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: gagrice (Aug 21, 2006 5:40 am) It is, I drove by that station this morning regular unleaded was $3.199 and E-85 was $2.899.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Aug 22, 2006 4:13 am) get out of the cities and you see what the middle class and poor drive. You don't see as many nice cars. And it stinks. But I am only talking France and Germany. When I was in Paris I saw all sorts of new Renaults and other EU brands. Then in Provence all the cars are very middle of the road. And they stink. Granted, the cars are older out there, so that has a lot to do with it. Far more newer cars in Paris than outside of Paris. All driven by demographics, really. It's not the cars, it's the cars people can afford. If everyone drove a NEW diesel, I'm sure it would smell better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why, READ the true facts: The False Hope of Biofuels For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace Gasoline Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and other crops are being touted as a "green" solution for a large part of America's transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too, were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction of oil imports. Who wouldn't be enthusiastic? But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the effects on land and agriculture would be devastating. It's difficult to understand how advocates of biofuels can believe they are a real solution to kicking our oil addiction. Agriculture Department studies of ethanol production from corn -- the present U.S. process for ethanol fuel -- find that an acre of corn yields about 139 bushels. At an average of about 2.5 gallons per bushel, the acre then will yield about 350 gallons of ethanol. But the fuel value of ethanol is only about two-thirds that of gasoline -- 1.5 gallons of ethanol in the tank equals 1 gallon of gasoline in terms of energy output. Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the net energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included -- it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it. But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73 million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the demand. It is argued that rather than using corn to make ethanol, we can use agricultural wastes. But the amounts are still a drop in the bucket. Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn -- about 60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still, all of the U.S. corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5 billion gallons of gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not plowing wastes back into the land hurts soil fertility. Similar limitations and problems apply to growing any crop for biofuels, whether switchgrass, hybrid willow, hybrid poplar or whatever. Optimistically, assuming that switchgrass or some other crop could produce 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, over twice as much as we can get from corn plus stover, and that its net energy was 60,000 Btu per gallon, ethanol from 300 million acres of switchgrass still could not supply our present gasoline and diesel consumption, which is projected to double by 2025. The ethanol would meet less than half of our needs by that date. Perhaps more important: The agricultural effects of such a large-scale program would be devastating. Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about how Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that America should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America's 170 billion. There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America -- Brazil has 60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane -- more than 300 million tons annually -- so it has lots of agricultural waste to make ethanol. Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland for growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will need to live. And that is why it won't catch on.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: alp8 (Aug 22, 2006 7:36 am) However, most of the time in Germany has been spent in Bavaria -- towns like Fussen, Garmisch, Frieburg (sp?) and even medium sized towns like Ingolstadt (which of course is the Holy Land for Audi lovers like me.) Germany second only to Switzerland, strikes me as the cleanest country in Europe -- there don't even seem to be any butts on the street, if you get my drift. Just as a contrarian, I respectfully disagree -- insofar as Germany is concerned. I would gladly breathe deep in Germany, at least where I have been (which is mostly the southern half of Germany, Frankfurt a few times and Berlin twice. Were we to be as clean as the Germany I know, we would not have been such a big part of Al's Inconvenient Truth. To me, you wanna talk smelly, talk Philadelphia -- only Venice, Italy can smell worse from my experience. Of course, as the song goes, no matter how bad it is, it could only be worse in Milwaukee.