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.
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 22, 2006 5:42 am) Maybe it is different on the coasts where e85 is scarce, but in MN, we have over 100 stations. I even found one in Cohasset, population 2476, right on US hwy 2. In my neighborhood it is $2.39 for a gallon of e85 and $2.85 for gas. It was better in Cohasset where e85 was My Taurus gets 20mpg on e85, 22 mpg on gas. that is 1.1 gallons of e85 for every gallon of gas, so I am saving about $0.22 for every gallon of e85 I am using. Gas would have to be 2.63 (2.39*1.1) for me to break even. Since I am saving $0.22 per gallon, I am saving a lot of money...$165 this year alone (or five tanks of gas). I have driven over 15k miles with e85 and ~10k miles on gas (before I knew it could use e85), so I know the mileage numbers are very accurate. The only problem I have ever had is the octane rating is over 100 for e85, and the Taurus's computer is such a piece of crap (it is a Ford) it cannot tell that the octane is so much higher than 87, so it takes a couple of cranks to start. However, once it starts, it runs fine. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jun 22, 2006 7:21 am) My beloved Audi W12 cannot, the S8 V10 cannot. The RS6 isn't out yet and regardless would probably cost close to 100K. I am surprised an Audi W12 cannot. Anyway my Caddy can beat 5 seconds (but its an entry level size and not "large" and is in the low $50's) and I know that the STS-V can also beat that mark too and thats only $75K. I would expect the BMW 7 series to be in that area and the start in the low $70's. And I do believe that MB has a few AMG's that can do it starting in the low $80's (but not sure if they are considered full size). |
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 22, 2006 7:25 am) There are companies that have been doing the same thing in this country. The price I've read is under $12k, which is still too expensive for the mainstream. The biggest downside is that Toyota will void your warranty, which I find excessive. I can understand them not backing any part of the car that you've modified but other than that, IMO, it should still be covered. http://calcars.org/ The mileage 100+ mpg claims are a little misleading because they suggest you have magically achieved this astonishing level of efficiency when all you've done is replace gas power with some grid power. Still a good deal just somewhat distorted. Theoretically by their methodology you could achieve infinite miles per gallon if you limited your speed and distances driven. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 21, 2006 4:31 pm) There are many bloggers and anti-americans who have kicked in with their opinions, but there are almost zero people with any real credentials that dispute the growing of corn and the production of ethanol. Instead of assisting and helping all Americans to try to get some form of energy independence from the dictator oil cartels...it is business as usual, no alternative fuels are good enough or scientific facts are creditable enough. Biodiesel might be ok, but I am sure that biodiesel fuel will be rationed to our diesel trucking industry not some experimental diesel auto. Corn crops here where I am look like a bumper crop this year and estimates in this state show a 20% increase in yield over last year's semi-drought conditions in the midwest -- Illinois was a disaster for corn production last year...this year looks great.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/21/2006 11:23 PM ET By Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY Ethanol prices are hitting record levels this week, adding to the cost of gasoline as the nation heads into the peak vacation driving season. A gallon of ethanol was going for as much as $5.75 on East Coast spot markets, more than double the $2.54 that it fetched as recently as three months ago, says Tom Kloza, analyst for the Oil Price Information Service. Ethanol, grain alcohol usually distilled from corn in the USA, is added to gasoline to create a more environmentally friendly fuel required during the summer in many major cities. Ethanol has gradually replaced MTBE, a petroleum-based additive thought to cause cancer, as the lower-polluting alternative. And demand has outstripped supply. With ethanol prices so high, the 10% of ethanol in reformulated gasoline, as the blend is called, could add about 30 cents a gallon to the cost of gas, Kloza says."In general, I think we are going to see the highest prices for gas that we've ever seen" this summer, he says. Reason: high demand. "People tend to take July and August vacations regardless of the price of fuel." Unleaded gas averaged $2.85 a gallon Wednesday, down about 3 cents from a month ago but up from $2.16 a gallon a year ago, according to AAA. Prices peaked post-Katrina on Sept. 5 at $3.06 a gallon. After summer, ethanol prices could fade. Demand will fall as the season for reformulated gas ends. And 33 new ethanol plants are to be completed by year's end, says Michelle Kautz, spokeswoman for the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, an industry group. So far, zooming ethanol prices aren't making costs spike for E85 fuel, the 85% ethanol/15% gasoline blend touted as an alternative to cut America's dependence on foreign oil. Kautz says many retailers negotiated prices with suppliers in advance to hold down costs to owners of the 6 million vehicles that can burn E85. 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. |
|
|
|
|
At today's prices, ethanol doesn't need this subsidy Trim back federal aid to reflect oil market realities By DAVID MORRIS CONGRESS is considering several bills to extend the 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit for ethanol producers beyond its 2010 expiration date. But let's hope that our elected representatives don't make their decision in the grips of an ethanol haze. The state of the ethanol industry has changed so substantially since the last extension, one year ago, that a fundamental and clearheaded redesign is in order. Sky-high oil prices and a national ethanol mandate have undermined the rationale for incentives. With oil at $60 a barrel, ethanol can compete with gasoline without federal subsidies. For much of 2005, oil prices approached or surpassed the $60 level. In recent months, they've hovered near $70. Last year, Congress ordered a near doubling of ethanol sales by 2012. Industry has responded so rapidly that the nation may have enough capacity to meet the congressional goal by 2008. Indeed, Congress is already debating measures to increase mandated levels to 10 billion gallons in 2010 and 30 billion in 2020. If the current 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit remains in place, these mandates would cost the Treasury Department $5 billion in 2010 and more than $15 billion in 2020. In the face of high oil prices, such subsidy levels are likely to prove politically untenable when there's no need for tax credits to make ethanol competitive. Moreover, the rapidly changing structure of the ethanol industry argues for an entirely different kind of incentive. In 2003, some 50 percent of all ethanol refineries and