Comments on: Study: E85 emissions could cause as many deaths as gasoline, or more

By: V-series

V-series — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:56:59 +0000

No automakers ever claimed it to be cleaner than gasoline. All it does is reduce U.S. dependence on the middle east for oil, which is good.

By: t-ak-box

t-ak-box — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:10:53 +0000

E-85 has seem to be a slight joke to me. As well as Hydrogen. I know they say it only has 15% of gasoline, but the process to make the corn base part take more energy than a sugar based system. I mean I’ve heard about Hydrogen since I been interested in cars or at least since Jr. High. yet no production car, seem like pie in the sky to me. I don’t get it we can make cooking oil and sugar substitutes every which way to Sunday (forgive me I might be to young to use that statement correctly), but we can’t make a substitute for gas or oil or any type of fuel that could work in a vehicle. Huh!

By: buenos

buenos — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:53:55 +0000

further information on the report is available here:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/science/070418/g041806A.html

By: buenos

buenos — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:17:48 +0000

Swamprat, did you read the actual report, or the abstract even for more information? This study had no environmentalist slant. It was a study of what increased ozone emmisions caused by burning ethanol would have on human beings. You know… us.. the race to which you belong.

By: Hyperion

Hyperion — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:51:46 +0000

Well… I guess we can narrow the list of viable alternative fuels now.

No alternative is going to outright win over gasoline and diesel until hydrogen actually gets an infrastructure and comes down in price.

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:46:55 +0000

Of course you’ll find something wrong with ethanol, until Hydrogen becomes the standard we’ll always have to deal with polluting crap like this. However, that’s no reason to thrash a perfectly good opportunity to switch SOME percentage of vehicles over to ethanol. Just my 2 cents.

By: swamprat

swamprat — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:50:43 +0000

Gee, just what we need — another “study.” How did those clowns arrive at the exact number of 185? I don’t like E85 because you have to use more of it to go the same distance, but these “studies” are crap. It goes to show that you can’t please an environmentalist. Even if cars burned water and gave off oxygen, they’d still have a problem with it. They would probably ban water if they had the chance. First, they mandated catalytic converters on cars. Then they found out that catalytic converters give off sulfur dioxide and other “toxins”. They then ask for reformaulated gas and find out that MTBE is bad. Then after that, ethanol is blended with the gas. They don’t like that either. Neither do I as both MTBE an ethanol cause the car to burn more fuel. How can burning more fuel result in less “pollution?” Ask an environmentalist and they will give you some twisted anwer and say that everything is okay. They oppose necessary road projects to prevent traffic from being snarled, but yet they are absent at any town council meeting where the latest shopping mall or commercial strip is being approved. I have had it with their so-called “studies.” Instead of finding solutions to the problems that we are facing, the people controlling these “studies” are making problems worse for the average motorist. They can take this study and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:46:45 +0000

E85 is crap, and there is no reason to pursue it. Its just more hocus-pocus from the Repubilcans like altering daylight savings time.

By: m6-500attouchofabutton

m6-500attouchofabutton — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:42:21 +0000

the only words you need to pay attention to is this: dependence on foreign oil
whether it be ethanol or some other source… i just want to tell those arabs to go drink their own oil

By: 1487_GM_SALES

1487_GM_SALES — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:32:51 +0000

This is just a bogus attempt to knock down General Motors E-85 leadership in the marketplace. Most likely written by some lame-brain biased loser.

By: pezones

pezones — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:48:31 +0000

HAHAHAHAHA

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:47:14 +0000

lmao @ davebo.

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:40:59 +0000

^^^^^your probably rite buenos i scanned the article but didnt read it all, it really sucks for people in desert areas. didnt even consider the vegetation, co2 levels in the jungle down there are probably pretty low too.

By: buenos

buenos — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:07:49 +0000

CTS Driver.. just guessing, but could the higher levels in Brazil be offset by the greater vegetation, as suggested in the study for the southeast U.S.?

By: davebo

davebo — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:05:26 +0000

“just as harmful to humans as those from vehicles that run on regular gasoline, a new stud suggests.” Who is this new stud? I challenge him to arm wrestling!

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:04:29 +0000

.burnt anything is friggin bad for you, i am surprised it took long to find this out though, kind of late in the game dont you think? at the time the u.s. is trying to convert this study comes out, i wonder if they checked the smog layer down in brazil, the use the heck out of ethanol, seriously it has me wondering.

By: lexota

lexota — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:02:24 +0000

Here is another problem with ethanol – it pushes up the price of corn in poor countries. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn — which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year. And that’s just ONE tank! Even if there are blended fuels, there would be a huge impact in world food production and supply.

By: buenos

buenos — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:55:50 +0000

It isn’t really clear nowei, but I agree, it seems more like groundlevel and the effects that will have on things like lung disease, including cancer (maybe).

By: nowei

nowei — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:45:34 +0000

You know, I could be wrong on this, but based on the wording of the abstract, I’m pretty sure what’s being discussed is the emission of Ozone (O3), presumably at ground level, and how that could adversely affect health, as opposed to the effect the pollutants have on the Ozone Layer. But I’m not entirely certain.

By: nowei

nowei — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:38:15 +0000

Phil, if you click on the “Findings” link it will take you to the site of the American Chemical Society, who I assume published the paper. There you can click on “abstract” and read an abstract of the paper. In the event that you subscribe to the site, you can read the full article. However, the abstract does give a bit more information on the subject.

Additionally, most benign (or even beneficial) substances often become toxic when burned.

By: CARnut

CARnut — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:35:05 +0000

Unbelievable!!!

By: buenos

buenos — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:33:01 +0000

Phil-it states that there would be more ozone related deaths and reactions. Lung disease from smog and pollutants that get trapped by ozone, and if there is a continued thinning of the ozone layer, greater numbers of malignant melanoma type skin cancers, which are generally fatal. australia has seen skin cancer cases increase drmatically since the thinning of the ozone layer in the southern hemisphere.

Actually there is an interesting acticle on vehicle efficiency (or lack thereof) here.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2007/04/carbon_conundrum_1.html

By: gbb

gbb — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:18:22 +0000

I guess there is no free lunch.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:17:29 +0000

It doesn’t say WHY E85 emissions could be more harmful. E85 is made of corn, isn’t it? What’s harmful about that?