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

gagrice · June 2006

You have not demonstrated any reason to believe that your chosen favorites have any hope of success

Likewise, you have not shown that if they are offered people would not buy both diesels and EVs. I guess we will not know who has the insight until they are offered. I can tell you one thing for sure. My phone rang off the hook when I put my 2005 Passat Wagon diesel up for sale. It would have been easy to sell a dozen at more than I paid the year before. looks like about 9 people are trying to cash in on the diesels. Average asking price about $3000 over what was paid new a year ago. Yeah your right no demand. You need to get out more and see what people really want. I had to turn down 3 friends that wanted my Passat. I never sell cars to friends. Kind of a shame as it was a great car. I do miss it as cars go. Not as much as I would miss having a PU truck.

socala4 · June 2006

I think he was putting forth an electrified road system that was projected when I was a kid in the 1950s.

This was what I alluded to -- electric cars have been all talk and no walk for fifty years now. It's a mature technology that has nothing to show for itself, with largely the same problems that it had during the sixties.

Whether or not you like it, this is a reality that you have to face in considering its odds for gaining acceptance. And we've had fifty years to find a market for it, with no successful from anyone, large or small.

The thing I don't understand is why the EV crowd seems so hostile to hybrids. It's as if it's an emotional reaction -- perhaps there is a belief that the hybrid is a "sell out" to the petroleum industry, or that this is part of a conspiracy to keep us hooked on oil?

If anything, the best hope for the electric car is the hybrid, because of all of the R&D work that will ultimately contribute to the electrical aspects of the car. You should be happy that Toyota is behind this, you have one of the most creative, profitable and well managed car makers on the planet taking an interest in this stuff.

And if there are companies on earth that would be most interested in electric cars, it would be the Japanese. Japan is wholly dependent on imported oil -- it has no oil of its own -- and gas is taxed to a point that pump prices in Japan are among the world's highest. Not only do the high prices prepare the consumer for an alternative, but the government would probably appreciate a way to make the economy more immune to oil shocks and the inflation that comes from them. If the Japanese automakers saw a bright future with electric cars, they'd be pushing forward to build them, but obviously they don't.

socala4 · June 2006

Likewise, you have not shown that if they are offered people would not buy both diesels and EVs

For one, that's a logical fallacy, it's not up to me to prove a negative. If there is a market, then those who claim there to be are obliged to show it.

For another, the past sales data and the behavior of automakers make it very clear that they don't see it. Nobody who understands the market sees this becoming anything more than a niche product, I've not seen a single source that validates your view that there is a great future for diesel in the US. Europe, yes, but the US, no.

gagrice · June 2006

You should be happy that Toyota is behind this

Another case of not learning the facts. The Prius was a direct result of TMC R&D on the RAV4 Electric Vehicle. Without GM the Prius would have never gotten on the road. Toyota tried to steal the NiMH batteries without paying royalties and lost a big lawsuit. Toyota is a copy cat company since inception. Nothing has changed other than they are doing a better job now than in the 1960s. Chrysler was several years ahead of Toyota on hybrids and junked the project because they were too expensive for the public to buy into. They misjudged the "sucker factor" in America.

gagrice · June 2006

that's a logical fallacy

Only in your mind. Do you think that Toyota and now Honda were successful in the EU with their gas guzzling cars. No they were not. They had to sell diesel cars to have any market share. So they have the technology and now that Honda is using their own diesel engines it will be interesting to see if they make a concerted effort to regain their position using diesel. Their hybrids were all but a flop, Civic excepted.

socala4 · June 2006

Do you think that Toyota and now Honda were successful in the EU with their gas guzzling cars. No they were not. They had to sell diesel cars to have any market share.

OK, Gagrice, would you care to explain why Europeans like diesel, and Americans don't? If you can, it might give you a sense of why its popular in one place, and not the other.

(If your answer involves some sort of conspiracy theory, I'm going to skip over and ask you again, so please, something based upon actual facts as you understand them.)

gagrice · June 2006

Three good reasons:
Diesel is taxed less than gas.
Diesel gets better mileage than gas.
Diesel cars perform better where most drivers like them to.

Why Americans don't like diesel:
Ignorance and lack of choices.
PS
Diesel costs less to refine. I know in CA it is taxed higher to cover the highway abuse by truck drivers.

socala4 · June 2006

Diesel cars perform better where most drivers like them to.

You were doing well with the first two, but I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

For one, most drivers in Europe still seem to prefer gas cars, given the sales figures, and that's despite the higher cost of the fuel and the ready availability of the alternative fuel. For another, I think we've already covered that two turbocharged engines of equal size will see better acceleration and top speed performance from the gas version than from the diesel.

Ignorance and lack of choices

You need to learn from GM's mistakes -- the customer is always right, and blaming the consumer for not liking your product is the fault of the seller, not the customer. You can bet that the product and/or the marketing is flawed.

For another, you don't seem to see the correlation between the lack of demand and the lack of desire by automakers to provide choices that nobody wants.

Makers such as Audi and BMW make diesels for Europe that they don't sell here. I'd say that they're pretty wise, and can't see why they should work hard to sell cars that not many people would buy. Their US customers have other preferences, and they market what they think will be profitable. It's the same reason why Baskin Robbins doesn't sell ice cream made out of garlic and jalapenos -- not because they can't or of some grand conspiracy, but because they can't see anyone wanting to buy it.

markcincinnati · June 2006

Diesel cars can give drivers what they lust for: low end torque. Typically this low end torque is from a relatively small displacement engine (but with high -- relative -- volumetric displacement [a.k.a. not naturally aspirated].)

Despite this, you have identified with facts the truth of the situation: 30% of the EU mkt is diesel. We know that means 70% is not. 70% of the premium and super premium mkts, however, are diesels. How long will be required for the trickle down? until the total market reaches 50+% diesel?

Beats me. It does appear that the total mkt for diesel in that part of the world continues to grow.

Will that translate to US sales. Again, beats me. Predictions, at this point, from folks apparently far more in a position to know that are we, range from 5% to 20% with 30% being a kind of holy grail number that I really doubt can happen without some impetus that is neither here nor on the immediate horizon.

