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: markcincinnati (Jun 15, 2006 7:26 pm) Yes it is and that is my biggest gripe. I am not as upset about the corn subsidies, heck we have paid tobacco farmers huge subsidies for years. It is forcing all the states to oxygenate their gas with ethanol. This is a huge burden to states that do not have a still and a crop that can be made readily into ethanol. Even if CA were to build processing facilities the cost to get corn to CA is very high. If it is a viable alternative it will stand on its own. If not if will fail and we look for other alternatives. I put it on a level of saying goats milk is better for us than cows milk. So as of May 1st we all have to drink a mixture of goats milk with cows milk. And the government will pick up the difference in cost. |
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jun 15, 2006 7:34 pm) Welcome to the thread and thanks for the additional input. Very well stated. I did write my Senators and Congressman. Only one Senator Ted Stevens responded. It was somewhat of a form letter saying they are looking at different fuel alternatives. I guess it has a lot to do with which lobbyist contributes the most to the old campaign war chest. I agree with your assessment, Diesel offers an immediate 25% reduction in fossil fuel usage for any given size vehicle. All E85 does is make the oil companies rich and the mega farmers rich and our fuel costs go up. You still need diesel to run the tractors and equipment associated with farming. You need natural gas or coal for fertilizer and processing. |
|
|
|
|
I agree with your assessment, Diesel offers an immediate 25% reduction in fossil fuel usage for any given size vehicle. All E85 does is make the oil companies rich and the mega farmers rich and our fuel costs go up. You still need diesel to run the tractors and equipment associated with farming. You need natural gas or coal for fertilizer and processing. The only problem with diesel right now is that no European or USA auto company can make an engine that is legal here in the United States. Jeep and VW have killed off their now orphan diesels. How many years must we wait for technology to catch up...five...ten...fiveteen? Europe has used diesels because of the tremendous price difference between diesel and gasoline fuels, mostly that diesel prices had a very small tax while gasoline is taxed to the hilt. Of course Europe does not have the large amounts of distances to cover and their auto needs are totally different from ours. There may be some similarities but the auto business is a lot different. Europe puts the tiny diesel autos on their roads where we would not even allow such tiny cars on the road just from a safety perspective alone. Europe is Europe and the USA is the USA. Biodiesel also has many problems right now in obtaining the current raw materials used to make Biodiesel. Biodiesel uses soybeans a lot and the Biodiesel plant managers are scrambling to locate a readily available supply of soybeans right now. If corn is in short supply then soybeans are in even shorter supply. In addition, Canola oil is being used for biodiesel manufacturing in Washington state and will be available as long as Indonesia supplies what we need.
|
|
|
|
|
Ethanol plant heartens tobacco territory Fri, June 16, 2006 By DANIELA SIMUNAC, FREE PRESS REPORTER AYLMER -- An $87-million ethanol plant will soon sprout here, near a doomed tobacco plant, helping to churn out an environmentally friendly fuel. The Ontario government is dishing out $32.5 million to help with construction costs of three new ethanol plants, including one here and others in Hensall and Cornwall. The new plants, which will turn corn into fuel, are expected to create 400 permanent jobs, Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky said in Aylmer yesterday. "This is good news for rural economies, it is good news for farmers, it is good news for the environment," she said. The new facilities will boost to five the number of ethanol plants in Ontario. Others are already operating in Chatham and Collingwood. For Aylmer, whose Imperial Tobacco factory is expected to close in about a year, yesterday's announcement was a welcome shot in the arm. "It gives the community something to get excited about," said Tom Cox, chairperson of the Integrated Grain Processors Co-operative, which will operate the Aylmer plant. "We've had a great reception in Aylmer, largely because the community has lost Imperial Tobacco," he said. Construction of the plant is expected to begin later this year and to take 14 months. Gerry Vanderwist, a grain farmer who was at yesterday's announcement, welcomed the new investment, saying profits can't help but trickle down to corn producers in the area. Some corn producers, angry about cheaper U.S. imports flooding the market, have complained in the past about ethanol producers, including a Chatham plant, using too much U.S. corn and not enough of the Ontario crop. While Ontario