Bioethanol fuel 'as big a health risk as gasoline'
Posted by Mark on Wed 18 Apr 2007Categories: News | [13] Comments
The use of ethanol as a gasoline substitute for motor vehicles may not be the environmental panacea that its proponents would have us believe, according to a US atmospheric scientist.
Read more here.
Wed 18 Apr 2007 at 5:50 pm
Yes but Mark, from what I have read this is only a computer model based on the health effects only.
Additionally, it neglects some issues such as improvements of auto-cats and combustion systems or switching to (ethanol) fuel cells.
It also turns out that the report is saying that the human health effects APPEAR to be no better than using gasoline – BUT NO WORSE EITHER.
Overall I think the chemistry world article was very fair… despite some other media outlets headlines:
Ethanol cars may not be healthier
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6563255.stm
These computer models are merely further incentive for additional R&D to better autocats and electrochemical technologies in my opinion…. something happening anyway…
Wed 18 Apr 2007 at 6:02 pm
Yup – pretty much agree with you on all points. I’m glad you thought our piece was fair as well. Clearly ethanol’s major environmental benefit worth touting right now is CO2 reduction, the question of atmospheric pollution with aldehydes and the like seems equivocal at best at this stage.
What I thought was interesting about this issue – which would be better explored by a longer piece, to be honest – is that quite a few groups are now selling E85 as a ‘clean air choice’, including the American Lung Association of The Upper Midwest (conveniently located for those biofuel farmers …).
see http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/E85background.asp
Is there a lot of evidence to support that claim?
Wed 18 Apr 2007 at 6:52 pm
Funnily enough and related to the whole issue… but not getting into enormous details….
When I was an undergraduate – I did my MChem(Hons) research project on promotional effects in auto-cats – specifically looking at ethanol and other alcohols combustion over “catalyst samples” in a plug-flow microreactor and monitored the combustion products real time by mass spectroscopy.
Some of my evidence suggested a “promotional” effect (clean combustion) below the magic 200C temperature in the presence of some species on the (un-named) solid-supported catalyst – therefore leading onto further work by others into “bifunctional catalysis” possiblities. This was 5 years ago so I do not doubt – when it was published by my supervisor of the time that it was considered by the automotive industry.
So just so you know Mark, I’m talking from a little bit of personal experience in this area…..
I suppose (on your point of “clean air choice”) it depends on the use of the latest automotive technologies…. Bioethanol should be only considered clean if it’s being used in conjunction with the latest engine-management/catalytic exhaust systems. And that such systems need regular and effective maintance – i.e. MOT checks in this country.
Whereas in a 20 year old car – Ethanol is unlikely to be the “great hope” people think it.
I find it an interesting phenomenon in “Green Chemistry” generally that it often takes the coupling of two distinct technologies to make something truely “Green or Clean”… Also that something that is not green now – is made green in short order by the development of another technique that can be thrown into the mix.
Thu 19 Apr 2007 at 11:58 am
I agree with pretty much everything said here, but just thought I’d take part in a CW blog for the first time and add a few points!
Firstly, yes it is just a computer model but I do think it can be valuable if used in the right way. After all, if we looked at this experimentally (change all cars to new fuel, run for a year, monitor pollution etc) if would be a little late!
There seems to be a lot of doubt about the environmental benefits of biofuels (especially first generation) with regards to decreasing carbon emissions, and there are a whole host of moral/ethical issues when you have food and fuel competing as they are currently. I think there may even have been ‘food riots’ in Mexico this year because of high corn prices, driven partly by specualiing on future biofuels markets. George Monbiot even called for a 5 year ban on the use of biofuels in a Gaurdian column because of ethical reasons.
However, unless we do start pushing forward with using biofuels (as is happening now) then I wonder whether industry will really develop 2nd gen – i.e. they need to make money now to be able to invest in better technologies, which could include new exhaust/catalytic systems for biofuels. Alternatively, we could have governments put in place v tough legislation and some investment to drive this?
Okay, so I seem to have drifted away from the exact details of the article, but thought I’d have a say anyway.
Thu 19 Apr 2007 at 12:40 pm
Tricky, isn’t it? Arguing that we need to invest in corn ethanol now to create the infrastructure necessary for cellulosic is becoming a more common fallback position for bioethanol supporters – and that might indeed be true, and the best way forward for the planet. Unfortunately, that means (a) predicting the future and (b) understanding the complex economic interplay of a host of different factors.
