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: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Jo Pitzl The Arizona Republic Jun. 22, 2006 12:00 AM Biodiesel might fuel the path to energy independence, but it doesn't merit a stop at the tax-break rest stop. So lawmakers decided Wednesday as they killed a bill that would have reduced property taxes for biodiesel-fuel plants. It was unclear whether anyone is proposing to build such a plant, and state senators were equally unclear on many of the potential consequences of granting favorable tax status to biodiesel production. advertisement Others lamented the death of a bill that would have further reduced a corporate property tax. Biodiesel is a blend of diesel fuel and vegetable oil that burns cleaner than pure diesel fuel. Its big claim to fame is that it can be made from castoff french-fry grease. Senate President Ken Bennett voted for the bill, saying it would be a step toward weaning America off foreign oil. "I don't produce biodiesel in my business, but I do sell it," said Bennett, a Prescott Republican who runs a family oil business. "I support energy independence, and I vote 'aye.' " The bill would have allowed biodiesel plants to be assessed for taxes at 5 percent of their full cash value. Most businesses are assessed at a much higher rate, currently 24.5 percent. Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, pointed out what he felt were vaguely defined criteria for reaping the tax break, and questioned whether he could get a break if he blended fryer grease with diesel fuel on a vacant lot. Sen. Robert Blendu, R-Litchfield Park, lamented the bill's demise. "We just failed a corporate property tax here," he said. Such failures, he said, are a key reason why Arizona has trouble attracting a strong manufacturing base. "I am hopeful this bill will come back next year, or a (broader) corporate property tax bill," he said. |
|
|
|
| Biodiesel is a domestically produced, renewable fuel that can be manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant greases. Biodiesel is safe, biodegradable, and reduces serious air pollutants such as particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and air toxics. Blends of 20% biodiesel with 80% petroleum diesel (B20) can generally be used in unmodified diesel engines; however, users should consult their OEM and engine warranty statement. Biodiesel can also be used in its pure form (B100), but it may require certain engine modifications to avoid maintenance and performance problems and may not be suitable for wintertime use. Users should consult their engine warranty statement. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jun 22, 2006 8:45 am) The question, if you believe the Rand Study, may not be as far fetched or hypothetical as it may seem at first blush. For, what if, instead of spending so much of our capital on Ethanol and Diesel and Bio this and hybrid that, we spent our money (or more of it) to determine the feasibility of getting our known oil into our vehicles (and other uses?) Is this a "we're running out of stuff arguement or a pollution argument?" The pollution argument seems to be getting us nowhere as the use of E85 seems to be heading in the direction of being insignificant to reducing pollution, to say nothing of the folks who claims there are few, if any, pollution benefits to using E85 in the first place. So, if we had "long range" access to oil would we be attempting this for the purpose of cleaning up the joint? Just wondering what impact "no shortage" (more or less) would make. Or is it higher prices rather than shortage that is driving all of this (no pun intended?) The report by the RAND Environment, Energy and Economic Development program says that between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion barrels of oil are technically recoverable from high-grade oil shale deposits located in the Green River geological formation, covering parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The mid-point of the RAND estimate – 800 billion barrels – is three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. This is enough oil to meet 25 percent of America's current oil demand for the next 400 years. The benefits of a competitive oil shale industry are substantial. For an output of 3 million barrels per day, the study estimates direct economic benefits of about $20 billion per year. Federal, state and local governments would receive about half of this amount in the form of lease payments, royalties and taxes. Production at 3 million barrels per day also could likely cause oil prices to fall by 3 to 5 percent, saving American oil consumers roughly $15 billion to $20 billion annually, according to the report. A multimillion-barrel per day oil shale industry could also create several hundred thousand jobs in the United States. The study further states: The RAND report recommends that the U.S. government take the following low-cost steps to advance oil shale development, even before the long-term future of oil shale is determined: Add oil shale to the Department of Energy's research and development portfolio. Establish a national oil shale archive to hold and preserve information on oil shale resources, technologies and impacts of development. Analyze lease program implementation options, such as combining adjacent lease tracts and fostering extensive resource recovery in lease tracts. When private firms are willing to invest in oil shale development without appreciable government subsidy, government decision-makers should address core environmental, leasing policy and oil shale development issues, according to the study. The report recommends that the federal government should then: Develop and implement a research plan to establish options for mitigating ecological damage. Conduct research aimed at mathematically modeling the subsurface environment, along with long-term hydrological, geochemical and geophysical monitoring programs. Conduct research aimed at establishing and analyzing options for long-term spent shale disposal. Model regional air quality to determine preferred locations for federal leasing and to inform decisions on air quality permits for initial plants. Develop a federal oil shale leasing strategy for the Green River Formation. So, lots of "proven" quantity. So, lots of potential risks (and rewards). So, it may become economically possible sooner rather than later. Sounds like a combination of events and circumstances that, if history is any guide, will motivate us to go for the high fat content stuff rather than the lo cal stuff (if you get my drift.) How many of the billions spent on E and H and D and BD and EV and a partridge in a pear tree if spent on development of known reserves would compress time? And, perhaps more importantly, do we want to use oil even if we found a thousand, million, trillion bbl reserve? Give me strength. E85 seems like using $20 bills to keep your house warm -- THUS FAR. Who would do such a thing, especially if the stuff is made from FOOD, not waste by-products or other non food biomass?