ethanol plants aren't required to buy Ontario corn, Dombrowsky said she doesn't foresee a problem because two of the five successful applicants for provincial grants are industry co-operatives. "I would expect that they are going to look for ways to include members of their community when purchasing their feedstock." By 2007, all gasoline sold in Ontario will be required to contain an average of five per cent ethanol. Added to gas, ethanol helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in cleaner air and reducing dependency on fossil fuels. Ethanol has become a growth industry in North America. Besides the Ontario plants, 97 are operating in the U.S. and another 33 are under construction there. The co-operative behind the Aylmer venture is made up of farmers, grain elevators, community members and local businesses looking for ways to make up for losses in the agriculture industry. PLANT BY THE NUMBERS Cost: $87 million Corn: Will use 15 million bushels to produce about 150 million litres of ethanol a year Jobs: Will create about 150 construction jobs and 35-40 jobs at the finished plant |
|
|
Replying to: seniorjose (Jun 16, 2006 12:03 am) The main problem for diesel (of any type) is that Americans don't want cars that use it. You could drop 100 million diesel cars into US dealerships today, and virtually all of them would rust on the lot. We prefer gas cars, so we buy them, and we don't buy diesel. Technology only becomes useful if people actually want to use it. And if you follow the lead from abroad, you may just have to increase gas taxes so that diesel fuel becomes cheaper than gas and it acquires a pricing advantage here that it currently doesn't have. No one here has yet to provide a plan about how you would get consumers to increase their purchase of diesel cars. If you really think that the federal government is willing to slap a $1 per gallon tax on gas, or provide similar subsidies to diesel so that diesel gains a cost advantage, then I'd like to know how that is, as I don't see who in Washington would be turning that into law anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jun 16, 2006 1:44 am) Your statement, unfortunately (for all of us) is probably true. The reason is the huge lack of emphasis on "how much better it could be" if we but knew what a diesel car could do for us -- both selfishly and selflessly. I just discovered this thread, but I have be arguing or at least presenting the thought that adoption of technologies, among other things, is a trickle down effect. Were our Lux cars offered in diesel form, the near lux and so on down the line cars would follow. A poster on the LPS board made some mention about how if we adopted diesels the performance from 0-60 mph would suffer, seriously suffer. The facts from the manufacturer's web sites belies this notion. Here we go: Audi, in the US, for example, markets ONLY two versions of the A6 -- 1 V6 and 1 V8 both with gasoline engines, both requiring, in fact, premium grade gasoline. The A6, outside of the US is offered with many engines - 4's, 6's 8's [soon even a V10, which will be a US offering too] in gasoline and of course in diesel versions (although as of TODAY, the A6 with the 4.2 V8 TDI is not offered, there is no under-hood space constraint one would imagine to offering this powerplant.) Apples to apples, then, the top o' the line A6 V6 gasoline engine is called a 3.2 and the top model V6 TDI is called a 3.0 (and there is a 2.7TDI too, and so on down the line in both gas and diesel variants.) Audi publishes 0-100KPH times (~0-62MPH) of: o 3.2 V6 = 0-100 kph in 7.1 seconds (gasoline) o 3.0 V6 = 0-100 kph in 7.0 seconds (diesel) The fuel economy advantage of the TDI over the gasoline version is ~20% and the MSRP advantage of the TDI over the gasoline version is (converted to $, approximately) about $1,000. Were the same $ and MPG numbers to translate to the US versions of the A6, this would mean some VERY impressive gains could be had for the American Audi owner. Generally, a quicker car (the 3.0TDI has weapons grade torque) for the stop light drag race we call urban driving. Generally, a more durable car (the diesel should go much further before a major overhaul.) Generally, no impact at all in top end or freeway cruising. Generally, fewer dollars per fill up, considering that often diesel is at least slightly less per gallon than premium gasoline. Generally, over 20% effective dollars less per tankful based on the mileage improvements the diesel offers coupled with the slightly lower cost per gallon. And: a lower MSRP (unless Audi wanted to capitalize on the benefits, above, of the diesel version and jack up the price due to probable market demand once the "truth" -- you can't handle the truth -- got out.) The information you have presented is correct if you compare one of the smaller displacement TDI's to the A6 3.2 gasoline version we have here in the US. For, the equivalent A6 V6 TDI is NOT slower it is slightly quicker and more economical