Others argue that cellulosic is ready for market now – well, with the help of a little subsidy, at least. So why not push forward and skip the corn ethanol altogether?
Although of course I’m biased, I think that this:
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/March/AgainstTheGrain.asp
gives a great snapshot of the arguments on both sides.
Thu 19 Apr 2007 at 5:17 pm
Agreed with Mark. The “riots” in Mexico were due to corn prices increasing relating to corn flower used in making chips…
Mark S wrote: “There seems to be a lot of doubt about the environmental benefits of biofuels” – well this is open to interpretation, because there’s equally much evidence to the contrary.
It depends what “spin” is sometimes put on it. To read widely in the area is the best way of getting around this, I have found this gives a more balanced viewpoint. And I have found (as Mark suggests) taking a more long term perspective on the “feasibility”/”potential” of biofuels, is better than merely viewing snapshots that the media sometimes does on particular elements of the technology – on the CW article see the very bottom of my comment.
On the point: “Alternatively, we could have governments put in place v tough legislation and some investment to drive this?”, on the first environmental-economics site I list – the benefits of subsidy/mandates as opposed to cap-n-trade or market based incenitives and the related discussion makes interesting reading!
This is one area I absolutely love in chemistry – looking at the intercepts between this science/engineering – the economics and sociology of what happens after. It’s one of the reason’s I became interested in “Green Chemistry” and sustainability, so I don’t have to merely think about whats going on in a laboratory….
I recommend these several sites – which I get alot out of reading, although some opinions (professional or otherwise I don’t necessarily espouse – they’re informative!)
1. Environmental Economics
http://www.env-econ.net/2005/06/john_whitehead.html
Economists on Environmental and Natural Resources: News, Opinion, and Analysis
Run by Tim Haab (a Professor in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at The Ohio State University) and John Whitehead (John Whitehead is a professor in the Department of Economics at Appalachian State University)
2. http://www.altenergystocks.com/
AltEnergyStocks.com is a comprehensive web resource that is provided for visitors that are interested in investing in the sectors of alternative energy, renewable energy and clean technology.
Run by Charles Morand – Editor-in-Chief
Charles is a personal investor with excellent knowledge of alternative energy and clean technologies and respective markets.
3. http://www.icis.com/blogs/biofuels/
Simon Robinson (a journalist’s blog) – “Big Biofuels Blog”
You get alot of irreverent tips and discussion on here – and it’s easy to read
Finally, yes Mark – Richard Van Noorden’s short summary – was probably amongst the best commentary of the state of the industry (and one that is accessible to the public) that I have read. So for this Richard deserves a good deal of praise for fairly showing both sides of the arguments but also describing accurately technological innovations in the area. I did comment at the time (on here) that this was diametrically opposite to that front page story of an un-named British broadsheet paper that merely focused on a particular negative angle that seemed to me to be rather biased at the time. http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2328821.ece
So for this, in future Richard’s (and CW) writings are of far more interest since I personally believe them to be both fairer and more representative than some of the more cavalier press on these issues.
Thu 19 Apr 2007 at 5:28 pm
Clarification:
“on the first environmental-economics site I list – the benefits of subsidy/mandates as opposed to cap-n-trade or market based incenitives and the related discussion makes interesting reading!”
Should have been “the benefits and negatives of” the various means of incentivising biofuel development.
Here economic arguments like “free market economics” come in… so it’s worth maybe reading further on that site to see what I was actually referring too and to clear up any misinterpretations.
Sat 21 Apr 2007 at 6:40 am
Uhm, do you have to be called Mark to take part in this thread?
If not, I would say only this: the public and media are fantastic at confusing concepts such as ‘renewable energy’ ‘non-fossil fuel energy’ ‘environmentally friendly energy sources’ and the like. Just because something is renewable, does not make it healthy and more environmentally friendly. It does mean that it is more likely to come from a stable source (i.e. not country of concern/axis of weasel etc). Environmentally friendly energy sources have, in my mind at least, yet to be proven, as I don’t believe the economics (both financial and environmental) have been properly assessed.
I accept the argument that at the end of the day economics are a major driving force, but am also optimistic enough to imagine a world where that is not the case.
