The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: gasoline
Switch From Gasoline To Ethanol Linked To Higher Ozone Levels

Switch From Gasoline To Ethanol Linked To Higher Ozone Levels

Neela Banerjee, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Scientists have made a surprising discovery about ethanol: The more it was used by drivers in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the more ozone they measured in the local environment.

The finding, reported this week in Nature Geoscience, is contrary to other studies predicting that increased use of ethanol would cut levels of ground-level ozone, or smog.

Sao Paulo proved a unique laboratory for studying the effects of ethanol and gasoline usage on local air pollution because 40 percent of the nearly 6 million light-duty vehicles there can run on either fuel. When the percentage of those vehicles using gasoline rose from 14 percent to 76 percent, ambient ozone concentrations in the city fell by about 20 percent, researchers found.

The study is the first large-scale effort to measure how switching between ethanol and gasoline affects air pollution. It arrives amid a debate in the United States and other industrialized countries over the environmental benefits of ethanol, a renewable fuel made from plant matter.

The study’s authors cautioned against applying the findings from Sao Paulo to other major cities, because an area’s specific climate, vehicle fleet, local industry and traffic patterns all play a role. However, the use of meteorological, economic and air-quality data could serve as a template for studying ethanol’s effect on air pollution elsewhere, the authors said.

“Ozone and nitric oxide are both contributors to urban smog, so depending on how well a city is able to mitigate air pollution, ethanol may not be the ‘green fuel’ that it is often called,” said Franz Geiger, a professor of chemistry at Northwestern University who worked on the study.

Ethanol in Brazil is made from sugar cane, and in Sao Paulo, the fuel is E100, or nearly pure ethanol. In the United States, ethanol is mostly made from corn, and nearly all gasoline sold domestically is 10 percent ethanol by volume, or E10.

Ethanol use in the U.S. gasoline mix was mandated by Congress in 2007 in an effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution, and to reduce reliance on imported oil. (In the coming months, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce how much ethanol needs to be made in 2014 under the national renewable fuel standard.)

But ethanol critics contend that its effect on the environment is as bad or worse than oil. A National Academy of Sciences report concluded that the fossil fuel energy sources used to make ethanol and the amount of land devoted to corn cultivation may make ethanol use “ineffective” in reducing greenhouse gases.

About 40 percent of the corn cultivated in the U.S. goes to ethanol production. That drives up the price of livestock feed and with it, meat, critics say.

Nearly all studies about the environmental effects of ethanol use have relied on computer simulations or other modeling, and some have raised concerns about its effect on public health, said Emily Cassidy, a biofuels research analyst at the Environmental Working Group. “This (latest) study was great because it has on-the-ground data,” she said.

Gasoline prices in Brazil are controlled by the government, but the price of ethanol fluctuates with the market. When ethanol gets more expensive, drivers opt for gasoline.

Alberto Salvo, an economist with National University of Singapore, realized this presented an opportunity to study what effect, if any, the fuel-switching in Sao Paulo has on the environment.

The largest city in the Southern Hemisphere, Sao Paulo has a temperate climate that does not change substantially in the course of the year. It has “limited industrial activity and residential heating” that could contribute significantly to emissions, Salvo and Geiger wrote in their study, but it has lots of cars and persistent gridlock.

The researchers got fuel-sale information to track consumption trends from 2009 to 2011. Government officials provided data from Sao Paulo’s network of air monitoring stations. The researchers also examined meteorological data and traffic information to take account of other factors that may influence the pollution readings.

The authors said they were “very surprised” to see that ozone concentrations got worse as ethanol use rose. That might be because gasoline produces more nitrogen dioxide emissions, Geiger said. At certain high levels, nitrogen dioxide combines with hydroxyl radicals, a short-lived type of atmospheric chemical that cleans the troposphere of ozone, among other pollutants.

However, gasoline caused other problems, the researchers found: When that fuel became more popular, emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide rose. (The authors did not study other pollutants, such as fine particles, which are a focus of their next study.)

Geoff Cooper, senior vice president of research and analysis at the Renewable Fuels Association, an industry group based in Washington, said the Sao Paulo results were not applicable to the U.S.

“Vehicles in the U.S. must comply with emissions controls requirements that are different (and more stringent) than Brazil,” he said in an email. “Further, the ethanol blend levels examined in the study are unique to Brazil and are not approved in the U.S. Finally, urban ozone formation occurs from rather complex photochemistry that is influenced by a number of factors unique to local climates.”

Salvo acknowledged the differences but said “there’s no reason to think this concern about ozone isn’t worth exploring in communities with blended fuel,” such as the U.S.

Roland Hwang, director of the energy and transportation program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the study raised important issues for American policymakers.

“While it’s critical that we reduce our oil dependency, we certainly shouldn’t do it in a way that worsens air quality, water quality and carbon pollution,” he said. “It’s important that we better understand what’s driving these results since the conventional wisdom for decades is that higher blends of ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline.”

Flickr via Agustín Ruiz

Biofuels May Be Worse For Environment Than Gasoline In Short Run, Study Says

Biofuels May Be Worse For Environment Than Gasoline In Short Run, Study Says

By Shan Li, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — Biofuels are known as an environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline. But two recent studies call into question how green they really are.

According to one study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, fuels derived from corn stover — or the leftover corn leaves and stalks following a harvest — can actually emit more carbon dioxide than gasoline.

Researchers found that removing the corn scraps for fuel ended up releasing about 7 percent more carbon dioxide than regular gasoline over the short run.

