Ethanol: Not As Clean As It Looks

Think very carefully about everything the Canadian government tells you about how we are going to meet our Kyoto targets. They tend to leave out pieces of the puzzle in a way that makes their plan look better than it is. For example a news release on the Ethanol Expansion Program optimistically states, "A blend of 10-percent ethanol in gasoline reduces GHG emissions compared to conventional gasoline. Emissions can be reduced by up to four percent by using blends with grain-based ethanol, and up to eight percent from blends using ethanol produced by emerging cellulose-based technology." Focus on the basis for comparison: conventional gasoline. Since the early 1990s, reformulated gasoline has been widely available. Reformulated gasoline has oxygenates such as ethanol or methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) added to enhance octane number and make a cleaner burning blend. So why does the government compare with conventional gasoline? A comparison with an MTBE-reformulated gasoline would make ethanol look bad. That won't wash with the people who see ethanol as a crystal clear renewable fuel that is even safe to drink in small quantities.

MTBE has long been the best, most widely available oxygenate for gasoline. It increases combustion efficiency resulting in reduced tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate. The European Fuel Oxygenates Association (EFOA) states, "Of all the options for replacing lead and aromatics in petrol, MTBE is the most effective from both octane supply and air quality perspectives." In spite of its benefits, MTBE use is being phased out in North America, and popular opinion is that ethanol should replace it because ethanol is renewable. The Canadian government is committing $60 million to the Ethanol Expansion Program to increase ethanol supply. Before everyone jumps on the green bandwagon, it is important to understand why this change is occurring and whether it really is an improvement.

MTBE is being phased out in North America because of groundwater contamination. The problem with MTBE is that it has a turpentine smell and taste at very low concentrations. A person can detect its presence long before it reaches concentrations that could impact health. Ethanol makes a nice replacement because you can't taste or smell it at really low concentrations. Ethanol also biodegrades more quickly than MTBE. The switch to ethanol sounds logical until you ask yourself how MTBE got into the groundwater in the first place. Gasoline is kept in underground storage tanks. As the tanks age they leak and no one knows they are leaking. MTBE is more water soluble than most gasoline components so it travels faster and farther underground. MTBE was the canary that told of a gasoline tank leak. It would signal contamination of a water source before the carcinogenic gasoline components entered the water supply in harmful, but difficult to detect, quantities. Cleaning up gasoline and MTBE that have leaked through a large area of soil is an expensive business. Some areas have responded with regulations requiring better storage systems for gasoline with early leak detection. Others have responded by phasing out the use of MTBE. Enforcement of leak detection and clean-up regulations is lax, and MTBE allows companies to be caught red handed. Instead of focussing on preventing leaks and spills, MTBE was labeled the bad guy and exiled.

Ethanol is a marketer's dream. It rides in wearing the renewable energy cape to save us from the evil MTBE. Everyone is so happy about this new biofuel that nobody asks for the test results. Air quality testing shows that ethanol-reformulated gasoline is an improvement over conventional gasoline; however, it is not as good as MTBE-reformulated gasoline. According to the US EPA-appointed Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline, ethanol increases volatile organic compound emissions contributing to ground level ozone and greenhouse gases. Very little research has been done on ethanol-blended gasoline and groundwater; however, a simple science experiment shows that ethanol increases the solubility of benzene, toluene and xylene (all among the most hazardous components of gasoline) in water by 25 percent. When an underground ethanol-blended gasoline storage tank leaks ethanol, then benzene, toluene, and xylene dissolve in the groundwater and move through the ground faster than the gasoline. For a long time no one will know the groundwater is contaminated because the taste and smell of MTBE are not there. Ethanol is not better than MTBE.

Groundwater contamination and air pollution are awful. All of the work to reformulate gasoline is a bit like a fad diet. It doesn't matter if you eat a sack of potatoes or a side of beef. The fundamental problem is over consumption. A simpler and more effective way to meet Canada's Kyoto targets would be to put that $60 million dollars into public transportation. Gasoline will always be hazardous. Treat it like black gold. Use it carefully and sparingly.

