Will ethanol E85 catch on in the US? Will we Live Green and Go Yellow?

snakeweasel · June 2006

Because horsepower is a useful measure of the output that is needed to get a passenger car to speed, the practical benefit of output.

Since 1.) getting to a car to a certain speed is better tracked by torque and the RPM's to get maximum torque and 2.) HP is a function of torque, torque is a much better measure.

heel2toe · June 2006

I only pulled the front part of this article, but it goes on to talk about other Honda R&D projects. Thought it was interesting that they are leading with discussion of the effort to bring Honda diesels to the U.S. market.

Secret Engine Lab Can Outsmart Toyota

June 20 (Bloomberg) -- In 1973, junior engineer Takeo Fukui helped put Honda Motor Co. on the U.S. map with a Civic subcompact that met clean-air standards without a $1,000 tailpipe filter known as a catalytic converter. He was 28.

Today, as Honda's chief executive officer, Fukui, 61, is racing to repeat his triumph at a lab 68 miles (109 kilometers) north of Tokyo. There, engineers are building a diesel engine for 2009 that Honda says will meet both new U.S. limits and more stringent California rules on soot and nitrous oxide emissions and still use 30 percent less fuel than gasoline models.

Honda allows no media visitors to the lab. Fukui is guarding it as his secret weapon as U.S. gasoline prices soar to an average $2.87 a gallon and global warming worries 62 percent of Americans, a March Gallup Organization Inc. poll found.

``People want cars that emit less pollutants, use less fuel and protect their occupants,'' says John Casesa, an auto industry consultant at Casesa Shapiro Group LLC in New York. ``These trends play directly to Honda's strengths.''

socala4 · June 2006

That torque doesn't seem to translate into speed, particularly in a passenger car where you don't need massive torque to overcome a heavy vehicle. (Torque is very useful in heavy vehicles, which is why large trucks run on diesel, not so important for passenger cars.)

Example: Let's take two turbo Audi motors, the aforementioned 2.0 liter gas engine and a 2.0 liter turbodiesel. The turbodiesel produces 168 hp and 236 lb-ft of torque at 1750 rpm; the gas engine has more horsepower (197) and less torque which comes higher in the powerband (207 lb-ft at 5000 rpm)

Performance results: The diesel needs 8.5 seconds to reach 60 mph, and tops out at 139 mph. The gas car is both quicker (7.2 seconds to 60 mph) and faster (top speed of 149 mph). Similar displacement with turbos, and more torque for the diesel, as you'd expect, but the diesel is a fair bit slower. This is a fairly typical example of how the two engine types compare.

snakeweasel · June 2006

That torque doesn't seem to translate into speed,

Wrong all things being equal adding more torque will result in better acceleration times than adding the same percentage of HP.

jerrywimer · June 2006

the amount of energy contained in a given fuel vs. our efficiency extracting it (== overal efficiency of the machine using the fuel). At the time I was told that anything that could be done to make an ethanol burner more efficient could also be done to get equal efficiency from the gas engines, so that the higher energy content of gas would always dictate a much higher overall mileage in vehicles using it.

Thanks for posting the link to the Popular Mechanics article, gagrice-

"The performance of E85 vehicles is potentially higher than that of gasoline vehicles because E85's high octane rating allows a much higher compression ratio, which translates into higher thermodynamic efficiency. However, FFVs that retain the capacity to run on gasoline alone can't really take advantage of this octane boost since they also need to be able to run on pump-grade gasoline."

With higher power outputs, you could gear engines taller, resulting in better efficiency. The only problem with this and ethanol is, as that quote says, that the vehicles in question are intended to be FFVs, and not ethanol-only. If we only get 10% maximum efficiency with the gas engines right now (hypothetical number), even with our best gas technology, but we're able to get 40% efficiency from ethanol, the total BTUs in each aren't the issue- the total converted to motion is.

Anyway, just felt vindicated by the article. Not that this changes much, because I seriously doubt we'll ever go to ethanol only, and the actual efficiency levels possible probably won't make it to the point where ethanol matches gasoline for mpg anyway. :P

gagrice · June 2006

The diesel needs 8.5 seconds to reach 60 mph, and tops out at 139 mph

I think you are making my point beautifully. Of the two I would take the 2.0 diesel as I am sure it would get better mileage. It also has more speed and quickness than I really need. With the engine turning at a much lower RPM, I would expect it to last much longer which is one of the attributes most prized by diesel owners.

Sorry all you ethanol people for the slight diversion.

socala4 · June 2006

Yet, does the potential for the reduction of importation of 1.4 million bbl PER DAY (were we to acheive 30% diesel penetration) not have merit?

Sure, it's worth considering. I believe that any rational discussion requires us to decide whether or not it is realistic to altogether stop using dino oil any time soon.

I'd say that it isn't realistic to assume that oil is going away any time soon. That does make diesel fair game when exploring future alternatives, but you must consider how to spur adoption if you are going to follow that path. Decades of experience in the US makes it clear to me that the free market alone won't likely do it.

One thing we need to remember, though, that any solutions based upon improved fuel economy, whether that's in the form of smaller cars, diesel or hybrids, are likely going to be offset somewhat by driver behavior -- people will drive more if it costs them less to do it, so the fuel savings will be somewhat offset by more driving that will reduce the overall effectiveness of these fuels in reducing total consumption.

You'll need to have higher fuel prices to incentivize a change in driver habits, whether that comes in the form of increased resource costs in the free market (higher oil prices) or government intervention (higher fuel taxes). The former is beyond our control; the latter is likely lacking the political will for it to ever happen.

gagrice · June 2006

I tried to do research on Brazil's 100% ethanol cars. I think that is all that VW sells now in Brazil. They are FFVs because of the big fiasco in the 1980s. They had alcohol only cars when the ethanol plants could not compete and shut down. That left thousands of cars with no fuel. I am sure that an engine could be optimized to run better on straight alcohol. I am not sure if it would catch up with a comparable sized gas engine. That may be a ways off and hopefully after they come up with a better source of ethanol.

socala4 · June 2006

Of the two I would take the 2.0 diesel as I am sure it would get better mileage. It also has more speed and quickness than I really need.

Your personal tastes are wholly irrelevant. I'm sure that some people will choose a Toyota Corolla over a Porsche 911 because a Corolla is "fast enough", but does not mean that they perform to comparable benchmarks.

It comes down to this -- if you want to measure the virtues of a given turbodiesel car, then you should compare it to a turbocharged gas car that delivers similar performance in order to fairly measure the fuel savings. If you are personally content with a turbodiesel that hits 60 mph in 8.3 seconds, that's fine, but you should compare it to a turbo gas-engined car that delivers similar performance if you want to make a fair comparison.

markcincinnati · June 2006

Again, you've made points with which it is difficult to disagree. But, with two ways to get at about a trillion bbls of oil on OUR property (both of them within our technology and both of them, apparently (2005) now affordable) we can "buy" a lot of "who moved my cheese" moments while we persue energy diversification in earnest.

The oil I allude to is but ONE of the sources of oil that we, apparently, have at our disposal. With the oil reserves ranging in likely duration UP TO 400 years, according to the Rand study -- and with actual per gallon prices still below the price offered (with shortages even) in the 80's, this Sturm und Drang seems to really be much ado -- about something, but for the realistic term we seem to wax on about, well, it's just not much.