at the same time! Your facts, then, are correct but the comparison was skewed -- not intentionally, I am certain -- by what can only have been a comparison of a lesser TDI to the 3.2 gas version. Despite this slight correction -- this is GREAT news. Add to this, two unspoken data points: #1 The Audi A6 3.0 TDI can run "fine as wine" on Bio-Willy (B20) which is, considered a "renewable" fuel; #2 The Audi A6 3.0 running on such "clean diesel" (here now or coming soon to a pump near you in 2006, by law) lowers greenhouse gas emissions by up to 60% over traditional gasoline powered versions. Oh yea -- the car is actually smoother AND quieter too with the diesel and the 6 speed tiptronic, than the gas version. Hmm. . .no mileage penaltly, no performance penalty, lower acquisition cost, longer life span, decreased pollution, actually a mileage benefit (CAFE) that GM would kill to have, and a quicker to accelerate vehicle. These things would sell like hotcakes, especially if you extrapolate and interpolate and cogitate and masticate on this -- wonder what it would be like were we to take this mature, proven technology and put it in 1/3 of all cars sold commencing in 2008? Well, 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.” Sign me up. P.S. The Audi 4.2 TDI, powering an A8L was driven from London to Wales and back on a single tankful of diesel on the normal traffic congested streets/roads between the two places -- the mileage demonstrated by this experiment using a completely stock A8L exceeded 40MPG. The 3.0TDI in the A6 driven with a similar touch, SHOULD exceed this -- meaning that the advantage of the diesel over the gasoline version would be OVER 40%. Put that in your CAFE pipe and smoke it (no pun intended.)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fireball1 (Jun 15, 2006 7:19 pm) What only Mercury emissions? what about Lexus or MB or Toyota or any other make? Why pick on Mercury? |
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jun 16, 2006 4:25 am) You are probably wasting your time with facts. There are folks here that are still living in the 1980s with smelly diesel fuel and poorly designed diesel engines. They have obviously never driven a modern diesel. The tax issue is a non issue as some states CA for example taxes diesel at a higher rate than gasoline. That is the only reason for diesel to be more expensive that gas. It costs less to refine and you get more BTUs for each dollar spent. A couple other issues involve the car makers that are selling diesel cars here. VW & MB have taken some hits here on service and reliability. I can guarantee if Honda brings their award winning diesel engine to our shores it will sell better than their hybrids. Diesel cars are a win, win for the country and the consumer. The ignorant and those with blinders on will have to learn the hard way. After owning the Passat TDI I would NEVER buy a new gas car again. Nothing the Japanese offer in this country compares to that car or the MB E320 CDI. E85 is just a step back to a time when alcohol vehicles were a big flop in the 1980s. I guess it is no big deal with FFVs gas will be around long after we are all gone. If ethanol cannot compete price wise with $70 oil, how will they fare when it drops back to $30 per barrel.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 16, 2006 5:39 am) Wasn't this the date, since I cannot remember the specifics that many of the NON US mfgrs were waiting for to allow them to bring their clean diesel cars to our shores? And, wasn't part of the CA tax on diesel specifically because diesel (until June 1) was seriously dirtier than the new forumlations (something like 500 times dirtier, if not a billion!?!) I have been trying to parse through the dense information that is out there and it does seem that E85 including the half-buck or so per gallon incentive did rise to cost more or at least as much (within 10 cents plus or minus) of diesel -- IN the great state of CA. And, if all this carefully written and sometimes I almost think deliberately obfuscated information is correct, the price of E85 is more than diesel in CA if one excludes the incentive? The net is, as I said above and as we are apparently in disappointed and violent agreement with. But, in part, it is no wonder, other than some of us here and on other somewhat non-mainstream media, the stories abound about E85 but are buried about the advantages of the normal run of the mill diesels that come from Audi, BMW and Mercedes, to name three. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 16, 2006 5:39 am) It's simple -- consumers decide where to spend their money, and if you can't give them a good reason to spend it with you, then they won't. You have decades of stigma against diesel, and you will need to overcome that, and win hearts and minds. Without a strategy to do that, you're just getting high-and-mighty about something that is going to whither on the vine.
|
|
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
