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: tpe (Jun 22, 2006 10:36 am) But you still haven't addressed the range and refueling problem, aside from claiming that it doesn't matter, even though the market clearly doesn't agree with that position. There's no question that electric cars work to some degree, but they don't work well enough to provide benefit to the consumer. The batteries are another barrier, although I presume that R&D related to hybrids will ultimately lead to a solution to this problem. There hasn't been much incentive to spur great leaps forward in battery technology, but hybrids ought to be popular enough to offer the needed kicker. Despite its complexity, the hybrid is a good concept, because it hurdles the main barriers of a pure EV while providing a lot of the benefits. My sense is that hybrids will evolve so that the internal combustion engine does relatively less work than it does today, which will effectively do the same thing. It also serves as a good platform for evolving other products that could eventually use hybrids, such as heavy trucks that run on a combination of diesel/B20 and hybrid technology.
|
|
|
Replying to: gearhead4 (Jun 22, 2006 10:36 am) We consume around 140 Billion gallons of gasoline per year, and currently produce around 4.4 Billion gallons of ethanol. So total ethanol production = a smidge over 3% of our gasoline usage. I don't have the numbers, but I'd wager that much more ethanol is earmarked for E10 production since MTBE is being phased out as an allowed oxegenate in gasoline. Therefore, you don't have much ethanol 'left over' for E85. |
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 22, 2006 10:43 am) http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/news,view.spy?artid=63626&pg=1
|
|
|
|
|
Is this a "we're running out of stuff argument 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. Ethanol does reduce air pollution to a significant extent, but I agree with you that the oil shortages and prices being set by the dictator oil cartel is driving the renewable fuels position of the United States. We started down this path in the 1970s and got sidetracked by the then presidents who did not want to disturb the status quo. We have now reached the point that renewable fuels delevoped and manufactured in the United States are necessary, in whatever form, to cut our dependence on the dictators oil cartel. This time was coming and now it is here. Costs of the renewable fuels are in a large part, irrelevant. There will be dislocations in availability and prices, of course, that is the normal flow of any business model that uses renewable fuels. But we will not be caught up like Europe that charges $5-$6 a gallon fuel...Europe uses these terribly highly taxed fuels to propel their socialist economies, which we do not. Our democracy does not provide the womb to tomb benefits that Europe had/has to provide. The had to fight the spectre of Communism in their countries for many many years and could only placate many of their openly communist unions by welfare programs that we will never stand for here in the United States. Many monetary raises in places like the Scandinavian countries are eaten up by 80-90% taxes, so they are more interested not in wages but in perks like autos, homes, vacations etc. It sure changed my company's business model for these countries. This is the first time that I can remember in my lifetime where we are preparing a US energy policy custom made for Americans by Americans. It is a unique opportunity to merge many normally opposing factions to generate a national renewable fuels policy. You know the TREE-HUGRs will delay any oil drilling in ANWR, the coast of CA and the Gulf Coast and any other place we discover oil in the USA for decades, ditto new refineries and Nuclear power -- even our wind farm generation of electrical power is being stopped. In some places like New York State US Senator Charles Shumer leads the charge to refuse to allow any siting of Ethanol plants, wind farms or renewable fuels -- purely an obstructionist tactic, yet many upstate New York areas look like urban ghettos, only farm style. The renewable fuels crowd that depends upon growing our way into a better form of energy independence for the current type of automobiles allows us a lot of flexibility but is anathema to people looking to stop any solution. President Carter had the gas rationing coupons printed and ready to go and thank goodness he did not implement his plan...however, it would have fueled the changes necessary to implement a renewable fuel resources plan back in the 1970s. |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jun 22, 2006 11:03 am) Which, assuming the percentage is that low, is still a deal killer. What am I supposed to do the other 10% of the time, stay home, or run around my office trying to borrow 500' of extension cords from the building maintenance guys, then wait 6 hours, just so I can go home? That's a recipe for failure. Cars have to suit our needs, not the other way around. No alternative is going to work unless it allows for convenient and quick refueling, or else doesn't need refueling at all. Since we don't have perpetual motion machines, the latter isn't feasible, which leaves us with the former requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 22, 2006 11:31 am) Thats why he said "today's EVs would represent a second car" and not a primary or only car. For someone like me the EV1 would have been the perfect car to commute in with, at the most, a mid week recharge in the garage. It would also work for errands and heading out to see friends or family. With a gasser as a primary car that the wife uses for her commute, that could be used for the times when the range of the EV is not enough.
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jun 22, 2006 11:49 am) In the US, these second/ additional cars seem to be either some sort of fun toy, or else some hauler of people and/or equipment (boats, jetskis, etc.). An electric car with minimal range and long refueling times doesn't make for a very good first or second car for most of us, otherwise they would already be marketed as such. Let's remember -- there is a reason why they aren't being sold today in large quantities. Automakers make cars in order to make money, and they would be betting on electric if they thought that the profit potential justified the risk. They don't see it, which is why they aren't doing it.
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 22, 2006 11:55 am) Well, I'll try not to speak for most people - but personally I'd never consider a 100% EV in any way whatsoever. That being said, I think plug-in hybrids make a LOT more sense. One could realize virtually all of the benefits of a 100% EV vehicle (if speeds/trip duration are kept down) without giving up the range and quick refueling advantages of the ICE.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 22, 2006 11:55 am) Since most second cars (and first ones for that matter) are rarely driven over 50-75 miles a day an EV would be perfect for that. Even more so since it can be recharged overnight in someones garage or carport taking up far less of the drivers time than pumping 15 gallons of gas each week. |
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Jun 22, 2006 12:05 pm) I believe that you speak for the vast majority of consumers. Pure EV is a choice driven by ideology, not by cost, convenience or cool factor, which leaves you with a very tiny market, and explains why you don't find everyone rushing in to sell them as is. That being said, I think plug-in hybrids make a LOT more sense. I agree that they will, now that the hybrid is moving toward the mainstream and people have learned from the pacesetters that the technology works well enough. Now, the main barrier seems to be technological: the plug-in version would require batteries that are much larger in order to hold a charge that would be good for any reasonable distance, so there's not much point to having a plug just yet. But as the batteries become lighter, smaller and/or more efficient, this could change.
|
|
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