Let's start cooking in Colorado (among other things, of course.)

john500 · June 2006

Any word about whether this new Honda diesel will have an aluminum engine block?

john500 · June 2006

Your point is valid, however, I would argue simply from a displacement angle (ie use the Honda gasoline non turbo engine in the RSX type S or Civic type R). If you have a manual transmission, a turbo is a nightmare for off the line starts. You typically have to rev the engine and pop the clutch to avoid "turbo lag", which will drop your practical 0-60 speed by a second or so. I haven't driven a turbodiesel, however, with that high of a torque rating, I suspect that you can drive in a non-abusive manner (ie not have to pop the clutch) and still get the same 0-60 speed. An example of an "on paper" speed and a real speed.

socala4 · June 2006

You typically have to rev the engine and pop the clutch to avoid "turbo lag", which will drop your practical 0-60 speed by a second or so.

The amount of turbo lag is largely related to the size of the turbocharger, so a smaller turbo can offer the power with minimal lag. And engineers are figuring out how to do a better job with forced induction to mitigate the spool-up issue.

You may be right about the torque of the diesel reducing lag, but I wonder about that. I am not an engineer, so I'd be interested to hear exactly why a turbo gas engine with less torque can be expected to deliver faster 0-60 times than its diesel counterpart when used in a similar capacity, and whether there is a different outcome at, let's say, 5/10ths than there is at 10/10ths.

john500 · June 2006

I don't think I can answer your question, but a few things to consider.

1. All other things being equal, diesel engines of today are usually made of steel (due to the higher pressures in the cylinder). Gasoline engines are typically made of aluminum. The metal density differential affords a significant weight savings (probably as much as 300 lbs) and hence speed for the gasoline engine.

2. Conversely, a higher torque producing engine typically is faster than a lower torque producing engine if they have the same exact horsepower (and the vehicle is the same weight). The reasoning is that the maximum horsepower will typically peak at an rpm near the maximum torque output. If you plot (in the course of a 0-60 mph run) the amount of time in a high horsepower range (based on engine rpm), the higher torque engines typically spend more time in that region and hence move the car faster.

Presumably, the weight aspect overrides the torque aspect if gasoline engines at an equivalent horsepower are truly faster. There could be more to the issue that I am not aware of (ie perhaps diesels use different gear ratios as an example). You probably need a very knowledgeable auto mechanic or a mechanical engineer in the auto business to answer this with authority.

I just chucked a Subaru STI because of that horrendous turbo lag. I was lucky to pull 6 second 0-60 mph runs and I've been driving a clutch and sports cars for over 15 years now. Every time I did get a good 5 s 0-60 run, I smelled burned clutch. I think an AWD sports car without a turbo in the lower price range would be an excellent product to offer today to compete with the turbo models (Evo, Mazda6, STI) and the mid 20 year old crowd wouldn't have to replace their clutches every 3000 miles. It looks like Saturn will be making the same mistake by offering the Sky Red Line version as a turbo (although it is only RWD). I now understand why GM made the classic Buick Grand National with only automatic transmissions.

socala4 · June 2006

All other things being equal, diesel engines of today are usually made of steel (due to the higher pressures in the cylinder). Gasoline engines are typically made of aluminum. The metal density differential affords a significant weight savings (probably as much as 300 lbs) and hence speed for the gasoline engine.

I was thinking along similar lines. Take, for example, the A4 2.0 liter gas turbo above and compare it to the 3.0 turbodiesel variant, you can bet that the 2.0 liter motor will weigh less, regardless. That has to give the gas car an advantage in respect to acceleration in that situation, and should reduce the relative fuel efficiency of the diesel because of that added weight, although not enought to prevent it from delivering better fuel economy overall.

This is a good example that you've brought up, because it shows how important it is to evaluate these things holistically. In this example, if diesel cars are effectively going to weigh more under real world consideration in order to deliver the same benefit, then something has to give somewhere in the comparison, and the impact of this effect should become more dramatic as the car gets smaller (or offset as the car gets larger). Real world application can vary a fair bit from theoretical tesing on a dyno.

markcincinnati · June 2006

While the technical and volumetric argument is not up for much debate, if any, the comparison for all practical purposes is apples to apples.

Here is why the CUSTOMER will make this "assumption" or dismiss the turbo vs normally aspirated argument.

And, please, allow me some MSRP latitude not because I wish to obfuscate, but because I am certain the comparison will be far more likely to be equalized by dollars rather than volumetric efficiency.

Assume, please, the MSRP of the car in question will be between $45 and $50,000 (USD, converted from Euros, more or less accurately and knowing that taxes may enter into the equation in a fashion similar to US state sales taxes may enter into the purchase decision.)

The closest configuration I can come up with since I speak VERY little German is from a UK mfgr's website:

Body/model 4door sedan, AWD, 6 speed autotrans with "common" equipment (a/c, power assists, etc.)/A6.

Two paths were chosen:

Path 1: 3.2L V6 gasoline normally aspirated engine

Path 2: 3.0L V6 diesel engine with a passive blower (i.e. a bi-turbo aspiration assist)

Path 1: MSRP $47,000
Path 2: MSRP $46,050

Path 1: performance 0-100 KPH 7.1 seconds
Path 2: performance 0-100 KPH 7.0 seconds

Path 1 & 2: are, from both the manufacturer's pricing point (and one would assume costing point) and the customer's "consideration" point "similar" cars. Close in price, close in performance with a slight out the door advantage in both performance and price going to the diesel "apple."

The gasoline "apple," achieves a published miles per gallon of "X" (so not to start a "did too, did not" or Imperial vs American measurement argument).

The diesel "apple," achieves a published figure of "1.2X."

The gasoline vehicle requires Premium fuel -- mandatory.

The diesel fuel requires any form of fuel that "passes" as diesel (that is it can be made from oil, natural gas, coal, soybeans or Burger King french fry oil or a mixture of some or all of the preceding.)

The numbers pertaining to cost per gallon change daily, but generally the NORMAL three grades of gasoline are priced Regular, Mid +$.10, Premium +$.20 to $.22 over the retail price of Regular. And, while there is variability in the price of diesel, too, the price of diesel (and I mean petroleum based diesel) is typically between Mid and Premium gasoline. Here in the area I can with experience comment upon (Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia and Pennsylvania since I travel in these states weekly) diesel has been about $.08 to $.11 less per gallon than Premium.

Now, having laid all of this out as I can only assume a potential retail car buyer might, I am suggesting that the car I have called "Path 1" and "Path 2" will be viewed as the diretly competing and comparable models. The customer will not, for instance look at the 3.2L and compare it with the 2.0L TDI.

The reason for this is the equalizer provided by the answer to the question "what I can get for my $47,000?"

Both cars compete head on EXCEPT that the diesel car is one-tenth of a second quicker to speed, costs $950 less on the day of delivery and (once we are fully converted to low sulphur fuel) pollutes less.

The historic greater durability of diesels may or may not be of concern to this customer, so let's not assume it is either an incentive or disincentive to purchase.