Links:

EFOA


Ethanol Expansion Program News Release


CEPA


Ethanol Woes


EPA


Ethanol Spill

Text of CBC article on Ontario Ethanol Spill:
Maxville's water tested after ethanol spill
Last updated May 3 2005 08:04 AM EDT
CBC News

OTTAWA – People living in Maxville, Ont., are being told not to drink water from their wells after a train car leaked 60,000 litres of ethanol in the area.

Ontario's Environment Ministry made the order on Monday, hours after the leak caused a state of emergency that forced about 200 people from their homes.

Analysts will test well water samples to see if the ethanol contaminated groundwater in the community about 70 kilometres east of Ottawa.

Residents will have to drink bottled water until the test results are back.

That could take several days.

Highly flammable ethanol or combustion alcohol began spilling from a freight car just after 1:45 a.m. ET Monday, forcing evacuation of the Maxville Manor nursing home. The 120 residents took refuge in the banquet hall of the local sportsplex until the all-clear was given.

FROM MAY 2, 2005: Nursing home evacuated after train mishap

The spill also caused Via Rail to cancel its Montreal-Ottawa train service for several hours. Passengers were transported to their destinations by bus instead.

"A freight train from the Ottawa Central Railway sideswiped another car that had [combustion] alcohol in it," said Via Rail Canada spokesperson Seychelle Harding.

Environment Canada, the fire department and the Ontario Provincial Police worked to neutralize the liquid.

OPP spokesperson Joel Dorion said the surrounding area was evacuated "for emergency and precautionary reasons."

Bottled Water Illness

A certain paranoia is growing in my office tower. First we ran the taps to make sure lead and bacteria didn't accumulate in the water. Then filters were installed under the sinks to rid the water of the bacteria killer chlorine. Finally enough gullible consumers complained and bottled water was stocked in the fridges in convenient 1/2 L containers. Water tests showed that the quality of all three forms of water was roughly the same. In Canada, the consumption of bottled water is a clearly a form of social illness when you weigh the benefits against the cost to ourselves and the environment. Tap water is safe and cheap, tap water does not create a solid waste problem, and tap water requires less energy to distribute.

First things first. The quality of bottled water is no better than tap water and is in some cases worse. In Calgary the municipal water supply is tested 16 000 times a year to ensure that it meets Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines. How often do the regulations require that bottled water be tested per year? Less than 1000 including source and final product. Why the difference? Bottled water is regulated in the same way as food and beverages with less stringent testing requirements than municipal water supply. That said, in Canada bottled water is generally safe provided it is stored correctly. If the water was not chlorinated and is not refrigerated, bacteria can accumulate over time. When it comes to water quality, ask yourself is it worth paying more for bottled water? According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization bottled waters haven't got greater nutritive value than tap waters. If I offered you a can of Coke for 10 cents and then told you I have a can of a magical elixir that will fill you with energy and happiness called Pepsi. Would you give me $200 for the Pepsi? I know they are the same thing, but don't you think the Pepsi sounds better? In Calgary you can find yourself a 1/2 litre of bottled water for as little as $1 if you are lucky. How much tap water can you buy for the same dollar? 1000 L. Two things which are exactly the same except for the packaging and people are willing to pay 2000 times the price! Clearly we are not intelligent beings.

Let me move on to your backyard. What happens to all of these bottles? Worldwide only 20% of the water bottles are recycled. Every year about 1.5 million tons of plastic is used to make bottles for water. 80% of this is littering our landscape one way or another. What do 1.5 million tons look like? Plastic is transported in rail cars called hopper cars. Each year the world generates enough plastic waste simply from water bottles to fill about 17 000 hopper cars. If you connected those cars up they would stretch from Calgary to Edmonton. PET bottles take about 1000 years to biodegrade. By the time this year's bottles biodegrade we could circle the earth 10 times with hopper cars full of waste plastic. Think of this waste as the pus of our social illness.

Now that I have you thinking globally I will remind you about the Kyoto accord. Consumption of bottled water in areas where tap water is supplied generates more CO2 emissions. Here's how it works. Raw materials are sent by rail and pipeline to a place like Red Deer where plastic is made. Granular or pelleted plastic is shipped in rail cars to a place that makes it into plastic bottles. The bottles are boxed and transported by truck to the bottling plant. The lids are made of a different kind of plastic that is trucked in from somewhere else. The bottles are then filled and trucked to stores. People drive to the stores, pay very high prices for the water and then drive it home and refrigerate it. In contrast, tap water is withdrawn from the river, treated, pumped through a network of pipes and supplied pre-chilled to each sink. The main energy cost is pumping which is extremely cheap compared to making bottles and driving them around.

