ethanol is garbage (poor gas milage, etc)... it about time to switch the focus to biobutanol, the somewhat more superior choice between the two.

Mike: The USA is actually due for shortages of natural gas. The only thing that has kept us from noticing has been warm winters. There is a rush on to build LNG terminals and pipelines from the arctic. If you switch our cars over to NG you're just going to exacerbate the situation. Russia and the Middle east (Qatar) are the ones with the big NG reserves.

Methane is abundant on the ocean floor. http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

VERY expensive to get it from the ocean floor, even if you could without a major eruption that would make the GHG problem we have now look like a picnic.

The most common numbers peg the U.S. as having about 3% of the conventional global reserves of NG. We may be the Saudi Arabia of coal, but certainly not of NG.

The actual risks associated with LNG tankers are far more modest than a movie like "Syriana" would have you believe. They tend not to "explode." New offloading terminals are being sited offshore, further reducing the risks LNG operations pose to local populations. At the same time, LNG operations are still somewhat expensive in terms of time, money and energy, so we have to consider that impact, as well as the traditional problem of being dependent on imported energy.

Regarding E85, this paper does not seem to address the most obvious solution, which is selective deployment.

This paper already shows that E85 is more dangerous in some places than others -- 9% worse outcomes in LA, versus 4% worse outcomes if used across the whole country. This implies that there are areas where the negative impacts are less than 4% -- some place has to be lower than the average to offset the places, like LA, that are higher than the average.

This article makes no mention of where those places are, or how much less bad the use of E85 might be there. Perhaps there are areas in which E85 creates zero difference, or even leads to improved public health outcomes?

At present, we have boutique fuels and varying blends across summer and winter. A similar approach could be taken to the deployment of E85 -- encourage its retailing only in areas where its widespread use does not create new problems.

you have got a great big boil right in the middle of the United States,
I am thinking of the super volcano at yellowstone in wyoming, surely
if it was lanced correctly the energy derived could supply the states
with all its needs , if you don´t then maybe its going to pop , and then
I am afraid the question of gas verses ethanol will become irrelevant!

I'm not a big fan of E85, but this "Study" is BS. There's not enough ethanol to run all the cars in the US at E10 let alone E85. Secondly, the robustness of it's conclusion is questionable. When you internally combust anything there's going to be unwanted products.

If ever the actuals approached this simulation, which is doubtful at a reasonable rate of conversion to BEV/PHEV - then solutions are available in catalytic converters tweaked for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. What is not discussed is the study also shows an average reduction of 80% compared to gasoline in some 30 different pollutants. Table 1, 2020 baseline.

Hey Mike in TX;

Canada supplies 15% of the natural gas consumed in the US, and this is 60% of total Canadian production. If you have to import natural gas, I think calling the US the Middle East of natural gas is erroneous.

The worst case they could come up with is 216 additional deaths per year? Tobacco kills over 400,000 per year, and it is still going strong.

I think a realistic view is an affordable and viable path to getting where we want to go, from where we are now. That is a general way of saying that the world is not going to stop everything, scrap every engine, retool and start all over from scratch because one person thinks the way things are now is "silly".

The American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest is a strong supporter of E85, which we conclude is a cleaner-burning alternative to gasoline with long-term benefits.

Our specific comments are as follows:

·The study assumes that ALL vehicles will be operating on E85 in 2020 - effectively an impossible scenario by all accounts. E85 was never intended as a complete gasoline replacement, and will only be capable of achieving a portion of the total US fuel demand. Additionally, the areas of the county where this study demonstrates E85 to have the most harmful effects are where E85 is not currently manufactured or sold, making them the least likely areas of concern.

· Air toxics lifecycle emissions modeling published in the Journal of Air and Waste Management Association which showed that while ethanol-based fuels may increase emissions of a pollutant called aldehydes, it reduces two much more serious air pollutants linked to cancer, benzene and butadiene.

· Many noted experts, including Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratory, widely considered the leading expert in modeling lifecycle emissions, agree that using E85 instead of gasoline can reduce overall lifecycle emissions and the associated cancer risk associated with gasoline powered vehicles.

· Carbon dioxide emissions associated with global climate change were also not considered -- for which biofuels provide the biggest benefit. Our estimates indicate a typical E85 user could prevent up to 4 tons of CO2 lifecycle emissions from entering our atmosphere each year.

Want more? See www.CleanAirChoice.org