Yep and the 4.2TDI achieved over 40 Miles Per [Imperial, I assume for full disclosure] Gallon in an Audi A8L (land yacht) on the the public highways out of London and back for an 800 mile round trip on ONE tank of diesel. As I recall this was the last model A8L too. . . .
Since then, the 4.2TDI has been ever so slightly improved.
Imagine if we put even that huge power monster in something more the size of an A4 or A6, the mileage would certainly improve. Better yet, look at the Audi, BMW and Mercedes 6 cylinder diesel's performance and mileage specifications.
The Audi A6 quattro 3.0TDI compares in size and price with the Audi A6 quattro 3.2FSI (the diesel is about $1,000 less to buy) and the diesel is one-tenth of a second quicker than the gas version, all while getting 20% better MPG's using fuel that is often less expensive (here in the US, at least) than the premium gasoline the 3.2 engine demands.
The BMW 535d is so potent, it was recently compared to the BMW 5 series with a V8. Of course the V8 did win by a small, but not insignificant margin. But, the V8 and the 6 cylinder diesel would probably not be cross shopped as the V8 is much more expensive than the diesel.
Keeping price similarity, however, every more or less price equivalent diesel version when compared to its fraternal twin body style gasoline version "beats" the reaper.
Audis, BMWs and Mercedes diesel mid size cars (A6, 5 series and E class) have comparably priced gasoline versions -- the diesel versions according to test reports are:
1 Lower in MSRP 2 Quicker to speed 3 More fuel efficient by some 20% 4 More durable 5 Have no top speed penalty (limited to 130MPH in the US market, I'd wager) 6 Are quieter inside the cabin 7 Can use fuel that costs less per gallon to buy 8 Pollute less.
And, despite all this, as several here are quick to point out (and I must reluctantly agree), diesels have, thus far, been unpopular with American buyers.
My belief is that with diesel hot rods and clean diesel there will be some impetus for this attitude to morph somewhat.
Much as I want diesel to reach 30% penetration, I think that has little chance of happening. Of course, without the Ethanol subsidy and with the facts (lower mileage by some 25 - 30%) about Ethanol being told, I would say, then diesel could have a better chance at success and lowering our dependence on Middle Eastern goo.
Under the most wildly optimistic scenarios, we might reduce our demand and use of oil to 65 - 70% by the 22nd century via alternatives to petroleum based oil. We "Might."
New technologies, new political will (or lack thereof) and a "new attitude" of course could change these predicted percentages up or down, though.
As my dad used to say, "fill 'er up with ethyl" (who in the world is Ethyl, I thought.)
New technologies, new political will (or lack thereof) and a "new attitude" of course could change these predicted percentages up or down, though.
That is the key to diesel success of failure in the US market. If the EPA would make a formula based on ALL emissions and fuel economy. The modern diesel would win every contest except against the CNG Civic. There will be some interesting discussion when the EPA implements the new criteria for MPG ratings. I don't think the hybrids will be sitting so pretty.
I would like to see more legitimate cross country mileage tests. A Passat TDI against the Camry Hybrid coast to coast at Interstate speeds.
Currently there are several automakers planning on bringing diesel into the US. MB, Audi, Honda and Hyundai are all rumored to be eyeing the US as a diesel market. There is a pent up demand for diesel in this country and with rising gas prices 20+% more mileage is a big selling point.
You can remove Hyundai from the mix, their CEO is currently behind bars and the Hyundai dynasty is in confusion and doubt, the efforts of this national conglomerate are a historic joke and farce. Remember, Korea has a democratic government only since 1979 and still does not know how to handle it most of the time, heck Hyundai REFUSES to even say how much they are scamming from the American public with their cheap corner-cutting junk(their Sonata has 30% less welds than a comparative Toyota or Honda --talk about crushable and unsafe junk!)
Much as I want diesel to reach 30% penetration, I think that has little chance of happening. Of course, without the Ethanol subsidy and with the facts (lower mileage by some 25 - 30%) about Ethanol being told, I would say, then diesel could have a better chance at success and lowering our dependence on Middle Eastern goo.
Right now diesel autos are about 1/4 of one percent of auto registrations (mostly pickup trucks) and there are NO diesel autos available for sale in the USA. The infrastructure for diesel auto repair does not exist...NADA, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH...and will only possibly be made available someday. It is a tiny niche market that has had only one hundred years to develop, must be another conspiracy. Don't fall for the lies that pervade the bloggers on the Internet...sama as the one trillion barrels of oil -- yes, somebody was drinking a lot of E100 ethanol to state that hilarious lie! Read man, and think, think, think, use your head and think it through. Not everyone is as anti-american about fuels as we read here in this forum!
Ethanol is an American-made fuel that lessens the dependence on foreign oil.
Ethanol is a clean-burning fuel, which improves air quality. Ethanol is an oxygenate; oxygen helps the fuel burn more cleanly and more completely.
Ethanol has a higher octane rating than regular gasoline, which allows for more horsepower and torque.
Increased production of ethanol benefits grain farmers and creates good-paying jobs with the development of ethanol refineries, especially in rural areas where manufacturing jobs have been few.
from a Toyota owner - think you are living in the past badmouthing Hyundai like this - their current line is superior to what Detroit tries to 'sell' and not too much short of what the Japanese Big 3 produce. Hyundai's drivetrains are now competitive - if they could only build things a little lighter their relative fuel economies would be close as well. Long way from a Yugo and, perhaps unfortunately, for the US automakers now a very lgitimate choice in today's market. If you want to see some Yugos, wait for the Chinese to come in and then improve to what Hyundai has been able to do in the last 20 years or so! As far as Hyundais's CEO in trouble from what I understand some corporate 'brother-in-law' shenanigans, this would be true - not likely to effect the multi-billion $ conglomerate Hyundai is - something that never happens in the corporate world?
Nope don't think so, Hyundai is now a major player on the world market and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Hyundai is far from confusion and doubt and are making world class cars.
As for the former CEO in legal trouble that is far from bringing down the company.
The rest of your post is so biased its laughable (but when have you been totally objective on this forum) and has been addressed on other Edmunds forums.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
June 2006 Promise: Ethanol will save us from global warming. When fossil fuels are burned, they release carbon that was removed from the atmosphere billions of years ago by plants and stored in fossils ever since. This release, in the form of carbon dioxide, builds up greenhouse gases that are widely believed to be causing climate change. Ethanol releases carbon dioxide, too, but some of it was removed from the air recently by the plants grown as feedstock for ethanol production. So ethanol recycles a share of its carbon, and the size of that recycled share determines its greenhouse appeal.
Ideally, ethanol would be efficient enough as a fuel to power ethanol-production factories. But it’s nowhere close. With today’s technology, the carbon dioxide released by the fossil fuel used to produce ethanol towers over the amount recycled.
Switching from gasoline to ethanol would have an “ambiguous effect” on greenhouse gases, according to the Berkeley study, with reported values ranging from a 32-percent decrease to a 20-percent increase. It concluded that a 13-percent reduction was likely per BTU.
The U.S. Department of Energy was less optimistic, concluding that E85 produces only a four-percent reduction in carbon dioxide. In the near term, ethanol has no chance of mitigating global warming.
Again more misinformation and name calling from you. There is an infrastructure that serves diesel auto repair and no amount of you saying there isn't will not change that simple fact.