But, based on what we could extrapolate, the fueling costs, on a per tankful basis would be at the very minimum 20% MORE for the gas engined variant or 20% less for the diesel, based on your point of origin (i.e., where you're coming from as the kids used to say!)

These 2 vehicles will within 15 months be offered to Mr & Mrs America and all the ships at sea so to speak. And, even though these are specifically Audi brand cars, they will not (indeed ARE NOT) the only brands that will offer similar apples to apples choices (despite the accuracy of your observation from a volumetric efficiency standpoint, they will be perceived & marketed as Coke & Pepsi.)

snakeweasel · June 2006

The diesel fuel requires any form of fuel that "passes" as diesel (that is it can be made from oil, natural gas, coal, soybeans or Burger King french fry oil or a mixture of some or all of the preceding.)

I can see it now.

Pimply faced teenager: Welcome to Burger King may I take your order?

Driver: Yes I will have a Whopper, fries and a large Coke.

Pimply faced teenager: Would you like a fill up with that?

socala4 · June 2006

I was using Audi because (a) you and I like them and (b) they conveniently have engine choices in Europe that make for easy comparisons using data in What Car?.

Gagrice seems to be coming from a technical standpoint, namely that diesel is more efficient than gas. For that argument, I'm pointing out that you need a larger diesel engine if comparing one turbo to another.

The market is a different matter. Here, you need to convince the consumer that diesel isn't weird, exotic or odd, but offers some benefits that matter to the customer, and that aren't offset by any overwhelming downsides.

In order to accomplish that, I would think that you need some offsetting factor, such as a diesel car that simply blows people away (gets great press, media attention, etc.), has fantastic interesting styling, etc. And then you need a manufacturer to do it.

In my mind, the path to market would be to develop a really impressive sports sedan and a second performance car, with a sedan that outperforms its gas rivals by wide margins (not just modest improvements, and not just within the nameplate, but also against other brands), and a sports car with unique styling that grabs peoples' attention. Make the car appeal to a new niche that loves the car, not because it's a diesel, but because it has some really cool system bells-and-whistles that you can't find in a gas car.

A strictly pragmatic approach will fail, because you don't reach the tastemakers with it. Look to Toyota for leadership in this aspect of marketing -- it deliberately made the Prius a bit odd, and actually touted the hybrid system instead of concealing it because that would appeal to the technology geeks and green activists who lead the market. (If successful, these tastemakers inspire the early majority, and eventually drag along the late majority to follow when they later end up in more mainstream products.) In contrast, Honda quietly marketed the Accord Hybrid as an unobtrusive power booster, almost avoiding mention of the hybrid system, which failed to appeal to these tastemaker/ innovator buying segments and therefore caused it to fail.

Now, given this, ask yourself -- what company is possibly going to do this? The answer, I believe, is no one, because it isn't worth the risk. Project and marketing dollars are scarce and must be efficiently allocated, which means that diesel cars will get very little in the way of differentiation and specialized marketing.

Which leads back to my earlier point: With minimal marketing and positive differentiation around benefits that aren't strictly practical, diesel will likely remain a niche product unless it has a huge price advantage (and I don't mean $0.10 per gallon.)

The way the industry (and yourself) are going with these cars, they are neither so much more practical that millions will change their ways, yet they are also not so innovative to grab the attention of the tastemakers. That leaves you with a few uber-pragmatists and the cult diesel fans, who together make up a very small piece of the market, which leaves the automakers with very little reason to take a chance and do much about it. It's a Catch 22 that I don't anyone is going to fix unless fuel becomes so incredibly expensive that the fuel economy differential itself is enough to motivate buyers to look at it, and to get past their negative views of it.

markcincinnati · June 2006

And, as an added incentive, your car's exhaust will smell not of petrol or oil or nastiness, it will smell of french fries.

Of course to some of us, Burger King french fries ARE nasty. But, who am I kidding, I cannot turn down a holster of fries from almost any of the fast food giants.

Now THAT's being addicted to oil!

captain2 · June 2006

HP=(Torque x rpm)/5252. It is the fact that diesels are rpm limited that reduces HP. Typically a good gasoline engine exists happily at 6000 rpm plus, diesels hard pressed to hold more than 4000 a 50% HP disadvantage - although this difference is starting to shrink with some advancements in diesel engine design e.g. the 3.2 liter MB diesel. Torque is probably best explained as an instanteous 'twisting force' available at a given time, HP is torque available over a period of time and hence a more practical measurement of power. Internal combustion engines of any type will generally produce optimal torque at lower engine speeds - the difference between that high torque engine speeds and high HP being most pronounced with diesels.
The MB diesel - 201 hp/4200 rpm, 369 ft lb/1800 rpm
the similarly 'advanced' 3.5 liter V6 gas - 268 hp/6000 and 248/2400.
Despite the 50% disadvantage in torque the E350 gas will still outrun the E320CDI - at the penalty of about 8 mpg

gagrice · June 2006

I know to some the whole business of french fry oil being used in a diesel is a joke. It was not a joke to the landfill operator on Maui. Now he powers all the landfill operation in Maui and sells biodiesel for less than petrol based diesel. He has kept 140 tons of waste oil per month out of the landfill and made money in the process. Most of the Hollywood stars that live in Willie Nelson's community on Maui drive VW diesels on 100% biodiesel. They are not hooked up to the power grid and generate all their own electricity from solar. Sure it is a small group. They are making a difference a few people at a time. It will be hard to convert the folks in CA as they are in such a mad rush to nowhere all of the time. I do agree that for CA it will take gas prices higher than 5 bucks a gallon to get their attention.

snakeweasel · June 2006

It is the fact that diesels are rpm limited that reduces HP.

What reduces HP in a diesel is not limited RPMs but the fact that Diesels get most of their torque at very low RPM's. The formula you gave for calculating HP is correct, which means the higher the RPM's when you hit maximum torque the higher the HP.

Typically a good gasoline engine exists happily at 6000 rpm plus

6000 RPM is a awful lot for a gasser to be running at a constant speed and is very close to red lining it in many cases. My daily drive with a 4 banger is well past 80 MPH at half that engine speed.

snakeweasel · June 2006

I think I read something some place (maybe even here in these forums) that some snack food manufacturer is running their delivery trucks on biodiesel from used oil from their manufacturing plants.

captain2 · June 2006

of course a gas engine doesn't stay at 6000 rpm too long, and neither would a diesel at 4000. And diesels will likely will never be able to operate in the higher rpm range that a gas engine does - too much reciprocating mass. The point of the mathematical relationship between HP and torque is that the gas engine will almost always have more HP simply because it can (and does) hold higher engine speeds. It wasn't all that long ago that a diesel engine actually turning 4000 rpm would have had us dodging the schrapnel! The new MB 320 diesel is a remarkable engine and quite a bit better from a HP/Torque perspective than anything else on the market. And a good example of what can be 'easily' achieved with current available technologies and resources. Things like E85 may sound great but given the lower energy per unit volume of the fuel itself, and the lack of production and/or distribution facilities - it is, at best, a long way off.
GM is welcome to use its 'flex fuel' vehicles to inflate its corporate fuel economy numbers and then try to convince the uneducated consumer that it is actually cheaper to run on ethanol - but it is what it is - a rouse!

markcincinnati · June 2006

It is true that the market is a different matter as you state. Perhaps it is not too audacious to underscore that by stating it is probably the most substantive matter.

