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 15, 2006 3:33 pm) Clean coal technology has been around since the 1960s -- if you build the scrubbers in like almost all regulations state. I watched the local (New Jersey) Owens Corning plant shift from no scrubbers in 1964. From being a terrible "smokestack" industry, it was turned into a very good neighbor with no particles in the air. the difference is dramatic and since it is an old technolgy by now, it can work. The coal smokestacks that belch like the steel plants of turn-of-the-century Pittsburg steel mills is long gone into history. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fireball1 (Jun 15, 2006 3:38 pm) There is a lot of opinion and passion in this thread..that is good. I guess as long as we move from foreign oil dependence and being held over the barrel by oil companies that is good. I hope we put out many alternative fuels and break the cycle. Competition, in general, is great for the consumer.
|
|
|
|
|
American Coalition for Ethanol Releases Results of Fuel Economy Study Sioux Falls, SD (August 24, 2005) – The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) today released the results of its recent Fuel Economy Study, a pilot study that researched the fuel economy, cost per mile, and driveability of various blends of fuel, including unleaded gasoline, E10, E20, and E30. “As ethanol production and use continues to expand from coast to coast, increased public discussion and media attention have often turned to a debate over ethanol's fuel efficiency,” said Ron Lamberty, ACE Vice President / Market Development. “Because there was very little scientific information out there, ACE commissioned a pilot study to determine whether there are variances in gas mileage between ethanol blends and gasoline.” The research tested unleaded gasoline, a 10% ethanol blend (E10), a 20% ethanol blend (E20), and a 30% ethanol blend (E30) in three late-model vehicles. The Chevrolet Impala, Ford Taurus, and Toyota Camry were not flexible fuel vehicles, and no modifications were made to them for this research. Care was taken to eliminate any human inputs that might render the tests unscientific, including the use of a computerized data logger and strict controls on the vehicles, fuel, and terrain. The test was conducted by Allen Kasperson, a Fuel Research Specialist and instructor with more than 30 years of experience training automobile and truck technicians at Lake Area Vocational Technical Institute in Watertown, South Dakota. The study also examined an E10 blend that had been denatured with iso-pentane and soy biodiesel, a denaturant combination that Kasperson had studied and found to have lowered the fuel's reid vapor pressure (RVP). While the RVP tests in this study were inconclusive, the blend did perform better than unleaded in most tests. Read full results of the study Miles per gallon The three vehicles averaged only 1.5% lower mileage with E10, 2.2% lower mileage with E20, 5.1% lower mileage with E30, and increased mileage of 1.7% when using the specially denatured E10 blend. Cost per mile Although the MPG of ethanol blends was slightly lower than the unleaded, the cost per mile of operation was generally lower. Also, the higher the concentrations of ethanol, the lower the cost per mile. Using the study's average MPG, E10 is less expensive per mile than unleaded until ethanol's cost is nearly 30 cents above unleaded. On a $20 bill, drivers can travel up to 15 miles farther on ethanol-blended fuel than on straight unleaded. Driveability Contrary to statements commonly made by vehicle manufacturers and technicians, no warning lights were displayed at any time while operating on any of the fuel blends. The data logger used for the research monitored all systems and detected no malfunction indicator lights (MIL), diagnostic trouble code lights (DTC), or emissions DTCs. Also, it has been assumed that in older model vehicles the oxygen sensor could not recognize fuel with ethanol content higher than 10% and therefore caused a malfunction indicator light to be displayed. In all vehicles used, the car's computer seemed to have the ability to adjust the air/fuel ratio normally with ethanol blends even beyond the standard 10%. The study cautioned that motorists should not use fuel with concentrations of ethanol higher than those recommended by the vehicles' manufacturers, but called for more research to determine if those fuels should be approved for use in standard, non flexible fuel vehicles. “If drivers want to save money at the pump as gas prices reach new record highs, this pilot study confirms that ethanol is the fuel of choice,” said Brian Jennings, ACE Executive Vice President. “Using ethanol is like money in your pocket, and you feel good about filling up on this homegrown fuel because it comes from America's farm fields, not the oil fields of the Middle East.” “The bottom line is that, in addition to offering higher performance and lower emissions, ethanol-blended fuel is easier on the pocketbooks of American motorists,” Lamberty said. |
|
|
|
|
This is the link from seniorjose's post. http://www.ethanol.org/ Why did they do E10-E30 in non FFV vehicles and not compare costs per mile of E85 in FFV's? I'm always wary of information provided by "unbiased" sources on a lobbing website.