While diesels represent 1/4% of registered vehicles you can watch that double within a year once lower end (read Honda and Hyundai) manufacturers start bringing them in. Heck from what I understand there is a waiting list for the diesel Smart cars in Canada. Mark my words after a more moderately priced car line starts bringing in diesels you will see a rapid growth of diesel cars in the 10-15 years following that.
Don't fall for the lies that pervade the bloggers on the Internet
Don't worry we are not falling for your lies.
Read man, and think, think, think, use your head and think it through.
Good advice maybe you should follow it, we have and we see the light.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There will be several MORE diesel autos for sale and more coming in the next 9 - 18 months.
None of this means they will be sold in sufficient numbers to increase the the 0.26% penetration (light diesels) we have as of now.
All things considered, diesels stand a chance of being more attractive (to the left brain) than ethanol as things stand now.
This too may not mean a hill of beans in terms of sales.
Diesel's "proven" benefits (economic and otherwise) are powerful reasons why it "ought" to increase its market penetration.
But, our fellow poster, socal, makes some very potent points.
My only disagreement with his points are more like contradiction rather than argument, for we don't know if clean diesel, some bio-diesel and the government incentives (and the importation of some high buck cars to run it in) for you and me and all the ships at sea to buy a diesel (since these perfect storm events haven't actually converged YET) will be none, a little, some or a lot of incentive.
My guess is the incentive will be "a little" unless some star power and marketing muscle (and money) are put into making "My Mother" aware of diesel (my mom is of sound mind, well educated and read, but she is 93, so she is probably only slightly more aware than the average American of the benefits that could accrue to us were we to actually adopt diesel cars in any meaningful quantity.)
1.) it costs more to run your car on it (oops thats not a benefit)
2.) Its very hard to find (oops again not a benefit).
3.) We can never produce enough of it to make it worth while (oops again not a benefit).
4.) You have to fill up more often (Again not a benefit).
5.) It makes ADM rich at the taxpayers expense (now there is a benefit if you have stock in ADM).
6.) its clean burning Ok we have one, no wait while its clean burning the production causes pollution so I guess thats not a real benefit.
Gee I guess it only benefits a few well connected groups that have either bribed or pressured the government to back something that cannot possibly benefit the vast majority of us.
Ethanol has a higher octane rating than regular gasoline, which allows for more horsepower and torque.
Again for someone that complains about misinformation you sure do put out more than your fair share. Increasing the octane of your gas will not increase your horsepower or torque.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Right now diesel autos are about 1/4 of one percent of auto registrations
I doubt that. Diesels comprise about 3% of new car registrations, so I doubt that this totals 1/4 of 1% of total registrations.
there are NO diesel autos available for sale in the USA
That's obviously not true, with cars such as the Jetta and Mercedes E-Class. While it's true that diesel sales are a tiny piece of the US market, it's not correct to say that the cars don't exist.
Not everyone is as anti-american about fuels as we read here in this forum!
Can we please stop questioning peoples' patriotism or lack thereof? That's not helping anyone here.
Despite the smaller audience for the high buck German cars that will be here with diesel power, they are important as part of the "perception is reality" component.
And, I do agree that when the moderately and value priced car lines start offering diesels, we will see if diesel cars in the US are "ready for prime time."
Past experience may be an indicator of future performance though -- and if that holds to be true -- gulp, we're doomed.
My 40 something neighbors (mostly MBA's) all think diesels are dirty, noisy, smelly and not much fun to drive. So they fill up their garages with new Escalades and joke (but not really JOKE) about feet per gallon.
When I show them some of the evidence about diesel BMW's for instance, they change their tune and wonder "when the inventory will be available for them to test drive."
I keep trying to vet what seniorjose writes, but a sizable portion of it is made up of incomplete facts or, "true lies" (and I am assuming seniorjose is well-meaning even though his posts do seem awfully close to ad hominem diatribes.)
According to a Business Week article from Feb, 2006, "the light diesel market stands at 0.26%." We can assume certain things from this.
I assume it means that when 100,000 non-commercial vehicles are sold that the number of light diesels in this population equals 260.
I don't want to throw out inaccurate data -- and I only have this source to try to relate to what I would call "passenger" vehicle penetration (in the US.)
This is the same article that claimed 30% of total European vehicles were diesel but that 70% of high end passenger vehicle registrations were for those with diesel power.
The quote that we have used (I know I have) from this article is that the savings PER DAY with 30% diesel penetration in the US would be equal to the amount we import from the Middle east.
What makes that attractive is that it would reduce our dependence on some particular foreign oil -- we would still be importing the majority of our oil even if "poof" we were 70% gasoline and 30% diesel overnight.
from what I understand and recent test by C&D - E85 thru the same FFV (GM) engine as 87 octane dinofuel - yields only marginal improvement (less than 5%) in acceleration times at a penalty of 30% in fuel economy. Which is the rub -because E85 is priced at approximately the same level as the 87 gas despite government subsidies. And you seem to be convienently forgetting about the pollution created by the plants producing the ethanol in the first place when you talk about how clean it is. Do you really think that the price sensitive American public is going to pay what effectively amounts to an extra dollar/gallon to be politically correct? E10 is becoming more common primarily as a means for some of the major distributors to boost octane ratings; E85 is a long, long way from becoming a viable option.
Data compiled by R.L. Polk & Co. and released by the Diesel Technology Forum (DTF) show that registration of light-duty diesel passenger vehicles in the US jumped 31% in 2005 from the year before. Registrations of light- and medium-duty diesel passenger vehicles have grown 80% since 2000—up from 301,000 diesel vehicles that year to 543,777 diesel registrations in 2005.
In the light-duty market, diesel registrations nearly doubled (95% growth) between 2000 and 2005, climbing from 22,543 to 44,031. When given a choice between a gasoline or diesel engine, consumers purchased the diesel engine option almost half the time (45%) in 2005.
I get 3.2% of the light vehicles sold in 2005 were diesel.
Promise: Ethanol will save us from global warming.
Since the jury is still out on global warming and most likely will present us with a not guilty verdict may I ask how can ethanol save use from something that doesn't exist?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Let's not get into politics, that should be top on the list. Second, can we please get away from commenting about each other here? These little personal barbs that escalate into insults are really starting to get old.
It's OK to disagree... you don't have to be disagreeable to do so.
was under the impression that the reason why diesels were soon to be off the market (2007) was because of federal standards on particulate emissions and that the primary reason for this problem is only 'dirty' high sulfur content diesel is available in this country. European diesel is much, much cleaner in this respect and as such would make several current vehicles compliant - if that type of fuel was available. And because of the problems that the mfgrs. have dealing with American diesel fuels is why we aren't seeing any diesel development for this country. Is this not correct? If so, it would seem a whole lot easier (and quicker) to correct the refining processes than it would be to try to create an entire infrastructure to distribute alcohol. Down here in the land of pickups/SUVs (Texas) the diesel is certainly preferred for its torque, longevity, and economy. Would be willing to bet you that 1 out of every 3 or 4 are diesels. Also am seeing a whole lot more Jetta TDIs, the only car that VW can't keep in stock down here and that further sells at a helluva premium because of the high demand. The point is that I don't see a public resistance to diesels - it's more a question of availability.
I meant nothing about politics -- only about the concept of global warming and the debate about the primary cause -- you know, is it human made (mostly) or just another global cycle (mostly.)
I don't really care who anyone here votes for one way or the other.
Sorry to unintentionally imply something. I have read the reviews and the movie seems potentially enlightening.
Finding the info in one spot and actually finding all the pieces in one spot has thus far escaped me. My Congresswoman has sent several "energy" emails to those in her district.