Any discussion of alternative fuels (any alternative to gasoline in the US and even in Europe for that matter) cannot presume the market will behave in ways that are more expensive or less convenient or less whatever is important at the time  but, with some occasional hiccups; effectively, people will do what is best for them, i.e. Altruism, like common sense, is common usually only to/for one person  you.

Now then, why is it that the market needs to be convinced that diesel isnt weird?  the diesel cars in widespread use (but not in the US, overall) are not weird at all. They look like their gasoline fueled counterparts, largely.

Looking at a Mercedes E class taxi in Germany, e.g., it is, perhaps, safe to assume it is a diesel, but it is not an absolute. Looking at the vehicle, perhaps other than the rear deck lid, there are no indications of the fuel required, in this instance.

Similar blending in (i.e., the lack of styling cues or other characteristics that might make a vehicle be perceived as weird) of gasoline and diesel vehicles is evident in: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Luxembourg and Poland (countries that I travel to with some frequency.)

Simply stated, it is rarely, if ever, possible to determine which is which. Weird, exotic or odd vehicles do, of course exist, but they rarely distinguish themselves by virtue of their engines or fuel requirements.

It is also true, at least in the US  the show me country  that to sway the consumers buying habits we need some offsetting factor, such as a diesel car that simply blows people away (gets great press, media attention, etc.)

Although we may debate if the following is enough of a story to blow people away, this milestone follows a similar American victory at Sebring just a couple of months prior. In other words, it would seem that this is at least part of the requirement to be considered compliant with the term offsetting factor.

This month (June 2006) we have seen: TDI Rules at Le Mans.

Continued next.

markcincinnati · June 2006

The diesel wow (blow away?) story goes like this:

First victory of a diesel engine in 24 Hour race
Historic triumph in front of record crowd
Both Audi R10 TDI cars with podium finishes

AUDI AG has written an important chapter in the history of motor racing with its historic triumph in the Le Mans 24 Hour race. The new Audi R10 TDI was the first diesel car to win arguably the toughest car race in the world. In front of a record crowd of 235,000 spectators, Frank Biela (Germany), Emanuele Pirro (Italy) and Marco Werner (Germany) clinched the sixth and most important Le Mans win for Audi so far. Dindo Capello (Italy), Tom Kristensen (Denmark) and Allan McNish (Scotland) also achieved a podium in finishing third overall.

The fans on the race track and a worldwide audience of millions of TV viewers saw an impressive demonstration of Audi TDI Power and the performance of modern diesel engines. The brace of Audi R10 TDI cars, powered by a 650 hp V12 TDI engine, were by far the fastest and most economical cars. During the entire race, one of the new diesel sportscars from Ingolstadt was at the head of the field. Le Mans record winner Tom Kristensen drove the fastest lap of the race, setting a 3m 31.211s time, and he was the first driver at the wheel of an LM P1 sportscar to cover 16 laps with one fuel load. Completing 380 laps, Audi also set a new distance record.

In the race, the advantage in fuel consumption of the Audi TDI Power was visible for the spectators too: on average, the Audi drivers only pitted every 14 laps to refuel 90 litres of Shell V-Power Diesel. The opposition, who relies on petrol engines, had to pit considerably more often. The fans were also impressed just how quiet an environmentally friendly 650-hp sportscar can be.

And then you need a manufacturer to do it.

Perhaps these two victories, and the publicity, have made significant inroads into addressing this need to impress. Perhaps not.

The path to market with the tastemakers (those who are the buyers of Premium/LPS vehicles, i.e.) is well underway with 70% of the premium vehicle market in Europe already swayed from conventional gasoline to "alternative" diesel (with 30% of the total market, in tow.)

Typically, "the vehicle market" (and others, too) works from the top down  the premium class features and attributes trickles down to the near-premium class, and so on until even the economy class is expected to feature power everything, air conditioning, up-level sound systems and so on.

Time and again, we have seen this sequence of events  and it includes, of course such things as seat belts, anti-lock brakes, FWD, AWD tubo-charged, supercharged [engines] and air bags. What were once only in the flagship vehicles ultimately show up from top to bottom. Thus it will be with alternative (in this instance, diesel) powered vehicles.

For most of us, 20% mileage improvements with power improvements (accelerateion) and no top speed negatives would be a wide margin.

E.G., my car currently costs $60 to fill with gasoline. If I could fill it for the same or slightly less money but do so less frequently (20%) this would translate to a savings (today) of about $12 (plus, perhaps, $2 to account for the lower per gallon cost) per thankful. Over the course of a three year lifespan (or longer, if you like) this is, for most people, real money - a wide margin.

Perhaps this margin is enough real motivation to consider purchasing this alternative (to gasoline) fuel vehicle  especially when the E85 alternative FFV vehicle will increase the cost per thankful by about 25% to 50%, effectively.

The LPS makers will (they already do) put cool technology in their cars (e.g., Lexus h cars, however, are not simply cars that have cool systems not found in a gas car  indeed, like the statements pertaining to diesels above, there really isnt much that differentiates a Lexus full sized LPS h car from its gas only counterpart) diesel, hybrid or FFV or no. The LPS mfgrs always have and probably always will.

Lastly, I do not fully understand this:

A strictly pragmatic approach will fail, because you don't reach the tastemakers with it.

Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, VW and on and on reach some taste makers (leaders) and some taste followers, of that there should be no disagreement. At 70% of the [European] tastemaker market, Audi, BMW and Mercedes probably dont feel they are failing. Moreover, Audi announced that it has now come to the point where 50% of the over 800,000 vehicles it sells annually are gasoline and 50% diesel. I assume at least some similarity in terms of market share would be evidenced by the other "tastemaker" manufacturers.

socala4 · June 2006

“A strictly pragmatic approach will fail, because you don't reach the tastemakers with it.”

Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, VW and on and on reach some taste makers (leaders) and some taste followers, of that there should be no disagreement.

Not quite what I meant. To follow this, it would help you to read Geoffrey Moore's classic text on technology marketing called Crossing the Chasm (I cite it often here, it's really outstanding and a must-read for anyone interested in this).

It comes down to this: to introduce a disruptive technology, the first people you reach are the technology geeks who like cool stuff for its own sake, then follow by reaching those seeking to make improvements that create some sort of interesting benefit, until eventually reaching a majority who buy based upon price. The "innovators" (geeks) aren't a large enough group to generate profits, and their buy-in doesn't guarantee success, but you absolutely MUST reach these people first, because they will evangelize your product to others who learn from them. They are your tastemakers.

People seeking a bit of fuel economy improvement are not evangelizers, they are strictly pragmatic. They are focused on price and skeptical, and indirectly look to the way paved by the technology tastemakers before they buy into it.

The problem with diesel marketed as a fuel saver is that you have leapfrogged over the tastemakers straight to the pragmatists, who are naturally skeptical and hard to convince, and you have no tastemakers to persuade them. And because diesel is a mature technology, it's unlikely to appeal to the tastemakers, anyway (diesel is been there, done that to that group), which means your shot at eventually converting the pragmatists is remote. So you're dead from the start.