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: proudamerican8 (Aug 22, 2006 8:17 am) The stories told, however, are true as far as I can tell -- but they are incomplete. Why in the wide wide world of sports do we only see the great and wonderful economic things that will happen to a few corn producers -- NEVER is there any mention of the impact on the consumer. In response to yet another Front Page Corn for Fuel Article, I wrote the editor: Dear Cincinnati Enquirer Editor, A few months ago, I became interested in Ethanol (E85) fuel. My primary interest was economic. I, like perhaps most Americans, would prefer to have less expensive "gasoline" and less dependency on "Persian Gulf" oil. Additionally, I did see "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Who Killed the Electric Car" and would also like to be able to have a fuel that would "pollute less," if possible. The first thing I noticed was the relative lack of Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV's) on the market. Many of the FFV's seem to be fairly large and thirsty vehicles, like the Chevy Tahoe for 2007, for instance. The next thing I noticed was the lack of fueling stations (there will soon be but 10 for the entire state of Ohio.) Recently, I happened to pick up a copy of Popular Mechanics, noting that it had a feature article on alternative fuels. Subsequently, I found articles in Business Week and Car and Driver that presented a side of Ethanol that I had not heard. Indeed, in the "mass media" I have, to this day, not heard, read or seen much about Ethanol that gives what I would characterize as complete and "practical" information and data. It is somewhat confusing to read the Thursday, August 10th edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer ("Schmidt's new SUV can use Ethanol") and the Sunday, August 20th edition ("The Case For Corn") -- to say nothing of at least one article in the Business Courier (August 18th, "Inventor tends field of dreams") -- and essentially be informed of the positive aspects of growing corn for Ethanol (to make E85.) Nowhere do these articles present what using E85 will mean to the retail consumer. After reading the articles in the newspapers and magazines mentioned above, I began additional on-line information gathering on the subjects of Ethanol, Diesel and Bio-diesel. I found many websites and blogs on these subjects -- 4,270,000 of them with one Google search for "E85" alone. I have been able to find two "apparently believable" types of information. Proponents of E85 need only know that the "National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition" can be found at http://www.e85fuel.com. Likewise, the American Lung Association has a pro-Ethanol site, "Clean Air Choice" at http://www.cleanairchoice.org. Interestingly, this site has a section that does post pump prices for E85 and regular dino-gasoline at http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/PriceForum.asp. Considering that it is easy to find E85, when compared to regular gasoline, is often more expensive, I conclude this site is at least attempting to tell more of the "Ethanol from Corn -- for Fuel" story than most sources of information on the subject. For example, today in Annapolis, Maryland E85 is $4.10 per gallon and Regular Unleaded is $3.04 at West Street Citgo. Another price posting on Friday, August 18th, had E85 at $2.95 and Regular Unleaded at $3.15 at the Kwik Trip in Mosinee, Wisconsin. Generally, if you take the time to review the prices that can be found posted on this site and elsewhere, you will find that Regular Unleaded and E85 are generally close in price. There are exceptions, of course, but typically the exceptions will be that E85 will be one dollar or more higher than Regular Unleaded and sometimes E85 will be up to one dollar less. Throwing out such differences, however, gives an impression of the current pump prices for E85 and Regular Unleaded as being "similar" (within 10% or less.) Some sites do seem to publish only the cases where E85 is more expensive -- most folks, would, I assume view such sites claims with a skeptical eye. Initially, it would seem that using E85 would be a good thing -- or at least ought to be. It is, after all, 85% renewable, costs about the same or a little more than regular gasoline and is "coming on line," making it more and more likely to be widely available. Moreover, according to Bill Ford and the TV commercials most of us have been exposed to, Detroit is making a commitment to produce more and more FFV's for the American public's consumption. We're on our way to energy independence is the message here. Yet, here is some of the additional information that I have been able to find (from numerous sources) about E85: - E85 at today's price reflects a $.51 per gallon US government subsidy, meaning that the "true cost" per gallon is higher than the pump price. - A gallon of E85 will only go about 70% as far as a gallon of gasoline, meaning that the true cost per mile when using E85 is significantly higher than when using gasoline. - As the per gallon subsidy for Ethanol fuel is phased out, the cost per mile to drive using E85 will be about 50% more than using gasoline. Even with the subsidy, the cost to drive using E85 is about 30% more than using gasoline. - Ethanol cannot be transported through the distribution infrastructure (pipelines) already in place, instead it must be trucked which increases its cost and decreases its efficiency (since it takes more energy to truck it than it would to pump it.) New pipelines can be built designed to transport Ethanol fuel -- this too would add expense, increasing the pump price while the costs were recouped. - E85 is "unlikely to have any material effect" global warming (at most 4% according to university studies) -- detailed explanations can be found in several articles, some from prestigious universities, some citing these studies can be found in Popular Mechanics, Car and Driver and Road and Track magazines, too. = continued #2038
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Aug 22, 2006 10:08 am) Spoken (or in this case typed) like someone who has never been to Gary, IN.