Have you seen the commercial with the dying man on the mountain asking his friend to recycle his water bottle? It's not so crazy after all. When you start to imagine all those rail cars full of plastic lining up between here and Edmonton you can understand that recycling is very important. With any disease, prevention is the best thing. Don't be a sucker for marketing. Bottled water quality is the same and sometimes worse than tap water quality. They charge you 2000 times the price. The bottles are littering the landscape. Finally, it will be a great shame if Canadian society is ill enough to miss Kyoto targets because they like their water to come in a magic plastic bottle with pretty pictures of mountain glaciers.


Health Canada on Bottled Water

Kate's emissions as estimated by the Government of Canada 

One Tonne Challenge

Have you taken the one tonne challenge yet? I did. I was shocked at my results. While I am below the Alberta average of 8 tonnes of CO2 per person, at 6.69 tonnes I am well above the national average of 5.5 tonnes.

Why am I shocked? I live in a downtown apartment and as a result put less than 6000km per year on my car. I keep the thermostat low, I strive to minimize waste (natural for a Scot), I bring my own bag, and I recycle. I am on the community tree committee- but the Challenge doesn't account for trees planted. The emissions calculator has its limitations and I think the estimates are high to motivate people. I am now motivated. Take a look at my stats in the 5:39 PM post to see what I can do.

Forty-two percent of my emissions are generated by appliances: a fridge and a dishwasher. The building managers just put in a new fridge which uses about 25 kWh per month less power than the old clunker. Sadly, this does not get me any points in the Challenge because the new fridge is not an Energy Star appliance. I have asked for a new dishwasher as the dishes don't come out clean unless I run the dishwasher half full. The building manager said no. It seems that I can't control this huge portion of my emissions.

Next on the list is heating and cooling at 23%. The Challenge tells me I have done all I can here: lowered the temperature setting, no air conditioning, live in an apartment building.

In third place is transportation. I already strive not to drive so I am doing two things differently this year. First, I will be filling up at full serve Husky stations with up to 10% ethanol blend. I'm not yet convinced that the emissions reduction from burning ethanol is significant. I am doing this largely because I was sprayed with gasoline from a leaking pump at a self-serve Esso gasoline station on Christmas Eve. No more Esso for me. The second thing is reducing my gasoline L/100 km. I will drive at less than 90 km/h on the highway (when safe to do so), stick to the speed limit in the city, accelerate slowly, and reduce braking by thinking ahead.

The only other significant items are lighting and household waste. I'm not sure how the Challenge calculates emissions from lighting. I am doing all I can here. I only have one light on at a time. The one light in the house that is ever on for more than 3 hours at a time is now a compact fluorescent bulb. I will do a study on how I can reduce my household waste. The most significant change will be to start composting. This really is a challenge in an apartment as vermicomposting is the most convenient option. I'm not sure how I'll sleep knowing red wriggler worms are chomping away in my apartment.

In the eyes of the challenge, which isn't sophisticated enough to include all of my reductions, I will fail to reduce my emissions by one tonne. Failure should not be an option. I have thought of only two ways I can meet the challenge. I can move to a smaller apartment or I can get a roommate. I do think a roommate is a good idea.

One of the main reasons emissions are so high in Canada is that everyone wants to have their own massive box to live in. Individual before community. Five people living alone in 2000 square foot houses who use energy star appliances still use about 4 times the energy of the same five people living in one house and sharing appliances. If we ever want to meet the Kyoto targets, the first thing we must do is become closer to each other. Share houses, apartments, and rooms. The image that comes to mind is Dr. Zhivago coming home from the war to find dozens of people sharing his home. What makes all of the difference in Canada today is that we won't be starving and freezing so we have a chance at getting along. Cutting my rent in half won't be a bad thing either.

Making a major lifestyle change like this sounds extreme but it is time we realized that recycling pop cans just doesn't cut it any more. I resolve to find myself a roommate this year. Doing this will help the environment, decrease my cost of living, and (if I am lucky) provide a greater sense of community.