanol from corn comes around.

That's a pessimistic view--and on the details, you're absolutely right. But you forgot one factor:

4. Consumers like it because it makes them feel like they're helping the environment. Most people care about the environment, but want to find ways of solving the problem that don't involve drastic lifestyle changes--totally understandable.

This is based on misinformation--but here's my optimistic spin on it:

Ethanol fuel is probably no better for the environment--and moreover, corn isn't even the best way to produce ethanol (there have been experiments with some kind of fast-growing tree that I understand were pretty promising--poplar? I don't know--just something I heard on the radio). It's a process that as I understand it, makes very little economic sense, and has a net carbon-emissions effect that is pretty underwhelming, because of the fuel expended in production.

The good news to me is that the popularity of ethanol among consumers shows that given economical environmentally friendly options, consumers will choose them if they can. This should provide a blueprint for effective environmental changes that can be made in the private sector, including more fuel-efficient cars, which I'm guessing very few consumers would complain about--a change that would undoubtedly have a very positive carbon-emissions effect. Or more efficient houses--and on the subject of farm subsidies, affordable LOCALLY PRODUCED food.

Some food for thought: if you drink a glass of milk, the fuel expended to get it to your grocery store is usually greater than the fuel you expended to get it to your house. Eating local foods is one thing that everyone can do that does have a dramatic impact--but it's not realistic in some areas because the local food is, ironically, more expensive. If we make that change, and inform people that it's far better than ethanol, my guess is that we see slow but steady changes in consumer behaviour on that score.

[Cowboy89]

[quote=Iowa_Flames_Fan;869533]That's a pessimistic view--and on the details, you're absolutely right. But you forgot one factor:

4. Consumers like it because it makes them feel like they're helping the environment. Most people care about the environment, but want to find ways of solving the problem that don't involve drastic lifestyle changes--totally understandable.quote]

I actually think that your 'optimistic' view of things is actually part of the problem as to why our governments continue to plow money into this. An example of this insanity is in Canada. Those Ethanol ads are citing Ethanol as a 'homegorwn' energy source so we don't have to rely on imports. That's fine if you're speaking to residents south of the 49th, but for Canadians we are one of the world's largest exporters of crude oil and natural gas. We are more than self-sufficient and will continue to be long after the world is forced off of oil due to necessity. Power hungry politicians are feeding off of this 'willingness to help the environment' to sell to the public pork-barelling schemes that do nothing to solve any problems but buy votes in certain regions. Ethanol is a make work scam. I know it helps out the communities in which corn is produced but you would be better off helping these communities by promoting economic alternatives that actually make economic and/or scientific sense. This is very similar to projects on the East coast where they build and rebuild fishing docks to unload imaginary cod. It's a waste of money and effort.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

We are more than self-sufficient and will continue to be long after the world is forced off of oil due to necessity.

If the world suffers, let alone the US, then Canada will too. We won't keep oil to ourselves at high prices, if we even have the choice when that happens.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by tanguay'sstillgood

Ethanol is not actually a hydrocarbon, it's an alcohol, which are hydrocarbon derivatives. It doesn't seem like much, but substituting that one hydrogen for an oxygen really changes a lot of a substance's properties.

Yeah, I've had organic chemistry....but the statement in the article is still way too vague.

[tanguay'sstillgood]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yeah, I've had organic chemistry....but the statement in the article is still way too vague.

Not vague at all. If they say ethanol, that's about as specific as you can possibly talk about it. I think I am just missing your point, so oh well.