The Bosch interview link I posted, despite its self-serving bent, does seem to argue that 15% penetration is what it believed to be likely. According to the EPA that would, however, cut our middle eastern oil importation by 50%. Time will tell.

The Germans, thus far, have not brought the recent generation of diesels to the US for the reasons you cite -- overall they would not be purchased by many folks. Die hard Mercedes diesel owners are probably the exception to that.

But another reason for the lack of diesels pushed by the three Germans we often cite: they run on a type of fuel that we have not, still do not, offer -- this fuel is mandated to be available starting now and the transition has to be complete by 2007.

Even such a switchover to this so called clean diesel fuel is certainly no guarantee of sales for Audi, BMW and Mercedes. Apparently, they have decided to test the waters with the US buyers, though, as they will be bringing the diesel powered vehicles here within the next one to two year time frame.

Will diesel catch on? It hasn't so far -- but there have not been reasons for it do be able to do so. If the diesel sales in the US don't make sense, Audi, BMW and Mercedes will withdraw them -- assuming they bring them to market in the high end and "big dog" cars. Even the BMW 3 series, eventually, will need to be offered in a diesel and available to be ordered with all the toys of the gas versions if they are to succeed.

At this point, Audi sells 50% of its total production as diesels; one can assume some pretty decent numbers from BMW and Mercedes, too -- but in full disclosure, I haven't found these data points.

Maybe if and when US customers get a taste of the "feel behind the wheel" there will be sufficient demand to "encourage" a go to market strategy from other companies (US companies perhaps?)

I tend to agree, however, that diesel may have a tough row to hoe in the US. Some things never catch on here.

On the other hand, there are cycles of popularity (and that is what it would take -- popularity) that originate elsewhere and do catch on here. I remember trips to Italy over the past two decades where I will eat certain foods and wonder "why not in America" -- then a few years later, they pop up here "as if" we discovered them.

Hope is not a strategy -- hope is hope. I hope for modern, clean AND very powerful diesels to be in my future.

As an army of one, I would vote thusly with my dollars.

Screaming voice in the wilderness, out. :surprise:

gagrice · June 2006

As an army of one, I would vote thusly with my dollars.

I'm in your army. Experience is hard to beat. Very well stated.

If we have any real desire to cut consumption of fossil fuel we will have to do more than sell a fleet of GM & Ford trucks that get 12 MPG on E85.

Just for the record DCX Group sells over 50% diesel in the EU.

On the USA sale of 140k Dodge Ram trucks: 80% were diesel. That includes sales in CA. How many would buy a smaller PU truck if diesel option available? I say many. How many would buy an SUV with diesel option? I say many. DCX agrees as they are lining up the diesel options for the USA when ULSD is universal. They are not standing by to see if Toyota becomes number one by default as Ford & GM seem to be doing.

Factors affecting diesel sales
- Cost of technology
- Consumer demand

http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2005/godwin.pdf

snakeweasel · June 2006

I tend to agree, however, that diesel may have a tough row to hoe in the US. Some things never catch on here.

I don't think it will be as tough as some seem to think. There is a small but significant pent up demand for diesel and if more moderately priced mainstream manufacturers (i.e Toyota, Honda, Ford GM, Hyundai and/or Chrysler) start producing them they will gain acceptance. Especially with rising fuel prices and better mileage.

Scuttlebutt has it that Honda and Hyundai will be coming out with a U.S. diesel for 2008. If either one (especially Honda) does expect diesel sales to be between 0.5 to 1.0% by 2010. If the other auto makers get into the act you could see diesels on U.S. roads approaching the levels (percentage wise) of Europe in 10-15 years.

However if the only diesels come from luxury or near luxury makes then you won't see much headway.

gagrice · June 2006

However if the only diesels come from luxury or near luxury makes then you won't see much headway.

That is a good point. If only luxury SUVs and sedans are available with the diesel option it will be hard to penetrate mainstream. It seems to be the direction Toyota has taken with the Hybrids. They started out in the upper midsized near luxury price range and have not gone down only up in price.

So that the spirit of this E85 thread is maintained. Are there any fuel efficient small cars on line flex fuel capable? Or was it planned as a way to keep Ford and GM out of hot water on fuel economy?

snakeweasel · June 2006

So that the spirit of this E85 thread is maintained. Are there any fuel efficient small cars on line flex fuel capable?

Best FFV in fuel economy was the 2006 Impala and the Monte Carlo which both got 31/21 gas and 24/16 with E85. Most FFV get poor mileage (20 and under highway) and even worse with E85.

markcincinnati · June 2006

My point pertaining to lux and premium cars and diesel is that they will LEAD the market. Rarely will things "trickle up" that is.

The LPS cars will offer diesels and if they succeed (based on their own metrics and/or promises to their shareholders, etc.) the next cars will be the near-LPS cars and so on down the vehicle food chain.

I remember, for instance, going into the Chrysler dealer and seeing the Imperial's with power everything and air conditioning -- but not many Newports and 300's had them, although most of the New Yorker's did, etc.

Over time, "what once were vices are now virtues" (Doobie Brothers) and even the basic of basic cars started to come with power steering and brakes, power windows and A/C.

The trend, here, at least, is darn near universal. All cars have power doo dads and A/C. Most even have CD players.

Certain features: engine choices, ESP, ceiling air bags, anti lock brakes, etc etc etc seem to start at the high end and migrate down stream. Thus it will be with diesel.

The big buck hybrids from Lexus, one would imagine, if successful will trickle down to the lower buck Lexus vehicles, then to the Toyota line and so on, too.

The Japanese, according to some spy and non spy reports are also considering diesel -- even diesel hybrids (which Bosch thinks could be particularly advantageous in the US) -- I would assume a luxo-barge Big Lexus diesel isn't out of the question; and, that shortly after that we would see the trickle down.

All of these "assumptions" (and hopes) are predicated on the possibility that clean diesel will encourage the widespread importation of German diesel variants by the US arms of Audi, BMW and Mercedes (or at least two of these three.)

