04-19-07 by dugan
Stanford scientist Mark Jacobson’s skeptical report on ethanol fuels is a ringing cry for… what? Only a conniving Iowa farmer would suggest that E85 replace conservation, hybrids or public transit. So I read the study as another good argument for mixed approaches to cutting back on oil consumption.
Keep E85 as part of the mix, especially if it’s increasingly non-corn ethanol, because it cuts back petroleum use and does reduce greenhouse emissions. The world also needs better emission controls and greater efficiency out of all fuels, including ethanol.
The study, using statistical models and drawing on previous studies, assumed that E85 would entirely replace gasoline by 2020 and found ill effects on health from ozone. Most of the harm would come in atmospherically plagued spots like Los Angeles. I don’t take his conclusions about the ill effects of ground-level ozone pollution lightly. But it’s a little like assuming in 1965 that lead in gasoline is immutable.
Removing ethanol from the available renewable fuels would be a big step back from reducing oil dependence. Ethanol is here now, unlike plug-in hybrids and a subway to the sea in Los Angeles.