Cellulosic ethanol may benefit human health and help slow climate change

Feb 02, 2009

Filling our fuel tanks with cellulosic ethanol instead of gasoline or corn-based ethanol may be even better for our health and the environment than previously recognized, according to new research from the University of Minnesota.

The study finds that cellulosic ethanol has fewer negative effects on human health because it emits smaller amounts of fine particulate matter, an especially harmful component of air pollution. Earlier work showed that cellulosic ethanol and other next-generation biofuels also emit lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The study will be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in February and will be posted online next week.

"Our work highlights the need to expand the biofuels debate beyond its current focus on climate change to include a wider range of effects such as their impacts on air quality," said lead author Jason Hill, a resident fellow in the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The study is the first to estimate the economic costs to human health and well-being from gasoline, corn-based ethanol and cellulosic ethanol made from biomass. The authors found that depending on the materials and technology used in production, cellulosic ethanol's environmental and health costs are less than half the costs of gasoline, while corn-based ethanol's costs range from roughly equal to about double that of gasoline.

Total environmental and health costs of gasoline are about 71 cents per gallon, while an equivalent amount of corn-ethanol fuel costs from 72 cents to about $1.45, depending on the technology used to produce it. An equivalent amount of cellulosic ethanol, however, costs from 19 cents to 32 cents, depending on the technology and type of cellulosic materials used.

"These costs are not paid for by those who produce, sell and buy gasoline or ethanol. The public pays these costs," said study co-author Stephen Polasky, a professor in the university's applied economics department.

The authors looked at pollutants emitted at all stages of the life cycles of the three types of fuel, including when they are produced and used. They considered three methods of producing corn-based ethanol and four methods of producing cellulosic ethanol.

"To understand the environmental and health consequences of biofuels we must look well beyond the tailpipe to how and where biofuels are produced. Clearly, upstream emissions matter," Hill said.

The paper also points out that other potential advantages of cellulosic biofuels, such as reducing the amount of fertilizer and pesticide runoff into rivers and lakes, may also add to the economic benefit of transitioning to next-generation biofuels.

Source: University of Minnesota

Explore further: Weird weather lingers in Alaska's largest city

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists examine toxicity of medicinal plants in Peru

Dec 14, 2011

Many developing countries rely on traditional medicine as an accessible and affordable treatment option for human maladies. However, until now, scientific data has not existed to evaluate the potential toxicity of medicinal ...

Leaf-cutter ants

Nov 08, 2010

Leaf-cutter ants put on quite a show. In established colonies, millions of "workers" cut and carry sections of leaves larger than their own bodies as part of a well choreographed, highly functioning society.

Recommended for you

New challenges for ocean acidification research

3 hours ago

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

3 hours ago

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Big_Oil_Sockpuppet
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2009
Although this article does not mention AGW it is worthwhile to remember that the majority of Climatologists subscribe to the AGW worldview and can not be trusted.
jackj
2 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2009
These scientists are Godless and the result is articles like this one. I will stick with burning oil had He wanted us to burn "Cellulosic ethanol" He would have provided it already.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2009
An equivalent amount of cellulosic ethanol, however, costs from 19 cents to 32 cents, depending on the technology and type of cellulosic materials used.


Yes, now this is a good idea from the biofuel sector. Cheaper energy, doesn't require food crops, or the land on which food crops reside, unfortunately they do not make mention of whether the emissions are lesser than that of gasoline.
lengould100
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2009
jackl - I will stick with burning oil had He wanted us to burn "Cellulosic ethanol" He would have provided it already.


Priceless.
jerryd
not rated yet Jun 07, 2009

Except for the fact cellulosic ethanol can't be made economically by a large amount and ignores the other ways like FT to turn biomass are 5x's as eff into clean gasoline, diesel both the make and burn.
Google FT, Syn gas from biomass and GTL.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.