That's why I would suggest that the cars have to be really amazingly different and appealing cars that just happen to be diesels, so that people associate diesel with these cool attributes, and not some stinky fuel. Those tastemakers are largely unconcerned with a bit of fuel savings, that's not tech-cool enough to please this group.

The smartest things that Toyota did was to make sure that the Prius could run some of the time without the gas engine, and by putting that monitoring screen on the dash of the Prius. With the former, they were able to accentuate the technology difference. With the latter, TMC made the hybrid an entertainer and impresario in real time, with cool graphics screaming out what the technology was doing at that moment. Those are the sorts of things that appeal to tastemakers, and keep them interested and feeling religion about the product.

This also gives you insight as to why TMC began with a deliberately weird-looking car, rather than just shoehorning the technology immediately into a Camry -- because tastemakers don't want normal cars, they go out of their way to be different. The next group of buyers will be the ones most concerned with saving fuel, not because they expect immediate payback, but because they associate the fuel saving technology with really interesting technology and a wave that they want to lead.

Diesel serves none of those impulses, it appeals to a few die-hard engineering types who have been boosting it for years, without success. So again, unless the price of diesel goes well below the price of gas, there's no undercurrent to push it along.

socala4 · June 2006

If diesel had been invented yesterday, you'd stand a better chance of generating buzz than you could now.

The fact that it's last week's news, instead of a new technology, makes marketing it to innovators that much harder. Without a sexy breakout vehicle attached to it, you're stuck promoting it to the very same pragmatic types who have long been unimpressed by it, and are even hostile to it. That's a big stumbling block, you'll have to figure out a way to get around that aside from MPG.

gagrice · June 2006

BATON ROUGE, La. Legislation to tweak a new law requiring alternative fuels to be sold in Louisiana -- so that it can't take effect if it would increase gasoline prices -- was sent to Governor Kathleen Blanco's desk today with final passage from the House.

Blanco's spokesman says the governor would look closely at the bill to ensure it protects consumers -- but doesn't try to sidestep the plant-based fuel requirement entirely -- before determining whether she will sign it.

Lawmakers approved the price control provision after the Legislature received criticism that the alternative fuel law it passed a few weeks ago would significantly bump up gas prices.

The Senate yesterday approved the language to limit the mandate, and House members approved it today in a 97-1 vote, with hours to go in the legislative session. Only Representative Elcie Guillory, of Lake Charles, voted against the measure.

The price control law sets up a trigger where the alternative fuel requirement would kick in six months after Louisiana-manufactured ethanol for 60 days costs no more than the average wholesale price of regular gasoline in Louisiana. A federal subsidy to lower the price of ethanol would be included in the consideration of the ethanol price.

Under the alternative fuels law, two percent of the total gasoline sold in Louisiana will have to be agriculture-based when ethanol production in the state reaches 50 (m) million gallons annually, biodiesel production reaches ten (m) million gallons each year or production of another alternative fuel reaches 20 (m) million gallons a year.

Louisiana doesn't have an ethanol plant yet, but several plans to build a plant are on the table.

markcincinnati · June 2006

I have read Crossing the Chasm and Inside the Tornado and your explanation of the early adopters and so on is both succinct and accurate as I recall. Moore's book was required reading in my world (IT consulting and systems integration and implementation) and it stands still as one of the great "pop" business books in recent memory. It has, however, been called too long for a magazine article and too light to be a whole book. Despite my personal affection and admiration for the works, I essentially agree -- instead of a book, Chasm could have been well done had it been more the quantity evidenced by "Who Moved My Cheese" -- but that is another debate for another blog, I'd wager.

My thesis, although not without its pragmatic appeal (to someone, I assume) and bent, is not based on appealing first to the pragmatic buyer.

Here's why:

I assume that someone with the means to acquire an Audi A8L, BMW 7 or Mercedes S class vehicle will not be first and foremost interested in saving even a dozen, or multiple dozen, Euros per tankful.

The appeal of the diesel is becoming (in some respects has already become) performance and perhaps the perception of prudence. Although, I must admit, presenting your new A8L with a 4.2 TDI as a purchase of an economy car or even a geek car is somewhat of a contradiction, well, it certainly isn't beyond the pale that it does happen.

I recently attended an Audi soire (there is one for a four state region, annually, and Cincinnati was "blessed" to have the event this year.) A Sebring driver was in attendance as was a "TD Race car!" The buzz, too, was about the performance of the A8L 4.2 TDI -- 0 to 60 in 6 seconds in a car THIS BIG!

The RS4 (gasoline powered) was also on display. Nothing on the floor that night was under $55,000. The room was hardly full of pragmatists (perhaps well heeled car groupies would be apt, however.)

The folks I know (and this is, I admit, NOT a representative sample) are not a few die hard engineering types. They are lovers of LPS (emphasis on P) cars; they look at TDI's from the Germans (generally) as the "next" wave of performance luxury vehicles.

As a follower of Moore, we should agree, too, that for any technology to be successful (beyond the innovators and early adopters) it must be easy to adopt and/or fill a desperate need -- I would submit that E85 and diesel do seem to be able to satisfy the former and perhaps will be called upon to fill a need that some believe is growing more desperate with every uptick in the price of a bbl of oil.

socala4 · June 2006

I see this as the essential problem:

The appeal of the diesel is becoming (in some respects has already become) performance and perhaps the perception of prudence.

Whoever is in this (small) group is not an innovator, by that definition. This group doesn't serve as tastemakers for technology, which is what needed if you want to sell diesel as a tech story. The prudence message brings you back to the very same late majority who obviously aren't ready for it yet.

A diesel racing car isn't going to be enough, in my opinion. (Not that it hurts, but it mostly preaches to the converted.) One thing I will say, though -- if anybody in the US market is ready for diesel, it's going to be Audi owners.

markcincinnati · June 2006

I doubt that diesel will be sold as a tech story, and the performance story overshadows the perception of prudence -- which is a "nod and a wink" form of prudence in the Premium class which apparently seems to care little about "real" prudence (for it probably doesn't have to.)

You are possibly right that Audi buyers (US) are ready for diesel, but my observation would have first been to place Mercedes in front of Audi in that regard.

I cannot dispute the notion that a diesel racing car "isn't going to be enough." But I don't follow the notion of this preaching to the converted -- many folks, were certainly surprised at the diesel's dominance, almost the audacity that this win suggested.

Perhaps those who already were going down the path of believing in diesels as serious contenders rather than smelly "drug store truck drivin' men's" vehicles are converted. I contend the larger population (in the US at least) are not yet converted but were or could be impressed by discovering that diesels aren't weird or difficult or inconvenient or expensive or something else negative.

Me, I'm still doubtful that diesel will make a serious dent in reducing our importation of Middle eastern oil -- but there are those who think 30% penetration is possible even if 15 - 20% penetration is more likely.

I'm rooting (but will not buy) anything that costs more to acquire without some benefit even if it is "all in my head."

