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.
|
|
|---|---|
|
Life cycle impact of E85 on greenhouse gas emissionsUse of E85 results in reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and energy use for each gallon burned, compared to the emissions and energy use for the gasoline it replaces. Using corn based fuel ethanol production, E85 has a significant impact on total fossil fuel / energy usage and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As process efficiency increases over the coming years, these benefits are expected to continue to improve. Using dry milling process technology (circa 1999) each gallon of E85 burned reduced petroleum usage by an estimated 0.949 gallons. Reduced GHG emissions by 23.8%, compared to burning a gallon of gasoline, and reduced life cycle fossil energy consumption by 44.4% compared to gasoline. On a per mile driven basis, using 1999 technology, dry milling process derived E85, reduced petroleum usage by 74.9%, GHG emissions by 18.8%, and total fossil energy consumed by 35%. Wet milling derived E85 with 1999 technology would net reductions of 72.5% in petroleum usage, 13.7% in GHG emissions, and 34.4% in fossil energy used. Using current state of the art (circa 2005) these reductions in GHG and energy usage improve slightly. Dry mill current technology reducing petroleum usage by 75.6%, GHG emissions by 25.5% and fossil energy use by 40.7%. Wet mill current technology reducing petroleum usage by 73.7%, GHG by 23.8% and fossil energy by 42.5%. Using cellulose based processes, the reductions in petroleum, GHG and fossil energy are expected to reach the following levels in a mature production environment. Cellulose based ethanol production is nearing commercial viability at this time (2006). Woody biomass process (near future technology) petroleum reduction 69.9%, GHG emissions 102.2% and fossil energy usaged 79%. Herbacious biomass process (near future technology) petroleum usage reduction of 71.4%, GHG emissions 67.6% and fossil energy 70.4% Current values for the energy balance of production show that gasoline returns only 80% of the energy invested in its production and delivery to the consumer. It has a negative energy balance of -20%. Current technology fuel ethanol, returns 139% of the energy invested in its production and delivery for a net +39% energy return, due to the free solar energy captured by the plants used for its production. Near future cellulose based ethanol is expected to reach an energy return of 169% of the energy invested in its production and distribution. |
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 09, 2006 8:19 am) ????????????????????????????? You (1) are living on another planet, or (2) have a strange definition of "Midwest." I am guessing that 90 percent of corn farmers in Nebraska irrigate, either thru center pivot or canal. Irrigation is prominent in Nebraska, Minnesota, South Dakota, Missouri, Michigan and Kansas -- states located, by your definition, somewhere on the West Coast. Irrigation is less likely in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio because they receive more rain in the average year. (U.S. Geological Survey facts) Naturally, irrigation is more predominant in California and other western states because those are semi-arid lands, if not flat-out deserts. In the Great Plains area located over the Ogallala Aquifer -- much of Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma, part of South Dakota, the eastern third of Colorado, northeast New Mexico and the Texas panhandle -- irrigation consumes 95 percent of ALL GROUNDWATER USED! (U.S. Geological Survey again) That includes water used for domestic consumption, industry and other purposes. And the No. 1 crop irrigated? By far, far and away, it's corn. Farmers are increasingly drying up parts of the Great Plains to grow subsidized corn that is made into subsidized ethanol that is sold at gas pumps with yet a third subsidy. I would more inclined to support corn ethanol if we grew our corn where it didn't require 50 percent or more of its water through irrigation. |
|
|
Replying to: fireball1 (Jun 09, 2006 9:55 am) I'd be more inclined to support ethanol if I believed it had any chance of alleviating our dependence of foreign oil. Right now ethanol accounts for less than 4% of our fuel usage. In 10 years it will still provide less than 10% of the fuel we need and we will still be importing more oil than we are today. Even if you are an ethanol proponent there isn't much urgency in rushing out to buy a flex fuel vehicle because we will never be able to produce enough ethanol for more than a small percentage of drivers to burn E85. In the next 10 years how much is the government going to spend on ethanol subsidies? I don't know the answer but I'm sure its considerable. I believe the government could spend a small percentage of this amount and develop better electric motors and batteries for an all electric vehicle that would be more than adequate for the vast majority of us. This would allow for an actual reduction in fuel consumption. In other words it would represent progress as opposed to an approach that, at best, slows the bleeding.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 09, 2006 8:19 am) So I can take it that you are humored by your own posts? The myths and falsehoods about Ethanol, Biodiesal or other renewable energy sources are still being perpetuated. OK lets look at a couple ok? To me and most E10 users, mileage differences are either non-exstant or irrelevant as E10 is a cheaper fuel than straight gasoline. I don't know about you but Me and others who have checked their mileage find a small but significant drop in mileage using E10. Most cars will see a 4-5% drop in mileage using E85. To me with gas near $3.00 that significant. corn made ethanol has an octane rating of 100-110 and it is potable and drinkable...with no harm to the environment and generates less CO2 than straight gasoline. While the burning of E85 generates less CO2 the processing of the corn to Ethanol adds it right back. By the way, corn is not grown with any irrigation methods in the midwest...just another myth and falsehood. It is obvious that you have never been to the Midwest. Come by some summer and I will drive you by farm field after farm field of corn with irrigation equipment on it. And it ain't there for looks. Corn is a very water intensive crop that in the western Midwest cannot be grown without irrigation. I find it very interesting that you post that you find humor in the lies and myths of E85 in the very same post you post lies and myths about E85. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fireball1 (Jun 09, 2006 9:55 am) Not only that but that it would take 525% of the US corn production to supply us with all the ethanol we would need so that we could replace all our gas usage to E85.
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jun 09, 2006 10:54 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jun 09, 2006 11:27 am) |
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jun 09, 2006 12:18 pm) I realize that EVs currently have some shortcomings that won't make them suitable for everyone but for the vast majority of us they would be ideal. How expensive would they be? That depends a lot on how many are manufactured. At the present time they probably will be considerably more expensive than a comparable ICE vehicle. Even though I'm not a big fan of government subsidies the reality is that they exist. So the question becomes, how do we get the greatest return on the government's investment in terms of reduced oil consumption. For instance, how much would the government have to spend to get 1 million EVs on the road and how much oil would this save over the life of these vehicles? Now compare this with how much the government would spend to get an equivalent oil savings through ethanol. The other difference is that an EV subsidy could eventually be phased out as they become cost competitive in their own right. I seriously doubt an ethanol subsidy can go away without extremely high oil prices. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fireball1 (Jun 09, 2006 9:55 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jun 09, 2006 12:46 pm) Oil fired electric power stations seem to be in great abundance in the USA now. What should we convert them into...huge flower pots???? We have tried EVs, and nobody would buy them, lease them or be seen in one...sigh, except on a golf course, chuckle. Most EVs could not meet the federal safety standards so they were labeled experimental. There are many solutions out there, we just have to find the people who give a damn -- not the couch potatoes of the USA, but real smart people trying to gather and develop real solutions. Ethanol is a handy way to get started at a minimal cost...clean fuel, loe environmental impact, high octane and easy to get started. |
|
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