|
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 22, 2006 7:59 am) 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. This has been covered a kazillion times before on this forum/thread. I live in Nebraska, I know farmers, ag economists, water experts and farm group leaders, and I can write it in stone that there are environmental consequences to growing corn. This is not even in dispute among the farmers who grow it. Without the federal price supports and the cheap prices they pay for irrigation water, they're growing something else. And, if we keep upping the ante on corn for ethanol, it will not be long before food prices head upward, too. That is a given in the market -- when and how much is uncertain, but it will indeed happen.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jun 22, 2006 9:56 am) It's a bit of both, plus it's a political argument (resource dependency on anti-western fragile dictatorships in the Muslim world is a dangerous thing.) Unfortunately, we are so dependent on fossil fuels for so many things in so many places, we have to accept the reality that we are going to be burning this stuff for many years to come. Hence, I think that the short-to-medium term solutions rest in (a) discouraging people from using it, (b) getting what we do use to use it more efficiently, and (c) using technologies to stretch more use out of it and to make it less harmful. The medium- to long-term should include aggressive R&D to find alternative versions of the same stuff, or completely new technologies to replace the technologies of old, but this will take a long time. We really ought to start yesterday, but even if we do, it will take time, particularly if you expect the free market to do it. (The free market has little incentive to clean the air without regulatory pressure, for example.) What might be best would be to have our governments in the west jointly form a sort of Manhattan Project for energy. But we don't seem to have the political will, foresight, budgets or guts to do it. |
|
|
Replying to: fireball1 (Jun 22, 2006 10:06 am) http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/21/news/economy/cellulose_ethanol/index.htm |
|
|
I apologize for the length below, but I could not quickly find a link. I received this as a PDF document earlier this week. Print it out and read it when you get a few minutes. Only the second half deals with ethanol from corn. This is an opinion, to be sure, but a convincing one. Vol.1 No. 24 Peak Oil Review June 19, 2006 Tom Whipple, Editor 1. The International Energy Agency Given the tightness in the oil markets, the release of the International Energy Agency’s Oil Market Report (OMR) has become an event that drives oil prices and leads to much commentary. As the IEA only has two weeks to assemble and assess the previous month's data before releasing the report, subsequent revisions to the OMR’s initial production numbers are frequent. Last month, for example, the OMR had world oil production climbing to a new high of 85.1 million barrels per day during April. This month the OMR has May total world production climbing by 445,000 b/d to 85.0 million b/d. This, of course, implies that the last month’s production number was too high and has been revised downward. The May production increase is said to have taken place despite numerous well-sourced press reports of lower Saudi production during the last two months. The Agency also has reduced its forecast for growth in demand during 2006 to 1.24 million barrels a day, down about 30 percent from its growth estimate in January. Over the longer run, the IEA forecasts that world oil demand will rise 37 percent by 2030 to 115 million barrels a day from about 85 million today. However, it has concluded that because OPEC does not appear to be investing as much in production as expected, global oil supplies probably won't reach the agency's 115-million-barrel target for 2030. 