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

gagrice · June 2006

because the ethanol displaces gasoline and ethanol itself burns cleaner?

Ethanol burns cleaner. The mandate uses the theory that MTBE needed replacing while in truth you have pointed out as has many other articles, modern engines do not need an oxygenate to burn clean. Of course there is still many scientists that question how clean is the process of growing corn and producing ethanol.

rockylee · June 2006

Hype or fuel solution?

from June 19th.

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/AUTO01/606190343/- - 1148/AUTO01

Rocky

rockylee · June 2006

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/AUTO01/606190364/- 1148

Rocky

gagrice · June 2006

Then there is ethanol, the heavily subsidized energy produced from crops like corn, soybeans and sunflowers. Ethanol producers receive a 51-cent-a-gallon federal subsidy, which cost the government $1.4 billion last year, and are protected from international ethanol imports by a 2.5% tariff and an import duty of 54 cents a gallon.

But it is not clear that ethanol is a good economic or energy bargain. Producing it requires diesel fuel for tractors to plant and harvest the corn and fertilizers, and pesticides to allow it to grow, so it takes about seven barrels of oil to produce eight barrels of corn-based ethanol. But then more truck or rail fuel is required to deliver it, since there are no pipelines from corn country to urban areas, making shipping ethanol about double the cost of shipping gasoline. In the end ethanol may be a more expensive fuel. Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) says there is no policy reason for ethanol: "If the ethanol producers and the corn growers weren't benefiting from this, we wouldn't be doing it."

WSJ opinion

socala4 · June 2006

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.

I agree that E85 is not ready for prime time, I've acknowledged this. Please note that I don't see E85 accomplishing much in the near- to medium-term unless production can be increased many times over, something that can't likely happen if corn is the primary biomass used to produce it.

"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.

As time evolves, I could see a dual system in which the battery is charged by either the motor or household current, but that was not the way to introduce the product.

Take a look at Toyota's brilliant marketing of the Prius, and it's obvious that using old-school EV technology was not going to woo the innovators and tastemakers, and probably turn them off completely, so it was critical to avoid any overt connection to the past-its-prime EV concept. (For a technology to be disruptive, it has to be significantly different, so associating it with a past flop was the last thing you'd want to do from a marketing standpoint.) But as hybrids become more popular among mass consumers and have no doubt that they work, they will likely then become more accepting of the plug-in as an added benefit to something that they already like. It was important in the beginning to completely differentiate the hybrids from the EV cars of the past, but at that point, the hybrid should be on solid ground in the marketplace.

tpe · June 2006

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that the vast majority of hybrid owners would welcome the ability to plug-in and derive some of their miles from grid power. In addition I suspect that there are many that crunch the numbers and conclude that hybrids, in their current form, don't make financial sense. That might not be the case if they could substitute 30 miles per day with grid power, which ends up costing the driver about 3 cents per mile. How much would this feature add to the price of a car?

I've read about a company that will start manufacturing NiMH batteries capable of providing 30 miles all electric range. These batteries will cost $4,000 and weigh 350 lbs. but they say that the weight and cost should drop as they refine the manufacturing process. When you consider that the battery pack that now exists on a Prius weighs over 100 lbs and costs over $1000 the price and weight difference becomes less. For a driver that commutes relatively short distances every day the additional cost of this feature could be recouped in a few years worth of gas savings. Toyota has stated that they have no intention of pursuing this because there is no interest from the public. I don't know what this position is based on but I doubt that Toyota has actually polled their customers or done much market research.

markcincinnati · June 2006

Hybrids (at least from Lexus) seem to be getting hotter and hotter every day. The Hybrid Lexus cars that provide no mileage benefit, do offer amazing feats of acceleration.

The performance lover in me loves this concept.

But I do wonder what this approach actually does toward decreasing our use of foreign oil (especially middle eastern oil.)

Now the new $100,000 Lexus hot rod, hyper lux, hybrid is announced and while I laud its features and performance (and recognize at that price range its quantity of customers will be limited), I again wonder what purpose with respect to energy this has. In some way, I guess there is an implied oil reduction, for to achieve the accelerative performance that the 600h offers (for instance) it would surely take a whole bunch more oil fired horsepower and torque.

Maybe the goal is to increase performance so that instead of measuring 0-60 in under 6 seconds, we can measure it in under 6 nano-seconds ("instant on?")

Hybrids, perhaps, to have a chance at being successful need to focus on the LPS and HE market first -- emphasizing smooth but brute force performance. Of course, that definition of success really has little to do with reducing anyone's dependency on oil (foreign or domestic.)

The Bosch link, I left above, suggests that diesel hybrids might be attractive because they do provide "the best of both worlds."

Well, maybe. But even with a 15% adoption (which despite my personal enthusiasm still seems unlikely -- but possible) the impact is more like three steps forward and 2.5 steps backward.

Oh well, I guess it will be spun to make that .5 step improvement seem huge.

Zoom zoom indeed.

I bet a hybrid luxobarge that can accelerate to 60mph in under 5 seconds would be a rush -- so I guess I'll just conclude with "don't knock it, until you've tried it" and hope someone wants me to try it. A $100,000 car is not the direction I want to go. :surprise:

Trickle down, anyone?

jae5 · June 2006

Ethanol Cost on the Rise

gagrice · June 2006

A gallon of ethanol was going for as much as $5.75 on East Coast spot markets, more than double the $2.54 that it fetched as recently as three months ago, says Tom Kloza, analyst for the Oil Price Information Service.

Prices vary around the country. At the SuperGas USA station in Rockford, Minn., owner Cal Ismail says E85 is getting more popular. He charges $2.39 a gallon, 30 cents less than regular gasoline at $2.69 a gallon. Although it's cheaper, motorists can't drive as far. The Energy Department says a motorist needs 1.4 gallons of E85 to travel the same distance as on a gallon of gas.

At an Exxon station in Columbia, S.C., owner Mike McMenamin says he has to charge $2.76 a gallon for E85, compared with $2.69 for regular. He says he's sometimes lucky to break even on E85 purchases.

