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: heel2toe (Jun 30, 2006 7:20 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 30, 2006 7:33 am) To a point you can "easily" increase production. Remember that ethanol has to be made and its made from a raw material. Once you start producing enough ethanol that it starts taking that raw material away from other needs or that raw material gets harder to come by it gets very hard to increase production and prices will increase sharply. My best guess is that at current level of usage E85 would not break 30% of our fuel needs, and that won't be for many years. And that is a best senerio based on current usage. It is more likely that E85 would only provide for 15% of our fuel needs when ethanol production is at it highest. To increase beyond that point would greatly increase the cost of ethanol. |
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jun 30, 2006 7:50 am) That's not a bad guess, you may very well be right. I suspect that as things evolve, E10 will be a national product, while if it gains traction, E85 may be a largely regional product. If you could actually reduce overall gasoline usage by a large proportion, i.e. 20% or so because of an alternative fuel being introduced to the national energy mix, that would be a massive change in the overall demand for oil. If that's achievable and could be combined with other solutions, it's a worthwhile goal. It's that sort of reduction in demand during the seventies that helped to break the OPEC cartel.
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 30, 2006 7:03 am) Actually the mandate is E2.78 or 2.78% ethanol average for all regular gas. The kicker is if MN uses E10 for all regular that takes the refiners off the hook for any ethanol in another location. As far as E85 sales. I would be willing to bet that at least 90% is being used in government vehicles. Many local government vehicles are mandated ethanol use. Makes sense because they can put in a tank and dispense it directly. And as we know our local and federal government has plenty of money to waste. |
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 30, 2006 8:06 am) That is very true. It is also the catch22 in this whole ethanol business. You make ethanol to cut back on OPEC oil. OPEC cuts the price to maintain their income levels. Ethanol is now impractical with cheap oil. Starts the same old cycle. The ones that lose are those that invested time and money into producing ethanol. It also happened with shale oil at the same time 20 years ago. The worst part is companies like ADM have conned US into footing the ethanol bill this time. They make a killing while the fire is hot. We are left with the mess and our dollars in the pockets of the Mega Ag company executives. Some here would argue that is better than in Exxon executive pockets. Is it?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 30, 2006 8:06 am) Its just a guess and on the high side as I used production levels just above what I have read is the maximum reasonable level of ethanol production in the foreseeable future. Using the best estimates for reasonable production and allowing for a slight yearly increase in demand I see less than 20% E85 penetration and would barely reduce our current levels of use. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 30, 2006 8:25 am) But the key difference between today and the 1970's is that the overall pool of demanders hadn't changed -- it was dominated by the US and other western countries, and as demand declined within those countries, OPEC began to turn on itself. Today, the increased price of oil is not coming from the actions of a cartel restricting supplies, but from rapidly increasing demand from emerging market economies such as China. Supplies are being pumped out about as quickly as is possible, it's the demand drivers that are creating the pricing pressures. In other words, the days of $10 oil are probably long gone. The odds of having prices that are high enough to support alternative energy are much greater than they were in the past. If alt fuels can produced for a price similar or below of some of the lesser oil sources, such as shale, then it stands a good chance of going the distance. But yes, if oil prices collapse for some reason, then all these alt fuels will be dead. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 30, 2006 7:33 am) Ethanol will be subject to the same vicissitudes that effect gas -- and when gas (for purposes of "from now on" I will agree that gas and E10 are essentially the same) prices are effected: o Ethanol prices will also increase (or decrease.) Furthermore. . . . Ethanol, to overcome the impact of the removal of the $.51 incentive will have to drop in cost about a $1.00 per gallon (and sometimes more). Ethanol, if produced from food (other than soybeans, if and then only used for biodiesel) will cause the cost of food to rise, even if ethanol per se is artificially price contained. Bio-mass is a possible approach -- yet little effort is being made to develop bio-mass production facilities, even though it is at least not unreasonable to think that a corn based plant could be used to produce ethanol from switch grass and other bio-mass. We have the technology and the resources to extract real gooey oil from the US at what appears to be a cost that is about 1/2 of the cost of today's bbl of crude (i.e., $35). All of these approaches take time -- possibly decades. Real normal regular gasoline or real normal regular diesel are the only near term products -- from ONLY an economic standpoint -- that can reduce both greenhouse gas and our dependence upon Middle eastern oil. Other future technologies are, of course, possible, probable and promising. We should not stop the work to develop supplies of Ethanol despite the apparent contradictions we know of today. We should, indeed, probably not stop the work to develop alternatives of all kinds. Based on TODAY's circumstances and the years it will take virtually anything we discover or develop to "come on line," exploitation of better and better ICE's and other compression based technologies are prudent, pragmatic and possible (where would we be without alliteration?) Everything else is NOT without merit. Everything else with respect to ethanol will bankrupt and starve us even if we could ramp up the production to anything approaching the quantities required to make a dent in our use of "ferrrin'" oil. Hybrids, despite their recent fuel economy set backs (for a variety of reasons), too, should not be set back on the shelf of "nice ideas" -- develop develop develop new, better, different approaches must continue. The hot news technically and supply wise, has to be new and better ICE's and diesels; and, generations worth of oil waiting to be sucked up and turned into gasoline that we already have at our disposal -- both legally and technologically. I would say we have an obligation to all of these approaches. The buzz about ethanol, I fear is too much like the promise of a perpetual motion machine -- that damn friction always seems to get in the way.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jun 30, 2006 10:58 am) Not necessarily. Food supplies are more than adequate, and commodity products tend to be cheap. Most of the price of the goods that we buy at the retail level is not generated by the commodity components, but by all of the processes in between -- farmers even lose money on products sold by retailers at a profit. If anything, the main risk to food prices comes from increased shipping costs that are created by rising fuel prices. (Those price increases affect everyone in the business, so they will eventually trickle up to the consumer.) So if introducing large quantities of biofuels can reduce the cost of fuel, food prices might actually decline relative to what they would have been, rather than increase.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 30, 2006 11:24 am) Ethanol, TODAY, is simply difficult to make in adequate quantities, difficult to transport and a 68% solution. When I was in school, 64% was an "F" -- making Ethanol a "D-" solution. My mom will not put E85 into her car (if she had one) and have it only go about 7 miles for a given quantity when gasoline will go 10 on the same amount. Well maybe if the price of Ethanol dropped at least 32% -- wait, wait, I think Hell maybe freezing over -- naaaa, false alarm.  In an era where we look for value, Ethanol -- and its costs and MPG's present at best a weak argument to the consumer. Ethanol, today, is the antithesis of value. Ethanol promises to deliver us the ability to mitigate our indulgence, yet it seems, thus far, to deliver only gluttony. Perhaps we'll all find some information here: Hey, are we really on TV? Cool!
|
|
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
