A more complete report here: http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/ethanol-powered-vehicles-generate-more-ozone-gas-powered-ones-28405.html

states:

“Ginnebaugh worked with Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, using vehicle emissions data from some earlier studies and applying it to the Los Angeles area to model the likely output of pollutants from vehicles.”

and:

“We found a pretty substantial increase in ozone production from E85 at cold temperatures, relative to gasoline when emissions and atmospheric chemistry alone were considered,” Ginnebaugh said. Although ozone is generally lower under cold-temperature winter conditions, “If you switched to E85, suddenly you could have a place like Denver exceeding ozone health-effects limits and then they would have a health concern that they don’t have now.”

“The problem with cold weather emissions arises because the catalytic converters used on vehicles have to warm up before they reach full efficiency. So until they get warm, a larger proportion of pollutants escapes from the tailpipe into the air.”

The data from earlier studies (-ies?) comes from Jacobson’s phony study of about a year ago.

Here’s what the NRDC said about the Jacobson study’s data:

http://docs.nrdc.org/air/files/air_07042601A.pdf

“the study further magnifies small differences by ignoring the fact that most emission from cars is due to older vehicles that would be incapable of

running on E85. By 2020, CARB estimates that less than 25% of the on-road passenger vehicle NOx and hydrocarbons emissions are from cars 16 years and

newer (see Figure 1).5 This mistake alone exaggerates the emission impacts by a factor of about four.”

A more complete report here: http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/ethanol-powered-vehicles-generate-more-ozone-gas-powered-ones-28405.html

states:

“Ginnebaugh worked with Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, using vehicle emissions data from some earlier studies and applying it to the Los Angeles area to model the likely output of pollutants from vehicles.”

and:

“We found a pretty substantial increase in ozone production from E85 at cold temperatures, relative to gasoline when emissions and atmospheric chemistry alone were considered,” Ginnebaugh said. Although ozone is generally lower under cold-temperature winter conditions, “If you switched to E85, suddenly you could have a place like Denver exceeding ozone health-effects limits and then they would have a health concern that they don’t have now.”

“The problem with cold weather emissions arises because the catalytic converters used on vehicles have to warm up before they reach full efficiency. So until they get warm, a larger proportion of pollutants escapes from the tailpipe into the air.”

The data from earlier studies (-ies?) comes from Jacobson’s phony study of about a year ago.

Here’s what the NRDC said about the Jacobson study’s data:

http://docs.nrdc.org/air/files/air_07042601A.pdf

“the study further magnifies small differences by ignoring the fact that most emission from cars is due to older vehicles that would be incapable of

running on E85. By 2020, CARB estimates that less than 25% of the on-road passenger vehicle NOx and hydrocarbons emissions are from cars 16 years and

newer (see Figure 1).5 This mistake alone exaggerates the emission impacts by a factor of about four.”

Actually there is no such thing as pure gasoline anymore. The oil coming out of the ground now is so crappy that the best gasoline they can produce is 67 octane so about 30% of every gallon of gas you buy is actually toluene, Xylene and benzene used to raise the octane. All are very toxic, carcinagenic substances.

Actually there is no such thing as pure gasoline anymore. The oil coming out of the ground now is so crappy that the best gasoline they can produce is 67 octane so about 30% of every gallon of gas you buy is actually toluene, Xylene and benzene used to raise the octane. All are very toxic, carcinagenic substances.

The title of the above article distorts the truth. Ethanol use does Not increase Carcinogen Pollution. Just the opposite – Ethanol decreases them, because it displaces gasoline. And gasoline is far more carcinogenic than ethanol. In fact, gasoline is an alphabet soup of many Carcinogens and Neurotoxins:

To name a few – (1) Benzene – (aromatics) which can actually kill you, and causes leukemia, especially in children. This includes toluene, ethyl benzene, meta-xylene, para-xylene, ortho-xylene ethyltoluene, trimethylbenzene, trimethylbenzene. (2) Toxic olefins. (3) Dibromoethane (EDB). (4) N-Nitrosodiethylamine. (5) Ethylene dibromide. (6) Ethylene dichloride. (7) Toxic n-paraffins. (8) Toxic iso-paraffins: methylbutanes, methylpentanes, methylhexanes, dimethylpentanes, trimethylbutanes, trimethylpentanes. (9) Cycloparaffins: cyclopentane, methylcyclopentane, cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane. (10) Toxic metal deactivators, deposit modifiers, gum inhibitors, freezing point depressants, corrosion inhibitors, and dyes…and the list goes on.

