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: snakeweasel (Jun 15, 2006 8:39 am) I don't see any reason to believe that. Diesels have just not been popular here, even before the CARB mandate. As diesels improve (and they certainly have become more similar to gasoline cars as of late), I see them potentially having more of a future, but it will not be easy to undo decades of a predisposition against them, particularly if it doesn't offer an obvious advantage such as a lower price. I think that we need to accept that Americans are not favorably predisposed to buy diesel, regulations or not. They doh't like the rattle, the glow plugs, the soot or the smell of it, and it will take awhile for consumers to see the improvements and decide to include them on their shopping lists. And again, you can't ignore the impact of fuel taxes on European demand for diesel. Changing tax policies for whatever fuel you prefer could create a favorable result for that product, be it gas, diesel, E85, etc., but the US largely lacks the will to drastically increase fuel taxes on any type of fuel. |
|
|
Replying to: john1701a (Jun 15, 2006 7:09 am) Whatever the case, that information from the American Lung Association is well worth pointing out again... Ethanol produces lower emissions of ozone-forming compounds and toxic air pollutants. JOHN
|
|
|
Replying to: john1701a (Jun 15, 2006 11:28 am) Are you wanting me to tell you why the American Lung Association put a disclaimer onto one of the pro E85 Websites? I would imagine they did not want to be linked with a bunch of wild claims about the benefits of Ethanol. Ask them not me. You have already shown a couple years ago that as far as you are concerned the negatives of growing huge amounts of corn using huge amounts of fossil fertilizers and pesticides is OK as long as it benefits Minnesota. You have argued against any attempts to look at the big picture of growing corn, and the affects downstream caused by chemicals leached into the streams and rivers. I see no argument from your side of the fence about the newest ethanol plants using coal for production as it is 1/6th the cost of natural gas. Whats wrong with a little coal smoke in the air. Of course we won't worry about the added CO2, grow more corn to absorb the added GHG. Maybe that is why the Sierra Club & Audobon Society are not real thrilled with ethanol. As far as I can tell the emissions may be the only bright side to ethanol. For those that worship at the PZEV sanctuary ethanol may be a good thing.
|
|
|
Replying to: john1701a (Jun 15, 2006 7:09 am) Sounds like they need to learn a bit more about ethanol before they post misinformation on their website. That is future speculation until it goes into commercial production. Right now Corn grown specifically for ethanol is used with it's own pollutants that I am sure the ALA would not care to breath. Not all ethanol plants are capable of producing feedstocks as a byproduct of ethanol. Nor are they real clean operating. ADM is the 10th worst polluter in the USA. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 15, 2006 11:58 am) It runs entirely on waste SAWDUST material. That's a good thing, especially when the resulting ethanol is used in a hybrid. The nonsense you are spreading is not. Too bad diesel doesn't even meet the minimum criteria. But smog problems won't be solved by only minor improvement (equal to a dirty gas vehicle) anyway. JOHN
|
|
|
GM is, of course, promoting the bejeebers on their 'flex' fuel vehicles. Why? Not because of economy of operation - E85 would have to be 30% cheaper than gas to make up for the poorer fuel economy - not because of things like vehicle range which would decrease the same percentage. BECAUSE our erstwhile government has decided not to count the alcohol portion of E85 consumption in CAFE calculations! Needless to say, this skews the CAFE numbers dramatically. For poor old Chevrolet who can't sell much of anything that isn't a truck - they now have 33 mpg+ Tahoes (CAFE rating) that actually are lucky to see anything over 12 mpg running E85. Keeps GM out of hot water with their fleet average FE numbers and probably the only reason they are championing the stuff. It strikes me that the jury is still out on hybrid and certainly E85 use - diesels the way to go - all we would have to do - clean up our diesel fuel to European standards and we might even be able to keep the Californians happy.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 15, 2006 11:58 am) I'm not claiming that it doesn't take resources to grow crops, or that some crops aren't better or worse than others, but at this point, it sounds like a shrill mantra that lacks balance. Again: -Every resource requires some consumption of resources to be produced. You need to compare them to get a better understanding, not point out the resource needs of those you dislike while ignoring the downsides of those that you favor. -It need not be an either-or choice. For example, with the right R&D and tax policies, we could work to create hybrid cars that run on E85 and hybrid diesels that run on biodiesel, as well as electrifying our trains and shipping interstate freight via the rails. There is no magic bullet here. -Any "solution" that consumers don't use, or that can't be allocated effectively, is a non-solution. For example, if you are going to support biodiesel, you had better figure out a way to get consumers to want or have to use it, to get them cars that can run on it, and to distribute the fuel through the existing or a new distribution network. Otherwise, it's just shuck and jive. The discussion seems more like an argument about whose God we should worship, rather than a cogent assessment of alternatives and how some or all of them can be implemented. As I have no particular solution that I favor, I find this astounding -- I'm surprised that it all seems starry-eyed, with very little pragmatism, from the most fervent advocates.
|
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Jun 15, 2006 12:54 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jun 15, 2006 1:33 pm) Toyota is investing a lot of effort to build itself as a leader and unique provider of hybrid technology, particularly in North America. You can expect it to continue to focus on hybrids, because it gives it a competitive advantage to do so. It is a significant exercise in branding. For Toyota to support E85 would be to hand an advantage to a competitor, because it may make GM to appear to be a more credible player. Whether ethanol is fantastic or horrible, it is wise for TMC to maintain that strategy, unless E85 becomes popular enough that offering FFV capability become mandatory. Toyota has no issue with FFV in Brazil. Obviously, the marketing strategy there is different, and it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by participating. Again, that's a business issue, not a technology issue. |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jun 15, 2006 1:33 pm) |
|
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