"You can't expect the American consumer to buy ethanol if it's less miles per gallon and costs more. Even if you're the ultimate tree hugger, you won't do that," McMenamin says.

gagrice · June 2006

I bet a hybrid luxobarge that can accelerate to 60mph in under 5 seconds would be a rush

I think the whole Toyota hybrid story is a smoke screen. They came out with the unusual Prius and have limited the production to keep it from being over exposed. Mainly because it is a "Loss Leader". I am sure they are making money on the other hybrids that have come later. They still only appeal to the techno geek or HOV commuter. Lots of gadgets. I propose in 7-10 years when the gadgets get old and the repair costs are through the roof you will see a lot of unhappy Toyota owners. As an example one fellow posted he was charged $250 on his 2006 Prius when it ran out of gas. I guess it had to be reset by the dealer. Who ever heard of a car that is disabled when you run out of gas.

I think that all these alternatives are just flailing with no purpose or direction. What happened to simple solutions and American ingenuity?

captain2 · June 2006

the knock on diesels all these years - the clattering underpowered vehicles, the black smoke/odors. The VW Jetta TDI certainly not high priced, minimizes many of those historical objections, and will beat the pants off the hybrids in real world economy. Diesels, in recent years, (and thanks to the Europeans) have come a long way - drove a E320 and (almost) could not tell it was a diesel and it certainly sports the power that folks expect in cars these days. If we assume that there is a 30-40% fuel efficiency advantage for diesels is this not the most logical and achieveable way to reduce our fossil fuel dependence shorter term? The technology, production and distribution structure is already there. Ethanol may be out there in the future and it does need to be developed - but many of us may not live long enough to see it.

gagrice · June 2006

associating it with a past flop

Have you ever analyzed this supposed flop? Take a look at the motivation. First CA mandates ZEV cars will make up a percentage of all cars on CA roads. The Feds toss money at GM to come up with a solution. Very similar to the current E85 boondoggle. 6 million FFVs and a handful of stations selling E85. With the current ethanol price at around 5 bucks a gallon how many people will even consider filling with E85. No dealer in the country is selling E85 cheap enough to make up for the loss of mileage. If it were not for government vehicles using E85 not much would be sold.

One good thing came out of the Electric Vehicle mandate. NiMH batteries were developed by GM and associates. To me it was not a flop as it was never given a chance in the market place. The cars were only leased in the 3 metro areas of CA. The home hookup was a costly $3000 device and the commercial power locations were riff with problems. To me the flop was a direct result of government trying to force something that was not ready for prime time. It probably set the EV back 30 years. Kind of like the GM diesel engine of the 1980s. Technology advances better when market driven not government mandated.

snakeweasel · June 2006

The performance lover in me loves this concept.

Same here except when I sit in traffic in my commute I ask myself is high performance really worth it. A car that does 0-60 in under 5 seconds can't outrun a car that does it in 10 seconds in a rush hour grid lock.

Maybe the goal is to increase performance so that instead of measuring 0-60 in under 6 seconds, we can measure it in under 6 nano-seconds ("instant on?")

That is rather humorous in itself, but the reality of going from 0-60 in 6 nano seconds would most likely kill the driver and all occupants.

I bet a hybrid luxobarge that can accelerate to 60mph in under 5 seconds would be a rush -- so I guess I'll just conclude with "don't knock it, until you've tried it" and hope someone wants me to try it. A $100,000 car is not the direction I want to go.

if you want 0-60 in under 5 seconds you can get several alternatives and save yourself 10's of thousands of dollars to boot.

tpe · June 2006

GM, Toyota, Ford and all the other auto manufacturers aggressively tried to overturn the ZEV mandate as soon as it came out. One of their strongest arguments was that the demand just didn't exist and they used their sales figures to back this up. So GM leased about 800 EV1s but had a waiting list of 5,000 people that wanted to buy/lease them. This does not reflect a national market but, I believe, only CA and AZ. And from what I've heard and read they did almost nothing in the way of marketing this vehicle. So now they were in the position of testifying before policy makers and stating that over the years they have only been able to sell 800 of these things, which clearly supports their position that almost nobody wants them. In retrospect I think it was unfortunate for GM because it represented an area where they actually had a competitive advantage. I've heard it mentioned that GM has primarily become a health care provider that has to sell cars to finance this.

One of the producers for the soon to be released "Who Killed the Electric Car" is also a former owner of an EV1. When his lease expired he offered to buy the car outright for $200,000. He was refused and the GM representative said these cars were all destined for Universities and other research facilities. Not the case. They went to AZ to be crushed. In Edmund's article about this movie the GM chief states one of his biggest regrets is dropping the EV program. His opinion is probably based on some insight that most of us don't posess.

smatt11 · June 2006

you can get a Ford Focus ~$25k modified by Saleen or Rousch and get 0-60 times around 5.4 seconds. Rousch and Saleen have much higher quality than Toyota as well.

socala4 · June 2006

Have you ever analyzed this supposed flop?

I have, and the issue has nothing to do with CARB or some great conspiracy.

Enough of the rhetoric -- tell me a single time within the last fifty years when a large segment of Americans wanted diesel cars.

Of course, you know the answer: there isn't a single time when Americans wanted large quantities of diesel cars. Not once. Even when the regulations played no role whatsoever.

markcincinnati · June 2006

What other LARGE luxury car can do this (under 5 seconds) that costs $10,000's of dollars less?

My beloved Audi W12 cannot, the S8 V10 cannot. The RS6 isn't out yet and regardless would probably cost close to 100K.

I was, mostly, joking, since a $100,000 car wouldn't be on my radar screen, unless it was purchased with OPM. Not likely, I'd wager.

The thing about all these alternative technologies is that to succeed I believe they have to trickle down from the flagship cars.

The Prius is either the second or third "worst car" in the world based on its DRIVING characteristics, not its DRIVE-LINE characteristics or "motivation."

I saw a test report of the Prius and it apparently has almost not capability of cornering at any speed above a crawl unless it is on dry pavement. You couldn't even give one to me, unless I thought I could turn it around and sell it -- and, even then I would be worried that I would be selling a car that would make even Ralph Nader long for a Corvair.

None of the preceding has anything to do, of course, with hybrid technology. The Prius, if ever there was a car that could kill a potentially decent approach to a problem, is that car.

Lexus is getting its act together -- it just strikes me as odd that the cars they are putting on the market really can make no claim to improving our use of fossil fuel.

socala4 · June 2006

I believe that the vast majority of hybrid owners would welcome the ability to plug-in and derive some of their miles from grid power.

At this point, I'd say that it's true today for the Prius, and probably will soon be true for the more conventional cars. If it didn't have any accompanying downsides, you could probably introduce them in the next generation and gain consumer acceptance.

