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: seniorjose (Jun 08, 2006 10:33 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 08, 2006 10:40 am) You promote it but don't care if the end user will use it? doesn't sound right to me. |
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 08, 2006 10:40 am) I can see a place for ethanol among a number of solutions, but it will likely require a costly government initiative, including R&D investment, a whole host of subsidies and taxation policies meant to encourage its use. Assuming current government policies (minimal ethanol investment, combined with a significant hidden subsidy to support oil), you won't see E85, biodiesel or any of these other alternative fuels going anywhere. Even at $3+ per gallon, US fuel prices are not currently high enough (at least with the current fuel tax structure) to encourage alternative fuels. You would need to have higher gas prices (either via taxes and/or oil price increases), lower ethanol prices, more FFV vehicles, and more E85 distribution to make it work. Otherwise, it's also a non-starter.
|
|
|
1. CO2 emissions and the potential for global warming 2. the US dependency on foreign oil as a transportation fuel as opposed to domestic energy 3. the currently existing power grid infrastructure of the country and how it affects fuel processing 4. the effect of change upon geographic regions It appears that each person prioritizes one aspect over the other. The ethanol advocate uses 4 to assert their opinions (economies will grow in the midwest) and states that domestic coal can be used for a portion of the energy costs (3). The gasoline advocate uses 1 and 3 to assert their opinion (clearly ethanol does not improve the environment and the mandate for oxygenated fuels is obsolete). From an environmental perspective (i.e. prioritization of 1 and the angle I look through), ethanol clearly does nothing to improve the situation. I do not agree with any logic that supports emitting more CO2 to justify having domestic energy unless severe reductions in vehicle weight and increases in fuel economy are initiated FIRST. |
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 08, 2006 10:40 am) You'd better if you think Ethanol should be accepted. |
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 08, 2006 11:55 am) Minimal ethanol investment? A 51 cents/gallon subsidy is minimal? Considering we consume 140 Billion gallons of gasoline per year, a similar 'hidden subsidy' would be to the tune of 70 Billion dollars per year. BTW - not all money spent in the Mid-east can be laid directly on any need for the U.S. to secure a stable oil supply. Like it or not, oil is what makes the whole PLANET run. A stable supply benefits the economy of EVERYONE. One can't simply imply that all money spent in Iraq is just to ensure a steady supply of oil for greedy Americans.
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Jun 08, 2006 12:37 pm) Given the minimal amount of ethanol currently in use and the developmental stage of the product, that's to be expected. In any case, that's still less than the $0.75 per gallon cost of the Iraq war. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that our expenditures are going to produce the desired results. A stable supply benefits the economy of EVERYONE. Agreed, but it is largely Americans who are financing the cost of ensuring that supply. The fact that others also use it does not mean that it isn't expensive for Americans. If anything, the spike in global demand is yet another good reason why the US needs to start weaning itself off of it -- does it help the US to have greater competition for a resource that is controlled largely by nations not friendly to its interests? |
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Jun 08, 2006 12:37 pm) I also agree that if we're spending 100 billion a year in the Middle East that should be spread amongst all oil importing countries and users of oil. I know that there are a lot of ethanol refineries currently being built and I've got to imagine a lot of farmers are expanding they're operation to produce more corn. The question/concern I have is whether this is another government bailout in the making? What if this current ethanol craze fizzles out?
|
|
|
...if the thrust of ethanol is to reduce the demand for foreign oil, which is more cost effective: 1) Developing an ethanol industry able to supply 6.7 Billion gallons of ethanol a year (which works out to 18.4 million gallons/day or 437,000 barrels/day of ethanol or the energy equivalent of 267,000 barrels/day of crude oil) Or... 2) Developing ANWR? Anybody got any solid guesstimates for expected crude oil production if ANWR was developed?
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Jun 08, 2006 1:32 pm) I've heard around 1 million barrels of oil per day at its peak. It would be 20 years from the start of development until it reached that peak. I've also read that the impact it would have on our oil dependence would be about 3%. Meaning that instead of importing 60% of our oil we'd only need to import 57%. I don't have really strong feeling about ANWR but its hard to get too excited about a 20 year plan that will have that small of an impact.
|
|
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
