Matthew, I hope you didn't take offense. Your statement about the "environmental benefits" of ethanol is part of the current rhetoric of ethanol promise where in fact, those in the media who tout the ethanol revolution are not very informed.
I hope not to get too off of topic here, but having an E85 Titan merits discussion of why would anyone want an FFV model? That conversation is difficult to sum up in a few paragraphs. I seriously doubt that ethanol is going to win the praises from the environmentally sensitive, but the 'anything but oil' mentality is real strong right now. That is the political side of the ethanol movement.
The sham part of the ethanol promise is "less pollution" and is a "renewable" resource. In fact, ethanol is starting to be under more scrutiny as to claims of how environmentally friendly it actually is. I will be bold to say that in four years, ethanol will be viewed as equal to gasoline in terms of the greenhouse gas emissions and as the effects are real, and no doubt that the press and environmentalists will be in action to inundate us with that rhetoric and finger pointing as to how we got there.
All the efforts to develop an ethanol market (at our expense) will do very little to reduce our dependence on oil, but may have merit in specialty markets and regional applications such as farming or fleet usage. Yeah, it is great to pump the tank full for a bit less money, but ethanol won't pay back unless ethanol costs around 20% less that gasoline, and it will not pay back in terms of "lower emissions." Ethanol emissions might be lower in some compounds when compared to gasoline, but higher in other areas such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and carbon monoxide. Acetaldehyde reacts to other airborne chemicals to produce peroxyacyl nitrates, which are highly toxic to plants. Pick your evil.
As for the cancer statement, there are two items that I was focused on. One was from the increase of cancer from the contamination of ground water in corn producing areas. The second was from a detailed study that was released last week on Environmental Science and Technology Online. This study focuses on the health affects of burning ethanol over gasoline in a metropolitan area such as Los Angeles. I have provided the link for anyone interested:
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/asap/pdf/es062085v.pdf
Here are some other recent articles on ethanol emissions:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/apr/science/ee_ethanol.html
http://216.35.221.77/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9647424
Lastly on the cancer comment, my wife's mother is currently dying of cancer. Her sister came out of a double mastectomy and leg amputation. Her father with a leg amputation, aunt with a cancerous tumor removed from her brain, her childhood friend with 6-9 months left, neighbor across the street, next door, and countless people of that community with higher than normal incidents of cancer. All of this from a community in a region of the state surrounded by cherry and apple orchards and heavy pesticide spraying, with pesticides being heavily linked to cancers.
Having been personally involved and watching so many people disinigrate to their death with cancer, I am very, very concerned about increasing acreage to grow more corn (a crop that is one of the heaviest users of herbicides and pesticides) and the long term affects on ground water contamination, our lifeline to a healthy life. All of that ethanol hoopla for the perception of reducing middle east dependence and the illusion of better air quality. We are being grossly misinformed about ethanol and that is all part of the sham.
IMO
