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: fireball1 (Jun 09, 2006 9:55 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jun 09, 2006 1:11 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 09, 2006 1:01 pm) What's this fascination with high octane? My understanding of higher octane is that it allows for greater compression, which can increase the power potential of an engine. So what? This thread is not about increasing power. The fact that it might allow an engine to generate more hp does not mean there is more energy in ethanol. If you want more power just get a car with a bigger engine or a turbocharger. It will still get more miles per gallon than an engine running on ethanol. Its an indusputable fact that there is less energy in ethanol and that really needs to be put to rest. |
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 09, 2006 1:20 pm) I agree that the demand was limited but the supply was even more limited. This was also 5+ years ago, long before we had $3/gallon gasoline. So we really don't know what the demand would be and right now the auto manufacturers seem to have no desire to test these waters. Auto manufacturers not only make money selling their cars but selling replacement parts. Auto dealerships make the bulk of their profits from the maintenance department. An EV not only has fewer parts but they are of the type built by GE not GM. They also are very low maintenance. Don't assume that the auto manufacturers would be eager to jump on the EV bandwagon as soon as they perceived a market.
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jun 09, 2006 1:54 pm) A large automaker would love to have a popular product that operates by means of a technology that others do not have. That's precisely why Toyota has marketed the hybrid as it is, in order to differentiate itself from other automakers and to build its brand with consumers. If Toyota could score with EV's today and make them work, it would have already done it. Electric cars in their present have a lot of barriers: -Heavy batteries that are costly to replace (although this may be improving) -Low range (unless refueled by an internal combustion engine) -Slow refueling time (unless refueled by an internal combustion engine) -Limited places to refuel as needed (unless refueled by an internal combustion engine) -A long history of excessive hype that has rendered them as cliche -Perception as glorified golf carts or otherwise as weird All of these barriers to adoption have to be considered, and they are serious barriers. The supplies were inadequate because they were being built at a loss, but meeting demand would have nonetheless resulted in very few EV's on the road. The general problem with this thread is that the advocates of a given solution are quite quick to point out the flaws of competing technologies while completely ignoring the problems of their own favored plays. We cannot have a fair discussion unless we do the following: -Stop claiming that Technology X is ready for prime time. None of these alternative fuels or technologies is yet ready for widespread use and distribution, all of them lack at least a couple of key components to make them viable today. All of them involve lag time, and these need to be considered. -Stop calculating the costs of one idea while ignoring the cost of the others. All of them will take time and capital to make viable -- some might arguably have more potential than others, but none of them will be free. -In this case of ethanol, stop arguing everything from the basis of corn. There is other biomass that has been identified as more efficient than corn, and like the other possible solutions, will require more research and investment. Again, none of these alleged solutions is ready to go, and can be introduced without further spending. If they were so viable, we'd already be using them en masse, but they aren't. Electric cars don't cut it as of today, there aren't many E85 pumps or cars near most of us, biodiesel is not in production beyond the experimental stage, I've yet to see a dealership selling cars that run on tap water, etc, etc., etc. It's fine to hypothesize about the future, but we're not there yet.
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 09, 2006 2:16 pm) I disagree. GM spent over 1 billion dollars developing the EV1. IMO, it was one of their greatest achievements. They now found themselves somewhat in the position of the oncologist that discovered a pill that could cure cancer. Maybe not that dramatic but along the same lines. I do agree that one of the obstacles that EVs need to overcome is the perception as glorified golf carts. That is easily doable. We love performance and right now an EV can excede anything an ICE can do with the exception of range. I do agree that none of the touted solutions are ready to go right now. So let's think in terms of 10 years. With that time frame in mind what direction should we take to achieve maximum benefits. I really don't think that its ethanol. In fact I see it as an expensive wrong turn on the path to the ultimate destination.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 09, 2006 1:20 pm) No but I don't want to hear lies about so called solutions that are not workable. As a solution E85 is unworkable now or in the foreseeable future. So instead of lying to make a unworkable solution sound good we should be looking at workable solutions. My tax money shouldn't be spent propping up crap but should be working towards a solution that actually works. Electric autoa have been a joke so far Electric cars have come a long way over the past few years and can even out accelerate most ICE's and is a great solution as a commuter car. The hybrids did not save us any oil, Actually most Hybrids do save gas. Are our suburbs in the throes of death! Not sure where you are but here around Chicago the suburbs are booming. Many of then have grown 15-20% since 2000, while the city of Chicago has lost some population since 2000. |
|
Diesenol is NOT a blend of diesel fuel and gasoline. Diesenol is a blend of ethanol and a specially engineered proprietary chemical. The chemical additive was designed specifically to provide combustion and to maintain the integrity of the injector system. Diesenol has better cold start characteristics than conventional diesel fuel and does not require any special equipment or fittings. Diesenol is designed to combust at the same compression as ordinary diesel fuel. Field tests of Diesenol showed none of the problems associated with "E95": Trucks running on Diesenol had more power, better torque curves and no injector failures. The test vehicles were city buses and trailer trucks, each of which logged over 400,000 Kilometers of use with Diesenol fuel.
|
|
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