It has been, in part, an issue of timing, it would have been too soon to do it before the product gained popularity. But now that the product has generated both buzz and actual sales in significant numbers, the tie-in to older EV's is not as risky, and may even be a plus.

There is a company that will be introducting a conversion package in the UK, but it is expensive (well over US$20k at introduction) and requires extra batteries. They are reporting getting over 105 mpg (US gallons) with this in place. Could be an interesting prototype, if it works.

smatt11 · June 2006

I do not believe any of the articles I read from authors that are not using e85 themselves. Their writings just do not match my real world facts. They always find the one station owner that cannot make a profit on e85, and has to seel it for $5/gal, and a couple of car owners that say thier mileage is terrible. I have a good feeling these owners or writers are lying, because a number of Ford and Chevy vehicles are difficult to start when running e85. This fact is never mentioned, and I would think more important than a minor drop in efficiency (which by the way is pretty much eliminated when using a turbo or supersharger on the engine). If you are against e85, I recommend dropping the mileage debate and move on to more pratical items such as transportation of the fuel.

Maybe it is different on the coasts where e85 is scarce, but in MN, we have over 100 stations. I even found one in Cohasset, population 2476, right on US hwy 2.

In my neighborhood it is $2.39 for a gallon of e85 and $2.85 for gas. It was better in Cohasset where e85 was

My Taurus gets 20mpg on e85, 22 mpg on gas. that is 1.1 gallons of e85 for every gallon of gas, so I am saving about $0.22 for every gallon of e85 I am using. Gas would have to be 2.63 (2.39*1.1) for me to break even.

Since I am saving $0.22 per gallon, I am saving a lot of money...$165 this year alone (or five tanks of gas). I have driven over 15k miles with e85 and ~10k miles on gas (before I knew it could use e85), so I know the mileage numbers are very accurate.

The only problem I have ever had is the octane rating is over 100 for e85, and the Taurus's computer is such a piece of crap (it is a Ford) it cannot tell that the octane is so much higher than 87, so it takes a couple of cranks to start. However, once it starts, it runs fine.

snakeweasel · June 2006

What other LARGE luxury car can do this (under 5 seconds) that costs $10,000's of dollars less?

My beloved Audi W12 cannot, the S8 V10 cannot. The RS6 isn't out yet and regardless would probably cost close to 100K.

I am surprised an Audi W12 cannot. Anyway my Caddy can beat 5 seconds (but its an entry level size and not "large" and is in the low $50's) and I know that the STS-V can also beat that mark too and thats only $75K. I would expect the BMW 7 series to be in that area and the start in the low $70's. And I do believe that MB has a few AMG's that can do it starting in the low $80's (but not sure if they are considered full size).

tpe · June 2006

There is a company that will be introducting a conversion package in the UK, but it is expensive (well over US$20k at introduction)

There are companies that have been doing the same thing in this country. The price I've read is under $12k, which is still too expensive for the mainstream. The biggest downside is that Toyota will void your warranty, which I find excessive. I can understand them not backing any part of the car that you've modified but other than that, IMO, it should still be covered.

http://calcars.org/

The mileage 100+ mpg claims are a little misleading because they suggest you have magically achieved this astonishing level of efficiency when all you've done is replace gas power with some grid power. Still a good deal just somewhat distorted. Theoretically by their methodology you could achieve infinite miles per gallon if you limited your speed and distances driven.

seniorjose · June 2006

Of course there is still many scientists that question how clean is the process of growing corn and producing ethanol.

There are many bloggers and anti-americans who have kicked in with their opinions, but there are almost zero people with any real credentials that dispute the growing of corn and the production of ethanol.

Instead of assisting and helping all Americans to try to get some form of energy independence from the dictator oil cartels...it is business as usual, no alternative fuels are good enough or scientific facts are creditable enough. Biodiesel might be ok, but I am sure that biodiesel fuel will be rationed to our diesel trucking industry not some experimental diesel auto.

Corn crops here where I am look like a bumper crop this year and estimates in this state show a 20% increase in yield over last year's semi-drought conditions in the midwest -- Illinois was a disaster for corn production last year...this year looks great.

seniorjose · June 2006

Posted 6/21/2006 11:23 PM ET By Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY
Ethanol prices are hitting record levels this week, adding to the cost of gasoline as the nation heads into the peak vacation driving season.
A gallon of ethanol was going for as much as $5.75 on East Coast spot markets, more than double the $2.54 that it fetched as recently as three months ago, says Tom Kloza, analyst for the Oil Price Information Service.

Ethanol, grain alcohol usually distilled from corn in the USA, is added to gasoline to create a more environmentally friendly fuel required during the summer in many major cities. Ethanol has gradually replaced MTBE, a petroleum-based additive thought to cause cancer, as the lower-polluting alternative. And demand has outstripped supply.

With ethanol prices so high, the 10% of ethanol in reformulated gasoline, as the blend is called, could add about 30 cents a gallon to the cost of gas, Kloza says."In general, I think we are going to see the highest prices for gas that we've ever seen" this summer, he says. Reason: high demand. "People tend to take July and August vacations regardless of the price of fuel."

Unleaded gas averaged $2.85 a gallon Wednesday, down about 3 cents from a month ago but up from $2.16 a gallon a year ago, according to AAA. Prices peaked post-Katrina on Sept. 5 at $3.06 a gallon.

After summer, ethanol prices could fade. Demand will fall as the season for reformulated gas ends. And 33 new ethanol plants are to be completed by year's end, says Michelle Kautz, spokeswoman for the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, an industry group.
So far, zooming ethanol prices aren't making costs spike for E85 fuel, the 85% ethanol/15% gasoline blend touted as an alternative to cut America's dependence on foreign oil. Kautz says many retailers negotiated prices with suppliers in advance to hold down costs to owners of the 6 million vehicles that can burn E85.

Prices vary around the country. At the SuperGas USA station in Rockford, Minn., owner Cal Ismail says E85 is getting more popular. He charges $2.39 a gallon, 30 cents less than regular gasoline at $2.69 a gallon. Although it's cheaper, motorists can't drive as far. The Energy Department says a motorist needs 1.4 gallons of E85 to travel the same distance as on a gallon of gas.