Yep, there are those who will buy at the bleeding edge -- I may be out of the US mainstream (since I buy Audis, after all) car buying market -- but I doubt, likewise, that I qualify as a fringe (attracted to the weird) buyer.

Audi, BMW, Cadillac and Infiniti continue to court my purchases as if I was a member of the mainstream (but of course telling me all the while that I am a customer of discriminating taste.)

"I can see you are a man of power and influence. . . not me you moron, HER!" [sic] Pretty Woman.

socala4 · June 2006

You are possibly right that Audi buyers (US) are ready for diesel, but my observation would have first been to place Mercedes in front of Audi in that regard.

Probably a bit of both, but I'm going to guess that these days, Audi has a larger base of quirky buyers than does MB in the US market. Part of the Audi fan base is lured in by technology (quattro, FSI, etc.), so they may be ready to hear the technology message behind diesel, if there was one.

I contend the larger population (in the US at least) are not yet converted but were or could be impressed by discovering that diesels aren't weird or difficult or inconvenient or expensive or something else negative.

But how are you going to get out the message, and what message will it be?

I agree, the tech message won't happen, and probably won't work because the car enthusiasts, as much as they may love cars, aren't tastemakers. (Notice that the Prius lovers aren't really "car guys", they love the technology and/or eco-friendly message.)

And except for a few, I restate my doubt that the pragmatists will find enough benefit to pursue it. A huge fuel price difference favoring diesel would impress this group, but given current pricing, better economy with cars and fuel that cost the same just isn't a dramatic enough improvement to win over many buyers.

Which leaves you with marketing it based upon style and hype, something that puts diesel on the vanguard of cool and innovative, and creates buzz. And I doubt that is going to happen, either. A specialty car (for example, an interesting crossover, sports car, etc.) that might serve as a halo car for more pragmatic offerings could possibly help, but what manufacturer is going to stick his neck out on that? I know that I wouldn't.

gagrice · June 2006

my observation would have first been to place Mercedes in front of Audi in that regard.

I think MB is already in the lead. They sold about 50% more of the E320 CDI than they had anticipated. For myself I am looking for them to bring the BluTec diesel in one of their SUV models. They have announced the arrival of the ML320 CDI in October 2006. They already jumped one hurdle by beating the Lexus RX400h in a cross country mileage challenge. That in itself would sell a few units. It is a superior platform to the Lexus midsize SUV and with a 30+ MPG diesel it is a practical SUV. I would buy one just for weekend jaunts to the desert. I would not have to worry about finding fuel for the whole time out. I understand the skeptics. I am more skeptical of the hybrids than when they first came out. I am very skeptical of the whole ethanol situation.

gagrice · June 2006

But what he had to say should be on America's front burner because it has to do with energy or the lack thereof. The balance between oil supplies and demand has reached such a precarious point, he said, "that even small acts of sabotage or local insurrection have a significant impact on prices." Our economy is beginning to get hurt by "the huge implicit tax of rising oil prices."

So much for official Washington's assurances that oil supplies are more than adequate. In any case, Mr. Greenspan doesn't believe government intervention is the most sensible answer. "Rising prices are a very effective tool in compressing demand," he said. That is, Americans will wean themselves from heavy reliance on petroleum because at a certain price range, they can't afford to fill their gas tanks. But it will be slow weaning, he predicted, "like watching grass grow."

A prosperous and secure future requires more than conservation and ethanol, which he expects to play only a limited role so long as ethanol is corn-based. The Greenspan prescription includes increased imports of liquefied natural gas, production of clean coal and nuclear power, and ... and cellulosic ethanol.

Cellulosic? That's ethanol made up of agricultural refuse, grass, wood, municipal waste and a variety of feedstock, which is less expensive and more available than just corn. The technology to develop this energy source has yet to be developed, but in the world according to Greenspan, market forces will make it happen.

The former Fed chairman is not so enamored of the elixir of markets that he has lost touch with reality. He believes that "oil will remain an important element of our energy future." But he also believes that markets will reward those who get busy with conservation and alternative fuels.

tpe · June 2006

If diesel had been invented yesterday, you'd stand a better chance of generating buzz than you could now.

What's new about ethanol?

You seem to take the devil's advocate position to any suggestion. Do you have any suggestions of your own that can't be immediately refuted by rational that you've already used against other ideas? I don't think so. So there are two possibilities. Either you don't believe there is a solution or you are just enamored by your own posts.

markcincinnati · June 2006

. . . actually happens, the dialog (here and elsewhere) is healthy.

If what we know (about reserves) is true and what we think is 1/2 true and what we speculate is even single digit true, none of us participating here will drive anything other than "mostly" conventional vehicles.

I read one of those "high buzz" articles in the New York Times or the Cincinnati Enquirer or Car & Driver or Better Homes and Garages, etc, that made the claim something like "for at least the next generation, and possibly two generations, we will be getting a minimum of 70% of our energy from oil."

Now, I guess that is possibly an understatement if you buy the Rand study that claims we have enough known oil in the US to "fuel" 100% of our current usage for 100+ years or 25% of our current usage for 400 years. Of course this is the study that says it will take 20-30 years for this oil to come on line, so who knows what "current usage" translates to decades from now. If indeed we have 800 trillion bbls of known reserves in the US, perhaps 30 years from now that will only last 10 years, not 100.

On the other hand, one has to have some cautious optimism that there will be some alternatives developed, discovered or adopted that may offer some relief.

My own speculation however is what happens when the global demand for energy per person catches up with ours here in the US. Aren't we about 5% of the population yet use 25% of the energy?

Perhaps E85 (if manufactured from secondary sources rather than food) is a bridge to somewhere -- or not. Making E85 from what is essentially food seems to track with the old joke, "we loose money on every transaction -- but we make it up in volume!" Rim shot.

:confuse:

markcincinnati · June 2006

Although our discussions here sometimes remind me of the Monty Python skit, "The Argument" (where the hapless customer who wants an argument finds, instead, that the proprietor of the Argument store seems only capable of contradiction rather than genuine argument), there is merit -- I think -- in some contradiction. For this reason, I do encourage it, somewhat.

Now, with just about every point made here being contradicted though, I would hope that we can solicit some thoughts that would respond not only by dismantling the pro-ethanol, pro-diesel, pro-hybrid, pro-whatever du jour alternative but by suggesting a course that would either make the offending alternative more likely to succeed, or proffers an alternative that is worth examining on its own merits.

Clearly there are folks who are for E and against E (at least as it is currently being undertaken as an energy solution), ditto diesel and hybrid and so on.

Yet, I wonder what some folks who are clearly gifted at articulating their point of view would do instead.

I personally do not have much confidence in E85 as a solution, but I do support some (at least) investment into vetting this solution as fully as the market (and our willingness to spend our taxes) will allow. In part, my "advocacy" or at the very least exploration of the topic of diesel as perhaps a more rational bridge to somewhere is based on my belief in an approach that does not merely contradict. "E85 will! E85 will not!" And so on.

I am of the mind, today, that E85 MAY not, but that diesel "might." Hence my willingness to enter into these discussions. Hopefully, those who can argue strongly will grace us with a strong argument for something even if it is the status quo.