Audi and Mercedes have, recently, made "some deal" if not a "big deal" (in Audi's case) about their diesel plans -- again we'll see where we are by MY 2010 (which isn't too far away in elapsed time, even though it might be considered an eternity in this market.)

My lease is up in less than two years on my A6 3.2 (which already -- for an ICE -- is a gas sipper.) Would I be offered a chance to buy the then current version of the 3.0TDI and its mileage was at least 20% better and its MSRP no more than $999 OVER the cost of the gas version and diesel had remained at "parity" with gasoline, I would buy.

Lots of conditions, some might say weasel words, but based on today's choices and prices, this seems like the LPS's power plant of [my] choice.

snakeweasel · June 2006

I remember, for instance, going into the Chrysler dealer and seeing the Imperial's with power everything and air conditioning -- but not many Newports and 300's had them, although most of the New Yorker's did, etc.

That is a poor analogy. Yes back in the day power things (like windows) were only in the high priced cars then made their way into lower priced cars. Even now high priced cars have things in them that will make their way down to lower priced cars. but there is a reason for that, these things are new technology and are expensive. People spending the big money will spend the extra bucks for power windows (back in the 70's) or adaptive laser controlled cruise control. But these things are cost prohibitive in lower priced cars.

They didn't trickle down to lower priced cars because they were being accepted, they trickled down to lower priced cars as they became less expensive and affordable in those cars.

Diesel engines are not a costly new technology that is cost prohibitive for low priced cars.

Certain features: engine choices, ESP, ceiling air bags, anti lock brakes, etc etc etc seem to start at the high end and migrate down stream. Thus it will be with diesel.

Again those features were rather expensive at first so they could only be put in high end cars. Not so with Diesel.

seniorjose · June 2006

My phone rang off the hook when I put my 2005 Passat Wagon diesel up for sale.

So you dumped your diesel... so what, there are many buyers who experience buyer remorse. Now you say you have a Chevy Silverado Hybrid pickup truck...and a Lexus that you could not afford to have the dealer repair...and a ????? This is very confusing...do you own an auto?

Let's stick to the topic of E85 and why you are against renewable fuels and pro-oil cartel.

socala4 · June 2006

My point pertaining to lux and premium cars and diesel is that they will LEAD the market. Rarely will things "trickle up" that is.

When it comes to product features, that's generally true. These things are expensive when first introduced, so it's only the buyers of the expensive models who are going to be able to pay for them, and who have the mindset that getting the latest bells and whistles is important.

I just don't see how "this diesel is new and improved" makes for a breakthrough message to that same sort of crowd. Yes, the existing fan base will be happy about it, but I can't see many converts crossing the line.

The Japanese, according to some spy and non spy reports are also considering diesel -- even diesel hybrids (which Bosch thinks could be particularly advantageous in the US) -- I would assume a luxo-barge Big Lexus diesel isn't out of the question; and, that shortly after that we would see the trickle down.

They already make diesel cars for Europe and other markets, so I won't be surprised to see some models brought here.

I'm sure that the automakers are going to take a new look at diesel, given the rising fuel prices, just as they did in the seventies. I'll go further and say that JD Power's forecast of a market in the neighborhood of 10% is within the realm of possibility, as there will be a few "visionaries" who make the move. One or two automakers may even take a stab at pushing a diesel model or two to differentiate themselves from their competition.

But will that amount to a large market? Without a fuel price differentiation that is exaggerated by taxes, I doubt it. That tax difference is generally the main demand driver in other markets where diesel has more market share, and that's something you won't be seeing here. No one in DC will be adding $1 in taxes to the price of a gallon of gas, unless he has a political death wish.

rorr · June 2006

"Let's stick to the topic of E85 and why you are against renewable fuels and pro-oil cartel."

I don't think ANYONE in here is "against renewable fuels and pro-oil cartel".

I think we are just attempting to rationally debate whether or not E85 (as a renewable fuel) creates more problems that it purports to solve, has the potential to do anything regarding the 'pro-oil cartel', and whether or not other renewable fuels (or other energy policies) may be better for us to pursue NOW.

seniorjose · June 2006

Best FFV in fuel economy was the 2006 Impala and the Monte Carlo which both got 31/21 gas and 24/16 with E85. Most FFV get poor mileage (20 and under highway) and even worse with E85.

There have been no EPA numbers on E85 and saying FFVs get less than 20 MPG is not true given the current mix of FFV capable autos this year and next. The poor mileage of some FFV vehicles is a function of their purpose, size and weight, not their FFV capability.

Since diesels cannot be imported until engineers (probably in Asia) learn how to manufacture non-polluting diesel engines we will not know if and when the new pollution stand can be met. Honda has been importing small diesel engines into Europe for tha last five years.

We have no infrastructure to have diesel fuel (or even diesel repair facilities) available to 2/3 of gas stations or the incentive to divert our oil refineries to increase diesel oil production and cut down on gasoline production and availability (pushing gasoline prices up again)...and of course it is more expensive, The American people would not stand gas prices going up just to placate a diesel auto owners operating experimental vehicles like the Jeep did.

I believe that FFV capable engines are scheduled to be in a majority of autos within 2-5 years at no additional cost to any customer. E85 may cost us mileage but it is less polluting, cleaner burning, renewable, environmentally friendly and supportive of American technology and fuels.

socala4 · June 2006

At this point, this mileage "debate" is a canard.

The fundamental issue is that ethanol production is now equal to about 3% of gas consumed in the US. Based upon that, ethanol production would have to be increased about twenty-eight fold to offset that amount. And since there is a mileage penalty, you actually have to increase production more than that in order to provide an equivalent amount of energy for the users of the ethanol.

So how is that going to happen, and when? To ramp up production this much would require a more efficient biomass, and that's still in the experimental stages. While I have no doubt that this could be figured out (people have been creating alcohol from plants for millenia), it certainly isn't going to happen NOW, as you keep stating.

One thing I will say for FFV is that getting the cars into the hands of drivers should prove much easier that it would for diesel. You could eventually buy an FFV car just as easily as you'd buy a gas car, it would't make much difference to the car owner or even the auto makers.

But getting the fuel to market and getting consumers to buy it could be two entirely different stories. And it won't mean anything if people eventually own the vehicles, but don't have the fuel.

rorr · June 2006

"...and saying FFVs get less than 20 MPG is not true given the current mix of FFV capable autos this year and next."

You might want to check this link from the US Department of Energy:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm

You can see ratings for 2006 and 2007 FFV vehicles, directly compare mileage rating using gas and E85, and there's even a handy-dandy annual fuel cost calculator which allows the user to customize prices for a large variety of types of fuel, annual miles driven, and mix of hwy/city miles.

You guys have fun with it.....

seniorjose · June 2006

I don't think ANYONE in here is "against renewable fuels and pro-oil cartel".

I think we are just attempting to rationally debate whether or not E85 (as a renewable fuel) creates more problems that it purports to solve, has the potential to do anything regarding the 'pro-oil cartel', and whether or not other renewable fuels (or other energy policies) may be better for us to pursue NOW.

Yes there are very strong anti-american feelings among some. Some are totally enamoured by the keyboard on their computer and just love th dictatorship of the oil cartel and are against all renewable fuels, in other words the ANTIS- anti-American farmers, anti-business and anti-... on and on and on and on...to them, everything is a conspiracy. 99% of the respondents in this forum are sincere people wanting to satisfy a problem, not to get embroiled in overthrowing our type of government.

As an example, the comments by SOCAL4 and SNAKEWEASAL's reasoning, although sometimes diametrically opposite, sends some people into a "froth at the mouth" lie and more lies frenzy...which scares the hell out of me because of the times we live in and the people who scare us all. I watched 911 as it unforded and even identified arab pilots staying at the Holiday Inn where I was to the FBI and I lost a close friend in Oklahoma City. Screw the Arab abd South American oil cartel dictators!

Let's move on...now Ethanol is etc,. etc,. etc......

captain2 · June 2006

E85 may cost us mileage but it is less polluting, cleaner burning, renewable, environmentally friendly and supportive of American technology and fuels
Your estimates of E85 mileage (at least according to the EPA (it is an absurd way of estimating real mileage)) - is probably pretty close for those particular cars. Cleaner and renewable sure - with no likelyhood of even being able to find the stuff for at least the next 10 years - unless, of course, you live in Iowa.
And since, the mileage/price differential will also likely not balance for a similar period of time - do you really think the American consumer is going to pay what currently amounts to an extra dollar a gallon in the interest of political and environmental correctness? Not to mention wasting all that money in the first place buying crappy GM products...

socala4 · June 2006

Not to mention wasting all that money in the first place buying crappy GM products...

Toyota says it will be bringing FFV to the US in 2008. I imagine that others will do the same.

The irony is that the more that GM trumpets FFV, the more that larger rivals such as Toyota will be inclined to do the same, just so that GM loses its bragging rights and any competitive advantage it might gain by offering something that others do not. Unlike diesel, which requires customers to make a switch, FFV doesn't demand anything from anyone except the manufacturer, and adding FFV capability is fairly cheap and easy.

But again, that doesn't mean that the fuel will be produced in sufficient quantities or that consumers will buy it. We could end up with millions of cars that run on gas and ethanol, but with no ethanol for us to buy.

captain2 · June 2006

and a company like Toyota would bean example of who needs to 'jump on the bandwagon' if E85 is to ever be viable. It all has to do with having the money to do it right. GM only doing it for CAFE and many of the European Cos. doing a great job with diesels given the cleaner fuel they have over there.

snakeweasel · June 2006

There have been no EPA numbers on E85

Are we going to go over this again? read post # 595 and save me some typing.

The poor mileage of some FFV vehicles is a function of their purpose, size and weight, not their FFV capability.

True and I was saying all the FFV have poor mileage that gets worse with E85. That is simply a fact only two out there get more than 30 MPG (barely) and most get 20 or less on the highway using gas (reduce it by at least 20% for E85).

We have no infrastructure to have diesel fuel (or even diesel repair facilities) available to 2/3 of gas stations

Actually the infrastructure is there and diesel is multiple time easier to get than E85 ever will be.

E85 may cost us mileage but it is less polluting, cleaner burning, renewable, environmentally friendly and supportive of American technology and fuels.

burning E85 in your car may be cleaner and less polluting but not the manufacturing of it.

Before complaining about others myths and falsehoods you should stop spreading your own.

snakeweasel · June 2006

No one here is anti renewable fuel nor anti American nor pro oil cartel. Just because we disagree with you is no reason to label us as such. I would love to have a fuel that is renewable right here at home. But guess what it isn't going to be ethanol. As Socal pointed out we don't produce enough ethanol right now to make much of a dent in our oils consumption.

I have ran the numbers forward, backwards, inside out, upsidedown, sideways and slantways and longways and backways and squareways and front ways and any other ways that you can think of and ethanol isn't viable in a long term large scale way. So instead of wasting our tax money and resources going after pie in the sky ideals that most likely will not work and will lead us to a worse situation we should be using our resources to search for something that truly works.

As an example, the comments by SOCAL4 and SNAKEWEASAL's reasoning, although sometimes diametrically opposite, sends some people into a "froth at the mouth" lie and more lies frenzy...

Again I say to you do not complain about other people doing what you do yourself.

"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?"

markcincinnati · June 2006

I see your point. I do not disagree with it, either.

For some, diesel will have to be presented as "the new" diesel, however -- and I would expect what I said to not be an impossible even if perhaps an improbable course of events.

Let me put it this way, I sincerely hope you are right.

If this (these?) thing(s) are even possible, perhaps my best response is to say, I hope we're both right.

Of course, it is possible that diesel could actually come to market for less money than a gas engine (as it has done in Europe -- for some, but NOT all, lines that offer both gas and diesel fraternal twins of the same car.)