Over the long haul, biofuels are still better for the environment than gas, the report said. However, the study concluded that these kinds of biofuels should not qualify as renewable fuels as defined by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.

In another strike against biofuels, a separate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that some biofuels release indirect emissions — including those from crops planted and harvested — that can contribute to total emissions that are worse than those of gasoline or diesel fuels.

Those reports have amped up debate among environmentalists, lawmakers and the energy industry about the relative benefits of biofuels, which have received millions in federal funding.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

EPA Restricts Sulfur In Gasoline To Help Cut Auto Emissions

EPA Restricts Sulfur In Gasoline To Help Cut Auto Emissions

By Neela Banerjee, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency issued final rules Monday to slash the amount of sulfur in gasoline, which would help cut smog-causing pollution from autos and bring the rest of the country’s fuel supply in line with California’s standards.

The new rule for “Tier 3” gasoline calls for reducing the amount of sulfur in fuel by two-thirds, to 10 parts per million from 30 parts per million. Similar low-sulfur gasoline is already in use in California, Europe, Japan and South Korea.

The new gasoline would be available at the pump by January 2017.

Cutting sulfur improves the efficiency of catalytic converters in automobiles, which helps remove other pollutants that dirty the air and damage public health. The EPA said once the new rule was fully in place, it could “help avoid up to 2,000 premature deaths per year and 50,000 cases of respiratory ailments in children.”

“These standards are a win for public health, a win for our environment and a win for our pocketbooks,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

Environmentalists, regulators and public health advocates welcomed the new regulation.

“This rule is a huge deal,” said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, a group of state regulators. The organization estimated the rule would have the effect of removing 33 million cars from the road.

“Every metropolitan area in the country will benefit from it,” Becker said. “We know of no other air pollution control strategy that provides as substantial, cost-effective and immediate emission reductions as Tier 3.”

The auto industry is among the rule’s biggest supporters because the new sulfur standards allow for a consistent national approach, instead of one in which a separate sulfur standard exists in California.

The new fuel standards also would provide gasoline that would make auto companies’ technology perform better.

“Since the vehicle emission system and the fuel used act together in determining the emissions performance of the vehicle, automakers need cleaner fuels to achieve the lowest possible emissions,” said Michael Robinson, vice president of sustainability at General Motors Co.

The EPA said the new lower-sulfur fuel would add less than a penny to the price of a gallon of gasoline. The oil industry, however, disputed the EPA’s estimate, calling it oversimplified.

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s primary lobbyist, contends that the new sulfur standard would add 6 to 9 cents to every gallon of gasoline. The industry estimated that refiners would have to spend a total of $10 billion on new equipment.

“Any reform that increases the cost of manufacturing a product would put pressure on the price of that product,” said Bob Greco, director of refining and marketing for the American Petroleum Institute. “The costs being borne by industry are making it less competitive and affecting the consumer.”

Greco also said that mandating the production of the new low-sulfur fuel by 2017 was too fast and that the EPA usually gave the industry four to five years to comply with new rules. He said that his organization was reviewing the lengthy regulation and considering next steps, including the possibility of litigation.

McCarthy countered that the American Petroleum Institute’s estimate was based on outdated studies. Further, smaller refineries would have until 2025 to comply with the new standards.

Eleven years ago, California implemented a series of measures to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline from 80 parts per million to about nine now, said Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board.

The state estimated that the standard added six-tenths of a cent to the price of a gallon of gasoline, closer to the EPA’s estimate.

“It was in a large package of rules to tighten emissions for vehicles, and it was probably the least controversial part of the whole thing,” said Daniel Sperling, a member of the board and professor of transportation engineering at the University of California, Davis.

“The cost to the oil industry is tiny when you spread it out over the production process,” he said. “And the cost for consumers for a gallon of gas, compared to the volatility of oil prices, is not even noticeable.”

Photo: futureatlas.com via Flickr

Bachmann: I’ll Reverse Global Trends And Push Gasoline Back Below $2/Gallon

Michele Bachmann said at an event in Greenville, South Carolina today that she’ll bring the price of gasoline back below $2 per gallon (averaged nationwide), despite it being well over $3.50 right now:

“The day that the president became president gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. Look at what it is today,” she said. “Under President Bachmann, you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again. That will happen.”

Alexis Madrigal handles this one deftly:

This ignores the geological and geopolitical realities of the world oil market. It’s just impossible to promise the price of gasoline at some future date several years from now. Well, actually, I shouldn’t say that. Perhaps President Bachmann would institute price controls or spend massive sums to subsidize gasoline in an effort to drive gas prices down. The Chinese kept gasoline prices down for a while with heavy-handed efforts. But it’s hard to see how that squares with her small government posture. (To say nothing about whether that would be a good way to spend public money.)

Politico notes that she mentioned shale development and is a long time proponent of more Arctic drilling, but let’s look at the numbers. The United States Geological Survey estimates that there is a 50 percent chance of finding seven billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Sounds like a lot, no? But Americans use about 20 million barrels a day, so if we sucked out all of those billions of barrels, we’d use it up in less than a year. The shale guys are talking big, too, for sure. But we’ve already had one shale bust in this country. And most of the big successes have been with gas. And environmental tradeoffs still cloud shale’s future. And the USGS pegged the oft-cited Bakken formation as having a few billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. And shale oil production in 2010 was a mere 275,000 barrels a day.

Shorter version: this is an outrageous claim that flies in the face of reality. But when you’re speaking to Evangelicals who think the Rapture may well happen during their lifetime, perhaps that doesn’t matter.