|
|
|
Replying to: lmyers92123 (Jun 15, 2006 4:28 pm) Maybe that is where the good news about ethanol resides. We have actually strayed from the original topic. That is as you have mentioned E85 is the subject on the thread. And whether it is good for the country made from Corn (yellow). I'm sure if they had tested a FFV with E85 it would not have looked real good for the guys selling this boondoggle. So they go with mixtures that would void your auto warranty using anything stronger than E10. I actually am not anti ethanol. I am anti mandate and mega farmer. As this report indicates less corn will be available next year. That drives the price of ethanol above the current $3.50 per gallon. If we are only worried about the guy with the FFV no big deal he can buy regular gas and tell ADM to buzz off. With the E7-E10 mandate for all regular unleaded. It will drive all gas prices even higher. With the 3.8 million acre decline in plantings that was indicated in the March intentions, a trend U.S. corn yield would produce a crop about 900 million bushels below potential 2006-07 utilization Iowa corn projection |
|
|
Replying to: lmyers92123 (Jun 15, 2006 3:59 pm) That's impossible since the amount of ethanol produced only accounts for 3-4% of our fuel consumption. E10 has significance in that all gasoline burning cars can use E10 without voiding their warranties. I suspect that every gasoline burning car could also run on E85. Its just at some point the corrosive nature of ethanol would eventually cause problems for those vehicles not designed for this fuel. I hope we put out many alternative fuels and break the cycle. Competition, in general, is great for the consumer. I agree. We all want energy independence. Allow the market some say in what is the best approach. Minimize politics. Ethanol cannot be separated from politics.
|
|
| I recently read an article expressing that OPEC is concerned with the current emphasis on exploring alternative fuels. They feel like a price of 50-55 dollars per barrel would be consistent with their interests of maximizing profit and perpetuating oil economies. I'm not sure what this has to do with the ethanol discussion, but I find it interesting. Specifically its the fact that although OPEC would like for oil prices to be cheaper they are no longer in the position to make it happen. To me that is an indication of a system that is strained very close to capacity. I personally hope that gas prices stay high because I welcome the increased R&D into alternatives that it has spurred. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jun 15, 2006 4:54 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 15, 2006 3:58 pm) "Anyone who has spent a day outdoors in a bustling city, near a construction site or a factory is unlikely to forget the black sooty grime washed off at the end of the day. Technically known as particulate matter (or PM), soot is spewed out in the black smoke billowing from tailpipes and smokestacks -- from factories and power plants, diesel-powered trucks, buses, ships, boats, locomotives and tractors. But sooty particles are more than just a nuisance -- they are one of the nation's most pressing public health problems. Particulate pollution is a mixture of soot, smoke, and tiny particles formed in the atmosphere from sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) pollution. Sooty particles are most dangerous when very small as they can penetrate deep into the lungs (and the lungs are not effectively able to expel them), where they cause serious health impacts. Children are especially vulnerable because their lungs are still developing. Breathing in air heavy with tiny particles can be dangerous even over a short time; because these particles are so minuscule, they can enter the circulatory system and damage blood vessels. Coal-fired power plants are a big contributor to the problem. "Power plant smokestacks are public health enemy number one for their contribution to deadly particulate pollution across the eastern United States," said Dr. John Balbus, a physician and head of Environmental Defense's health program. "Particulate pollution contributes to tens of thousands of premature deaths annually, heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks." |
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 15, 2006 3:58 pm) GOVERNOR ANNOUNCES MAJOR INITIATIVE TO REDUCE MERCURY EMISSIONS Proposal Would Protect Public Health and the Environment by Cutting Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants by 90 Percent Governor George E. Pataki today announced a new State proposal to reduce harmful mercury emissions from coal-fired utility power plants by approximately 50 percent from current levels by 2010 and 90 percent by 2015. “Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants can have severe environmental and public health impacts, and we must take aggressive steps to control these harmful emissions and reduce the presence of this pollutant in our air and water,” Governor Pataki said. “By adopting these new standards, all coal-fired power plants in the State would be required to use pollution control technologies to significantly reduce their mercury emissions. This initiative is another example of New York’s leadership in improving air quality and protecting our natural resources, and will help to ensure a healthy Empire State for all to enjoy.”
|
|
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