Anyway, I'm not disputing your point and still of the mind that the Big Benz will have the diesel before the little Benz or perhaps before the "fill in the blank" VW or Volvo or Saab or, or, whatever. The reintroduction of diesel, if it happens and if it is to Cross the Chasm (at all) may have to be marketed as new rather than mature.

Much as I want our fellow poster socal to be wrong, I do think his arguments contrary to "ours" on this subject are not entirely without merit and certainly are not without thought. :surprise:

snakeweasel · June 2006

Anyway, I'm not disputing your point and still of the mind that the Big Benz will have the diesel before the little Benz or perhaps before the "fill in the blank" VW or Volvo or Saab or, or, whatever.

I don't disagree with that, just for diesel to have any impact in the U.S. it has to come in a sub $30K car. Thats where the masses buy cars.

tpe · June 2006

GM only doing it for CAFE

Absolutely, which makes this whole "live green go yellow" campaign so hypocritical. Look at the FFVs that GM offers. They are almost all gas guzzlers. Coincidence? I don't think so. This whole FFV boondoggle has allowed them to sell more gas guzzling cars without penalty. GM could care less whether the drivers of these cars actually use E85.

On a more positive note for GM it looks like they will be producing a plug-in hybrid in the relatively near future.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aB.YH1WLpQgo&refer=home

tpe · June 2006

When Honda introduces its clean diesel in 2009 I think we'll find out what the demand for diesels really is in this country.

manley · June 2006

Amen brother.

Diesel and Biodiesel are far easier to establish in this country because we already have the infrastructure for it. Biodiesel can be pushed down the same pipelines that deisel can. It might even help clean out the pipes, for get pigs. Send a few million gallons of bio down the line. You can't say that about ethonal.

Ethonal absorbs water from its surronding readly, which if you were running E100 would be fine, but when you put gasoline in ethonal the water will come out of solution and cause the same problems that you get from water in the tank. Not to mention that it is more easly biodegradable.

In order to use ethonal on any type of massive scale in this county we will have to design all new pipelines that are free of any water condinsate that is unless we are going to run E100. Currently ethonal is driven from point to point on trucks that get about 5 to 6 mpg (diesel). That is why it costs more, its harder to transport and keep it clean.
This is also why it is avalible in Iowa more abundance and cheaper than elsewhere.

captain2 · June 2006

rivals such as Toyota will be inclined to do the same, just so that GM loses its bragging rights and any competitive advantage it might gain by offering something that others do not.
honestly don't think that Toyota gives a damn what GM does anymore - it is companies like Toyota that dictate the car market and have the engineering expertise and finances to stay wsell ahead of Detroit. 2008 Toyota FFV or not, the hybrid will remain the predominant 'green' vehicle for many, many years to come - with some reasonable possibility that diesel fuels can be cleaned up in this country to the point that they might offer some stiff competition. Innovative GM and Ford products - an oxymoron.

socala4 · June 2006

Biodiesel can be pushed down the same pipelines that deisel can. It might even help clean out the pipes, for get pigs. Send a few million gallons of bio down the line.

I already posted data here that shows that if you used the entire US surplus soybean crop to produce biodiesel, it would equal 1/4 of one percent of the US' current diesel consumption.

I'm all for putting biodiesel in trucks, but nobody has shown me where these crops are going to come from, and how that's any better or more viable than is ethanol. We're currently producing far more ethanol than we are biodiesel. But in terms of the impact on current production on consumption, ethanol is minuscule and biodiesel is a non-issue.

markcincinnati · June 2006

Thus far neither E85 nor biodiesel makes sense if made from primary sources (food stuff.)

But the ability to stretch our supply of oil based fuel with bio fuel is a good thing, isn't it?

Of course, the money argument changes everything.

As long as E85 and bio diesel cost more or get poorer fuel mileage or whatever, there will be hurdles that altruism will not overcome.

I'm buying a diesel AWD German car, next time, if one is offered.

But, I am a screaming voice in the wilderness and my purchase will perhaps save me a buck or two over 50K miles, but otherwise the effect will be symbolic, unless I represent at least hundreds of thousands of other folks.

Visions of grandeur aside, that is unlikely.

gagrice · June 2006

Thus far neither E85 nor biodiesel makes sense if made from primary sources (food stuff.)

I agree. I am not sure where the soybean for biodiesel got started. I would think that would be a last resort. Many non edible crops are better. First and formost is waste grease and oil needs to be recycled. Biodiesel from algae shows some promise. If the midwest continues on their hell bent production of corn, the gulf of Mexico will probably produce enough algae to supply all our diesel needs. Of course we will have killed off all the sea food production by that time.

Oilseed crops considered for production included sunflowers, canola/rapeseed and peanuts, primarily because these crops have higher oil contents than traditional soybeans.

Biodiesel is easier to find than E85. See the map link for availability.

biodiesel locations

socala4 · June 2006

I am not sure where the soybean for biodiesel got started.

The very same place that the ethanol-from-corn argument got started -- because current US commercial biodiesel production comes largely from soybean oil.

If you want to have a long-range, visionary discussion of either ethanol or biodiesel, you need to consider what other biomasses might be used to produce them. Neither one is going to amount to much if nothing is done to find more efficient sources.

Biodiesel is easier to find than E85. See the map link for availability.

Since your map doesn't compare the locations of one source to the other, I can't see how it's easier to find. You've provided no information that establishes that.

Let's go back to the hard data:

Fuel production in US (gallons/ yr)
Ethanol: 2.935 billion
Biodiesel: 30 million

In case you were wondering, that means that biodiesel production is about 1% of the level of ethanol. I can't imagine that a product produced in such low quantities could possibly be easier to find.

gagrice · June 2006

I can't imagine that a product produced in such low quantities could possibly be easier to find.

Well it is easier to find biodiesel across the USA than E85. E85 is a Midwest only product. Biodiesel is available on the coasts as well. Also your production figures are old. You always leave out one important fact. Biodiesel is a voluntary alternative. If you want to run it and it is available and the price is not out of line, go for it. Ethanol now is over $5 per gallon on the open market because of government mandates. It has raised the price of gasoline, as it is required in many places as an unneccesary additive.