It seems that "clean diesel" won't be here overnight, but that it has started down the pipe, so to speak. The first of June 2006, low sulphur diesel began flowing - - SOMEWHERE.
The roll out of the clean diesel is to happen either "by" 2007 or sometime "during" 2007. Of that, I have been able to determine a consistent message. Now, that may mean January 1, 2007 or December 31, 2007. Someone must know and can cite their source.
The reintroduction of diesel vehicles is already happening and more pre announcements have already happened. I personally do not know of any CARS that will be diesel that are US brands -- but one has to assume they will be here in less than 2 years, especially now that the energy bill of 2005 offers tax credits for hybrids AND diesels.
The diesel infrastructure can pump either dirty or clean diesel, nothing to replace the current distribution network has to be done (other than increase its capacity should diesel "take off.")
Diesel probably will "take off" but it probably will remain a minority player (the MOST optimistic diesel penetration prediction I have read is for 20% in less than 12 years -- usually the optimists limit their predictions to 15%; and, of course there are many who think 10% would be a miracle.)
What we are talking about here is diesel as an "alternative" fuel of course, which it technically is NOT. But it passes as an alternative to gasoline simply because -- it IS an alternative considering its current utilization (light diesel.)
Other comments that are valid but even less likely to make a dent in our utilization of fossil based diesel concern Bio-diesel of varying percentages, all the way to 100% bio.
These European spec cars from Audi, BMW, Mercedes and VW all can burn clean diesel regardless of the number of dinosaurs or french fries that died to create it.
The clean diesel that we will have within the one year roll out, as I understand it, will permit almost any of the popular diesel variants to be imported here, built here or actually designed here, to run "fine as wine."
The anticipation of this clean diesel is what Audi of America and Mercedes USA are counting on and have therefore announced the expansion of their US diesel programs (Audi currently has no US diesels but has announced its intention to begin selling diesel versions here in the US, its sister company VW does sell one engine and is planning to expand the number of models that will offer diesel, too; Mercedes has one diesel currently and will expand that within the next year.)
The Japanese once they begin to offer diesels will perhaps tell us what the appetite really is for diesels in this country. Two Japanese mfgrs have indicated that they plan to bring diesel power to the US, too.
Diesel probably won't kill Ethanol fever, but it probably could were it not for the momentum and government subsidies it enjoys.
Ethanol has several issues that have been discussed at length here -- the main one seems to be that it makes little economic sense TODAY and within the next 10 years (based on where we are now, and what we know now.)
But, I, for one, keep pulling for it, for I do not think we should put all our eggs in one or two baskets. Currently I favor examining -- by our "leaders" -- the Rand report (June 2005) and ask "what has Shell done" since June 9, 2005 to move the "cooking" of oil shale along.
Moreover, too many smart people predict we may soon (again in relative terms) have the equivalent of an oil glut which will tend to really throw a monkey wrench in the plans to use Ethanol.
FFV (cars) have to be able to use either E85 or plain, normal petrol-gas. Some of the efficiencies and performance that ethanol MIGHT offer are prevented from fully forming because the FFV's are not made to optimize the use of ethanol.
We currently have ethanol as a more expensive fuel that goes about 25 - 30% LESS far than its gasoline cousin.
We have little capacity, but more is coming on line.
We have difficulty distributing it since it cannot be pumped through the same system that gasoline is pumped through.
And the list of negs seems to grow almost daily.
Still with a $.51 per gallon incentive, it costs about the same as gasoline. Stop the incentive and the effective cost of driving a car with ethanol raises by about 50% (based on the cost to fill up and the mileage that ethanol demonstrates.)
Ad hominem attacks on folks seem to be escalating and we don't seem to move the discussion forward much.
Repeating our points is not without merit, however, since there are new posters and readers all the time here.
Yet the camps seem to be fully convinced that:
Ethanol is -- but this camp seems to offer a bit less substantive argument; and,
Ethanol is not -- this camp (and I guess I am in it) is frustrated and sometimes dumb founded since the "is" camp often only responds incompletely (IMO and some other folks.)
Bio something has "sex" appeal. It also has government support via our tax dollars.
Finding and or going after the oil we know is there and can get to with present technology is not sexy.
All the "experts" seem to agree on only one thing -- we have a finite amount of oil. But even here there is some disagreement. I have read estimates of capacity based on current rate of consumption with a growth factor, that claim we have somewhere between 100 and 400 years worth of oil THAT WE KNOW ABOUT.
Yes, that is finite -- but we do appear to have enough time to move the technology forward.
Improvements in ICE (both gas and diesel) keep coming and nothing seems to indicate we are all dried up in the idea department to continue making dramatic improvements to ICE's.
This is fun, sometimes -- but we seem to have caved into a notion that we MUST convert food to fuel, even if it cannot be demonstrated to be economically viable to do so.
I keep on keepin' on -- for perhaps we will make enough noise to be given new information and data or our protestations to the contrary will actually be heard by our leaders and they will realize that perhaps a wee bit too much faith has been placed in ethanol (at this time.)
Diesel probably will "take off" but it probably will remain a minority player (the MOST optimistic diesel penetration prediction I have read is for 20% in less than 12 years
I think the one thing that would push that number more quickly is Congress and the EPA. If they were to push CAFE numbers upward by a large percentage, only one fuel could fill the bill. If trucks and SUVs were pushed to 30 MPG combined, there is no way a gas or gas hybrid could fill the bill. The hybrid SUVs now are near worthless as SUVs. they are fine for soccer mom's and trophy wives as long as they stay on the highway or don't tow anything bigger than a jet ski. The only current SUV that would be close and it would need to do better is the Liberty CRD. Cars that get 45 MPG combined are midsized and smaller. It is not out of the realm of Congress to mandate something that could not be done with current gas technology. That could sink E85 into oblivion. There is no way you are going to get decent mileage using E85 in a FFV.
I find this global warming debate interesting. It shows how opposing sides can be so entrenched in their believes that they cannot be budged. Actually they can be budged, just not in a way that is immediately noticeable. Several years ago you could find a lot of credible experts that would argue that global warming and increased CO2 levels were not occurring. I don't think you can find anyone saying that now. The question has become, is mankind responsible for this climatic change? That really was the relevant question all along and the ongoing debate has finally gotten us there.
My personal opinion. Yes, global warming is occurring and CO2 levels are increasing but mankinds impact on this phenomena are probably minimal. Regardless, there are still a lot of good reasons to stop burning gas.
I'm curious what kind of credit Congress would give a vehicle that ran on E100? Theoretically its burning no gas so it has infinite mileage. What would infinite mpg for one vehicle do for a fleet's average?
Regardless, there are still a lot of good reasons to stop burning gas
That is the real issue. We are not going to have much control over the World when it comes to Global Warming. We may or may not be the culprit today. I would imagine China and India our manufacturers of choice will contribute more in the years to come. Even snooty old Japan has not gotten their act together on Kyoto. I just find it interesting that the same people that are so adamant about GHG do not endorse the use of diesel to cut GHG 30% right off the bat. They are a one solution band. Their sermon "Quit driving cars" as they fly around the country in their private jets. They would love to shove all us little minds into a bus leaving more fuel for them to use. No names needed for the North Eastern Elitists. We all know who they are. Do you think any of them use E85 in the Flex Fuel Porsches?
Well If the EPA gave GM & Ford a 33 MPG on their Flex Fuel PU trucks that get 11 MPG on E85. I bet they could weasel a 40 MPG rating on an E100 Suburban.
I can hear it now. Mr President, your Suburban is out of booze. GW speaks "Just dump in a couple gallons of cheap vodka." "Better yet call Vicente Fox, we can see if it will run on Tequila!"
I think the one thing that would push that number more quickly is Congress and the EPA. If they were to push CAFE numbers upward by a large percentage, only one fuel could fill the bill
That exactly why this will never happen. Don't forget we pay gas taxes based on gallons we burn...
Don't forget we pay gas taxes based on gallons we burn
That is a very valid point and one I have given much consideration to. I think this whole ethanol thing is just a smoke screen to keep us paying the same while it looks like something is being done. Look at 90% of the FFVs sold, they are big trucks and SUVs. How is that going to cut back on energy consumption? Especially when less than 1% can find E85, and will use regular gas at about 15 MPG at best. I think if the truth were known state and federal government would like us all to own Suburbans. Keep them gas taxes rolling in.
Check out the Brand New Road and Track. There is an article that is much shorter than the Car and Driver article and it makes a strong case against Ethanol from the MPG and governement subsidy point of view.
what needs to happen (whether subsidized or not) is 2 things: - E85 must be available - at least to the extent that diesel is currently available and - some manufacturer out there (probably with a Japanese sounding name) needs to develop the technology to make it practical from an operating cost standpoint - meaning competitive economy from an ethanol specific engine and/or enough government money and market place interference to FORCE it to be competitive (a real problem).
If someone like a Honda or Toyota could manufacture an E85 specific engine (the American mfgrs. not the choice) that could have fuel economy within 10% or so of what current dinofuel engines can do, and, of course, I can get the E85 at the same price then I'm probably willing to pay the 10% premium - unless, of course, I'm already paying for it anyway thru silly subsidies and other policies. Which I suspect may become the case if all these 'tree huggin' politicians have their way.
some manufacturer out there (probably with a Japanese sounding name) needs to develop the technology to make it practical from an operating cost standpoint - meaning competitive economy from an ethanol specific engine and/or enough government money and market place interference to FORCE it to be competitive (a real problem)
I have to differ with this. There is a lot of talk on this thread that presumes that drivers will freak out with the loss of mileage as if it is some sort of deal breaking felony, but I'm not seeing this. I suspect that if the price of the fuel is right, not many drivers will care, just so long as they can travel a decent distance on a tank of fuel, i.e. 300 miles or so. (I'm presuming here that in this scenario that the E85 fuel is readily available.)
In my mind, the real problem is being able to produce enough fuel so as to allow a full-time E85 solution. I'm just not seeing how we're going to increase our ethanol output by a factor of 30 times until we have the biomass to do it. But if you can hurdle that, then it becomes a matter of taxes, subsidies or the free market delivering enough product to make it worthwhile for the consumer.
Same thing goes for biodiesel, by the way. Both fuel types need a lot more R&D, not for the cars themselves but for the fuel source and the volumes required to make this work.
I have to differ with this. There is a lot of talk on this thread that presumes that drivers will freak out with the loss of mileage as if it is some sort of deal breaking felony, but I'm not seeing this.
I only see this as long as the cost per mile is more for E85 than it is for gas. In other words if they can go 300 miles on $30 of gas or on $33 of E85 its not hard to predict what the vast majority of the population will do.
Unfortunately I don't see the cost per mile for E85 to be less than it is for gas anytime in the future. Nor do I see us producing enough for any large scale use.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I've noticed that the stock prices for these ethanol producing companies has started to decline recently. I think that is a good indication the general public is starting to realize that this "solution" was over hyped.
also assuming E85 availability, I would contend that a significant portion of our population would tolerate (and perhaps even prefer) paying a 10% or so premium for burning alcohol. But not much more than that and not at the expense of driving an extra 20 miles to find someone selling the stuff. There is only so much that folks will do in the interest of political/environmental correctness. Kind of like Prius buyers, there are only a limited number of folks willing to put up with the 'appliance' aspects of that particular car.
On the left side of the street is "Name Brand Here" filling station that offer's E85 (with the current $.51 hidden tax) at a retail price of $3.28 per gallon. On the right side of the street or perhaps just up the street on the left is another "Name Brand Here" filling station that offers E10 or "E0" for $3.18 per gallon.
Based on where we are today and will be for at least several YEARS to come, the FFV vehicle I am driving will go 68% of the distance -- using E85 -- as it will using the other stuff.
Let me do a little bit of Quick 'n' Dirty figgurin' as I see my choices ahead of me. . . .
My tank holds 20 gallons. My "OK" mileage V6 engine is rated at 30mpg highway using gasoline.
My fill up with gasoline costs that moment out of pocket: $63.60.
My fill up with E85blend costs that moment out of pocket: $65.60.
I "might" pay $2 for the E85 if I thought the hassle was greater to get the gasoline.
Knowing (unless I lived in a cave and this was my first fill up) that E85 would only go 68% as far as gasoline, I would conclude:
My distance to empty with the gasoline purchase is: 600 miles.
My distance to empty with the E85blend purchase is: 408 miles.
My cost per mile with gasoline is: $.106.
My cost per mile with E85blend is: $.160.
The cost difference percent to choose E85blend is: 33.75%
This means the effective markup to use E85blend is: 50.94%
Why would any capitalistic minded person -- or even any person who does not have unlimited money, choose the E85 filling station.
Moreover, if the $.51 per gallon "dole" from our government was pulled, well, shudder to think what the cost per mile would be.
It would rise from $.160 to $.185.
The cost difference % to choose E85blend then: 57.29%
This means the markup to use E85blend becomes: 74.52%
========== What in the wide wide world of sports would motivate me to do this? ==========
:confuse:
Please note, I chose 10 cents as the difference figure, NOT 10%. It would be even worse at that level of difference.
E85: a recipe to starve and bankrupt us (based on what we know now.
Unfortunately I don't see the cost per mile for E85 to be less than it is for gas anytime in the future.
I don't think that the average consumer is going to make a detailed cost per mile analysis. Chances are that he'll look at the pump price of the two fuels, make a guestimate of which one is the better value (I'm assuming if we all had FFV vehicles that most of us would have a ballpark rule-of-thumb that we'd use when filling up), and then go accordingly.
It comes back to pricing, and I suspect that the E10 mandate will eventually help with that as more production is ramped up to meet the demand. Right now, the situation is reversed because the mandate rolled in before the supply was ready to match, but this should change as the suppliers step up to meet the demand created by the mandate.
To put this in perspective, early last year, the wholesale price of ethanol was roughly 40%/ $0.70 per gallon below that of gas, but has escalated since the E10 mandate came into play. Right now, the market is in transition because of this supply constraint, but that should be resolved as the supply ramp-up brings the price closer to equilibrium.
At that point, the next question will be whether the cost of producing those supplies exceeds the market price, or whether ethanol will stand on its own two feet. We'll see about that, but if subsidies taper off, the industry will have some incentive to look for other biomass so that it can convert all this new infrastructure into profits.
Few will pay anything close to the price of gasoline or E10blend for E85blend if the MPG situation in the FFV vehicles is not brought from the twilight zone.
If the Miles Per Tankful with gas is 600 and the MPT for the same number of gallons with E85 is 408, the price of E85 would have to fall to about $2.23 during the time period that gasoline or E10blend was about $3.18 to $3.28.
Here in Cincinnati (now fondly known as the home of the Flying Pig Marathon), we often say "when pigs can fly."
I don't think that the average consumer is going to make a detailed cost per mile analysis.
No they won't make a detailed cost per mile analysis. What will happen is that they will discover that by switching to E85 their $35.00 a week gas usage is now $42.00 a week with no real price increase in gas and no real increase in miles driven. It won't take long for them to switch back to regular gas.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It's cynical, but I bet if there was some way to people to externally advertise that they run E85 there would be more willingness to pay a price premium to do so.
Few will pay anything close to the price of gasoline or E10blend for E85blend if the MPG situation in the FFV vehicles is not brought from the twilight zone.
E10 is not a problem, because you'll eventually be buying it, regardless. There won't be anything to cross-shop if it's being sold at 100% of stations. (Well, I suppose that you could drive up to Windsor, Ontario for your next fill-up, but I doubt that many of us will be doing that...)
Again, you can't use today's pump prices as a rigid guideline for future prices. The one thing that ethanol has over gas is that it will be much easier to increase production by large percentages, which means its price is likely to fall. There may be some future price softness for gas, but I doubt that gas prices are going to plummet anytime soom.
The one thing that ethanol has over gas is that it will be much easier to increase production by large percentages, which means its price is likely to fall.
To a point you can "easily" increase production. Remember that ethanol has to be made and its made from a raw material. Once you start producing enough ethanol that it starts taking that raw material away from other needs or that raw material gets harder to come by it gets very hard to increase production and prices will increase sharply.
My best guess is that at current level of usage E85 would not break 30% of our fuel needs, and that won't be for many years. And that is a best senerio based on current usage. It is more likely that E85 would only provide for 15% of our fuel needs when ethanol production is at it highest. To increase beyond that point would greatly increase the cost of ethanol.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
My best guess is that at current level of usage E85 would not break 30% of our fuel needs, and that won't be for many years.
That's not a bad guess, you may very well be right.
I suspect that as things evolve, E10 will be a national product, while if it gains traction, E85 may be a largely regional product.
If you could actually reduce overall gasoline usage by a large proportion, i.e. 20% or so because of an alternative fuel being introduced to the national energy mix, that would be a massive change in the overall demand for oil.
If that's achievable and could be combined with other solutions, it's a worthwhile goal. It's that sort of reduction in demand during the seventies that helped to break the OPEC cartel.
Actually the mandate is E2.78 or 2.78% ethanol average for all regular gas. The kicker is if MN uses E10 for all regular that takes the refiners off the hook for any ethanol in another location.
As far as E85 sales. I would be willing to bet that at least 90% is being used in government vehicles. Many local government vehicles are mandated ethanol use. Makes sense because they can put in a tank and dispense it directly. And as we know our local and federal government has plenty of money to waste.
Comments
Since then, the 4.2TDI has been ever so slightly improved.
Imagine if we put even that huge power monster in something more the size of an A4 or A6, the mileage would certainly improve. Better yet, look at the Audi, BMW and Mercedes 6 cylinder diesel's performance and mileage specifications.
The Audi A6 quattro 3.0TDI compares in size and price with the Audi A6 quattro 3.2FSI (the diesel is about $1,000 less to buy) and the diesel is one-tenth of a second quicker than the gas version, all while getting 20% better MPG's using fuel that is often less expensive (here in the US, at least) than the premium gasoline the 3.2 engine demands.
The BMW 535d is so potent, it was recently compared to the BMW 5 series with a V8. Of course the V8 did win by a small, but not insignificant margin. But, the V8 and the 6 cylinder diesel would probably not be cross shopped as the V8 is much more expensive than the diesel.
Keeping price similarity, however, every more or less price equivalent diesel version when compared to its fraternal twin body style gasoline version "beats" the reaper.
Audis, BMWs and Mercedes diesel mid size cars (A6, 5 series and E class) have comparably priced gasoline versions -- the diesel versions according to test reports are:
1 Lower in MSRP
2 Quicker to speed
3 More fuel efficient by some 20%
4 More durable
5 Have no top speed penalty (limited to 130MPH in the US market, I'd wager)
6 Are quieter inside the cabin
7 Can use fuel that costs less per gallon to buy
8 Pollute less.
And, despite all this, as several here are quick to point out (and I must reluctantly agree), diesels have, thus far, been unpopular with American buyers.
My belief is that with diesel hot rods and clean diesel there will be some impetus for this attitude to morph somewhat.
Much as I want diesel to reach 30% penetration, I think that has little chance of happening. Of course, without the Ethanol subsidy and with the facts (lower mileage by some 25 - 30%) about Ethanol being told, I would say, then diesel could have a better chance at success and lowering our dependence on Middle Eastern goo.
Under the most wildly optimistic scenarios, we might reduce our demand and use of oil to 65 - 70% by the 22nd century via alternatives to petroleum based oil. We "Might."
New technologies, new political will (or lack thereof) and a "new attitude" of course could change these predicted percentages up or down, though.
As my dad used to say, "fill 'er up with ethyl" (who in the world is Ethyl, I thought.)
That is the key to diesel success of failure in the US market. If the EPA would make a formula based on ALL emissions and fuel economy. The modern diesel would win every contest except against the CNG Civic. There will be some interesting discussion when the EPA implements the new criteria for MPG ratings. I don't think the hybrids will be sitting so pretty.
I would like to see more legitimate cross country mileage tests. A Passat TDI against the Camry Hybrid coast to coast at Interstate speeds.
You can remove Hyundai from the mix, their CEO is currently behind bars and the Hyundai dynasty is in confusion and doubt, the efforts of this national conglomerate are a historic joke and farce. Remember, Korea has a democratic government only since 1979 and still does not know how to handle it most of the time, heck Hyundai REFUSES to even say how much they are scamming from the American public with their cheap corner-cutting junk(their Sonata has 30% less welds than a comparative Toyota or Honda --talk about crushable and unsafe junk!)
Right now diesel autos are about 1/4 of one percent of auto registrations (mostly pickup trucks) and there are NO diesel autos available for sale in the USA. The infrastructure for diesel auto repair does not exist...NADA, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH...and will only possibly be made available someday. It is a tiny niche market that has had only one hundred years to develop, must be another conspiracy. Don't fall for the lies that pervade the bloggers on the Internet...sama as the one trillion barrels of oil -- yes, somebody was drinking a lot of E100 ethanol to state that hilarious lie! Read man, and think, think, think, use your head and think it through. Not everyone is as anti-american about fuels as we read here in this forum!
Ethanol is an American-made fuel that lessens the dependence on foreign oil.
Ethanol is a clean-burning fuel, which improves air quality. Ethanol is an oxygenate; oxygen helps the fuel burn more cleanly and more completely.
Ethanol has a higher octane rating than regular gasoline, which allows for more horsepower and torque.
Increased production of ethanol benefits grain farmers and creates good-paying jobs with the development of ethanol refineries, especially in rural areas where manufacturing jobs have been few.
As far as Hyundais's CEO in trouble from what I understand some corporate 'brother-in-law' shenanigans, this would be true - not likely to effect the multi-billion $ conglomerate Hyundai is - something that never happens in the corporate world?
Nope don't think so, Hyundai is now a major player on the world market and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Hyundai is far from confusion and doubt and are making world class cars.
As for the former CEO in legal trouble that is far from bringing down the company.
The rest of your post is so biased its laughable (but when have you been totally objective on this forum) and has been addressed on other Edmunds forums.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Promise: Ethanol will save us from global warming.
When fossil fuels are burned, they release carbon that was removed from the atmosphere billions of years ago by plants and stored in fossils ever since. This release, in the form of carbon dioxide, builds up greenhouse gases that are widely believed to be causing climate change. Ethanol releases carbon dioxide, too, but some of it was removed from the air recently by the plants grown as feedstock for ethanol production. So ethanol recycles a share of its carbon, and the size of that recycled share determines its greenhouse appeal.
Ideally, ethanol would be efficient enough as a fuel to power ethanol-production factories. But it’s nowhere close. With today’s technology, the carbon dioxide released by the fossil fuel used to produce ethanol towers over the amount recycled.
Switching from gasoline to ethanol would have an “ambiguous effect” on greenhouse gases, according to the Berkeley study, with reported values ranging from a 32-percent decrease to a 20-percent increase. It concluded that a 13-percent reduction was likely per BTU.
The U.S. Department of Energy was less optimistic, concluding that E85 produces only a four-percent reduction in carbon dioxide. In the near term, ethanol has no chance of mitigating global warming.
While diesels represent 1/4% of registered vehicles you can watch that double within a year once lower end (read Honda and Hyundai) manufacturers start bringing them in. Heck from what I understand there is a waiting list for the diesel Smart cars in Canada. Mark my words after a more moderately priced car line starts bringing in diesels you will see a rapid growth of diesel cars in the 10-15 years following that.
Don't fall for the lies that pervade the bloggers on the Internet
Don't worry we are not falling for your lies.
Read man, and think, think, think, use your head and think it through.
Good advice maybe you should follow it, we have and we see the light.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There will be several MORE diesel autos for sale and more coming in the next 9 - 18 months.
None of this means they will be sold in sufficient numbers to increase the the 0.26% penetration (light diesels) we have as of now.
All things considered, diesels stand a chance of being more attractive (to the left brain) than ethanol as things stand now.
This too may not mean a hill of beans in terms of sales.
Diesel's "proven" benefits (economic and otherwise) are powerful reasons why it "ought" to increase its market penetration.
But, our fellow poster, socal, makes some very potent points.
My only disagreement with his points are more like contradiction rather than argument, for we don't know if clean diesel, some bio-diesel and the government incentives (and the importation of some high buck cars to run it in) for you and me and all the ships at sea to buy a diesel (since these perfect storm events haven't actually converged YET) will be none, a little, some or a lot of incentive.
My guess is the incentive will be "a little" unless some star power and marketing muscle (and money) are put into making "My Mother" aware of diesel (my mom is of sound mind, well educated and read, but she is 93, so she is probably only slightly more aware than the average American of the benefits that could accrue to us were we to actually adopt diesel cars in any meaningful quantity.)
:surprise:
Lets see
1.) it costs more to run your car on it (oops thats not a benefit)
2.) Its very hard to find (oops again not a benefit).
3.) We can never produce enough of it to make it worth while (oops again not a benefit).
4.) You have to fill up more often (Again not a benefit).
5.) It makes ADM rich at the taxpayers expense (now there is a benefit if you have stock in ADM).
6.) its clean burning Ok we have one, no wait while its clean burning the production causes pollution so I guess thats not a real benefit.
Gee I guess it only benefits a few well connected groups that have either bribed or pressured the government to back something that cannot possibly benefit the vast majority of us.
Ethanol has a higher octane rating than regular gasoline, which allows for more horsepower and torque.
Again for someone that complains about misinformation you sure do put out more than your fair share. Increasing the octane of your gas will not increase your horsepower or torque.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I doubt that. Diesels comprise about 3% of new car registrations, so I doubt that this totals 1/4 of 1% of total registrations.
there are NO diesel autos available for sale in the USA
That's obviously not true, with cars such as the Jetta and Mercedes E-Class. While it's true that diesel sales are a tiny piece of the US market, it's not correct to say that the cars don't exist.
Not everyone is as anti-american about fuels as we read here in this forum!
Can we please stop questioning peoples' patriotism or lack thereof? That's not helping anyone here.
And, I do agree that when the moderately and value priced car lines start offering diesels, we will see if diesel cars in the US are "ready for prime time."
Past experience may be an indicator of future performance though -- and if that holds to be true -- gulp, we're doomed.
My 40 something neighbors (mostly MBA's) all think diesels are dirty, noisy, smelly and not much fun to drive. So they fill up their garages with new Escalades and joke (but not really JOKE) about feet per gallon.
When I show them some of the evidence about diesel BMW's for instance, they change their tune and wonder "when the inventory will be available for them to test drive."
I keep trying to vet what seniorjose writes, but a sizable portion of it is made up of incomplete facts or, "true lies" (and I am assuming seniorjose is well-meaning even though his posts do seem awfully close to ad hominem diatribes.)
I assume it means that when 100,000 non-commercial vehicles are sold that the number of light diesels in this population equals 260.
I don't want to throw out inaccurate data -- and I only have this source to try to relate to what I would call "passenger" vehicle penetration (in the US.)
This is the same article that claimed 30% of total European vehicles were diesel but that 70% of high end passenger vehicle registrations were for those with diesel power.
The quote that we have used (I know I have) from this article is that the savings PER DAY with 30% diesel penetration in the US would be equal to the amount we import from the Middle east.
What makes that attractive is that it would reduce our dependence on some particular foreign oil -- we would still be importing the majority of our oil even if "poof" we were 70% gasoline and 30% diesel overnight.
Do you really think that the price sensitive American public is going to pay what effectively amounts to an extra dollar/gallon to be politically correct? E10 is becoming more common primarily as a means for some of the major distributors to boost octane ratings; E85 is a long, long way from becoming a viable option.
In the light-duty market, diesel registrations nearly doubled (95% growth) between 2000 and 2005, climbing from 22,543 to 44,031. When given a choice between a gasoline or diesel engine, consumers purchased the diesel engine option almost half the time (45%) in 2005.
I get 3.2% of the light vehicles sold in 2005 were diesel.
Since the jury is still out on global warming and most likely will present us with a not guilty verdict may I ask how can ethanol save use from something that doesn't exist?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is the only way I can figure out what the 0.26% number stands for.
I thought there was no dispute about global warming.
I thought the dispute was the CAUSE of global warming, that is, how much of the global warming is normal and natural and how much is made by humans.
My vote is that human made GW is a pretty big factor.
Not that Ethanol stands much chance of helping there either.
Let's all go see Al Gore's movie and see if we are moved in our opinions.
You go first. I'll go next, and so on.
Sorry I will stick with facts and forgo a movie length commercial on why I should vote for Al Gore in 2008.
FWIW I remember global cooling.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Second, can we please get away from commenting about each other here? These little personal barbs that escalate into insults are really starting to get old.
It's OK to disagree... you don't have to be disagreeable to do so.
Is this not correct? If so, it would seem a whole lot easier (and quicker) to correct the refining processes than it would be to try to create an entire infrastructure to distribute alcohol.
Down here in the land of pickups/SUVs (Texas) the diesel is certainly preferred for its torque, longevity, and economy. Would be willing to bet you that 1 out of every 3 or 4 are diesels. Also am seeing a whole lot more Jetta TDIs, the only car that VW can't keep in stock down here and that further sells at a helluva premium because of the high demand. The point is that I don't see a public resistance to diesels - it's more a question of availability.
Is this not correct?
Up until now that was partially correct, now we are getting much cleaner diesel fuel which most likely will get more diesel cars here in the US.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't really care who anyone here votes for one way or the other.
Sorry to unintentionally imply something. I have read the reviews and the movie seems potentially enlightening.
Back to the topic du jour.
It seems that "clean diesel" won't be here overnight, but that it has started down the pipe, so to speak. The first of June 2006, low sulphur diesel began flowing - - SOMEWHERE.
The roll out of the clean diesel is to happen either "by" 2007 or sometime "during" 2007. Of that, I have been able to determine a consistent message. Now, that may mean January 1, 2007 or December 31, 2007. Someone must know and can cite their source.
The reintroduction of diesel vehicles is already happening and more pre announcements have already happened. I personally do not know of any CARS that will be diesel that are US brands -- but one has to assume they will be here in less than 2 years, especially now that the energy bill of 2005 offers tax credits for hybrids AND diesels.
The diesel infrastructure can pump either dirty or clean diesel, nothing to replace the current distribution network has to be done (other than increase its capacity should diesel "take off.")
Diesel probably will "take off" but it probably will remain a minority player (the MOST optimistic diesel penetration prediction I have read is for 20% in less than 12 years -- usually the optimists limit their predictions to 15%; and, of course there are many who think 10% would be a miracle.)
What we are talking about here is diesel as an "alternative" fuel of course, which it technically is NOT. But it passes as an alternative to gasoline simply because -- it IS an alternative considering its current utilization (light diesel.)
Other comments that are valid but even less likely to make a dent in our utilization of fossil based diesel concern Bio-diesel of varying percentages, all the way to 100% bio.
These European spec cars from Audi, BMW, Mercedes and VW all can burn clean diesel regardless of the number of dinosaurs or french fries that died to create it.
The clean diesel that we will have within the one year roll out, as I understand it, will permit almost any of the popular diesel variants to be imported here, built here or actually designed here, to run "fine as wine."
The anticipation of this clean diesel is what Audi of America and Mercedes USA are counting on and have therefore announced the expansion of their US diesel programs (Audi currently has no US diesels but has announced its intention to begin selling diesel versions here in the US, its sister company VW does sell one engine and is planning to expand the number of models that will offer diesel, too; Mercedes has one diesel currently and will expand that within the next year.)
The Japanese once they begin to offer diesels will perhaps tell us what the appetite really is for diesels in this country. Two Japanese mfgrs have indicated that they plan to bring diesel power to the US, too.
Diesel probably won't kill Ethanol fever, but it probably could were it not for the momentum and government subsidies it enjoys.
Ethanol has several issues that have been discussed at length here -- the main one seems to be that it makes little economic sense TODAY and within the next 10 years (based on where we are now, and what we know now.)
But, I, for one, keep pulling for it, for I do not think we should put all our eggs in one or two baskets. Currently I favor examining -- by our "leaders" -- the Rand report (June 2005) and ask "what has Shell done" since June 9, 2005 to move the "cooking" of oil shale along.
Moreover, too many smart people predict we may soon (again in relative terms) have the equivalent of an oil glut which will tend to really throw a monkey wrench in the plans to use Ethanol.
FFV (cars) have to be able to use either E85 or plain, normal petrol-gas. Some of the efficiencies and performance that ethanol MIGHT offer are prevented from fully forming because the FFV's are not made to optimize the use of ethanol.
We currently have ethanol as a more expensive fuel that goes about 25 - 30% LESS far than its gasoline cousin.
We have little capacity, but more is coming on line.
We have difficulty distributing it since it cannot be pumped through the same system that gasoline is pumped through.
And the list of negs seems to grow almost daily.
Still with a $.51 per gallon incentive, it costs about the same as gasoline. Stop the incentive and the effective cost of driving a car with ethanol raises by about 50% (based on the cost to fill up and the mileage that ethanol demonstrates.)
Ad hominem attacks on folks seem to be escalating and we don't seem to move the discussion forward much.
Repeating our points is not without merit, however, since there are new posters and readers all the time here.
Yet the camps seem to be fully convinced that:
Ethanol is -- but this camp seems to offer a bit less substantive argument; and,
Ethanol is not -- this camp (and I guess I am in it) is frustrated and sometimes dumb founded since the "is" camp often only responds incompletely (IMO and some other folks.)
Bio something has "sex" appeal. It also has government support via our tax dollars.
Finding and or going after the oil we know is there and can get to with present technology is not sexy.
All the "experts" seem to agree on only one thing -- we have a finite amount of oil. But even here there is some disagreement. I have read estimates of capacity based on current rate of consumption with a growth factor, that claim we have somewhere between 100 and 400 years worth of oil THAT WE KNOW ABOUT.
Yes, that is finite -- but we do appear to have enough time to move the technology forward.
Improvements in ICE (both gas and diesel) keep coming and nothing seems to indicate we are all dried up in the idea department to continue making dramatic improvements to ICE's.
This is fun, sometimes -- but we seem to have caved into a notion that we MUST convert food to fuel, even if it cannot be demonstrated to be economically viable to do so.
I keep on keepin' on -- for perhaps we will make enough noise to be given new information and data or our protestations to the contrary will actually be heard by our leaders and they will realize that perhaps a wee bit too much faith has been placed in ethanol (at this time.)
:surprise:
I think the one thing that would push that number more quickly is Congress and the EPA. If they were to push CAFE numbers upward by a large percentage, only one fuel could fill the bill. If trucks and SUVs were pushed to 30 MPG combined, there is no way a gas or gas hybrid could fill the bill. The hybrid SUVs now are near worthless as SUVs. they are fine for soccer mom's and trophy wives as long as they stay on the highway or don't tow anything bigger than a jet ski. The only current SUV that would be close and it would need to do better is the Liberty CRD. Cars that get 45 MPG combined are midsized and smaller. It is not out of the realm of Congress to mandate something that could not be done with current gas technology. That could sink E85 into oblivion. There is no way you are going to get decent mileage using E85 in a FFV.
My personal opinion. Yes, global warming is occurring and CO2 levels are increasing but mankinds impact on this phenomena are probably minimal. Regardless, there are still a lot of good reasons to stop burning gas.
That is the real issue. We are not going to have much control over the World when it comes to Global Warming. We may or may not be the culprit today. I would imagine China and India our manufacturers of choice will contribute more in the years to come. Even snooty old Japan has not gotten their act together on Kyoto. I just find it interesting that the same people that are so adamant about GHG do not endorse the use of diesel to cut GHG 30% right off the bat. They are a one solution band. Their sermon "Quit driving cars" as they fly around the country in their private jets. They would love to shove all us little minds into a bus leaving more fuel for them to use. No names needed for the North Eastern Elitists. We all know who they are. Do you think any of them use E85 in the Flex Fuel Porsches?
I can hear it now. Mr President, your Suburban is out of booze. GW speaks "Just dump in a couple gallons of cheap vodka." "Better yet call Vicente Fox, we can see if it will run on Tequila!"
http://asap.ap.org/stories/692924.s
Parts 3 and 4 will be up Thursday at:
http://asap.ap.org
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006606290327
Rocky
That exactly why this will never happen.
Don't forget we pay gas taxes based on gallons we burn...
That is a very valid point and one I have given much consideration to. I think this whole ethanol thing is just a smoke screen to keep us paying the same while it looks like something is being done. Look at 90% of the FFVs sold, they are big trucks and SUVs. How is that going to cut back on energy consumption? Especially when less than 1% can find E85, and will use regular gas at about 15 MPG at best. I think if the truth were known state and federal government would like us all to own Suburbans. Keep them gas taxes rolling in.
Check out the Brand New Road and Track. There is an article that is much shorter than the Car and Driver article and it makes a strong case against Ethanol from the MPG and governement subsidy point of view.
- E85 must be available - at least to the extent that diesel is currently available
and
- some manufacturer out there (probably with a Japanese sounding name) needs to develop the technology to make it practical from an operating cost standpoint - meaning competitive economy from an ethanol specific engine and/or enough government money and market place interference to FORCE it to be competitive (a real problem).
If someone like a Honda or Toyota could manufacture an E85 specific engine (the American mfgrs. not the choice) that could have fuel economy within 10% or so of what current dinofuel engines can do, and, of course, I can get the E85 at the same price then I'm probably willing to pay the 10% premium - unless, of course, I'm already paying for it anyway thru silly subsidies and other policies. Which I suspect may become the case if all these 'tree huggin' politicians have their way.
I have to differ with this. There is a lot of talk on this thread that presumes that drivers will freak out with the loss of mileage as if it is some sort of deal breaking felony, but I'm not seeing this. I suspect that if the price of the fuel is right, not many drivers will care, just so long as they can travel a decent distance on a tank of fuel, i.e. 300 miles or so. (I'm presuming here that in this scenario that the E85 fuel is readily available.)
In my mind, the real problem is being able to produce enough fuel so as to allow a full-time E85 solution. I'm just not seeing how we're going to increase our ethanol output by a factor of 30 times until we have the biomass to do it. But if you can hurdle that, then it becomes a matter of taxes, subsidies or the free market delivering enough product to make it worthwhile for the consumer.
Same thing goes for biodiesel, by the way. Both fuel types need a lot more R&D, not for the cars themselves but for the fuel source and the volumes required to make this work.
I only see this as long as the cost per mile is more for E85 than it is for gas. In other words if they can go 300 miles on $30 of gas or on $33 of E85 its not hard to predict what the vast majority of the population will do.
Unfortunately I don't see the cost per mile for E85 to be less than it is for gas anytime in the future. Nor do I see us producing enough for any large scale use.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
On the left side of the street is "Name Brand Here" filling station that offer's E85 (with the current $.51 hidden tax) at a retail price of $3.28 per gallon. On the right side of the street or perhaps just up the street on the left is another "Name Brand Here" filling station that offers E10 or "E0" for $3.18 per gallon.
Based on where we are today and will be for at least several YEARS to come, the FFV vehicle I am driving will go 68% of the distance -- using E85 -- as it will using the other stuff.
Let me do a little bit of Quick 'n' Dirty figgurin' as I see my choices ahead of me. . . .
My tank holds 20 gallons. My "OK" mileage V6 engine is rated at 30mpg highway using gasoline.
My fill up with gasoline costs that moment out of pocket: $63.60.
My fill up with E85blend costs that moment out of pocket: $65.60.
I "might" pay $2 for the E85 if I thought the hassle was greater to get the gasoline.
Knowing (unless I lived in a cave and this was my first fill up) that E85 would only go 68% as far as gasoline, I would conclude:
My distance to empty with the gasoline purchase is: 600 miles.
My distance to empty with the E85blend purchase is: 408 miles.
My cost per mile with gasoline is: $.106.
My cost per mile with E85blend is: $.160.
The cost difference percent to choose E85blend is: 33.75%
This means the effective markup to use E85blend is: 50.94%
Why would any capitalistic minded person -- or even any person who does not have unlimited money, choose the E85 filling station.
Moreover, if the $.51 per gallon "dole" from our government was pulled, well, shudder to think what the cost per mile would be.
It would rise from $.160 to $.185.
The cost difference % to choose E85blend then: 57.29%
This means the markup to use E85blend becomes: 74.52%
==========
What in the wide wide world of sports would motivate me to do this?
==========
:confuse:
Please note, I chose 10 cents as the difference figure, NOT 10%. It would be even worse at that level of difference.
E85: a recipe to starve and bankrupt us (based on what we know now.
Talk about the poverty of power. . . .
I don't think that the average consumer is going to make a detailed cost per mile analysis. Chances are that he'll look at the pump price of the two fuels, make a guestimate of which one is the better value (I'm assuming if we all had FFV vehicles that most of us would have a ballpark rule-of-thumb that we'd use when filling up), and then go accordingly.
It comes back to pricing, and I suspect that the E10 mandate will eventually help with that as more production is ramped up to meet the demand. Right now, the situation is reversed because the mandate rolled in before the supply was ready to match, but this should change as the suppliers step up to meet the demand created by the mandate.
To put this in perspective, early last year, the wholesale price of ethanol was roughly 40%/ $0.70 per gallon below that of gas, but has escalated since the E10 mandate came into play. Right now, the market is in transition because of this supply constraint, but that should be resolved as the supply ramp-up brings the price closer to equilibrium.
At that point, the next question will be whether the cost of producing those supplies exceeds the market price, or whether ethanol will stand on its own two feet. We'll see about that, but if subsidies taper off, the industry will have some incentive to look for other biomass so that it can convert all this new infrastructure into profits.
If the Miles Per Tankful with gas is 600 and the MPT for the same number of gallons with E85 is 408, the price of E85 would have to fall to about $2.23 during the time period that gasoline or E10blend was about $3.18 to $3.28.
Here in Cincinnati (now fondly known as the home of the Flying Pig Marathon), we often say "when pigs can fly."
When pigs can fly.
There, I said it. :surprise:
No they won't make a detailed cost per mile analysis. What will happen is that they will discover that by switching to E85 their $35.00 a week gas usage is now $42.00 a week with no real price increase in gas and no real increase in miles driven. It won't take long for them to switch back to regular gas.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
E10 is not a problem, because you'll eventually be buying it, regardless. There won't be anything to cross-shop if it's being sold at 100% of stations. (Well, I suppose that you could drive up to Windsor, Ontario for your next fill-up, but I doubt that many of us will be doing that...)
Again, you can't use today's pump prices as a rigid guideline for future prices. The one thing that ethanol has over gas is that it will be much easier to increase production by large percentages, which means its price is likely to fall. There may be some future price softness for gas, but I doubt that gas prices are going to plummet anytime soom.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
To a point you can "easily" increase production. Remember that ethanol has to be made and its made from a raw material. Once you start producing enough ethanol that it starts taking that raw material away from other needs or that raw material gets harder to come by it gets very hard to increase production and prices will increase sharply.
My best guess is that at current level of usage E85 would not break 30% of our fuel needs, and that won't be for many years. And that is a best senerio based on current usage. It is more likely that E85 would only provide for 15% of our fuel needs when ethanol production is at it highest. To increase beyond that point would greatly increase the cost of ethanol.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That's not a bad guess, you may very well be right.
I suspect that as things evolve, E10 will be a national product, while if it gains traction, E85 may be a largely regional product.
If you could actually reduce overall gasoline usage by a large proportion, i.e. 20% or so because of an alternative fuel being introduced to the national energy mix, that would be a massive change in the overall demand for oil.
If that's achievable and could be combined with other solutions, it's a worthwhile goal. It's that sort of reduction in demand during the seventies that helped to break the OPEC cartel.
Actually the mandate is E2.78 or 2.78% ethanol average for all regular gas. The kicker is if MN uses E10 for all regular that takes the refiners off the hook for any ethanol in another location.
As far as E85 sales. I would be willing to bet that at least 90% is being used in government vehicles. Many local government vehicles are mandated ethanol use. Makes sense because they can put in a tank and dispense it directly. And as we know our local and federal government has plenty of money to waste.