Biofuels (Corn-based ethanol) more harmful to humans than petrol and diesel, warn scientists

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/02/biofuels-health

Biofuels more harmful to humans than petrol and diesel, warn scientists

Corn-based bioethanol has higher burden on environment and human health, says US study

Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 February 2009 22.05 GMT

Some biofuels cause more health problems than petrol and diesel, according to scientists who have calculated the health costs associated with different types of fuel.

The study shows that corn-based bioethanol, which is produced extensively in the US, has a higher combined environmental and health burden than conventional fuels. However, there are high hopes for the next generation of biofuels, which can be made from organic waste or plants grown on marginal land that is not used to grow foods. They have less than half the combined health and environmental costs of standard gasoline and a third of current biofuels.

…

Several studies last year showed that growing corn to make ethanol biofuels was pushing up the price of food. Environmentalists have highlighted other problems such deforestation to clear land for growing crops to make the fuels. The UK government's renewable fuels advisors recommended slowing down the adoption of biofuels until better controls were in place to prevent inadvertent climate impacts.

Using computer models developed by the http://www.epa.gov/">US Environmental Protection Agency, the researchers found the total environmental and health costs of gasoline are about 71 cents (50p) per gallon, while an equivalent amount of corn-ethanol fuel has associated costs of 72 cents to $1.45, depending on how it is produced.

…

Read the study here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0812835106.abstract

Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline

Contributed by David Tilman, December 16, 2008 (sent for review August 14, 2008)

Abstract

Environmental impacts of energy use can impose large costs on society. We quantify and monetize the life-cycle climate-change and health effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) and fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) emissions from gasoline, corn ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol. For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the US, the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol depending on biorefinery heat source (natural gas, corn stover, or coal) and technology, but only $123–208 million for cellulosic ethanol depending on feedstock (prairie biomass, Miscanthus, corn stover, or switchgrass). Moreover, a geographically explicit life-cycle analysis that tracks PM_2.5 emissions and exposure relative to U.S. population shows regional shifts in health costs dependent on fuel production systems. Because cellulosic ethanol can offer health benefits from PM_2.5 reduction that are of comparable importance to its climate-change benefits from GHG reduction, a shift from gasoline to cellulosic ethanol has greater advantages than previously recognized. These advantages are critically dependent on the source of land used to produce biomass for biofuels, on the magnitude of any indirect land use that may result, and on other as yet unmeasured environmental impacts of biofuels.

(PDF of full study available via the link.)

[patrice]

1. Your subject line is mis-leading.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Sorry about that. When I'm citing a news story, I try to use the headline.

Although I often try to clarify using ()'s. If you read the article, they do talk about adverse health effects.

…

"Corn requires nitrogen fertilisers and some of that comes on as ammonia, which is volatilised into the air," said Tilman. "The ammonia particles are charged and they attract fine dust particles. They stick together and form particles of the size of 2.5 micron and that has significant health impacts. …

[napoleon_in_rags]

3. Not your fault, the headline is misleading. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. How about that?

(See new subject line.)

[patrice]

16. My apologies! I should have said "The headline is misleading"

I wonder why they would use a mis-leading headline? :sarcasm:

[global1]

4. Sounds To Me That These Are Either Bush Cronie Scientists or They Are......

bought off by the oil industry to bad mouth biofuels.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. I wouldn't count on that

The National Academy of Sciences seemed to resist Bush's influence (although they were not completely immune.)

[DU9598]

7. Agreed - probably oil subsidized scientists

And most ammonia applied to farm fields is from hogs or cattle. Maybe not good for ground water, but it is what it is and this is at least a productive use.

[NickB79]

12. Most ammonia is no longer supplied through animal manure

Large farms today use anhydrous ammonia and other chemically produced fertilizers more than manure simply because it is easier to handle, simpler to obtain and more accurately applied on a pounds-of-nitrogen-per-acre basis across fields. That is the reason why so many feedlot farms have massive holding ponds; the manure is pumped there until it has decomposed and/or the solids have settled out before it is moved further. Then, it is removed and applied to local fields at an obscenely high rate until run-off from the fields kills local streams and lakes. Even the small family farms around where I grew up use a tanker or two full of pressurized anhydrous ammonia every spring to supplement their manure applications.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Very interesting! (Thank you!)

I'd wondered about those holding ponds.

[tinrobot]

8. Corn is the problem, not biofuels.

Corn is a horribly inefficient way to make biofuels, so of course it will have a greater impact.

Make biofuels out of something more efficient and the problem goes away.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. I believe that's essentially the conclusion of the study

Their conclusion seems to be to give up on corn-based ethanol and transition as quickly as possible to "cellulosic ethanol."

[GliderGuider]

11. Too much driving around is the problem.

Cutting human activity would pull "the problem" out by the roots.

In the meantime though, how stupid do we have to be to use food for fuel?

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Higher fuel prices seem to help with that

So far, most Biofuels also seem to imply higher fuel prices.

Personally, I'm one of those radicals who thought we should artificially raise the price of fuel with a (higher) "gas tax."

[Fledermaus]

15. There are better feed stocks. However, I'm sure they will come under attack

when they reach any similar size of production.

Replacing gasoline or diesel with biofuel, reduces someone else's income.

[excess_3]

9. buy more Blood Oil from the middle east

yah sure