Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions Will ethanol E85 catch on in the US? Will we Live Green and Go Yellow? 
2104 messages, Last post on Oct 27, 2006 at 5:34 AM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.
|
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/AUTO01/606190364/- 1148 Rocky |
|
|
Then there is ethanol, the heavily subsidized energy produced from crops like corn, soybeans and sunflowers. Ethanol producers receive a 51-cent-a-gallon federal subsidy, which cost the government $1.4 billion last year, and are protected from international ethanol imports by a 2.5% tariff and an import duty of 54 cents a gallon. But it is not clear that ethanol is a good economic or energy bargain. Producing it requires diesel fuel for tractors to plant and harvest the corn and fertilizers, and pesticides to allow it to grow, so it takes about seven barrels of oil to produce eight barrels of corn-based ethanol. But then more truck or rail fuel is required to deliver it, since there are no pipelines from corn country to urban areas, making shipping ethanol about double the cost of shipping gasoline. In the end ethanol may be a more expensive fuel. Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) says there is no policy reason for ethanol: "If the ethanol producers and the corn growers weren't benefiting from this, we wouldn't be doing it." WSJ opinion |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jun 21, 2006 11:51 am) I agree that E85 is not ready for prime time, I've acknowledged this. Please note that I don't see E85 accomplishing much in the near- to medium-term unless production can be increased many times over, something that can't likely happen if corn is the primary biomass used to produce it. "I would expect hybrids over time to use their gas engines less and less, which will improve their fuel savings, and the batteries to improve, which should make them lighter and more efficient." How do you see this happening when you have already stated an opposition to plug-in hybrids? Without plug-in capability every mile driven in a hybrid, electric or ICE, was ultimately the result of burning fuel. As time evolves, I could see a dual system in which the battery is charged by either the motor or household current, but that was not the way to introduce the product. Take a look at Toyota's brilliant marketing of the Prius, and it's obvious that using old-school EV technology was not going to woo the innovators and tastemakers, and probably turn them off completely, so it was critical to avoid any overt connection to the past-its-prime EV concept. (For a technology to be disruptive, it has to be significantly different, so associating it with a past flop was the last thing you'd want to do from a marketing standpoint.) But as hybrids become more popular among mass consumers and have no doubt that they work, they will likely then become more accepting of the plug-in as an added benefit to something that they already like. It was important in the beginning to completely differentiate the hybrids from the EV cars of the past, but at that point, the hybrid should be on solid ground in the marketplace. |
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 21, 2006 10:25 pm) I've read about a company that will start manufacturing NiMH batteries capable of providing 30 miles all electric range. These batteries will cost $4,000 and weigh 350 lbs. but they say that the weight and cost should drop as they refine the manufacturing process. When you consider that the battery pack that now exists on a Prius weighs over 100 lbs and costs over $1000 the price and weight difference becomes less. For a driver that commutes relatively short distances every day the additional cost of this feature could be recouped in a few years worth of gas savings. Toyota has stated that they have no intention of pursuing this because there is no interest from the public. I don't know what this position is based on but I doubt that Toyota has actually polled their customers or done much market research.
|
|
|
|
|
Hybrids (at least from Lexus) seem to be getting hotter and hotter every day. The Hybrid Lexus cars that provide no mileage benefit, do offer amazing feats of acceleration. The performance lover in me loves this concept. But I do wonder what this approach actually does toward decreasing our use of foreign oil (especially middle eastern oil.) Now the new $100,000 Lexus hot rod, hyper lux, hybrid is announced and while I laud its features and performance (and recognize at that price range its quantity of customers will be limited), I again wonder what purpose with respect to energy this has. In some way, I guess there is an implied oil reduction, for to achieve the accelerative performance that the 600h offers (for instance) it would surely take a whole bunch more oil fired horsepower and torque. Maybe the goal is to increase performance so that instead of measuring 0-60 in under 6 seconds, we can measure it in under 6 nano-seconds ("instant on?") Hybrids, perhaps, to have a chance at being successful need to focus on the LPS and HE market first -- emphasizing smooth but brute force performance. Of course, that definition of success really has little to do with reducing anyone's dependency on oil (foreign or domestic.) The Bosch link, I left above, suggests that diesel hybrids might be attractive because they do provide "the best of both worlds." Well, maybe. But even with a 15% adoption (which despite my personal enthusiasm still seems unlikely -- but possible) the impact is more like three steps forward and 2.5 steps backward. Oh well, I guess it will be spun to make that .5 step improvement seem huge. Zoom zoom indeed. I bet a hybrid luxobarge that can accelerate to 60mph in under 5 seconds would be a rush -- so I guess I'll just conclude with "don't knock it, until you've tried it" and hope someone wants me to try it. A $100,000 car is not the direction I want to go.  Trickle down, anyone? |
|
Ethanol Cost on the Rise
|
|
|
Replying to: jae5 (Jun 22, 2006 4:29 am) Prices vary around the country. At the SuperGas USA station in Rockford, Minn., owner Cal Ismail says E85 is getting more popular. He charges $2.39 a gallon, 30 cents less than regular gasoline at $2.69 a gallon. Although it's cheaper, motorists can't drive as far. The Energy Department says a motorist needs 1.4 gallons of E85 to travel the same distance as on a gallon of gas. At an Exxon station in Columbia, S.C., owner Mike McMenamin says he has to charge $2.76 a gallon for E85, compared with $2.69 for regular. He says he's sometimes lucky to break even on E85 purchases. "You can't expect the American consumer to buy ethanol if it's less miles per gallon and costs more. Even if you're the ultimate tree hugger, you won't do that," McMenamin says. |
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jun 22, 2006 4:12 am) I think the whole Toyota hybrid story is a smoke screen. They came out with the unusual Prius and have limited the production to keep it from being over exposed. Mainly because it is a "Loss Leader". I am sure they are making money on the other hybrids that have come later. They still only appeal to the techno geek or HOV commuter. Lots of gadgets. I propose in 7-10 years when the gadgets get old and the repair costs are through the roof you will see a lot of unhappy Toyota owners. As an example one fellow posted he was charged $250 on his 2006 Prius when it ran out of gas. I guess it had to be reset by the dealer. Who ever heard of a car that is disabled when you run out of gas. I think that all these alternatives are just flailing with no purpose or direction. What happened to simple solutions and American ingenuity? |
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 21, 2006 10:31 am) |
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 21, 2006 10:25 pm) Have you ever analyzed this supposed flop? Take a look at the motivation. First CA mandates ZEV cars will make up a percentage of all cars on CA roads. The Feds toss money at GM to come up with a solution. Very similar to the current E85 boondoggle. 6 million FFVs and a handful of stations selling E85. With the current ethanol price at around 5 bucks a gallon how many people will even consider filling with E85. No dealer in the country is selling E85 cheap enough to make up for the loss of mileage. If it were not for government vehicles using E85 not much would be sold. One good thing came out of the Electric Vehicle mandate. NiMH batteries were developed by GM and associates. To me it was not a flop as it was never given a chance in the market place. The cars were only leased in the 3 metro areas of CA. The home hookup was a costly $3000 device and the commercial power locations were riff with problems. To me the flop was a direct result of government trying to force something that was not ready for prime time. It probably set the EV back 30 years. Kind of like the GM diesel engine of the 1980s. Technology advances better when market driven not government mandated.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions Will ethanol E85 catch on in the US? Will we Live Green and Go Yellow?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Chevrolet Impala
2007 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
2010 Chevrolet Avalanche
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
