This is an extract from the New Scientist magazine.

QuoteAs a cute for out addiction to oul, ethanol turns out to have some nasty side effects.
Pollution from gasoline engines accounts for 10,000 deaths in the US each year, along with thousands of cases of respiratory disease and even cancer.
The widely touted ethanol-based fuel E85 (15% gasoline 85% ethanol) could make matters worse.
Mark Jacobson of stanford university in California modelled emissions for cars expected to be on the road in 2020.  The model assumed that carbon emissions would be 60% less than 2002 levels, so overall deaths would be halved.  However, an e85-fuelled fleet would cause 185% more pollution related deaths per year than a petrol one across the US, most of them in Los Angeles.  The findngs, to be published i nvironmental Science and Technology, run counter to the idea that ethanol is a cleaner-burning fuel.  While ethanol-burning cars will emit fewer carcinogens such as benzine and butadiene, they will spew out 20 times as much acetaldehyde as those using conventional fuel.  Acetaldehyde can react with sunlite to form ozone, one of the man constituents of smog, and so increase the risks to peoples health.  Without the predicted 60% emissions cut it will be worse.  "If we went on todays emissions, there could be 2.5 times more damage", Jacobson says.  "There are so many people barking pretty loud about biofuels. Theyve been pushing these things before the science is done. Now the question is: will people listen?"

Heres something else, some seems to be duplicated in the above

QuoteConcerns that the nation's cars are contributing to global warming have led automobile manufacturers and policy makers to promote ethanol as the fuel of the future, since it is made from crops such as sugar beet.

Pollution from gasoline engines accounts for 10,000 deaths in the US each year, along with thousands of cases of respiratory disease, and even cancer. The widely touted ethanol-based fuel E85 (15% gasoline, 85% ethanol) could result in similar numbers of deaths, or even make matters worse, according to a new study.

However, ethanol is an even bigger culprit. Along with many of the same pollutants as gasoline, a large amount of unburned ethanol gas escapes into the atmosphere. That vapour readily breaks down in sunlight to form acetaldehyde, which can send ozone levels soaring.

Out of a total fleet of over 240 million cars, trucks, and other vehicles in the US there are currently only about 6 million that can run on E85 fuel. But this is widely predicted to rise in coming years.

However, the small potential increase in pollution-related deaths predicted in the study could be a risk worth taking for a renewable fuel, environmentalists may argue.

So... LPG no?

Ethanol isnt the same as LPG. There are other alternatives too. You certainly dont want to put all your eggs in one basket, at least not until a hydrogen comes along, perhaps not even then.

Oh I know LPG and Ethanol arent the same, I was suggesting people use LPG as I havent heard of any bad side affects with LPg, I think its something like 15 or 20% kinder to the environment than petrol. (I heard that some where)

And at the moment, its a damn sight cheaper than petrol.

The obvious answer is to make it burn the fuel better

recirculate the exhaust gasses to burn the unburnt ethanol?  Deisels have an EGR system to burn off NOx emissions under idle.

now they know they can work on it.

even hydrogen has downsides
there are no pollution free ways

Quote from: Eddeven hydrogen has downsides
there are no pollution free ways

There has to be... although now coming to think about it there really isnt. Vehicles will always pollute.

Whats the best solution right now then?

On a side note I read the top 2 paragraphs and it says itd be the worst in LA, why LA? I can see BA Baracus saying "I aint putting that in my fuel tank, damn foo!"

LA has an extreme population density, and its also in a valley. When you stand up high in the valley you can see the smog.

The Petro giants are backing E85 - therefore whether it pollutes or not it will get pushed. And those in power with the power to do something about it will simply take their bribes like they have been doing since the start of politics.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932

In 1921, after a long string of inadequate solutions, a clever but chronically catastrophic chemist named Thomas Midgley developed a fuel additive which eliminated ping problems while increasing fuel efficiency. Though the chemical agent eventually gained worldwide acceptance, it left a rash of psychosis, a trail of bodies, an epidemic of crime, and an irreparably damaged environment in its wake.

Quote from: Eddeven hydrogen has downsides
there are no pollution free ways

What are the downsides to hydrogen apart from explosive risk?

Or fusion? Or solar? Or wind? etc.

Theres tons of alternatives that are near enough totally polution free

Quote from: SteveF

Quote from: Eddeven hydrogen has downsides
there are no pollution free ways

What are the downsides to hydrogen apart from explosive risk?

Or fusion? Or solar? Or wind? etc.

Theres tons of alternatives that are near enough totally polution free

Depends on how picky one is the production of generators and solarpanels etc. pollutes.

Quote from: SteveF

Quote from: Eddeven hydrogen has downsides
there are no pollution free ways

What are the downsides to hydrogen apart from explosive risk?

Or fusion? Or solar? Or wind? etc.

Theres tons of alternatives that are near enough totally polution free

You know that Edd means that the production of hydrogen is a hugely expensive (energy/effort wise) process. Used massive amounts of electricity (which has to get generated at some point).

Switching all the cars to hydrogen would only make the problem more centralised.

Quote from: sdphttp://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932

In 1921, after a long string of inadequate solutions, a clever but chronically catastrophic chemist named Thomas Midgley developed a fuel additive which eliminated ping problems while increasing fuel efficiency. Though the chemical agent eventually gained worldwide acceptance, it left a rash of psychosis, a trail of bodies, an epidemic of crime, and an irreparably damaged environment in its wake.

thats a good read.

Quote from: DEViANCE

Quote from: sdphttp://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932

In 1921, after a long string of inadequate solutions, a clever but chronically catastrophic chemist named Thomas Midgley developed a fuel additive which eliminated ping problems while increasing fuel efficiency. Though the chemical agent eventually gained worldwide acceptance, it left a rash of psychosis, a trail of bodies, an epidemic of crime, and an irreparably damaged environment in its wake.

thats a good read.

Tetra-ethyl lead was known to be an issue even back then, the industry whitewashed everything and managed to fool governments for decades.