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Aug 22, 2006 5:31 am) The Warrenville station is the closest E85 station that I know of around me, that is convenient (on my way to/from work & school). But I don't think the $.30 price difference is enough to justify using it if my vehicle was so-equipped to do so. I'm like the rest in I haven't seem any real-world mileage statements from people using FFV vehicles, whether personal or governmental/fleet. The only FFVs I've seen are Taurus fleet vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Aug 22, 2006 10:15 am) - The quantity of E85 required to reduce our dependence on "foreign" oil is staggering -- at least based on the quantities we are contemplating producing in the near term: “According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 95 ethanol refineries produced more than 4.3 billion gal. of ethanol in 2005. An additional 40 new or expanded refineries slated to come on line in the next 18 months will increase that to 6.3 billion gal. That sounds like a lot – and it is – but it represents just over 3 percent of our annual consumption of more than 200 billion gal. of gasoline and diesel.One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal. of petroleum products, American farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71 percent of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland, to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won't kick our fossil fuel dependence–unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports. Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter.” – “Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels,” Popular Mechanics, April, 2006 The "sum and substance" of E85 then seems to be: - It could work as the equivalent of hamburger helper -- it has the ability, that is, to stretch our dwindling supply of crude oil. - The pump price for E85 currently is about the same as regular gasoline or a little more (and sometimes a little less.) - The pump price "eventually" for E85 could remain the same as gasoline if we are not constrained by the supply of Ethanol (as we are today and apparently will be for years to come.) - The cost per mile, however, to use E85 is significantly higher than the cost to use gasoline. - Most of the stories written about Corn for Ethanol production do not discuss the higher costs of using E85 in an FFV. It would seem to be the case, that when the consumer discovers the higher costs of using E85 -- i.e., 30% to 50% or more -- that even the most altruistic among us will not want to buy it or will not be able to afford it. For example: If your family has a mini van and an SUV and you fill them both once per week, it is likely that your current weekly fuel costs are about $120 based on a 20 gallon tank in each vehicle and $3.00 per gallon gasoline. Were you to use E85, today, your fuel costs to fill up would likely be about $132 (10% more) for the two tankfuls, but each tankful would only go about 70% as far, meaning that your weekly fuel cost would really be about $188. Your monthly cost, assuming a 4 week month, then would rise from $480 to $752, an increase of $272. Few American consumers would pay $272 per month more for fuel than they have to -- even if they want to kick the Persian Gulf habit. The case against Ethanol is hardly trivial in financial terms for the consumer, that is. Another solution does exist, however, that does receive some slight coverage -- but considering the economic and practical case against Ethanol, the coverage of the alternative solution seems disproportionately small, especially considering that the case for the alternative seems compelling. Moreover, thus far, our government is, apparently, also virtually ignoring or at least de-emphasizing this currently available, mature, and immediately adoptable lower-cost, immediate benefit technologies. Yet, the EPA, of all places is, apparently fully aware of an alternative to Ethanol. For example, according to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality, as quoted in the February 20, 2006, issue of Business Week: “The U.S. could save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day – roughly the amount it imports from Saudi Arabia – if a third of U.S. vehicles ran on diesel.” Although, Oge did not differentiate between petroleum based diesel and biodiesel, in this remark, current diesel engine technology “sees” biodiesel and petroleum based clean diesel as equivalent fuels. This means that a diesel engine performs the same on either kind of diesel (petrol or bio based or blended) – of course the strategic draw for biodiesel or bio-blend is that, like Ethanol, it is renewable. Unlike Ethanol, however, diesel (bio or dino) will go between 20-40% further per gallon than gasoline and currently costs about the same as E85. E85 goes about 70% as far as gasoline. Diesel goes about 130% as far as gasoline. A vehicle that can go 30 miles on a gallon of gasoline will: - go 21 miles on a gallon of E85; - go 39 miles on a gallon of diesel -- and if that diesel is bio-diesel, it is renewable in the same sense that Ethanol is renewable (unless the fuel is B100, which then suggest the fuel is 100% renewable.) A car equipped with a diesel engine will travel almost 90% further on a gallon of fuel than the same car if it were equipped with a similarly powerful engine capable of using E85. The United States and Europe are taking very different approaches to the use of clean diesel technology to improve fuel economy in passenger cars and light-duty trucks, according to a report released by the Washington, DC based Diesel Technology Forum (DTF). According to Allen Schaeffer, DTF’s executive director: "We can learn a great deal here in the US from the European experience with clean automotive diesels, and this report profiles the experiences and policies that have led to these successes." The contrast in diesel usage between the U.S. and Europe is stark. In Europe one of every three new cars sold today is powered by clean diesel technology and in the premium and luxury categories, over 70 percent are clean diesels. But in the US – light-duty diesels account for only about 0.26 percent of all new cars sold, with only slightly higher figures in the light-duty truck markets. DTF’s Schaeffer continues: "What we've found is that the Europeans are able to reap the rewards of clean diesel technology – efficiency and environmental benefits – while the US has mostly regulatory roadblocks. It's completely understandable why clean diesel technology has such a high acceptance in Europe – the engines provide more power, are more fuel efficient, are more durable, are extremely responsive with low-end torque, and have 30-60 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions." The case, today, favors diesel over Ethanol both from a cost perspective and from the perspective that using Ethanol won't matter much, because the possibility of any significant reduction in the total amount of oil used if we substitute fuel derived from corn is tiny, single-digit tiny for years to come. == continued |
|
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