perhaps 80 percent of all proposed plants were controlled by farmers, with an average annual output of about 40 million gallons each. But now, around 80 percent of new ethanol production is coming from plants controlled by absentee owners that produce 100 million to 125 million gallons. As farmer and ethanol refinery have become delinked, so have biofuels policy and agricultural policy. True, the increased demand for ethanol has benefited farmers, but only modestly, raising the price of a bushel of corn by 10 cents to 15 cents. But when the farmer is also an owner in the refinery, he or she receives annual dividends averaging about 50 cents a bushel and more than $1 a bushel in very profitable years. Farmer-owners can also use an ethanol plant as a hedge against a drop in the price of their raw material. If the price of corn falls, so does the production cost of ethanol; all other things being equal, refinery profits and therefore dividends will rise. How might Washington redesign the federal incentive to reflect the realities of an increasingly competitive absentee-owned, large-scale ethanol industry? First, tie incentive levels to an index composed of the price of a bushel of corn and the wholesale price of a gallon of gasoline. (A similar index can be developed for biodiesel or cellulose-derived ethanol.) Such an incentive would honor the nation's commitment to both farmers and taxpayers. The farmer-producer would be protected if the price of oil plunged or the price of corn (or soybeans or cellulose) jumped. The taxpayer would be protected from having to underwrite handsome subsidies when the biofuels industry no longer needs them. Second, transform part of the federal incentive from a gas tax exemption for those who market the ethanol into a direct payment to those who produce it. Minnesota did this in the 1980's, turning an incentive for consumption into one for production. The new federal producer payment should encourage locally owned ethanol plants while not being a continual drain on federal resources. A payment of 15 cents per gallon for the first 20 million gallons produced each year might be offered to an absentee-owned plant with payment increasing to 25 cents a gallon if the majority of a plant's owners were farmers or local residents. No plant should be able to receive payments for more than 10 years. Drastically changed times call for a drastically changed federal biofuels incentive, one that minimizes the long-term costs to America's taxpayers while maximizing the long-term benefits to our rural communities and farmers. Morris, based in Minneapolis, is the vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. This article originally appeared in the New York Times.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that the vast majority of hybrid owners would I welcome the ability to plug-in and derive some of their miles from grid power. In addition I suspect that there are many that crunch the numbers and conclude that hybrids, in their current form, don't make financial sense. That might not be the case if they could substitute 30 miles per day with grid power, which ends up costing the driver about 3 cents per mile. How much would this feature add to the price of a car? Hybrid owners are getting a bit panicky, the 20-30% price premium hurts all hybrid owners. The other day there was a Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid for sale in the Honda Used car lot. The salesman stated that the owners were trying to recoup some of their premium costs and to alleviate some of their fears about the cost of repairs and maintenance. They were for sale, but my salesman steered me away from them because of hybrids inherent problems. maybe someday...! A renewable fuel electrical recharge system would help the commuter hybrid market. To really keep it clean, it would be a great idea around here because the auto could charge up from our local Nuclear Power plant or from the grid that is powered by the wind farms in western Iowa. It sure is nice when I am going fishing in the Nuclear Plant's recreational lake and not see any smoke or pollutants from the plant.
|
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 22, 2006 8:28 am) Based upon reliability surveys, these cars have been highly reliable. They may not prove to be durable over the long run, but it's too soon to tell. |
|
|
|
|
AMES, Iowa: This press release issued by EurekAlert says that they're only 250 billionths of a meter in diameter. But fill them with the right chemistry and Iowa State scientists say the tiny nanospheres they've developed could revolutionize how biodiesel is produced. The researchers are after a new, high-tech catalyst that takes some of the energy, labor and toxic chemicals out of biodiesel production. They've come up with a technology that works in the laboratory. And now they're working with the West Central Cooperative in Ralston to test their discoveries on a larger scale. They're also working to establish a company that would move the new technology into biorefineries. The Iowa State research team is led by Victor Lin, an associate professor of chemistry. The team also includes George Kraus and John Verkade, both University Professors of chemistry at Iowa State. The researchers are part of Iowa State's Center for Catalysis. Their project is being supported by a $1.8 million, three-year grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a $120,000, two-year grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and a $140,000 grant from the Grow Iowa Values Fund. "This is a project that's definitely relevant to the state's economy," Lin said. "I thought as a scientist I could contribute something to the state." Current biodiesel production technology reacts soy oil with methanol using toxic, corrosive and flammable sodium methoxide as a catalyst. Getting biodiesel out of the chemical mixture requires acid neutralization, water washes and separation steps. It's a tedious process that dissolves the catalysts so they can't be used again, Lin said. So Lin and his research team started looking for technologies that would create an easier, more efficient and more economical process. They were also hoping to find technologies that would effectively make biodiesel out of raw materials such as used restaurant oils and animal fats – materials that are much cheaper than soy oil, but also contain free fatty acids that can't be converted to biodiesel by current production methods. |
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jun 22, 2006 7:21 am) I guess that all depends on how you look at it. The Lexus hybrid is rated at 25/28 city/hwy mpg. I'll make the assumption that this person would have also been interested in the Lexus GS430 rated at 17/25. He probably wasn't in the market for any 30+ mpg vehicles. This driver will save essentially as much fuel per 100 miles driven as the person who chose a Prius over a Corolla. In addition you are now targeting the people that are not willing to sacrifice performance for fuel efficiency. Of course this is also based on the assumption that hybrids achieve their EPA mileage ratings, which we all know they don't.
|
|
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