Sure not to convince anyone, but sure to spark at least contradiction I submit for your dining and dancing pleasure an article pertaining to at least one alternative to gasoline:

Klicky Klicky

socala4 · June 2006

You seem to take the devil's advocate position to any suggestion. Do you have any suggestions of your own that can't be immediately refuted by rational that you've already used against other ideas?

I told you, I don't understand the tendency on this thread by most of the participants to support one "solution" so strongly, while ignoring very similar flaws that create the same problems for their recommend idea. I'm trying to introduce a bit of sobriety to the conversation so that all of you consider the implications of what you're talking about. You can't hang your hat on one solution, you'll have to combine them, while facing a couple of constraints: (a) the US government tends to like tax credit subsidies, and oppose tax increases, and (b) you'll need to count largely on the free market for the answer, since the US government tends to limit its involvement to subsidies and lip service, rather than full-blown initiatives meant to hit a directed target quickly.

In my opinion, the most likely viable solution will focus on technologies that get cars to use less gasoline, while accepting that we'll probably still be using a lot of it. That means hybrid technology, coupled with E10, because you have one company that has created a market for it, and you may as well run with the ball. It's the one answer I can think of that actually has a free market drive behind it, and you can use the E10 to reduce your usage by another few percent.

Over time, you could mandate that all vehicles sold in the US that run on gas must have FFV capability, and change the tax and pricing scheme so that E85 is cheaper. But I seriously doubt that an increased gas tax has a snowball's chance in Hades of being imposed, and I can't see enough ethanol being produced anytime soon to ever create enough E85 to reduce dependency, so this is more of a pleasant fantasy than anything else.

If you're going to focus on biodiesel, it makes the most sense to stop worrying about the car market, and focus on those who already use it -- truckers. That being said, it doesn't seem we'll ever produce nearly enough of it to ever make a difference, so focusing on biodiesel as a mass market solution doesn't seem necessary, just blend it with the existing fuel at a low percentage, and stretch out your diesel supplies as much as possible.

As for regular diesel in the car market, its success or failure will likely be driven by the free market, which probably means that it will be a big flop. There's no free market reason to gamble big on diesel, which limits its market potential. So it would take government intervention to possibly create a better result, and there's no political will for that.

The EV's are the furthest behind, yet ironically, its best hope is in the hybrid industry because it is hybrids that will create the revenues needed to drive R&D improvements that will benefit the batteries and other aspects of the technology. Solving the real world problems inherent to electric vehicles will be difficult to impossible, and are needless given the likelihood of hybrid adoption, so I think hybrids are the closest thing to EV's that we're ever going to get. I would expect hybrids over time to use their gas engines less and less, which will improve their fuel savings, and the batteries to improve, which should make them lighter and more efficient.

socala4 · June 2006

[O]ur discussions here sometimes remind me of the Monty Python skit, "The Argument" (where the hapless customer who wants an argument finds, instead, that the proprietor of the Argument store seems only capable of contradiction rather than genuine argument)...

No, it doesn't!

gagrice · June 2006

As for regular diesel in the car market, its success or failure will likely be driven by the free market, which probably means that it will be a big flop. There's no free market reason to gamble big on diesel

The only gamble I can see for the automakers is the transportation costs getting here from the EU or Japan. In the case of the Liberty diesel they were built here. The diesel technology advances are for the larger market which is currently the EU and soon to be Japan. As you have pointed out so well in other threads the Big 2.5 have done little in the way of innovation over the last 30 years. That leaves the door wide open to foriegn automakers.

If there was a market for E85 vehicles it would be easy for companies like VW to bring them in by the boat load. I am not a big fan of Honda automobiles. I think I would give them a shot if they brought a diesel Pilot into the market.

socala4 · June 2006

The only gamble I can see for the automakers is the transportation costs getting here from the EU or Japan.

I'm not denying that there will be a few diesel cars sold here, nor do I see anybody else claiming otherwise. There has long been a small market for diesel cars in the US, but it is a niche market with few customers.

The issue I'm discussing is their popularity, and therefore their viability as a large component of any plan, and I doubt they'll be very popular. They might become perhaps 10% of the new car market (which would require more than tripling their sales), a mere drop in the bucket. Dream all you like, but without a push, there's not much reason for much more demand than that.

heel2toe · June 2006

I think Honda's involvement and their success at getting their diesel engines US certified will go a long way towards determining acceptance by the American consumer. For instance, I am pretty confident that Honda becoming a diesel player will attract at least twenty times the media attention than the continuation of diesel offerings from the Germans. In my opinion, they are about as mainstream America as auto manufacturers come...

markcincinnati · June 2006

I could be arguing on my own time!

seniorjose · June 2006

Having lived for 25 years in South Florida, Mercedes buyers are a very rich lot or a "wannabe" lot. The cars themselves are very breakable and frustrated Mercedes owners are not very happy. The rich get their kicks from "status" cars and really do not care very much if they run well or not. Until someone who knows the business can produce a diesel comparable in price to the gasoline engined autos, the we are looking at a very tiny segment of the population that can afford these very high priced diesels. The diesel autos still use a tremendous amount of oil and wi;ll not get us to crack the oil dictators cartels. If we are at a 1/4 of 1% market penetration by diesel autos now, then I guess we can expect that even a "growth" to 1/2 of 1% will double what is already a fragile and unimportant part of the American auto scaene.

But we all can't afford the luxury diesel autos that do not solve any oil cartel cuts and so instead we currently have ethanol and all it's derivatives NOW, not in some dream future.

tpe · June 2006

so I think hybrids are the closest thing to EV's that we're ever going to get

Really? Ever is a long time. I don't know what the percentage of the population that would embrace EVs is. I do know that it is more than zero because I want one. I do know that the type of EV that I'd be willing to drive has already been made by GM and Toyota. Not NOW but in the past. If I wanted to embrace ethanol NOW I would have to trade in my 4 cyl Honda Accord for either a truck or a Ford Taurus and then drive 100s of miles to find a gas station that sold ethanol. So I'd have a vehicle that got worse gas mileage that didn't even have the range to get me to an ethanol fueling station. That would certainly put the oil cartel in its place. Using ethanol will still keep us oil dependent so the people that drive these FFVs are not part of the solution they are at best a smaller part of the problem.

I would expect hybrids over time to use their gas engines less and less, which will improve their fuel savings, and the batteries to improve, which should make them lighter and more efficient.

How do you see this happening when you have already stated an opposition to plug-in hybrids? Without plug-in capability every mile driven in a hybrid, electric or ICE, was ultimately the result of burning fuel.

rorr · June 2006

"But we all can't afford the luxury diesel autos that do not solve any oil cartel cuts and so instead we currently have ethanol"

Yes, but NOW ethanol doesn't solve any oil cartel cuts either.

As I understand it, NOW we produce around 4.4 Billion gallons of ethanol a year. We consume around 140 Billion gallons of gasoline a year. So, right NOW we only meet a bit over 3% of our fuel needs from ethanol. Which tells me that NOW ethanol doesn't do squat to reduce our foreign dependency for oil.