The Stanford study is blowing the ethanol aldehydes issue way out of proportion. 7 parts per billion for the warmer temperatures and 39 parts per billion for cold temps – These are Not carcinogenic in such tiny, minute concentrations. The Stanford study was also not conducted in multiple, varied, real-life environments. It was conducted in a highly controlled laboratory setting, which is not how we normally use the two fuels. There are so many changing variables when it comes to the effects on the environment – humidity, location and juxtaposition to other unrelated pollutants, wind, clouds, precipitation, what day of the week, what time of the day, what time of the year, etc…

Also different brands of gasoline vary in composition and how they react with the ethanol. The types of engines used would also have a big influence on the data. They engines Stanford used in the study were designed for gasoline – not ethanol. They were ethanol compatible engines – But they were not the “Ethanol-Optimized” engines that are coming. These are high compression, turbo-charged engines, with a much higher power to weight ratio, that produce lower levels of emissions and ozone, and get more power and better mileage than gasoline.

Give the Stanford study the sniff test. Have one person sniff gasoline every 60 seconds, and have another person sniff ethanol every 60 seconds. And see which one drops dead first. Gasoline is the killer, not ethanol. And you don’t need to be a rocket scientist or a PhD to figure that out.

The title of the above article distorts the truth. Ethanol use does Not increase Carcinogen Pollution. Just the opposite – Ethanol decreases them, because it displaces gasoline. And gasoline is far more carcinogenic than ethanol. In fact, gasoline is an alphabet soup of many Carcinogens and Neurotoxins:

To name a few – (1) Benzene – (aromatics) which can actually kill you, and causes leukemia, especially in children. This includes toluene, ethyl benzene, meta-xylene, para-xylene, ortho-xylene ethyltoluene, trimethylbenzene, trimethylbenzene. (2) Toxic olefins. (3) Dibromoethane (EDB). (4) N-Nitrosodiethylamine. (5) Ethylene dibromide. (6) Ethylene dichloride. (7) Toxic n-paraffins. (8) Toxic iso-paraffins: methylbutanes, methylpentanes, methylhexanes, dimethylpentanes, trimethylbutanes, trimethylpentanes. (9) Cycloparaffins: cyclopentane, methylcyclopentane, cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane. (10) Toxic metal deactivators, deposit modifiers, gum inhibitors, freezing point depressants, corrosion inhibitors, and dyes…and the list goes on.

The Stanford study is blowing the ethanol aldehydes issue way out of proportion. 7 parts per billion for the warmer temperatures and 39 parts per billion for cold temps – These are Not carcinogenic in such tiny, minute concentrations. The Stanford study was also not conducted in multiple, varied, real-life environments. It was conducted in a highly controlled laboratory setting, which is not how we normally use the two fuels. There are so many changing variables when it comes to the effects on the environment – humidity, location and juxtaposition to other unrelated pollutants, wind, clouds, precipitation, what day of the week, what time of the day, what time of the year, etc…

Also different brands of gasoline vary in composition and how they react with the ethanol. The types of engines used would also have a big influence on the data. They engines Stanford used in the study were designed for gasoline – not ethanol. They were ethanol compatible engines – But they were not the “Ethanol-Optimized” engines that are coming. These are high compression, turbo-charged engines, with a much higher power to weight ratio, that produce lower levels of emissions and ozone, and get more power and better mileage than gasoline.

Give the Stanford study the sniff test. Have one person sniff gasoline every 60 seconds, and have another person sniff ethanol every 60 seconds. And see which one drops dead first. Gasoline is the killer, not ethanol. And you don’t need to be a rocket scientist or a PhD to figure that out.

I read the paper and you are forgetting to mention that in order to get the increse in aldehydes and ozone from the tailpipe, the researchers disconnected the catalytic converter.

these people are not serious, please don´t republish their stuff.

regards

I read the paper and you are forgetting to mention that in order to get the increse in aldehydes and ozone from the tailpipe, the researchers disconnected the catalytic converter.

these people are not serious, please don´t republish their stuff.

regards