At an Exxon station in Columbia, S.C., owner Mike McMenamin says he has to charge $2.76 a gallon for E85, compared with $2.69 for regular. He says he's sometimes lucky to break even on E85 purchases.

"You can't expect the American consumer to buy ethanol if it's less miles per gallon and costs more. Even if you're the ultimate tree hugger, you won't do that," McMenamin says.

seniorjose · June 2006

At today's prices, ethanol doesn't need this subsidy
Trim back federal aid to reflect oil market realities

By DAVID MORRIS

CONGRESS is considering several bills to extend the 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit for ethanol producers beyond its 2010 expiration date. But let's hope that our elected representatives don't make their decision in the grips of an ethanol haze. The state of the ethanol industry has changed so substantially since the last extension, one year ago, that a fundamental and clearheaded redesign is in order.

Sky-high oil prices and a national ethanol mandate have undermined the rationale for incentives. With oil at $60 a barrel, ethanol can compete with gasoline without federal subsidies. For much of 2005, oil prices approached or surpassed the $60 level. In recent months, they've hovered near $70.

Last year, Congress ordered a near doubling of ethanol sales by 2012. Industry has responded so rapidly that the nation may have enough capacity to meet the congressional goal by 2008. Indeed, Congress is already debating measures to increase mandated levels to 10 billion gallons in 2010 and 30 billion in 2020.

If the current 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit remains in place, these mandates would cost the Treasury Department $5 billion in 2010 and more than $15 billion in 2020. In the face of high oil prices, such subsidy levels are likely to prove politically untenable when there's no need for tax credits to make ethanol competitive.

Moreover, the rapidly changing structure of the ethanol industry argues for an entirely different kind of incentive. In 2003, some 50 percent of all ethanol refineries and perhaps 80 percent of all proposed plants were controlled by farmers, with an average annual output of about 40 million gallons each. But now, around 80 percent of new ethanol production is coming from plants controlled by absentee owners that produce 100 million to 125 million gallons.

As farmer and ethanol refinery have become delinked, so have biofuels policy and agricultural policy. True, the increased demand for ethanol has benefited farmers, but only modestly, raising the price of a bushel of corn by 10 cents to 15 cents. But when the farmer is also an owner in the refinery, he or she receives annual dividends averaging about 50 cents a bushel and more than $1 a bushel in very profitable years.

Farmer-owners can also use an ethanol plant as a hedge against a drop in the price of their raw material. If the price of corn falls, so does the production cost of ethanol; all other things being equal, refinery profits and therefore dividends will rise.

How might Washington redesign the federal incentive to reflect the realities of an increasingly competitive absentee-owned, large-scale ethanol industry?

First, tie incentive levels to an index composed of the price of a bushel of corn and the wholesale price of a gallon of gasoline. (A similar index can be developed for biodiesel or cellulose-derived ethanol.)

Such an incentive would honor the nation's commitment to both farmers and taxpayers.

The farmer-producer would be protected if the price of oil plunged or the price of corn (or soybeans or cellulose) jumped. The taxpayer would be protected from having to underwrite handsome subsidies when the biofuels industry no longer needs them.

Second, transform part of the federal incentive from a gas tax exemption for those who market the ethanol into a direct payment to those who produce it. Minnesota did this in the 1980's, turning an incentive for consumption into one for production.

The new federal producer payment should encourage locally owned ethanol plants while not being a continual drain on federal resources. A payment of 15 cents per gallon for the first 20 million gallons produced each year might be offered to an absentee-owned plant with payment increasing to 25 cents a gallon if the majority of a plant's owners were farmers or local residents. No plant should be able to receive payments for more than 10 years.

Drastically changed times call for a drastically changed federal biofuels incentive, one that minimizes the long-term costs to America's taxpayers while maximizing the long-term benefits to our rural communities and farmers.

Morris, based in Minneapolis, is the vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

seniorjose · June 2006

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that the vast majority of hybrid owners would I welcome the ability to plug-in and derive some of their miles from grid power. In addition I suspect that there are many that crunch the numbers and conclude that hybrids, in their current form, don't make financial sense. That might not be the case if they could substitute 30 miles per day with grid power, which ends up costing the driver about 3 cents per mile. How much would this feature add to the price of a car?

Hybrid owners are getting a bit panicky, the 20-30% price premium hurts all hybrid owners. The other day there was a Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid for sale in the Honda Used car lot. The salesman stated that the owners were trying to recoup some of their premium costs and to alleviate some of their fears about the cost of repairs and maintenance. They were for sale, but my salesman steered me away from them because of hybrids inherent problems. maybe someday...!

A renewable fuel electrical recharge system would help the commuter hybrid market. To really keep it clean, it would be a great idea around here because the auto could charge up from our local Nuclear Power plant or from the grid that is powered by the wind farms in western Iowa. It sure is nice when I am going fishing in the Nuclear Plant's recreational lake and not see any smoke or pollutants from the plant.

socala4 · June 2006

They were for sale, but my salesman steered me away from them because of hybrids inherent problems.

Based upon reliability surveys, these cars have been highly reliable. They may not prove to be durable over the long run, but it's too soon to tell.

seniorjose · June 2006

AMES, Iowa: This press release issued by EurekAlert says that they're only 250 billionths of a meter in diameter. But fill them with the right chemistry and Iowa State scientists say the tiny nanospheres they've developed could revolutionize how biodiesel is produced.

The researchers are after a new, high-tech catalyst that takes some of the energy, labor and toxic chemicals out of biodiesel production. They've come up with a technology that works in the laboratory. And now they're working with the West Central Cooperative in Ralston to test their discoveries on a larger scale. They're also working to establish a company that would move the new technology into biorefineries.

The Iowa State research team is led by Victor Lin, an associate professor of chemistry. The team also includes George Kraus and John Verkade, both University Professors of chemistry at Iowa State. The researchers are part of Iowa State's Center for Catalysis.

Their project is being supported by a $1.8 million, three-year grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a $120,000, two-year grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and a $140,000 grant from the Grow Iowa Values Fund.

"This is a project that's definitely relevant to the state's economy," Lin said. "I thought as a scientist I could contribute something to the state."

Current biodiesel production technology reacts soy oil with methanol using toxic, corrosive and flammable sodium methoxide as a catalyst. Getting biodiesel out of the chemical mixture requires acid neutralization, water washes and separation steps. It's a tedious process that dissolves the catalysts so they can't be used again, Lin said.

So Lin and his research team started looking for technologies that would create an easier, more efficient and more economical process. They were also hoping to find technologies that would effectively make biodiesel out of raw materials such as used restaurant oils and animal fats  materials that are much cheaper than soy oil, but also contain free fatty acids that can't be converted to biodiesel by current production methods.

tpe · June 2006

Lexus is getting its act together -- it just strikes me as odd that the cars they are putting on the market really can make no claim to improving our use of fossil fuel

I guess that all depends on how you look at it. The Lexus hybrid is rated at 25/28 city/hwy mpg. I'll make the assumption that this person would have also been interested in the Lexus GS430 rated at 17/25. He probably wasn't in the market for any 30+ mpg vehicles. This driver will save essentially as much fuel per 100 miles driven as the person who chose a Prius over a Corolla. In addition you are now targeting the people that are not willing to sacrifice performance for fuel efficiency. Of course this is also based on the assumption that hybrids achieve their EPA mileage ratings, which we all know they don't.

seniorjose · June 2006

Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 22, 2006 12:00 AM

Biodiesel might fuel the path to energy independence, but it doesn't merit a stop at the tax-break rest stop.

So lawmakers decided Wednesday as they killed a bill that would have reduced property taxes for biodiesel-fuel plants.

It was unclear whether anyone is proposing to build such a plant, and state senators were equally unclear on many of the potential consequences of granting favorable tax status to biodiesel production. advertisement

Others lamented the death of a bill that would have further reduced a corporate property tax.

Biodiesel is a blend of diesel fuel and vegetable oil that burns cleaner than pure diesel fuel. Its big claim to fame is that it can be made from castoff french-fry grease.

Senate President Ken Bennett voted for the bill, saying it would be a step toward weaning America off foreign oil.

"I don't produce biodiesel in my business, but I do sell it," said Bennett, a Prescott Republican who runs a family oil business.

"I support energy independence, and I vote 'aye.' "

The bill would have allowed biodiesel plants to be assessed for taxes at 5 percent of their full cash value. Most businesses are assessed at a much higher rate, currently 24.5 percent.

Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, pointed out what he felt were vaguely defined criteria for reaping the tax break, and questioned whether he could get a break if he blended fryer grease with diesel fuel on a vacant lot.

Sen. Robert Blendu, R-Litchfield Park, lamented the bill's demise.

"We just failed a corporate property tax here," he said. Such failures, he said, are a key reason why Arizona has trouble attracting a strong manufacturing base.

"I am hopeful this bill will come back next year, or a (broader) corporate property tax bill," he said.

seniorjose · June 2006

Biodiesel is a domestically produced, renewable fuel that can be manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant greases. Biodiesel is safe, biodegradable, and reduces serious air pollutants such as particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and air toxics. Blends of 20% biodiesel with 80% petroleum diesel (B20) can generally be used in unmodified diesel engines; however, users should consult their OEM and engine warranty statement. Biodiesel can also be used in its pure form (B100), but it may require certain engine modifications to avoid maintenance and performance problems and may not be suitable for wintertime use. Users should consult their engine warranty statement.

markcincinnati · June 2006

If we were NOT running out of oil, would we be pursuing other forms of energy presumably for the air pollution reduction?

The question, if you believe the Rand Study, may not be as far fetched or hypothetical as it may seem at first blush.

For, what if, instead of spending so much of our capital on Ethanol and Diesel and Bio this and hybrid that, we spent our money (or more of it) to determine the feasibility of getting our known oil into our vehicles (and other uses?)

Is this a "we're running out of stuff arguement or a pollution argument?" The pollution argument seems to be getting us nowhere as the use of E85 seems to be heading in the direction of being insignificant to reducing pollution, to say nothing of the folks who claims there are few, if any, pollution benefits to using E85 in the first place.

So, if we had "long range" access to oil would we be attempting this for the purpose of cleaning up the joint?

Just wondering what impact "no shortage" (more or less) would make. Or is it higher prices rather than shortage that is driving all of this (no pun intended?)

The report by the RAND Environment, Energy and Economic Development program says that between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion barrels of oil are technically recoverable from high-grade oil shale deposits located in the Green River geological formation, covering parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

The mid-point of the RAND estimate  800 billion barrels  is three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. This is enough oil to meet 25 percent of America's current oil demand for the next 400 years.

The benefits of a competitive oil shale industry are substantial. For an output of 3 million barrels per day, the study estimates direct economic benefits of about $20 billion per year. Federal, state and local governments would receive about half of this amount in the form of lease payments, royalties and taxes.

Production at 3 million barrels per day also could likely cause oil prices to fall by 3 to 5 percent, saving American oil consumers roughly $15 billion to $20 billion annually, according to the report. A multimillion-barrel per day oil shale industry could also create several hundred thousand jobs in the United States.

The study further states:

The RAND report recommends that the U.S. government take the following low-cost steps to advance oil shale development, even before the long-term future of oil shale is determined:

Add oil shale to the Department of Energy's research and development portfolio.

Establish a national oil shale archive to hold and preserve information on oil shale resources, technologies and impacts of development.

Analyze lease program implementation options, such as combining adjacent lease tracts and fostering extensive resource recovery in lease tracts.

When private firms are willing to invest in oil shale development without appreciable government subsidy, government decision-makers should address core environmental, leasing policy and oil shale development issues, according to the study. The report recommends that the federal government should then:

Develop and implement a research plan to establish options for mitigating ecological damage.

Conduct research aimed at mathematically modeling the subsurface environment, along with long-term hydrological, geochemical and geophysical monitoring programs.

Conduct research aimed at establishing and analyzing options for long-term spent shale disposal.
Model regional air quality to determine preferred locations for federal leasing and to inform decisions on air quality permits for initial plants.

Develop a federal oil shale leasing strategy for the Green River Formation.

So, lots of "proven" quantity. So, lots of potential risks (and rewards). So, it may become economically possible sooner rather than later.

Sounds like a combination of events and circumstances that, if history is any guide, will motivate us to go for the high fat content stuff rather than the lo cal stuff (if you get my drift.)

How many of the billions spent on E and H and D and BD and EV and a partridge in a pear tree if spent on development of known reserves would compress time?

And, perhaps more importantly, do we want to use oil even if we found a thousand, million, trillion bbl reserve?