I've seen projected production numbers for ethanol in the 8-10 Billion gallon/year range by 2010 (is this the 'dream future' you refer too?). Assuming an increase in demand for fuel in this country of roughly 2%, by 2010 the annual consumption of fuel would grow from 140 B gallons to around 150 B gallons. So even with 10B gallons of production of ethanol by 2010, that would still be less than 7% of our fuel needs.

And you'll note that even 10B gallons of ethanol doesn't even fill the requirements for the E10 mandate. NOW or in the 'dream future'.

gagrice · June 2006

Just a few figures to think about. According to Car & Driver the mandate is for 2.78% ethanol mix in all unleaded regular gas by 2012. That is an accumulative figure. So if we get those folks up in MN to use E20 it will lessen the amount needed in say Colorado. The mandate further states that we will produce 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. From my calculations that will not keep up with our increased usage as the DOE has projected. So that means in 2012 if we are able to grow enough corn to make 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol we will still need more Saudi oil than we need today.

Add to that if the current price of ethanol continues upward it will price itself out of existence long before 2012.

gagrice · June 2006

E85 arrives at co-op pumps
STACY LANGLEY, The Huron Daily Tribune
06/21/2006

The Cooperative Elevator Co. recently made a place for the ethanol-blend at its retail fueling stations in Ruth and Pigeon.

Tim Sielaff, vice president of petroleum for the Cooperative Elevator, said they went on-line offering E85 at the Ruth location on June 7, followed by the Pigeon location several days later. Today, all systems are a go.

Our customers can now pull in, fuel up and pull out with E85 in their tank, Sielaff said. Adding E85 is a move that I feel shows the commitment we have made to our growers by offering alternative fuels and biodiesels here at the co-op.

Weve been in the ethanol business for more than 30 years, offering ethanol products. And weve been in the biodiesel business for seven or maybe into our eighth year. Now we can say were the first ones in Huron County to offer E85 retail.

E85 FlexFuel vehicles can run on any combination of gasoline and/or E85, a fuel blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

Sielaff credits E85 as a move toward creating energy independence in the United States because it diversifies the source of transportation fuels beyond petroleum. And he said it provides positive environmental benefits in the form of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Using E85 is an option. Research has shown many owners of flexfuel vehicles are unaware their vehicles are capable of using E85, but recent strides are being made across the state to better inform consumers about E85, he said. We (the co-op) are currently working to purchase several vehicles that will use E85  right now we are in the bidding process to do so. Our gasoline pick-ups we are using now burn a 10 percent ethanol blend, and all of our diesel vehicles use biodiesel. Its important to us because of the investment the farmers are making in the co-op  we want to in return do everything we can by using the products and supporting the soybean and corn growers here.

The sales fleet Sielaff mentioned involves about a dozen vehicles.

Were working on trying to figure out exactly what we need. Right now our sales people use their own vehicles, and you cant tell someone what to do or what to burn in their own personal vehicles. We want to have all our own fleet that uses E85. We plan on labeling those vehicles and promoting the products made by many of our growers  promote corn and soybeans, he said. It makes sense financially to do this. We will have all the vehicles lettered letting people know they are E85 vehicles  just another opportunity to enhance our growers value.

As for value right now at the pump, Sielaff said the Co-op is offering E85 at a price slightly higher than unleaded gasoline. He said its simply a matter of supply and demand  there just isnt enough E85 to go around.

One reason is refineries have switched their production from winter-grade gas to cleaner burning ethanol-based summer grades. Nationwide theyve stopped using MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) and are switching to ethanol, which is more expensive to make and costs more to get from an ethanol plant to the pump.

Ethanol is expensive  its expensive to buy, its expensive to truck, Sielaff said. Right now at the pump in Ruth (and Pigeon) were selling it for $2.99 a gallon. The only reason we can do that is because we bought some prior to contracts expiring. Today our E85 is very close to the same price as no-lead. But if I had to go buy it today, it would be about 80 cents higher than no-lead. And at those prices I dont think there are many people who can afford E85 at rack price.

Were doing our best to find the best prices we can. We want to be able to provide this to our customers with the expectation that a year or two years down the road there will be more supply to meet the demand and the cost will come down.

Sielaff said that demand by other states across the nation for ethanol is yet another reason E85 is so costly.

Right now ethanol is the fuel oxygenate of choice for most refineries in the United States after a fierce battle with (MTBE). Oxygenates are chemicals added to gasoline to make them burn more efficiently, he said. The ethanol trend is good news for Michigan, because it is expected to create hundreds of jobs and spur millions of dollars of economic growth in areas that choose to produce and distribute the fuel.

A typical ethanol plant making 40 million gallons a year employs about 50 people.

Michigan is among the nation's leading corn producers with more than 257 million bushels a year. Currently Michigan Ethanol LLC in Caro is the lone ethanol plant in Michigan, producing 45 million gallons a year. Michigan still is 11th in the nation in terms of overall production  but not for long.

Sielaff said four more plants are on their way.

They are Great Lakes Ethanol in Riga, Superior Corn Products in Lake Odessa, Andersons Inc. in Albion and Marysville Ethanol of Marysville. All which are expected to come online within two years and combined produce more than 200 million gallons of ethanol a year.

When they can increase the supply, of course the price will go down. Right now they cant keep up with the demand for E85, Sielaff said. We get calls from all over the state for biodiesel and E85, now we can offer it at our retail locations. We can cater to the public, our fueling systems are designed to be unattended to help keep the costs down. We want to be able to set people who are interested in becoming customers up with a card, then all they have to do is pull up to our filling station, insert their card and fuel up.

Sielaff said the co-op also recently invested in the first biodiesel plant in Michigan (Michigan Biodiesel LLC) which will begin production in July.

Located in Van Buren County, its a 10 million gallon plant and has the versatility for using multiple feedstocks. Biodiesel is nontoxic, renewable, and biodegradable fuel produced from domestic resources such as soybeans. It is a cleaner burning fuel than petroleum.

Pat Anderson, chief executive officer of the Cooperative Elevator said the purpose of the minor investment of 1.176 percent in Michigan BioDiesel LLC is to have a viable interest in the biodiesel market and to promote the use of renewable fuels with agricultural products.

We did this is for the long-term investment in alternative fuels, Sielaff added. We actually made a cash investment in a biodiesel plant. There was a limit to the amount of stock that any one entity could own. We didnt purchase the maximum amount, and we surely would have liked to have purchased more. We feel biodiesel is important  being a totally grower-owned co-op it was important to use the products that come back to where they originate.

Instead of sending corn and soybeans away and not getting anything back, we want to reuse the products we

rorr · June 2006

Question for the forum:

I know that MTBE is being phased out as the favored oxygenate and ethanol is being used instead. I also know the Feds require some form of oxygenate be used.

But I was under the impression that with current fuel management systems in todays cars and trucks (with O2 sensors in the exhaust) that oxygenates do NOTHING to reduce pollution?

I found this regarding MTBE:

"Oxygen helps gasoline burn more completely, reducing tailpipe emissions from pre-1984 motor vehicles. In more modern vehicles, the emissions reduction is negligible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE

So, is the claim that E10 reduces emissions because ethanol is an oxygenate, OR because the ethanol displaces gasoline and ethanol itself burns cleaner?

Will ethanol E85 catch on in the US? Will we Live Green and Go Yellow?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles