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: 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.”
|
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 15, 2006 3:58 pm) Toxic mercury pollution from (coal-fired) power plants threatens the health of women and their babies. More than 600,000 women of childbearing age nationwide have amounts of mercury in their blood over the level set as safe by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Sciences. Unsafe levels of mercury in mothers' blood and breast milk can interfere with the proper development of babies' brains and neurological systems and can lead to learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, problems with coordination, lowered IQs and even mental retardation. Pennsylvania power plants are the second biggest emitters of toxic mercury pollution in the country. The Fish and Boat Commission has issued advisories that cover every lake, river and stream in the state that warns people to limit eating fish caught here. |
|
|
|
|
Like every President all the way back to Richard Nixon, George Bush called for America to become energy independent in his 2006 State of the Union speech. Yet, after over 30 years of such rhetoric, the US actually has stepped up the importation of oil, not whittled it down. Moreover, the President called for lessening our use of oil to generate electricity – an important and worthy goal, no doubt, but one not likely to impact our use of oil since only about 3% of our electricity is generated by burning oil. It should come as no surprise that perhaps the single largest consumers of oil are our cars and trucks. And, make no mistake, the "addicted to oil" comments did suggest the single largest component of the Advanced Energy Initiative would be expenditures for hydrogen fuel cells for our cars and additional spending on high-tech batteries for hybrid vehicles and research and development of additional ways to make ethanol (and other renewable fuels) from agricultural waste and even switch grass. All of these suggestions are certainly strategic and valuable in the long-run; but, they virtually ignore technologies already available that could provide almost immediate fuel and financial savings. Yet, instead of discussing solutions that are almost immediately available today, here comes the inevitable follow-on – the "selling" – from some of our representatives in Congress. Electronic and regular mail campaigns like the following from Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (representing Ohio's second district) are in full swing. According to the Congresswoman: “The rising cost of gasoline, the desire for energy security, and an interest in a cleaner environment are enabling ethanol to emerge as a leading candidate to replace gasoline as the fuel of choice for motorists. U.S. consumption of ethanol last year reached 4 billion gallons, which is double the amount sold in the year 2000. In an effort to maintain this tremendous pace of growth, The Energy Policy Act, signed on August 8, 2005, establishes minimum requirements for the amount of renewable fuel that must be included in gasoline. Today, ethanol is used mostly as a gasoline additive. You will often find that the gasoline you purchase is ten percent ethanol in an effort to cut pollution, boost octane, and extend gasoline supplies. But its use is beginning to expand. A new blend of fuel, known as E85, combines 85% ethanol with 15% gasoline. Some retailers around the country are pricing E85 at nearly $1.00 less per gallon than gasoline. E85 can only be used in designated Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV). More than 6 million of these FFV vehicles are on the road today. The major car manufacturers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Daimler Chrysler, are producing them in greater abundance. Ford has produced 1.5 million already, and will make 250,000 FFV's this year. General Motors claims a similar number on the road, and has launched a national advertising campaign to market their FFV fleet. Daimler Chrysler is expanding production, as well. . . . The first retail location in Cincinnati is slated to open this month. But as the price of gasoline rises and demand for ethanol grows, more and more stations will offer E85. Bipartisan legislation before Congress will provide further incentives for stations to offer the new fuel. E85 presents a positive opportunity for our economy and for the American farmer. New and expanding markets that create additional demand for corn and other crops will invigorate farm production. That would mean more money pumped into our American economy and less money going to OPEC. For security and economic reasons, our nation needs to develop a fuel system that can become independent of OPEC. The cost of gasoline continues to increase and so does the burden that it places on family budgets. Ethanol will soon provide both price relief and the opportunity to buy American with every trip to the pump. It will also enable us to reduce our dependence to an increasingly dangerous region of the world." It is difficult to find nits to pick with the Congresswoman's newsletter – on face value, at least. The addition of a retail E85 "gas station" in Cincinnati will bring the total number of so-called Flex Fuel stations in Ohio to approximately 10. Also true is bipartisan legislation will provide "incentives" for retail fueling stations to offer E85 – but perhaps a more precise turn of a phrase would have been Congress will provide further mandates for stations to offer the new fuel. It is not like the Energy Policy Act of 2005 puts forth "suggestions” – retail stations will be selling ethanol "gas" and you will be putting it into your tank. The Act mandates it – it is the law. Also largely accurate is the statement "some retailers around the country are pricing E85 at nearly $1.00 less per gallon than gasoline." But, the reason that some retailers are charging less for E85 than for E10 (what we generally consider "conventional gasoline") is that E85 is subsidized – by your tax dollars. The subsidy is in the form of a tax credit of 51¢ per gallon. No wonder "some" retailers have been able to price E85 less than gasoline. Yet, it is not difficult to imagine what will happen to the price once it is no longer subsidized: it will go up. According to reports compiled by Minnesota Public Radio: "Ethanol and petroleum interests have waged a bitter campaign against each other for years. It's King Corn versus Big Oil. One sore spot is government subsidies for ethanol. John Hofland is Minnesota Communications Manager for Flint Hills Resources, which owns the Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount. ‘The concern is, what role is the subsidy playing in artificially dropping the price," says Hofland. "We just prefer competitive and marketplace reasons for a certain price being what it is.'" It should come as no surprise that all fuel prices are subject to the laws of supply and demand. Eventually, when the ethanol subsidies fade, the market will determine the consumer’s cost at the pump. Even with subsidies, ethanol has some recent history of being as susceptible to shortages and price fluctuations as gasoline. For instance, during the October, 2005, post-Katrina fuel shortages, the price of a gallon of ethanol rose to reach parity with gasoline – and remember that included a government subsidy of over 50¢ per gallon. By March of 2006, due to rules requiring gasoline reformulation, demand for ethanol again had increased and the price pressure that followed drove ethanol’s price over 10¢ per gallon higher than gasoline – again, this figure includes the subsidy’s benefit. Pt 1 end |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jun 15, 2006 7:26 pm) Simply put, this means an SUV that gets 13 MPG on gasoline will achieve only 10 MPG on ethanol. Comparing a gallon of “gasoline” (90% gasoline 10% ethanol – i.e., E10) at $3.00, to a similarly priced gallon of “ethanol” (85% ethanol 15% gasoline – i.e., E85), it is clear that it will take about $3.90 worth of E85 to travel the same distance as you can with $3.00 worth of E10. Of course, without the subsidy it would take some $4.40+ worth of E85 to travel the same distance as with $3.00 worth of E10 – almost a 50% cost penalty for using ethanol. But, on the plus side, automakers generally do not charge any more for Flex Fuel Vehicles than for traditional gasoline only vehicles. It is, however, uncertain if this pricing policy will continue in the face of almost a certain increase in demand for FFV’s due to the Energy Policy act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 may have the unintended consequence of changing not only the formulation and raising the cost of fuel but also raising the cost of the vehicles that use it. Not only are our elected representatives touting ethanol, rosy predictions and promises abound from nearly every media outlet. The claims reported suggest that ethanol will greatly extend finite fossil fuel supplies, cut dependence on foreign oil sources, reduce gas price fluctuations, clean up the air, essentially help prevent Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth,” and the giddiest of ethanol’s proponents even suggest corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) numbers will actually improve. This latter claim is especially misleading considering the fact that ethanol actually reduces a vehicle’s miles per gallon by nearly a third. The CAFE claim, however, is based on a technicality – only the petroleum component of the fuel is used to measure average fuel economy, and with E85, only 15% of the fuel is actually made up of “gasoline.” Several studies, including one from the Department of Energy, conclude, for example, that E85 reduces CO2 by only about 4% – perhaps indicating our use of E85 has a very slim chance, if any, of meaningfully impacting global warming. Other studies from Berkley and the Washington, DC based Diesel Technology Forum indicate a relatively small reduction in greenhouse gasses can be attributed to the use of ethanol (especially when compared with other available fuels.) Moreover, even seemingly ethanol-sympathetic views from the editors of magazines like Popular Mechanics (PM) (April, 2006) conclude the outlook for E85 is merely, “Hopeful–to a point.” Popular Mechanics continues: “According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 95 ethanol refineries produced more than 4.3 billion gal. of ethanol in 2005. An additional 40 new or expanded refineries slated to come on line in the next 18 months will increase that to 6.3 billion gal. That sounds like a lot – and it is – but it represents just over 3 percent of our annual consumption of more than 200 billion gal. of gasoline and diesel. One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal. of petroleum products, American farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71 percent of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland, to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won't kick our fossil fuel dependence–unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports. Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter.” – “Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels,” Popular Mechanics, April 2006 Perhaps both the President and Congress view the current E85 outlook as more of a “case for” rather than a “case against.” Perhaps they view the current information as ambiguous but still worth pursuing despite the economic and ecological information that suggests that E85 is an expensive but somewhat beneficial solution. The President’s State of the Union Speech and newsletters like the one from Congresswoman Schmidt do, at least, indicate recognition of our energy problem. Moreover, the suggestions that we pursue new and renewable energy sources and seek to stretch our supplies of fossil fuels are laudable and necessary steps. However, thus far, our government is, apparently, ignoring or at least de-emphasizing currently available, mature, and immediately adoptable lower-cost, immediate benefit technologies. For example, according to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality, as quoted in the February 20, 2006, issue of Business Week: “The U.S. could save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day – roughly the amount it imports from Saudi Arabia – if a third of U.S. vehicles ran on diesel.” Although, Oge did not differentiate between petroleum based diesel and biodiesel, in this remark, current diesel engine technology “sees” biodiesel and petroleum based clean diesel as equivalent fuels. This means that a diesel engine performs the same on either kind of diesel – of course the strategic draw for biodiesel is that, like ethanol, it is renewable. Furthermore, Popular Mechanics, again in the April, 2006, issue says the outlook for biodiesel is: “Good. Biodiesel has a viable future as a major fuel for transportation. According to the National Biodiesel Board, production of biodiesel in 2004 was about 25 million gal., tripling to more than 75 million gal. in 2005. Like E85, biodiesel began with farm co-ops and local entrepreneurs. High fuel prices affect farmers, too, and here was an opportunity to make money from otherwise fallow farmland. Country singer Willie Nelson, in partnership with several Dallas businessmen, has lent his name to Bio-Willie, a brand of B20 [biodiesel] marketed mainly to long-haul truck drivers in California, Texas, the South and the Midwest.” Pt 2 end
