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.
|
Before we start talking about large scale production lower the price of ethonal we have to first look at the problems that ethonal faces. There is a point of use problem. There is a reason that E85 is easy to find in Iowa and its real hard to find in Arazona. Unlike gasoline ethonal cannot currently be sent through the pipelines. Transportation is one of the bestest problems with ethonal. It has to be truck(Big rigs usually get 5 to 6 MPG of deisel) Ethonal also has the problem of being energy negative. Meaning it take more engery to make it than you can get back out. We need really cheap energy in order to make the ethonal cheap. Oh and if we are trying to reduce polution the source of that energy has to be CLEAN. Since the majority of our electricty and industrial heat comes from coal we are just shifting the polution from one source to another. For some reason we have it in our heads that we have to make ethonal from Corn. Go yellow. Ethoanl can be made from a great deal of stuff that can be grown almost anywhere. Stuff that can be grown much easier than corn. These are just some of the problems that face ethonal. In order for ethonal to be price competitivly we are going to have to change the way we do alot of stuff in this contry. In the words of green peace "the nuclear option is the only option". We also have to convence local power companies that congeneration of transporstaion fuel is a good thing. Waste heat from the nuclear reactor could be used to run the stills for the ethonal and biodiesel plants. The sulfer Iodine process could be used to make hydrogen also from the waste heat from the nuclear power plant. The hydrogen is used to fuel cars as well as make more fertizer (amonia) for the crops. Waste mangament utilities could start using garbage to make methane to heat home and power local fleets. Basically a complete rework of how our engery is produced. The econmy of scale on a grand scale so to speak. Our home grown energy companies are going to have to step up and start handeling all our energy needs, not must electricty, if we are ever going to kick not just foriegn oil, but fossel fuel period. This would also distribute the production points all over the country and ideally the raw matierals can be produced locally. This will elimiate the 3 problems that I mentioned above. this will also mean a huge investment on the part of energy producers with out a guarntee of success. |
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Jun 29, 2006 1:33 pm) This is the same reason we are in the shape we are in. Americans have become lazy. We need to stop waiting on the japanese to do stuff for us and start doing it ourselves. If its not military we look to europe of asia for all of our solutions.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jun 30, 2006 11:41 am) Again, that's arbitrary benchmarking. Since when did fuel economy generated by gasoline become the gold standard for evaluating the usefulness of a fuel? I'll restate that from the consumer's standpoint, that won't matter if the fuel stops are infrequent enough to be reasonable, if the fuel costs are low enough to either wash or provide an advantage, and if distribution is wide enough to make it a usable choice. The question becomes whether ethanol supplies will become so plentiful that they can be generated at a lower cost than is possible today. I'd like to see some research on the benefits or lack thereof that scale economies can provide to this industry. Perhaps the subsidies can be cut off once the production infrastructure is in place. And again, perhaps the answer will ultimately come from distributing it regionally, rather than nationally, which would still help to alleviate demand for gasoline. Perhaps the folks in the Midwest could fuel up on ethanol, while the Northeastern types could use more gas. We'll see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 30, 2006 11:58 am) Its not arbitrary. In case you haven't noticed practically every car out there runs on Gasoline. Hence when we are evaluating a fuel to replace gasoline it has to be benchmarked against the fuel it is replacing (gasoline). Unless we do there is no way to tell if it is useful to make the switch. The question becomes whether ethanol supplies will become so plentiful that they can be generated at a lower cost than is possible today. The question should be can we produce enough at a reasonable price to make the switch. I really don't see that in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 30, 2006 11:58 am) The adoption of a "fuel" that is apparently carefully marketed to suggest it is fungible (with gasoline, in this case) when it contains but 68% of the "quantity" of energy/distance and our "calling them on it" is not random and it is not an unreasonable act. Gasoline -- even in Europe still powers 70% of the vehicles and here in the US it powers even more. Perhaps the subsidies can be cut off once the production infrastructure is in place? That is the idea isn't it? Then, based on where we stand today, we would have a fuel that would be priced similarly to gasoline yet still provides a serious reduction in miles per gallon. Your suggestion that the distribution system may prove to be more efficient (lower cost?) were it to be regionalized is certainly worth discussing further, though. I actually got a response from my Congresswoman today -- I followed up by sending the Rand study her way. Bluetec diesels, apparently, satisfy all 50 states and the version 5 engines must even further reduce the dirtiness of these engines (yet another 50% over version 4.) Let's see if we can actually create an oil glut (which according to the Rand study, Shell has -- in 2005 -- taken several key steps to that end), which ought to lower gas prices and make Ethanol's economic argument -- already quite weak -- downright anemic. Affordable, plentiful and clean fuel -- is what the customer wants. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. But now the consumer may actually give a damn about cleanliness, whereas historically it appears the customer was mostly willing to give lip service to that attribute. Here in SW Ohio, we are forced to use E10 -- which today for us is over $3.00 per gallon ($3.18 this afternoon.) Diesel (dirty diesel probably) is $2.89. E10 comes it at 97% of the power and mileage of E0, yet costs NO LESS. Roll up your arm and bend over, as the old joke goes. Ethanol may become viable as E85. Current evidence does not support this notion, unfortunately. 
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jun 30, 2006 12:10 pm) As incomes aren't changing instantaneously, the dollars/mile is a good short-term measure. The exception might be for long distances. where filling stations were too far apart to be attained with a single fuel tank. Then mpg is a vital informative.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: albert6 (Jun 30, 2006 8:45 pm) It'll cost HOW MUCH per mile? The current thinking pertaining to diesels is that they will go 20 - 40% further in a similarly priced and performing car (similar to the gasoline powered version.) The comparison between an oil based fuel (diesel, in this case) and a corn based fuel (E85, today, i.e.) is skewed even more in favor of the oil based fuel. The example from the "klik" above figured a tank of gasoline vs a tank of E85 in an FFV and arrived at the numbers: Gasoline Miles Per Tankful=600 E85 Fuel Miles Per Tankful=408 Diesel would be an MPT of =720 The cost for the tankfuls of gasoline and E85 based on where we are today were about $2.00 difference for a twenty gallon tank (assuming E85 was $.10 more per gallon.) Today, (in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia) diesel is ~ $.29 per gallon less expensive than gasoline and $.39 less than E85, which would translate to about $6 or $8 less per tankful. Diesel fuel MPT=720  $2.89/gal Gasoline MPT=600 $3.18/gal Ethanol MPT=408 $3.28/gal The performance in top speed and acceleration is about the same between these different fuels in the vehicles noted above -- diesel accelerates slightly quicker than gasoline and E85 "probably" will accelerate slightly quicker than gasoline. Assuming the cost of the car was ~ the same (within $1,000 of each other) -- would you go for the E85 FFV vehicle and use E85 in it? TODAY, I cannot even with my best and most altruistic hat on, my best Sociological Imagination (Mills) that is, imagine people in the US going green because it will cost so much MORE green. I could be wrong. It just seems counter intuitive to believe that Americans (and not limited to just Americans) would pay that much more for so much less, regardless of their desire to stop sending money to the Middle East.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jul 01, 2006 5:03 am) Well Americans do buy hybrids with little hope of regaining the premium paid. I can see it now. You have the green hybrid group all keeping track of their mileage online. There is the VW TDI Club with their 800 mile group. Next will be the E85 site. With a 300 mile per tank list. The catch being if they can find an E85 station on a trip 300 miles from home. Mighty doubtful. Martha, "DO I have to give back the Green hat with the ear of Corn stickin' out the top, if we fill with Regular ole gas?"
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: albert6 (Jun 30, 2006 8:45 pm) But it still comes down to comparing it to gasoline since that is the defacto fuel for all cars today. Sure we could use dollars to miles, and I have on this forum. But since we are talking about replacing gas that dollar per mile cost has to be benchmarked against the dollar per mile cost for gas. You are talking about ways to measure economy the benchmark is still gasoline. The exception might be for long distances. where filling stations were too far apart to be attained with a single fuel tank. IIRC the longest distance between any two gas stations in North America is about 245 miles on the Dalton Highway in Alaska. Since any car can do that in one tank of E85 I don't see that being an issue. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 01, 2006 5:26 am) Yeah the roads are clogged with hybrids, can't swing a cat without hitting one. 
|
|
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