2. The Mexican election. The result of Mexico’s Presidential Election on July 2 nd is likely to play a major role in the future of the Mexican oil industry and its exports to the US, currently some 1.6 million b/d. The key issue is how to replace looming declines from the 2 million b/d production from the giant Cantarell oil field. Conservative Presidential candidate Felipe Calderon had been pushing the idea that Mexico's only solution is to change the law to allow partnerships with foreign oil companies to exploit deep-water deposits, something the Mexicans cannot do by themselves. However, he recently has backed off on allowing foreign investment. Leftist candidate Andres Obrador, who is running about even with Calderon in the polls, opposes the policy change and does not want deep-water drilling. He favors building more oil refineries and chemical plants, and lowering gas prices to help the poor. Neither candidate appears to have a policy that will offset the decline of Cantarell in the next few years. Even if foreign partnerships were allowed, deep-water drilling would take years to yield significant results. Mexico City-based industry analyst David Shields predicts Mexican oil productioncould fall from 3.35 million barrels per day to as little as 2.8 million barrels per day within two or three years, if nothing is done. 3. BP’s 2006 Statistical Review of World Energy U.S. energy use declined last year for the first time in 20 years, while the rate of increase in consumption worldwide slowed, BP PLC reported Wednesday in its annual survey of global trends. U.S. consumption fell 0.1 percent, BP said, due to high prices and the impact of hurricanes. The U.S. Department of Energy had previously reported a drop of 0.4 percent in U.S. oil consumption during 2005. Worldwide, 2005 energy consumption growth was up 2.7 percent, down from a 20-year high of 4.4 percent in 2004, BP said. China's consumption increased 9.5 percent compared to a 15.5 percent rise in the previous year, the report said. The report said coal was the world's fast-growing energy source, almost entirely because of China's enormous consumption. The nation, which burns 36.9 percent of the world's coal, increased consumption by 10.9 percent in 2005, down from 14.4 percent in 2004. BP said global oil consumption rose 1.3 percent last year, compared to a 3.6 percent rise in 2004. 4. Energy Briefs •Offshore oil and gas drilling contractor GlobalSantaFe said it has signed a contract with Saudi Aramco to provide four jack-up rigs for four-year terms commencing in the first half of 2007. The Saudi Aramco agreement is believed to be the largest jackup agreement in the history of the offshore drilling industry. •Japan consumes 22 percent of Iranian oil exports and is slated to begin development this year of the largest and most modern onshore petroleum fields built in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Last month Japan's producer prices rose the fastest in 25 years on surging fuel and commodity costs. •Thailand’s demand for diesel is down 9% over the last 12 months. Crude oil imports during January-May this year fell 1.9 per cent to 831,000 barrels daily, compared to the same period of 2005. •China's imports of crude oil leapt 19 percent in May from a year earlier. The Chinese plan to cut fuel exports for a fourth consecutive month to meet domestic demand. The number of civilian vehicles on China's roads rose 21 percent last year to 43.29 million, the National Bureau of Statistics said in February. •The Uppsala University Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group has examined a crash program scenario for the Canadian oil sand industry. Even in a very optimistic scenario, Canada's oil sands will not prevent Peak Oil. If a crash program were immediately implemented it may only barely offset the combined declining conventional crude oil production in Canada and the North Sea. •There were 101 US ethanol-processing plants online in early June plus 40 more under construction. Ethanol futures prices still climbed from $2.70 in early May to $4.50 by mid-June. (A gallon of ethanol contains roughly 30% less energy than a gallon of gasoline.) Commentary: Ethanol from Corn A Contrarian Investor’s View of the Potential By E. Brian Smyth (Note: Commentaries do not necessarily represent ASPO-USA’s positions; they are personal statements and observations by informed commentators.) Ethanol fever is sweeping the land. A boomtown atmosphere has gripped the farm belt, in a manner that has not been seen there in a long time. With gas at the pump stubbornly fixed at $3 per gallon, the time seems to be right for ethanol. Lobbyists are in full battle dress. Washington is showering billions in tax incentives. GM has launched a “Be Green, Go Yellow” campaign. Over 200 ethanol plants are sprouting up all over the Midwest, many financed directly by farmer co-ops and private placements. PowerPoint presentations and press releases now breathlessly proclaim that ethanol can provide 25% of our liquid fuel needs by 2025. The ethanol consensus is so great that it has brought together automakers and union leaders, national security strategists and environmentalist |
|
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
