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: socala4 (Jul 02, 2006 1:57 pm) I don't think the actual production of ethanol will have any real affect on our purchasing of oil. It is still very possible that it takes more oil to make ethanol than you get back. So it is a win for OPEC. They just have a history of dropping prices with the least little drop in oil movement. As some of the countries having internal problems come up to normal production levels. They will probably be over producing the demand, and the price will come down.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 02, 2006 3:59 pm) They are NOT being subsidized (or at least they were not last year at this time) to do this in the same way ethanol is being subsidized ($.51 per gallon.) Were they to build the infrastructure to actually do this on a large scale and produce gasoline and simultaneously reduce our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, there would probably be little more than a "thanks for playing" mention on the evening news (after the initial cheap oil hit the market and we got back to the lower prices we were enjoying a few short years ago.) Were there to be tax credits, rebates, subsidies, subventing and subterfuge for all I care, Shell seems to think that we could use ONLY American crude for 100 years and not import another drop. Conversely, Rand says, "well, the more practical way to use this oil is to increase our use of our own natural resources to 25% of our demand, which would essentially give us the ability to use our oil for about another 400 years" [sic] (but at THAT level.) The theory continues and perhaps even foreshadows a possible oil glut (theory since it has only been put into small use, rather than big, full - scale pedal to the metal production that Shell (and others) probably would do were they given half the economic incentive to do that ADM (et al) presumably has been given.) The data suggests that once we got fully into cooking our shale to create our own crude, the overall cost of a bbl of oil would drop from today's $72+ per bbl by perhaps $15 to $30+ less. The cooked oil, to underscore, from June, 2005, was able to be made viable at a rate about $20/bbl (Rand Report link in previous blogs.) Factor in start up costs and other infrastructure build up costs and throw in a couple of 500 million dollar retirement packages and perhaps the cost of a bbl of our own goo would be $40. Keep in mind the KNOWN reserves we have identified from this one source are triple the reserves of Saudi Arabia. It will take years (more than 10) to do much of anything that will slow down our need for dino fuel. Why not "encourage" Shell and others to see what a little help from their friends might do toward answering the question "what's cookin' underground in Colorado?" This, in response to my Congresswoman who claims she'd rather send our money to Iowa than Iran. I don't want to send our money either place. Well, in some free market way, it almost would seem that folks will involuntarily send their money to Iowa (so they have to be "mandated" to do so), yet they [we] have proven time and again to be quite eager to send our money to the middle east, Mexico, Canada, South America and so on. My Congresswoman's email to me detailed all the ramp up (and $ encouragement) we are providing companies to build CORN refineries. From what I have read, if we build corn into ethanol refineries they are not "automatically" able to use other biomass for the same purpose. Further, if what is being written about the impact upon our ability to export corn (as in sharply reduce or eliminate it altogether) -- and how much of our farmland we would have to devote to the production of food crops that will be instead turned into ethanol (71%) if we choose this route -- is true, won't there be global consequences? Is it really "OK" with the rest of the world to no longer get any (or at least a lot less) corn from us? The economic and practical evidence continues to mount, seemingly against, this course of action. We have the resources and we have the technology to extract a lot of "time" from the oil we have right here, right now. It seems like much of what we discuss, argue, debate and contradict here is mainly about buying time without bankrupting ourselves. Shell must feel like a screaming voice in the wilderness from what I can gather. Meanwhile, King Corn, not Big oil (this time) dips into the public pocket for help. Don't cry for me Argentina -- whatever.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jul 02, 2006 5:28 pm) Sounds like your Congress woman needs to do some homework. Last I heard we are not getting any of that crap oil that Iran is selling. In fact that is a part of all the saber rattling. They have very high sulfur crude that is not much in demand around the world. I think they have some of the same ideas about taking over Saudi oil as Saddam had in 1990. Shale oil is an interesting prospect for sure. I think the natives of the area are nervous. I would look for the same kind of resistance to shale oil as we are seeing off the coast of Florida. CA & ANWR. As has been shown we can have all the reserves in the World and still not get to it. Lots of obstacles to producing oil. Our Congress talk a good story about energy independence. Too bad their actions do not accomplish anything to achieve that goal.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 02, 2006 7:55 pm) Send your tax-donations to King Corn, P.O. 3.14, Black Hole, USA, Planet Earth. Sheeesh.  Have a piece of pi on me.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jul 03, 2006 6:08 am) I would think they would want the business. I know in Alaska it has been an uphill battle keeping the Left Coasters nose's out of the state's oil business. They like using lots of oil. They think it grows on trees and you just reach out and pick it, nice and pretty like. I do believe that ANWR will come on line in due time. It is a great reserve and very easy to get at in a sound environmental fashion. The capacity of the oil pipeline is such that it would not be possible to transport it for a few more years. They are keeping the flow at about 1 million barrels per day. I think there are some sections that need to be replaced. They don't want another incident like BP had last winter. It is amazing how oil can wear out a big thick pipe. At least 90 miles have been replaced of the original pipe installed in the 1970s. |
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jul 02, 2006 9:38 am) If E85 becomes competitive (about 2/3 the price of regular unleaded) there is still the annoyance of stopping more often for fuel. Eliminating the subsidy of $0.51/gallon might make E85 competitive. Brazil and other nations would be quick to send ethanol here.
|
|
|
Replying to: scott1256 (Jul 03, 2006 7:02 am) That is just the latest subsidy. Corn has an additional subsidy. The real kicker is the Tariff of 54 cents per gallon on Brazilian ethanol. That was put on long ago to protect the less productive ethanol producers in this country. Brazil is selling us about 20 million gallons a year. They are competitive even with the more than a $1.50 disadvantage tacked on by our wise leaders. If the subsidies and tariffs are removed our ethanol industry would die a quick death. Every Caribbean Island would be growing corn and making ethanol. |
|
|
Replying to: manley (Jun 30, 2006 11:54 am) The Europeans have been doing a good job with diesels - if E85 is going to get anywhere something has to be done to increase engine efficiencies, something that the GMs of the world have never been able to do. The FFV V8s that GM is pushing is nothing but a means to dodge some CAFE requirements and at 10-12 real mpg (on E85) - obviously not any kind of answer. The 'Japanese' 3, on the other hand, develop and produce some of the best smaller displacement engines (4 and 6 cylinder) available. Since a very large portion of their production is now in the US, and the US market is the bulk of sales; there should be some REASON for them to take a serious look at it - under the assumption that the E85 becomes available.
|
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Jul 03, 2006 9:11 am) Gallon for gallon, ethanol only has about 67% as much energy as gasoline. Most vehicles using E85 only get about 72-75% of the mileage they achieve running on regular unleaded. How would engine design overcome this basic property of ethanol?
|
|
|
OK, I may not have it entirely clear, but a few years ago 'the other white meat' was going to be a great thing for a number of farmers. Lots of farmers went to raise a lot of pigs. So many that the spot market for pigs dropped the price below the cost to raise them. It was tough on the farmers who got to choose whether to ship to market and lose even more money on transportation or shoot the pigs and bury them on the spot to cut their losses. The peculiar thing was the price for pork in grocery stores did not drop. Beef prices stayed high due to limited supply and the grocery stores saw no need to undermine them with lower pork prices. I see the same with Ethanol. Even if it was free to produce, until it is the majority fuel it won't be priced much lower than gasoline, either on a per-gallon basis or on a per-btu basis. What would the point be of doing so? One can't pull a market that does not exist.
|
|
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