Give me strength. E85 seems like using $20 bills to keep your house warm -- THUS FAR. Who would do such a thing, especially if the stuff is made from FOOD, not waste by-products or other non food biomass?

fireball1 · June 2006

There are many bloggers and anti-americans who have kicked in with their opinions, but there are almost zero people with any real credentials that dispute the growing of corn and the production of ethanol.

Instead of assisting and helping all Americans to try to get some form of energy independence from the dictator oil cartels...it is business as usual, no alternative fuels are good enough or scientific facts are creditable enough. Biodiesel might be ok, but I am sure that biodiesel fuel will be rationed to our diesel trucking industry not some experimental diesel auto.

Corn crops here where I am look like a bumper crop this year and estimates in this state show a 20% increase in yield over last year's semi-drought conditions in the midwest -- Illinois was a disaster for corn production last year...this year looks great.

This has been covered a kazillion times before on this forum/thread. I live in Nebraska, I know farmers, ag economists, water experts and farm group leaders, and I can write it in stone that there are environmental consequences to growing corn. This is not even in dispute among the farmers who grow it. Without the federal price supports and the cheap prices they pay for irrigation water, they're growing something else.

And, if we keep upping the ante on corn for ethanol, it will not be long before food prices head upward, too. That is a given in the market -- when and how much is uncertain, but it will indeed happen.

socala4 · June 2006

Is this a "we're running out of stuff arguement or a pollution argument?"

It's a bit of both, plus it's a political argument (resource dependency on anti-western fragile dictatorships in the Muslim world is a dangerous thing.)

Unfortunately, we are so dependent on fossil fuels for so many things in so many places, we have to accept the reality that we are going to be burning this stuff for many years to come.

Hence, I think that the short-to-medium term solutions rest in (a) discouraging people from using it, (b) getting what we do use to use it more efficiently, and (c) using technologies to stretch more use out of it and to make it less harmful.

The medium- to long-term should include aggressive R&D to find alternative versions of the same stuff, or completely new technologies to replace the technologies of old, but this will take a long time. We really ought to start yesterday, but even if we do, it will take time, particularly if you expect the free market to do it. (The free market has little incentive to clean the air without regulatory pressure, for example.)

What might be best would be to have our governments in the west jointly form a sort of Manhattan Project for energy. But we don't seem to have the political will, foresight, budgets or guts to do it.

tpe · June 2006

This article has sounds somewhat promising. However it discounts corn based ethanol so it must have been written by someone that is anti-American.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/21/news/economy/cellulose_ethanol/index.htm

fireball1 · June 2006

I apologize for the length below, but I could not quickly find a link. I received this as a PDF document earlier this week. Print it out and read it when you get a few minutes. Only the second half deals with ethanol from corn. This is an opinion, to be sure, but a convincing one.

Vol.1 No. 24
Peak Oil Review
June 19, 2006 Tom Whipple, Editor
1. The International Energy Agency
Given the tightness in the oil markets, the release of the International Energy Agencys Oil Market Report (OMR) has become an event that drives oil prices and leads to much commentary. As the IEA only has two weeks to assemble and assess the previous month's data before releasing the report, subsequent revisions to the OMRs initial production numbers are frequent.

Last month, for example, the OMR had world oil production climbing to a new high of 85.1 million barrels per day during April. This month the OMR has May total world production climbing by 445,000 b/d to 85.0 million b/d. This, of course, implies that the last months production number was too high and has been revised downward. The May production increase is said to have taken place despite numerous well-sourced press reports of lower Saudi production during the last two months.

The Agency also has reduced its forecast for growth in demand during 2006 to 1.24 million barrels a day, down about 30 percent from its growth estimate in January.

Over the longer run, the IEA forecasts that world oil demand will rise 37 percent by 2030 to 115 million barrels a day from about 85 million today. However, it has concluded that because OPEC does not appear to be investing as much in production as expected, global oil supplies probably won't reach the agency's 115-million-barrel target for 2030.

2. The Mexican election.
The result of Mexicos Presidential Election on July 2 nd is likely to play a major role in the future of the Mexican oil industry and its exports to the US, currently some 1.6 million b/d. The key issue is how to replace looming declines from the 2 million b/d production from the giant Cantarell oil field.

Conservative Presidential candidate Felipe Calderon had been pushing the idea that Mexico's only solution is to change the law to allow partnerships with foreign oil companies to exploit deep-water deposits, something the Mexicans cannot do by themselves. However, he recently has backed off on allowing foreign investment.

Leftist candidate Andres Obrador, who is running about even with Calderon in the polls, opposes the policy change and does not want deep-water drilling. He favors building more oil refineries and chemical plants, and lowering gas prices to help the poor.

Neither candidate appears to have a policy that will offset the decline of Cantarell in the next few years. Even if foreign partnerships were allowed, deep-water drilling would take years to yield significant results. Mexico City-based industry analyst David Shields predicts Mexican oil productioncould fall from 3.35 million barrels per day to as little as 2.8 million barrels per day within two or three years, if nothing is done.

3. BPs 2006 Statistical Review of World Energy
U.S. energy use declined last year for the first time in 20 years, while the rate of increase in consumption worldwide slowed, BP PLC reported Wednesday in its annual survey of global trends. U.S. consumption fell 0.1 percent, BP said, due to high prices and the impact of hurricanes. The U.S. Department of Energy had previously reported a drop of 0.4 percent in U.S. oil consumption during 2005.

Worldwide, 2005 energy consumption growth was up 2.7 percent, down from a 20-year high of 4.4 percent in 2004, BP said. China's consumption increased 9.5 percent compared to a 15.5 percent rise in the previous year, the report said.

The report said coal was the world's fast-growing energy source, almost entirely because of China's enormous consumption. The nation, which burns 36.9 percent of the world's coal, increased consumption by 10.9 percent in 2005, down from 14.4 percent in 2004. BP said global oil consumption rose 1.3 percent last year, compared to a 3.6 percent rise in 2004.

4. Energy Briefs
Offshore oil and gas drilling contractor GlobalSantaFe said it has signed a contract with Saudi Aramco to provide four jack-up rigs for four-year terms commencing in the first half of 2007. The Saudi Aramco agreement is believed to be the largest jackup agreement in the history of the offshore drilling industry.
Japan consumes 22 percent of Iranian oil exports and is slated to begin development this year of the largest and most modern onshore petroleum fields built in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Last month Japan's producer prices rose the fastest in 25 years on surging fuel and commodity costs.
Thailands demand for diesel is down 9% over the last 12 months. Crude oil imports during January-May this year fell 1.9 per cent to 831,000 barrels daily, compared to the same period of 2005.
China's imports of crude oil leapt 19 percent in May from a year earlier. The Chinese plan to cut fuel exports for a fourth consecutive month to meet domestic demand. The number of civilian vehicles on China's roads rose 21 percent last year to 43.29 million, the National Bureau of Statistics said in February.
The Uppsala University Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group has examined a crash program scenario for the Canadian oil sand industry. Even in a very optimistic scenario, Canada's oil sands will not prevent Peak Oil. If a crash program were immediately implemented it may only barely offset the combined declining conventional crude oil production in Canada and the North Sea.
There were 101 US ethanol-processing plants online in early June plus 40 more under construction. Ethanol futures prices still climbed from $2.70 in early May to $4.50 by mid-June. (A gallon of ethanol contains roughly 30% less energy than a gallon of gasoline.)

Commentary: Ethanol from Corn
A Contrarian Investors View of the Potential
By E. Brian Smyth
(Note: Commentaries do not necessarily represent ASPO-USAs positions; they are personal statements and observations by informed commentators.)

Ethanol fever is sweeping the land. A boomtown atmosphere has gripped the farm belt, in a manner that has not been seen there in a long time. With gas at the pump stubbornly fixed at $3 per gallon, the time seems to be right for ethanol. Lobbyists are in full battle dress. Washington is showering billions in tax incentives. GM has launched a Be Green, Go Yellow campaign. Over 200 ethanol plants are sprouting up all over the Midwest, many financed directly by farmer co-ops and private placements.

PowerPoint presentations and press releases now breathlessly proclaim that ethanol can provide 25% of our liquid fuel needs by 2025. The ethanol consensus is so great that it has brought together automakers and union leaders, national security strategists and environmentalist

tpe · June 2006

The debate about how much oil is left really comes down to who you think has the best crystal ball. You can find people with impressive credentials that will provide the whole gamut of answers to this question. I have no clue who is right. My only opinion on the matter is that if we aren't 100% sure it is probably prudent to err on the side of caution. By that I mean if we replace our oil usage with something else in the next 30 years only to find out we had vast reserves of oil left there isn't much harm done. On the other hand if we procede on the assumption of plentiful, yet to be discovered reserves and end up being wrong the consequences will be severe.

I, personally, would like to see a transition to EVs even if there was unlimited supplies of cheap oil. They are 3 times as efficient as an ICE, much lower maintenance, potentially much faster than ICE vehicles, and offer home recharging capability, maybe even home-grown recharging. Another plus is that it allows auto designers greater flexibility in terms of design because they can start from what represents a skateboard platform as opposed to having to build around a large engine. I've said it a million times on this thread, I believe EVs are the future. How fast we get there depends a lot on how long gas stays expensive.

gearhead4 · June 2006

With the ethenol subsidies and high oil prices, I don't understand why E85 fuel is so hard to find.
To locate E85 fuel, I needed to search the web and then drive out of my way to fill up with the alternative fuel.
I have not done a controlled test yet, but the word on the street is ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so MPG will be adversly affected. But I am still willing to use it for the following reasons:
Ethanol comes from renewable resources.
Ethanol helps keep the fuel system clean.
Ethanol helps keep the air clean.
Anytyhing that will help agriCULTURE (family owned and operated farms) is good...
this is exclusive of agriBUSINESS (corporate run farms) which leave alot to be desired.

But my original question still remains ... Why is E85 so hard to find? I have been driving E85 capable vehicles for 12 years. There are millions of them on the road today that have never been run on E85.
Perhaps the answer is promotion by an energy retailer that has a trusted and familiar name.

gearhwed4

socala4 · June 2006

I've said it a million times on this thread, I believe EVs are the future. How fast we get there depends a lot on how long gas stays expensive.

But you still haven't addressed the range and refueling problem, aside from claiming that it doesn't matter, even though the market clearly doesn't agree with that position. There's no question that electric cars work to some degree, but they don't work well enough to provide benefit to the consumer.

The batteries are another barrier, although I presume that R&D related to hybrids will ultimately lead to a solution to this problem. There hasn't been much incentive to spur great leaps forward in battery technology, but hybrids ought to be popular enough to offer the needed kicker.

Despite its complexity, the hybrid is a good concept, because it hurdles the main barriers of a pure EV while providing a lot of the benefits. My sense is that hybrids will evolve so that the internal combustion engine does relatively less work than it does today, which will effectively do the same thing. It also serves as a good platform for evolving other products that could eventually use hybrids, such as heavy trucks that run on a combination of diesel/B20 and hybrid technology.

rorr · June 2006

"But my original question still remains ... Why is E85 so hard to find?"

We consume around 140 Billion gallons of gasoline per year, and currently produce around 4.4 Billion gallons of ethanol. So total ethanol production = a smidge over 3% of our gasoline usage.

I don't have the numbers, but I'd wager that much more ethanol is earmarked for E10 production since MTBE is being phased out as an allowed oxegenate in gasoline. Therefore, you don't have much ethanol 'left over' for E85.

tpe · June 2006

There's no one car that is ideal for everyone. In most cases today's EVs would represent a second car that would suffice for probably 90% of the trips a person needs to take. I would gladly accept the utility of the EV1 that was discontinued in 2002. I've got to believe had GM continued in earnest with this car it would only be better today. I read today that Toyota has modified their position on plug-in EVs. That's good because while I don't like the idea of multiple drive systems it is probably the next step in the evolution toward EVs.

http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/news,view.spy?artid=63626&pg=1

seniorjose · June 2006

Is this a "we're running out of stuff argument or a pollution argument?" The pollution argument seems to be getting us nowhere as the use of E85 seems to be heading in the direction of being insignificant to reducing pollution, to say nothing of the folks who claims there are few, if any, pollution benefits to using E85 in the first place.

Ethanol does reduce air pollution to a significant extent, but I agree with you that the oil shortages and prices being set by the dictator oil cartel is driving the renewable fuels position of the United States. We started down this path in the 1970s and got sidetracked by the then presidents who did not want to disturb the status quo. We have now reached the point that renewable fuels delevoped and manufactured in the United States are necessary, in whatever form, to cut our dependence on the dictators oil cartel. This time was coming and now it is here. Costs of the renewable fuels are in a large part, irrelevant. There will be dislocations in availability and prices, of course, that is the normal flow of any business model that uses renewable fuels. But we will not be caught up like Europe that charges $5-$6 a gallon fuel...Europe uses these terribly highly taxed fuels to propel their socialist economies, which we do not. Our democracy does not provide the womb to tomb benefits that Europe had/has to provide. The had to fight the spectre of Communism in their countries for many many years and could only placate many of their openly communist unions by welfare programs that we will never stand for here in the United States. Many monetary raises in places like the Scandinavian countries are eaten up by 80-90% taxes, so they are more interested not in wages but in perks like autos, homes, vacations etc. It sure changed my company's business model for these countries.

This is the first time that I can remember in my lifetime where we are preparing a US energy policy custom made for Americans by Americans. It is a unique opportunity to merge many normally opposing factions to generate a national renewable fuels policy.

You know the TREE-HUGRs will delay any oil drilling in ANWR, the coast of CA and the Gulf Coast and any other place we discover oil in the USA for decades, ditto new refineries and Nuclear power -- even our wind farm generation of electrical power is being stopped.

In some places like New York State US Senator Charles Shumer leads the charge to refuse to allow any siting of Ethanol plants, wind farms or renewable fuels -- purely an obstructionist tactic, yet many upstate New York areas look like urban ghettos, only farm style.

The renewable fuels crowd that depends upon growing our way into a better form of energy independence for the current type of automobiles allows us a lot of flexibility but is anathema to people looking to stop any solution.

President Carter had the gas rationing coupons printed and ready to go and thank goodness he did not implement his plan...however, it would have fueled the changes necessary to implement a renewable fuel resources plan back in the 1970s.

socala4 · June 2006

In most cases today's EVs would represent a second car that would suffice for probably 90% of the trips a person needs to take.

Which, assuming the percentage is that low, is still a deal killer. What am I supposed to do the other 10% of the time, stay home, or run around my office trying to borrow 500' of extension cords from the building maintenance guys, then wait 6 hours, just so I can go home? That's a recipe for failure. Cars have to suit our needs, not the other way around.

No alternative is going to work unless it allows for convenient and quick refueling, or else doesn't need refueling at all. Since we don't have perpetual motion machines, the latter isn't feasible, which leaves us with the former requirement.

snakeweasel · June 2006

What am I supposed to do the other 10% of the time,

Thats why he said "today's EVs would represent a second car" and not a primary or only car. For someone like me the EV1 would have been the perfect car to commute in with, at the most, a mid week recharge in the garage. It would also work for errands and heading out to see friends or family.

With a gasser as a primary car that the wife uses for her commute, that could be used for the times when the range of the EV is not enough.

socala4 · June 2006

Thats why he said "today's EVs would represent a second car" and not a primary or only car.

In the US, these second/ additional cars seem to be either some sort of fun toy, or else some hauler of people and/or equipment (boats, jetskis, etc.). An electric car with minimal range and long refueling times doesn't make for a very good first or second car for most of us, otherwise they would already be marketed as such.

Let's remember -- there is a reason why they aren't being sold today in large quantities. Automakers make cars in order to make money, and they would be betting on electric if they thought that the profit potential justified the risk. They don't see it, which is why they aren't doing it.

rorr · June 2006

"An electric car with minimal range and long refueling times doesn't make for a very good first or second car for most of us, otherwise they would already be marketed as such."

Well, I'll try not to speak for most people - but personally I'd never consider a 100% EV in any way whatsoever. That being said, I think plug-in hybrids make a LOT more sense. One could realize virtually all of the benefits of a 100% EV vehicle (if speeds/trip duration are kept down) without giving up the range and quick refueling advantages of the ICE.

snakeweasel · June 2006

An electric car with minimal range and long refueling times doesn't make for a very good first or second car for most of us,

Since most second cars (and first ones for that matter) are rarely driven over 50-75 miles a day an EV would be perfect for that. Even more so since it can be recharged overnight in someones garage or carport taking up far less of the drivers time than pumping 15 gallons of gas each week.

socala4 · June 2006

Well, I'll try not to speak for most people - but personally I'd never consider a 100% EV in any way whatsoever.

I believe that you speak for the vast majority of consumers. Pure EV is a choice driven by ideology, not by cost, convenience or cool factor, which leaves you with a very tiny market, and explains why you don't find everyone rushing in to sell them as is.

That being said, I think plug-in hybrids make a LOT more sense.

I agree that they will, now that the hybrid is moving toward the mainstream and people have learned from the pacesetters that the technology works well enough. Now, the main barrier seems to be technological: the plug-in version would require batteries that are much larger in order to hold a charge that would be good for any reasonable distance, so there's not much point to having a plug just yet. But as the batteries become lighter, smaller and/or more efficient, this could change.

snakeweasel · June 2006

If they were available and at a good price I would very much consider one for a daily commuter. I wouldn't if it was my only car but it wouldn't be. My daily commute (as well as many others) do not require the range of an ICE and the times I would need the range and refueling advantages I could use the wifes car or better yet the Caddy.

rorr · June 2006

"My daily commute (as well as many others) do not require the range of an ICE and the times I would need the range and refueling advantages I could use the wifes car or better yet the Caddy."

Whether or not the daily commute requires a short range or not isn't (IMO) the issue. I think that the vast majority of buyers don't want a range limitation just for their own piece of mind.

If everyone was a logical as you seem to think they are, very few pickups, or SUVs would be bought. Yes, their utility is great but it is needed (by most of their purchasers) for only very occasional use. Yet most folks don't want to rent a truck only when needed; they want the convenience of having that utility WHENEVER they desire.

I see the same thing with EV's. Sure, 95% of the time their range might be fine. And I'm sure with a little planning/trading off, a 2nd vehicle would fill their needs for longer trips.

But I don't think most folks could get past the 'what if' thoughts in their minds regarding running out of juice and not being able to refill. Having the onboard ICE and a fuel tank is really nice insurance. And if the battery issues are solved to the point where EV's are practical, then I would think it would be even more so for a plug-in hybrid.

snakeweasel · June 2006

I understand what you are saying but if you read what I said I said that I would consider one not that many people or lots of people or anyone else but me would consider one. While I am sure others would I am only speaking for myself.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles