Those who advocate for ethanol are refuting an academic report about the green fuel. The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) is countering conclusions made by researchers at the University of Minnesota claiming that ethanol is more harmful to humans and the environment than gasoline. RFA examined the research, recently published in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” finding it ran counter to real-world data, contradicted current lifecycle modeling and research, and omitted key variables when determining the environmental impact of electric vehicles and gasoline, ultimately undermining the credibility of the study.
RFA notes that the paper’s conclusions “…stand at odds with real-world data showing decreases in ozone and PM2.5 concentrations…” and that “Data from 222 EPA sensing sites show that ozone and PM2.5 concentrations have trended downward during the period in which the use of ethanol-blended gasoline has dramatically increased.”
The RFA response goes on to show that “On a full lifecycle basis, the study’s results are contradictory to the results from the Department of Energy’s latest GREET model” and that “There is a substantial body of evidence proving that ethanol reduces both exhaust hydrocarbons and CO emissions, and thus can help reduce the formation of ground-level ozone.”
The study’s reliability is also called into question as it omitted key factors when reaching conclusions on the environmental impact of gasoline and electric vehicles. RFA points out that the University of Minnesota conclusion “…excludes NOx and SOx emissions associated with crude oil extraction, a decision that grossly underrepresents the actual lifecycle emissions impacts of gasoline.” RFA concluded, “Omitting key emissions sources from the lifecycle assessment of EVs and crude oil inappropriately skews the paper’s results for the overall emissions impacts of these fuels and vehicles.”
You can read all of the RFA’s response here.