I can also imagine a world where biofuels are not top priority for agricultural land – food would be. With growing population and potential climate issues altering the agricultural map of the world, can we really afford to set aside vast tracts of land soley for biofuel production?
Mon 23 Apr 2007 at 5:19 pm
Thats the issue Propter – to use so called “marginal land” and municipal waste (MSW) as potential feed sources also, to take any pressure on the prime agricultural land. Ideally we want to use land that is not producing – not merely transfering “virgin” land as is happening in parts of South-East Asia with some Oil-Palm, or land used for fuel. But again these are economic/market arguements…
The issue of ethanol being environmentally friendly is dependent on the agricultural practises employed, plus transporting-material losses and other variables. Agriculture is one issue that people forget and has a substantial impact on the energy balance – and also since so much work and knowledge has already been gained in the process chemistry/engineering efficiency. Transportation loss improvements are in the works (biobutanol is one example of a solution) – to enable pipelines to transfer fuel.
I’d say that the majority of the manufacturing processes for Ethanol are either relatively green (chemistry) or in the process of applying newer clean technologies, to further improve selectivities and the associated metrics for the process.
One example (*whom I’m not affiliated with in any way*) is Novozymes (a past US Green Chemistry presidential winner) – whom from what I hear are attempting to apply solid-supported enzymes to break down cellulose (rather than the less-economic acid pretreatment)… thereby creating cellulosic-ethanol. These and a number of other players seem to be leading the markets currently and are very close to commercialisation from what’s been published and from what I’ve read.
Or theres the “big-two” BP/Dupont’s efforts into Biobutanol. I’d say of equal importance also.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-19-2007/0004569172&EDATE=
I’d support your point about “the agricultural map” – governments need to think nationally about their water infrastructure to support biofuels/chemicals-from-biomass. Australia is one example that is currently struggling and Greece is another due to droughts and inefficient water usage. Water is going to be a critical factor – one thing people forget.
“Environmentally friendly energy sources have, in my mind at least, yet to be proven” – here this is because many of the (in house ethanol producer) environmental impact assessments or life-cycle analyses are commercially important and are not going to be publicly published by organisations, in my view (and from a little experience).
This is an issue. But is the same in other chemical industries – due to IPR issues.
For this we generally have to rely on national organisations for information. My point here is to read widely on this. There is lots of information – however its not centralised and is very dispersed – unfortunately!
The US DOE and the NREL are very good at making information publically available. I suggest you look on there. One example: “Net Energy Balance for Bioethanol Production and Use” – last updated 14/3/2007
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/net_energy_balance.html
Mon 31 Dec 2007 at 12:28 am
On a different note, I found this article http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3225220 listing the greenest cities in the US. This shows that municipalities care about climate change. I guess the general population cares about the environment and global warming. My score on their calculator was 400 but at least I am trying. Here is the link to the website that published the list of cites and where the carbon calculator can be found: http://www.earthlab.com. The test took me like 5 minutes tops, and then maybe another 2 minutes to find the pledges I wanted. Pretty cool application.
Fri 8 Feb 2008 at 8:40 pm
I really enjoy reading your blog; it always has great dialogue. I was wondering if your readers have heard anything about online carbon calculators. I am not an environmental nerd but I came across a couple, and with everyone going green these days I thought I would check out my footprint. I took my test at WWF.com, and the EPA site along with http://www.earthlab.com. Does anyone know about any other ones? Let me know, and it would be cool to hear any thoughts on these things. Oh and I think Earthlab.com is the best site it has the easiest calculator to use and they are doing stuff with the super bowl, spinning football and global warming together is pretty impressive.
Fri 21 Mar 2008 at 8:09 pm
Hey just stopping by to get my dose of green info. Always good stuff here! I am trying to compile a list of stuff I can do to reduce my carbon emissions. MTV had a commercial about it, and got me interested. I have been to http://www.earthlab.com and they have a ton of tips but I was mostly impressed by their page where they have their users send in tips: http://www.earthlab.com/life/tips.aspx Does anyone else know of other data bases that I can find these types of small things that lower my emissions? EPA or WWF maybe?
Thanks for all your info and drop me a link if you guys see anything worth my time.
Tue 1 May 2012 at 3:25 pm
bio ethanol kachel…
[...]Chemistry World blog » Bioethanol fuel ‘as big a health risk as gasoline’[...]…