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.
|
It's called an alternative fuel, not the solution to our oil problem. It's there, who cares, freedom of choice. We would not care if that was true. It is MANDATED by congress to go in our gas. It is subsidized by congress to make it viable as an alternative. The only choice we have is to vote out of office the ones getting favors, to pass such ignorant laws. |
|
|
dude: some of us care because the subsidies are a waste of our hard-earned income/tax dollar. Some of us would rather see the government use those subsidies to get more bang for the buck, like biodiesel, or solar panels, or....... It would be a better us of our dollars to simply allow all diesels to be used on passenger cars, and then spend the tax money on cleaning up bigger sources of pollution I dunno - just an idea |
|
|
Thats why the governer of Iowa, Illinois, Minn., Indiana, Wisconsin to name a few all agree with this fuel. The governer of Iowa is a democrat too. 1. Diesal still burns less clean. 2. It balances out that it is subsidized because you get wholesome tax credits. 
|
|
|
Replying to: brewerk12 (Aug 03, 2006 7:00 pm) I would think they would be for it. That is money found for their states. It is the rest of us footing the bill so they can get rid of the corn they grow. Ask the governors on both Coasts what they think of it. The sad part is the corn growers are not making anymore money. They are just pumping more expensive chemicals into the ground to get more bushels for ADM, Cargill & Versun to make the real money. The worst case of dribble down economics I have seen. I won't be growing any of that fossil fuel produced corn on my Minnesota farm, I can tell you that for sure. |
|
|
Replying to: brewerk12 (Aug 03, 2006 7:00 pm) It's all pork barrel for those Governors. I am pretty sure that I am more of a "conservationist/preservationist" than anyone here, and I am not a fan of the E-fuels. There are better environmental uses of government funds, plain and simple. I guess if you assume that government has unlimited funds, then, sure, might as well throw a jillion dollars at the large ag interests. Why not? It's only my money. Tell me, how much "less clean" is diesel than unleaded? If we added a nickel tax to every gallon of diesel, do you think we could use that money to purchase air pollution improvements on other sources of pollution, that would result in a net improvement to air quality? I'd rather do that than give $$ to Ag interests. I guess if a person thinks that the most important issue is "energy independence," then that skews the analysis. I am for energy independence, but NOT "at any cost." People think every conservationist has to be pro-energy independence. That is sloppy thinking. You want energy independence, then you better be willing to open coastal California, and the ANWR, and the huge oil shale projects, etc. etc. I'd rather give money to the Saudis than sacrifice the coast of California. I'd rather pay an extra nickel/gallon than sacrifice the coast of California. and it's not that simple |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: brewerk12 (Aug 03, 2006 7:00 pm) My Congresswoman is a republican -- she sent this long letter explaining how cool E85 will be and although most of the facts she noted were accurate, the entire impression the letter sent was false. The policital party MAY have something to do with this -- but right now there are pols all over the spectrum who seem to be in favor of MANDATING Ethanol, SUBSIDIZNG Ethanol and not telling the whole story. My Congresswoman did not exactly say that E85 gets 70% of the MPG of E10 (pretty much the "standard" gas for sale here in Ohio.) She tip toed around the MPG issue with information that appeared to lead you to believe ethanol would be less expensive on a per gallon basis. No mention, in her letter, of the $.51 subsidy either. Plenty of mention of the 100+ jobs that will be created in tiny, rural Cadiz, Ohio where the new Corn Fed ethanol plant is being built. No mention of the cost of those jobs, the energy required to make a gallon of ethanol, the fact that it cannot be pumped into an existing infrastructure/distribution system and. . .oh heck, it just makes me weary to think about the number of holes in her argument. When I wrote to her, she replied "I'd rather send the money to Iowa than Iran." Where do I begin to have a reasoned and reasonable discussion with someone who argues long and loud FOR ethanol, apparently is unaware of the uphill battle it will face when folks discover the lower MPG, the not lower price per gallon and note that it is subsidized and otherwise impractical? Members of our own EPA and the Diesel Technology Forum and apparently some very bright battery scientists (who argue in favor of a more efficient conversion of coal into electricity) believe clean diesel fuel running in clean efficient current generation cars, bio diesel and/or diesel/battery hybrids (diesel/electric hybrids to be precise) can offer us a reduction in our need for foreign oil (technically eliminating entirely our importation of Middle Easter Oil) and a reduction of greenhouse gasses. All this is known and is readily available to anyone who will take some time to find it out (ummm, you would think a member of Congress would have staff members and advisors to vet this kind of thing) -- yet we come to an entirely different conclusion based not on doing what's right for both the near and the long term, but based on doing what King Corn wants, apparently. I could just spit. Ptoooie! Hello Congresswoman -- is this thing on? Hello???? On the other hand, we do need to attempt to offer alternatives and E85 does pretty much qualify. I coulda really got behind B0 to B100 bio-diesel. And the cool thing is that a diesel powered car at a similar price point to a gas powered version goes at least 20% further on a gallon of fuel that generally costs less than Premium or Mid grade and the accelerative capabilities of the diesel vehicle will exceed the gas powered version. Hmm: 1. higher MPG's 2. lowering or eliminating our need for imports 3. can be grown from soybeans and after the removal of the diesel, the soybeans can still be used for other "food" purposes 4. lower greenhouse gas 5. lower cost than ethanol and usually lower costs than Premium dino-gas 6. no pipeline/transportation issues 7. cars so equipped would be quieter, cleaner, quicker, no less fast and more durable 8. cars so equipped would be close in price to gasoline or FFV's MSRP's 9. using 71% of our total farmland is NOT required 10. Willie Nelson supports.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Aug 04, 2006 9:38 am) |
|
|
|
|
The wacky outright lies and fear-mongering along with the worshiping of Arab and South American dictators would lead you to believe that the hate-mongers on this forum are direct followers of ***CENSORED***. These nay-sayers are a dime a dozen, always espousing some -ism or another while they wait for their government checks. They only push their negative agendas and their hatred of all parts of the United States system, they NEVER contribute anything positive to the United States. I also thought it was an interesting article that California has taken NO action to slow down the growth of oil imports or using renewable fuels. Evidently Biodiesel production has to capture all runoff or it kills wildlife and destroys fisheries as has been found. Diesel cars are POS as they always have been, without even being popular/wanted in Europe. Europe would willingly throw out their terrible diesels if they could ship them all to Russia...nobody in Europe really wants a lousy diesel.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Aug 01, 2006 8:01 pm) I don't think you can get an Impala FFV except as a fleet vehicle. One of the posters here tried to order one and was told it was not available. Only PU trucks and large SUVs with the 5.3L V8. So far no one has posted mileage for a car that runs on E85. I don't think many have been sold to the public. Only government vehicles. You know they can afford to waste money. It is after all other people's money they are flushing down the ethanol toilet. More outright lies from the far left! Gagrice, you are a good representative of the oil cartel...you sund more like TM every day!...get a life!
|
|
|
|
|
These diesel engines were "not ready for prime time" and even if I were to recite chapter and verse the reasons and vet them fully and explain them to death, the spirit of what you might conclude would remain -- these diesel's were plainly "not ready for Mr and Ms John and Jane Q Public and all the Ships at Sea." Further information is easily Googled and, to repeat simply would put an end to the why question that may be here, today, on this matter. These diesels -- were you to find a perfect one -- in the land yachts they were often placed into, were "not bad." Upon starting, they were a little noisy, the exhaust had a hint of soot in it (but not black belching 'moke, by any means) and inside the cars there was little in the way of evidence you were driving a compression engine. The Olds 98, my boss had, was fully loaded with all lux goodies and due to the extra torque of the diesel, seemed imperceptibly different in terms of "starting from a full stop." On the highway, you'd never know anything at all except you could drive and drive and drive between fill ups, compared to the anti-pollution device laden gasoline V8's of the day. What a lie..GM was so desperate to solve the problems they tried every trick in the book. There was a huge cottage industry that replaced the GM diesel engines with gasoline burning ones. People were so mad at GM, there were a tremendous amount of lawsuits and GM paid for partially for the gasoline replacements...a silent warranty..similar to the Hyundai when they came out with their POS. |
|
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
