Archives

Hi all--

I subscribe to articles from FactCheck.org. It's an independent, non-partisan group within the University of Pennsylvania that cross-checks speeches, debates, and commercials by politicians and political organizations, and sometimes the press. I find it to be among the most even-handed reporting available today. Today's article happened to discuss ethanol and the claims from recent statements among the Democratic presidential candidates:

Summary
Gas prices have hit record highs this year as 2008 presidential candidates outline their hopes for renewable fuels. In this story, we take a look at the reality. We focus specifically on E85, a popular ethanol-gasoline fuel blend, and the top three Democratic candidates' statements about this fuel as they fight to win votes in Iowa. We find that there are many technological bridges left to be crossed before E85, or other renewable fuels, can fulfill the role these candidates envision for them — or can start saving individual consumers cash at the pump.

The rest of the article can be found here (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/audacious_ethanol_hopes.html).

I think the E85 move is political for the most part. We need to get higher FE first.

Himmitch--

Agreed. It's much easier for politicians to tout relief for the farm lobby than it is to "hurt" the auto makers. --RN

I ran across an article discussing environmental impacts of ethanol (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ECBNESEB.php) by the Institute of Science in Society (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/) I don't know how valid their conclusions are, but it is the first I have read about carcinogens (formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, and peroxyacetylnitrate) caused by use of ethanol. Here is part of the article:

Is ethanol really cleaner and greener than gasoline? In a Senate Hearing on The National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act 1999, the NRDC gave evidence [17] that combustion products of ethanol include formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, both known carcinogens ; and that increased use of ethanol may also increase atmospheric levels of peroxyacetylnitrate (PAN).

They referred to a University of California report on health effects of oxygenates including ethanol [18] (chemicals containing oxygen added to fuels to make them burn more efficiently), which stated that using ethanol would result in increased atmospheric concentrations of acetaldehyde and PAN. Acetaldehyde has been listed as a Toxic Air Contaminant in California based on evidence of carcinogenicity and while PAN is “genotoxic [causes genetic damage] and produces respiratory and eye irritation and may produce lung damage.”

Ethanol will soon be having an effect not only on the price of other corn using products but something that hits close with many of us: BEER.

I'm a brewer and we are seeing projections of significant increases in the cost and availability of malted barley as farmers jump from barley to corn because of high corn prices.

I ran across an article discussing environmental impacts of ethanol (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ECBNESEB.php) by the Institute of Science in Society (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/) I don't know how valid their conclusions are, but it is the first I have read about carcinogens (formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, and peroxyacetylnitrate) caused by use of ethanol. Here is part of the article:


They referred to a University of California report on health effects of oxygenates including ethanol [18] (chemicals containing oxygen added to fuels to make them burn more efficiently), which stated that using ethanol would result in increased atmospheric concentrations of acetaldehyde and PAN. Acetaldehyde has been listed as a Toxic Air Contaminant in California based on evidence of carcinogenicity and while PAN is “genotoxic [causes genetic damage] and produces respiratory and eye irritation and may produce lung damage.”


Hmm.... sounds like cause for concern, but how do these substances compare to gasoline's components like say, benzene which comprises up to 5% of gasoline. Benzene is a known carcinogen that has been pretty clearly been linked to leukemia. The drinking water standard for benzene is 5ppb, that is, an ounce of benzene is enough to make more than one million gallons of clean water non potable. (By contrast, an ounce of ethanol mixed with about 4 ounces of water and some miscellaneous flavorings makes nice cocktails that people like me pay for) I could go on about benzene and other gasoline substances, but the bottom line is that gasoline is wicked nasty stuff that like many other petroleum substances has been exempted from many hazardous materials regulations.

Gasoline may well be the substance that is most hazardous to human health and the environment that consumers are allowed to handle without special training.

At the consumer end ethanol has clear environmental advantages(e.g. it's readily biodegradable) vs. gasoline, though it is probably no panacea.

Personally I would advocate reducing the ethanol/sugar tariff to help make ethanol production more energy efficient (and keep my beer barley prices down).