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jun 15, 2006 7:31 pm) Often, information pertaining to more realistic and immediately adoptable approaches to our energy problems is buried within our cable and network newscasts and off the front pages of the leading print media. For example, the May 29, 2006, issue of the New York Times had an article that referred to diesel as “A 'Savior' In U.S. Energy Crisis.” In the article, reporter Matthew Wald offers up: “[with diesel] there are more miles per gallon – 20 percent to 40 percent more [than gasoline].” The improvement in mileage with diesel is due to the energy content of diesel versus gasoline. Diesel has over 10% more energy per drop than gasoline. Moreover, diesel engines get more out of every drop of diesel because they compress the diesel/air mixture much more than a gasoline engine. Simply put, diesel fuel contains more energy and diesel engines are more effective and efficient at getting that energy out. Diesel, for these two reasons, addresses our needs to stretch our supplies of petroleum based fuels, at least for the near to mid-term. Furthermore, another factor in diesel’s favor is there are several sources for diesel that have nothing to do with “oil.” Diesel can be derived not only from oil, but also from coal and biomass, e.g., soybeans and spent cooking oil, both renewable sources. Somewhat in contradiction to the President’s State of the Union speech, the EPA’s Margo Oge, in the Times article, says since improvements to meet diesel tailpipe emission standards are close. . .efficiency gains were ''more real for our society than looking at a fuel cell,'' which, many experts believe is many years into the future. Of course, too, we can compare the approach taken in Europe with respect to diesel to our own. The United States and Europe are taking very different approaches to the use of clean diesel technology to improve fuel economy in passenger cars and light-duty trucks, according to a report released by the Washington, DC based Diesel Technology Forum (DTF). According to Allen Schaeffer, DTF’s executive director: "We can learn a great deal here in the US from the European experience with clean automotive diesels, and this report profiles the experiences and policies that have led to these successes." The contrast in diesel usage between the U.S. and Europe is stark. In Europe one of every three new cars sold today is powered by clean diesel technology and in the premium and luxury categories, over 70 percent are clean diesels. But in the US – light-duty diesels account for only about 0.26 percent of all new cars sold, with only slightly higher figures in the light-duty truck markets. DTF’s Schaeffer continues: "What we've found is that the Europeans are able to reap the rewards of clean diesel technology – efficiency and environmental benefits – while the US has mostly regulatory roadblocks. It's completely understandable why clean diesel technology has such a high acceptance in Europe – the engines provide more power, are more fuel efficient, are more durable, are extremely responsive with low-end torque, and have 30-60 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions." The case, today, favors diesel over ethanol both from a cost perspective and from the perspective that using ethanol won't matter much, because the possibility of any significant reduction in the total amount of oil used if we substitute fuel derived from corn is tiny, single-digit tiny. Further, as several studies, including “The Great Alternative Fuel Rally” sponsored by Popular Mechanics have shown, the number of gallons required to drive an economy car equipped with a gasoline engine from New York to California would be about 90 - 100 gallons. If the average price of gasoline was $3.00 the cost would be about $300.00. To drive the same distance with a similar FFV using E85 would cost about $450.00. The main reason is that E85 "gasoline" will not "go as far" as conventional "gasoline.” Moreover, without subsidies, ethanol is likely to be more expensive than gasoline for some time to come. At this point, the only way to make E85 attractive is to subsidize it with taxpayer’s money. Some taxpayers feel we should not subsidize E85. That is, it should be viable without spending our tax dollars – period. If it is not, focus on other alternatives, such as clean diesel, until E85 becomes viable economically and environmentally. Unlike E85: Clean Diesel offers a viable alternative now Clean Diesel is a mature technology Clean Diesel cars are powerful, efficient and clean. A diesel fueled car compared to a virtually identical gasoline fueled car will Achieve better acceleration Retain identical top speed capabilities Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Achieve an MPG increase between 20 – 40% Use a fuel that typically costs less than premium grade gasoline. Currently, in Europe, according to auto manufacturer’s on-line price guides, a gasoline powered car costs about $1,000 more than the same car if equipped with a comparable diesel powerplant. We need this alternative, now. The question for our representatives is why not actively pursue the widespread adoption of a fuel source that is proven, already here – for about a century – and one that could have an immediate positive outcome for America and her “addiction” to oil? Write your elected representative and express your wishes. Better still, vote with your dollars the next time you are in the market for a new vehicle.
|
|
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
