Ethanol Fuel Greener, But Not For Lungs

Ethanol is better for the environment than fossil fuels, but could be just as bad for our health, says a Stanford University study.

Atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson ran simulations of air quality in the year 2020, when ethanol-fueled vehicles will be widely available, and compared the differences in pollution levels between gas-based and ethanol-based domestic auto fleets.

''We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others-formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,'' Jacobson said. ''As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline. However, in some parts of the country, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog.'' [...]

"We found that nationwide, E85 is likely to increase the annual number of asthma-related emergency room visits by 770 and the number of respiratory-related hospitalizations by 990,'' Jacobson said. ''Los Angeles can expect 650 more hospitalizations in 2020, along with 1,200 additional asthma-related emergency visits.''

These are fairly small numbers, given the size of the population involved. But that isn't the point, said Jacobson:

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

''There are alternatives, such as battery-electric, plug-in-hybrid and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, whose energy can be derived from wind or solar power,'' he added. ''These vehicles produce virtually no toxic emissions or greenhouse gases and cause very little disruption to the land-unlike ethanol made from corn or switchgrass, which will require millions of acres of farmland to mass-produce. It would seem prudent, therefore, to address climate, health and energy with technologies that have known benefits.'

Ethanol vehicles pose a significant risk to human health, study finds [press release]

Image: Jeffrey Beal