If they use excess soybean crop to make biodiesel I see no problem. Soybeans are not the invasive crop that corn is. There are better feedstocks and non edible crops to make biodiesel. Again biodiesel is being done on a responsible level. I can tell you there is a market. I happen to talk to the President of Green Star Products a few months ago. I asked if they would be selling biodiesel in San Diego. Their plant is in Bakersfield. He told me that they cannot keep up with their customers in the Bay area. They are adding capacity and trying to get ahead of the demand. The big difference is price. They have to remain competitive with regular diesel. Ethanol as an additive can go as high as the sky and folks have to pay the price. Fortunately It is only a small amount added to gas so far.

gagrice · June 2006

Fuel production in US (gallons/ yr)
Ethanol: 2.935 billion
Biodiesel: 30 million

The National Biodiesel Board pegs existing, under construction or expanding, and proposed biodiesel plant production capacity at roughly 1.75 billion gallons.

I believe ethanol is at 4.4 billion gallons.

The major reason that biodiesel is more readily available is its ability to mix with regular diesel and be transported in pipelines. You cannot do that with ethanol in any mixture.

Logistics
If biodiesel is blended at the rack and pushed through the pipelines, then the majority of the product is going to enter the fuel distribution system in places like Houston, San Diego and New Jersey. While local consumption and splash blending will continue, can your plant access alternative feedstocks and ship finished product by truck (at 20 cents per gallon), rail (10 cents), barge (5 cents) or pipeline (2 cents)?

seniorjose · June 2006

Not to mention wasting all that money in the first place buying crappy GM products...

I agree with you on the current crappy GM products. I live next door to a young lady that has had a new Pontiac G6 2 dr hardtop and she compares her Pontiac to my 05 Accord. I have given her rides to the store and rides to and from the Pontiac dealership...she is open mouthed astonished to find that my "Japanese" auto is made on Marysville, Ohio by American workers. When she asked me why there is such an obvious quality difference, and she knows about Honda's reliability and resale value, the only thing I could tell her is that the GM engineers, management and UAW workers just don't get it...and she agrees.

Americans will glad pay for E10 as oil prices have topped $70 a barrel this week again and E10 will still be cheaper than straight oil cartel gasoline. Gas prices are now expected to top $4 a gallon sometime this year, which is a disgrace.

I chuckled when i read the article about the shenanigans of the Louisiana legislature which has been proven by Katrina to be among the most corrupt political enterprises in the United States...top to bottom. Whatever they are trying to do to unravel Ethanol is a terrible joke on their constituents. I have held public office and Louisiana cannot seem to understand that the will of the people in the majority prevails, not special interests.

seniorjose · June 2006

The irony is that the more that GM trumpets FFV, the more that larger rivals such as Toyota will be inclined to do the same, just so that GM loses its bragging rights and any competitive advantage it might gain by offering something that others do not. Unlike diesel, which requires customers to make a switch, FFV doesn't demand anything from anyone except the manufacturer, and adding FFV capability is fairly cheap and easy.

Right on, current GM ads out of Chicago focus on the FFV capabilities of GM products and Ethanol as their renewable fuel NOW.

seniorjose · June 2006

Are there any negatives?

Of course. There is no perfect fuel.
1) Primarily that it's not readily available in much of the nation, YET. Consumption jumped from 500,000 gallons in 2000 to 15 million gallons in 2001, so hopefully availability will change soon.
2) Biodiesel will clean your injectors and fuel lines. If you have an old diesel vehicle, there's a chance that your first tank or two of BD could free up all the accumulated crud and clog your fuel filter.
3) It has a higher gel point. B100 (100% biodiesel) gets slushy a little under 32°F. But B20 (20% biodiesel, 80% regular diesel - more commonly available than B100) has a gel point of -15°F. Like regular diesel, the gel point can be lowered further with additives such as kerosene (blended into winter diesel in cold-weather areas).
4) Old vehicles (older than mid-90s) might require upgrades of fuel lines (a cheap, easy upgrade), as BD can eat through certain types of rubber. Almost all new vehicles should have no problem with BD. 5) Finally, the one emission that goes up with biodiesel is NOx. NOx contributes to smog. We feel that a slight increase (up to 15%) in NOx is greatly offset by the reduction in all other emissions and the major reduction in greenhouse gasses.

All content Biodieselnow.com

seniorjose · June 2006

Biodiesel fuel can be made from new or used vegetable oils and animal fats, which are nontoxic, biodegradable, renewable resources. Fats and oils are chemically reacted with an alcohol (methanol is the usual choice) to produce chemical compounds known as fatty acid methyl esters. Biodiesel is the name given to these esters when they're intended for use as fuel. Glycerol (used in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, among other markets) is produced as a coproduct.

Biodiesel can be produced by a variety of esterification technologies. The oils and fats are filtered and preprocessed to remove water and contaminants. If free fatty acids are present, they can be removed or transformed into biodiesel using special pretreatment technologies. The pretreated oils and fats are then mixed with an alcohol (usually methanol) and a catalyst (usually sodium hydroxide). The oil molecules (triglycerides) are broken apart and reformed into methylesters and glycerol, which are then separated from each other and purified.

Approximately 55% of the biodiesel industry can use any fat or oil feedstock, including recycled cooking grease. The other half of the industry is limited to vegetable oils, the least expensive of which is soy oil. The soy industry has been the driving force behind biodiesel commercialization because of excess production capacity, product surpluses, and declining prices. Similar issues apply to the recycled grease and animal fats industry, even though these feedstocks are less expensive than soy oils.
Based on the combined resources of both industries, there is enough feedstock to supply 1.9 billion gallons of biodiesel (under policies designed to encourage biodiesel use). This represents roughly 5% of on-road diesel used in the United States.

seniorjose · June 2006

Ethanol Bonanza Is Reshaping Sleepy Cow Towns in Heartland
Published: June 25, 2006
This article was reported by Alexei Barrionuevo, Simon Romero and Michael Janofsky and written by Mr. Barrionuevo.

A Modern Day Gold Rush
Articles in this series are examining the ways in which the world is, and is not, moving toward a more energy efficient, environmentally benign future.

Previous Articles in the Series » Dozens of factories that turn corn into the gasoline substitute ethanol are sprouting up across the nation, from a beer-brewing plant in Fulton, N.Y., to Savannah, Ga., and across the continent to Kansas and Oklahoma, wherever the yellow grain can be grown or shipped.

Once considered the green dream of the environmentally sensitive, ethanol has gone mainstream: agricultural giants are moving to control a vast new market, raising concerns over food prices and land use.

Even in the small town of Hereford, in the middle of the Texas Panhandle's cattle country and hundreds of miles from the agricultural heartland, two companies are rushing to build plants to turn corn into fuel.

As a result, Hereford, Tex., an isolated cattle town, has become one of dozens of flashpoints in the ethanol bonanza that is helping to reshape rural America's economic base.

The new plants coming on line this year will produce 1.4 billion gallons a year, a 30 percent increase over current production of 4.6 billion gallons, according to Dan Basse, president of AgResources, an economic forecasting firm in Chicago. By 2008, analysts predict, ethanol output could reach 8 billion gallons a year.
A few agricultural economists and food industry executives are quietly worrying that ethanol, at its current pace of development, could strain food supplies, raise costs for the livestock industry and force the use of marginal farmland in the search for ever more acres to plant corn.

For all the interest in ethanol, however, it is doubtful whether it can serve as the energy savior President Bush has identified. He has called for bio-fuels  which account for just 3 percent of total gasoline usage  to replace roughly 1.6 million barrels a day of oil imported from the Persian Gulf.

New Jobs, New Life
To fill that gap with corn-based ethanol alone, agricultural experts say that production would have to rise to more than 50 billion gallons a year; at least half the nation's farmland would need to be used to grow corn for fuel. But that isn't stopping out-of-the-way towns looking for ways to pump life into local economies wracked by population loss, farm consolidation and low prices from treating the rush into ethanol as a godsend.

socala4 · June 2006

Well it is easier to find biodiesel across the USA than E85. E85 is a Midwest only product.

I find ethanol in gas stations all around me, it's just not in E85 form. It's in use today, in the form of E10.

At this stage of the game, ethanol is doing far more to reduce our use of dino oil than is biodiesel, which is obviously harder to find, given the lower quantities produced.

If they use excess soybean crop to make biodiesel I see no problem.

I don't have a problem with it, either, but as of today it does virtually nothing to reduce our use of oil. It's a drop of water in the middle of the ocean.

Once again, I don't understand this double standard of yours when it comes to products you prefer, versus those you don't. Instead of using the data to come to a conclusion, you first draw your conclusions, then selectively ignore whatever doesn't support you. Not easy to approach this rationally if you can't address the benefits, flaws and challenges of all of the products.

seniorjose · June 2006

By John Bradshaw Layfield
TheStreet.com Contributor
6/24/2006 9:33 AM EDT

As much as I love and respect my friend Jim Cramer, I have to disagree with his view that ethanol is a fad. I agree some companies are overvalued, but I don't believe that ethanol itself is a fad.

Jim is right, as he normally is, about solar. Solar is a renewable energy whose cost will actually increase in the next couple of years due to capacity constraints in polysilicon. Solar is not and will not, at least for the foreseeable future, be an economical alternative (without huge subsidies) to other sources of energy.

But ethanol is not a fad. Ethanol is not a dot-com. I believe the trend is real; the only question is which horse to ride.

Ethanol is not our answer to oil independence, but for those who say the Saudis are happy about ethanol, I suggest you have a doctor check you for a malignant case of ignorance.

Corn-based ethanol can be produced for about $1.10 a gallon, while gasoline is produced for about $1.69 a gallon. Corn would have to go to $4 a bushel and oil below $50 a barrel to reverse this, something that is unlikely. The numbers for cellulosic ethanol are going to be even better -- refer to the article I wrote about Xethanol (XNL:Amex - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) on April 15. This is without the government tax subsidy. What is there to misunderstand?

The oft-quoted view that it costs more energy to produce ethanol than you create has been discredited by everyone in the scientific community

. The only people who quote those numbers are the people who are now claiming ethanol is inefficient. The Department of Agriculture has stated that ethanol produces 67% more energy than what is used to create it.
The problem right now with ethanol is that it is adding about 20 to 30 cents per gallon to the cost of gasoline. This is due to the fact that our Congress refused to give protection to oil companies so that they could phase out MTBE, the additive in gasoline. This abrupt halt of MTBE caused a shortage of 2.2 billion gallons that was replaced with ethanol, which created shortages of ethanol and the price hikes.

seniorjose · June 2006

U.S. ethanol prices extended a surge to all-time highs this week as fuel companies increased use of the grain-based additive in gasoline.

Oil refiners and fuel blenders this year shifted to making reformulated gasoline with ethanol after dropping an additive known as MTBE. Ethanol prices are highest in reformulated markets in the Northeast and South, partly because of long distances to ship the fuel, most of which is made in the Midwest.

"You've got a significant amount of demand [for ethanol] that has moved into the market over the last couple of months," said Chad Martin, a broker with FCStone Group Inc. in Des Moines. "The market looks to be tight for the next several months with this phaseout" of MTBE.

U.S. ethanol averaged $3.6714 a gallon Friday, up 1.5 percent from a week ago, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

That average, based on ethanol traded in Des Moines and almost 30 other Midwest locations, was up from $1.4876 a year earlier. It's the highest since at least 1997, based on Bloomberg data.

The U.S. average has increased for 12 consecutive weeks and is up 54 percent since the end of March.

President Bush also is pushing ethanol, signing an energy bill last year that requires oil companies to almost double ethanol use by 2012.

Competition for ethanol is particularly strong in the Northeast, the largest consuming region of the U.S. for reformulated fuel.

High prices in the Northeast are "really more of a logistical issue than anything else," said Martin, referring to difficulty getting sufficient supplies shipped over long distances. Martin provides risk-management services for about 20 ethanol producers.

Ethanol in the U.S. is made primarily from corn grown in the Midwest and is shipped by barge or railcar to blending terminals. It can't be sent through petroleum pipelines because it binds with water, which ruins gasoline.,,

Prices probably will fall in the months ahead as U.S. production rises, Martin said. ...
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

gagrice · June 2006

Once again, I don't understand this double standard of yours when it comes to products you prefer

And you don't prefer one product over another? C'mon you are not reading anyone's posts but your own. Corn is not good for the land, rivers and sea. Soy is less invasive than corn. Biodiesel has much more energy per gallon than ethanol. And biodiesel at 1/3rd the production of ethanol goes a lot further to alleviate the use of diesel than ethanol does for gasoline.

Oh and the subject is E85 not E10. Who knows what is in our gas these days? I have never seen E10 at a CA gas station. At least where they admitted it.

Oh, and I Prefer GM trucks to Asian trucks, I suppose you don't understand that either.

E85 Price: 3.29
Station Name: Gas For Less at Rt 37 & Main
Prem. Price 2.92
Station City: Marion, Illinois
Unleaded Price: 2.77
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2006

Which one would you put in your FFV?

gagrice · June 2006

I am appreciating your posts of late. They are making my case against Mandated Ethanol. All the mandates will do is raise the price to where no one will want to buy E85. Those that are stuck with E10 or some other mixture will just have to pay the higher price for gas.

markcincinnati · June 2006

Pop non-fiction books have been on my mind quite a bit recently, ever since one of our fellow posters reminded me of a couple of books I had read during the past decade. Those books by Geoffrey A. Moore, Crossing the Chasm and Inside the Tornado, were, at the time, works that after more than a decade were able to supplant Megatrends and Megatrends 2000 on my list of faves. I, for a time, actually thought they were profound -- even today, they hold up pretty well.

Now with all the argument, debate and, yes, contradiction, that seems to characterize this particular forum, I have decided to again revisit John Naisbitts works. If you, too, have had your interest piqued by our resident Moore disciple, or if, like me, you remember Naisbitt (and another book preceding both authors, The Medium is the Message, by Marshall McLuhan) you will recall how Naisbitts social forecasting team works.

To put it simply, Naisbitt sorts through an impossibly large number of facts; and, then categorizes, classifies and counts them. A trend is identified, more or less, by the quantity of space or word count even. Then, as a new trend comes along, it is identified as its space and/or word count grows at the expense of another fact or trend. Although not perfect predictors, Megatrends and Megatrends 2000 (and Global Paradox) were remarkably accurate.

Now, to the relevance of these authors to the subject at hand.

Perhaps, alternative fuel (mostly for our vehicles) concerns are at the very least a trend, possibly even a Megatrend. The amount of activity (a count) that happens daily on this discussion forum is indicative of nothing less than a fad. Couple this with the number of hits offered up when alternative fuels is put into a search engine  about 31 million  or when ethanol is Googled  about 14 million  and there is indeed a message rendered by the medium.

My attorney wife is quick to point out that the things most of us write here are based on secondary research and resources. That is, none of us, Id wager, have actually acquired an FFV, filled it with E85 and tested its mileage, performance and pollution, then performed the same tests with Regular gasoline (or E10) etc.

Further, although we can cite, chapter and verse, the historical adoption of a variety of technologies and fuels, we have no actual evidence of what will happen when previously unpopular technologies become new and improved.

So, the arguments, debates and contradictions continue. Indeed, what is creeping into these posts increasingly seems to be (to me) little more than repeats of previous viewpoints and most recently ad hominem arguments.

Knowing that we will likely get lots of contradiction, I would like to know how the data and information many of us have written here has become so contradictory.

Some folks, like me, post what we believe are facts that reach the conclusions that mostly track with the July 2006 Car and Driver article called Ethanol Promises.

To sum these promises (regardless of the source of the promises  that is, even if you have NOT read the C&D article, most of us E85 Skeptics have come to C&Ds conclusions):

o Ethanol will insignificantly reduce our dependence upon oil
o Ethanol seems unlikely to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
o Ethanol will not, indeed cannot, protect us from price fluctuations
o Ethanol reduces CO2 by a very small single digit percentage and raises total hydrocarbon emissions by over 40%
o Ethanol has a functionally zero percent chance of slowing or reversing global warming
o Ethanol achieves insignificantly better performance (as E85) than plain gasoline or E10
o Ethanol achieves significantly worse miles per gallon (30% worse) than plain gasoline or E10
o Ethanol cannot be pumped through the same pipes that currently move petroleum gas
o Ethanol production from food (corn) in any meaningful quantity will impact the cost of food negatively and essentially require us to cease exporting corn.

Now, Patrick Bedard, as far as I know, is NOT a petro-chemist, not an expert in the field, that is. He, too, has done his secondary research, apparently  but, he (C&D) has done the FFV E85 vs. Regular Gas economy and performance test.

The ad hominem arguments popping up, I usually dismiss. From time to time, I recognize these attacks come from folks who have posted, previously, erudite and seemingly sound arguments to the contrary of Bedards.

As the song says, two men say theyre the deity. . .one of them MUST be wrong. Is Bedards (and Popular Mechanics similar critique of alternative fuels  except diesel, which technically is NOT an alternative fuel, but for our purposes here probably gets at least an honorable mention) piece opinion, stuff and non-sense, partially true, totally true or totally bogus?

I have re-read the article several times, now. I have searched (secondary research) for facts that dispute and refute Bedards piece which can be summarized by the phrase E85, 85% ethanol, 100% false promises.

To those folks who strongly support E85 and argue it is cleaner, more efficient, and more effective and cheaper, I ask: from whence does this information originate?

Are the points above rendered clearly, and are they representative of the point of view that says E85 is not. In other words, if you are of the E85 is too persuasion, please, without resorting to an ad hominem argument, state the case for E85 and cite the sources (primary and/or secondary.) To me E85 may not technically be one of the most unlikely approaches to solve a problem ever devised by the human mind, but, damn, it at least deserves thoughtful consideration as a nominee.

Thanks. :shades:

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles