Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Will ethanol E85 catch on in the US? Will we Live Green and Go Yellow?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I meant to go back and edit my reply to add "...but I am sure I am missing yours, as well.
I really didn't think you were understanding my point.
and since we don't subsidize Hollywood films, I don't care how they do the accounting. But I think we should all care about the real costs of ethanol, since we are ALL paying for it.
cheers!
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/06/vw_ceases_produ.html
It appears that the E10 mandate does ZERO to reduce fuel imports. It's a annoying scam. Please someone make it go away. Maybe George W Biodiesel will VETO ETHANOL.
VW was smart this time around down in Brazil. Last time they built ethanol only cars and when the ethanol market crashed lots of folks were left with cars that would not run on regular gasoline and ethanol was no longer available. It will happen again.
You and I already went over this, and your comment is not correct.
Toyota as Follower, To Sell Ethanol Cars in US by 2008
TOKYO April 18, 2006; Reuters reported thatg Toyota Motor Corp. plans to sell ethanol-powered vehicles in the United States by 2008, following the lead of domestics General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. , the Financial Times reported on Wednesday, citing an unnamed company executive.
A Toyota spokeswoman in Tokyo acknowledged that Japan's top auto maker was developing flexible-fuel vehicles, mainly for the ethanol-smitten Brazilian market for starters, but declined to disclose specific product plans.
"We're proceeding with development of ethanol-based cars for Brazil, but for other markets we are gauging what needs there are first," she said.
Toyota, a market leader in gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, has resisted the technology amid worries about the impact of highly corrosive ethanol on rubber seals in the engine, the Financial Times said.
U.S. auto makers have produced about 6 million flexible-fuel vehicles, with many running on E85, or a fuel blend consisting of 85 percent ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, and 15 percent gasoline.
Toyota's new vehicle would be fitted with anti-corrosive parts to meet U.S. regulations, but the auto maker suggested that a less ambitious strategy of mixing only 10-15 percent ethanol into gasoline might produce greater savings, the paper said.
Toyota is still keen to spread the use of hybrid vehicles, which save fuel by twinning a conventional engine with an electric motor, the spokeswoman said.
Article
what about us who are neither anti nor pro, but just want to understand if ethanol is worth subsidizing? (which begs the question, of course, that ANYthing is worth subsidizing)
It will.
It won't.
It might.
It can't.
It costs less.
It costs more.
It pollutes less.
It pollutes no less, and in some cases more.
It is a net gain in BTU's.
It is a net loss of BTU's.
It is a pure as the driven snow.
It mucks up 12 gallons of water for every 1 gallon of Ethanol.
It can't be distributed in using the current infrastructure.
It needs to be distributed by trucks since it will not have to travel huge distances, it will be sold close to where it is made, that is.
It is subsidized.
Not really.
Oh yea?
Yea!
Says who?
Says me!
It gets substantially 20 - 30% poorer mileage.
Oh, you got me on THAT one.
Truth, accuracy and the American way -- where have thee flown to?
Go placidly
Amid the noise and waste.
And remember what comfort there may be
In owning a piece thereof.
Avoid quiet and passive persons
Unless you are in need of sleep.
Ro-tate your tires.
Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself
And heed well their advice,
Even though they be turkeys.
Know what to kiss.....and when!
Consider that two wrongs never make a right
But that THREE.........do.
Wherever possible, put people on hold.
Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment
And despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in Ethanol.
Take heart amid the deepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.
And reflect that whatever misfortune may be your lot
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.
With all its hopes, dreams, promises and urban renewal
The world continues to deteriorate.
GIVE UP! Deteriorata.
Why can't we find the causes for the apparent (to me at least) contradictions and get the facts out there?
Ethanol: "Do it or don't it?"
I think "it don't," but obviously there are plenty of folks, who despite information that certainly appears valid, appears to be without a hidden agenda, i.e., still think "Ethanol do."
How can that be? :confuse:
Sheesh.
Based on some recent news reports, E85 is going to be in short supply in some places. The Courier-Journal in Louisville had a story on E85. They reported that the wholesale price of ethanol was $3.52. E10 is using up much of the ethanol in that part of the country. Retailers would be wise to carefully consider availability before putting in an E85 pump.
All this is bad timing for GM, Ford and DC if the want to promote FFVs. E85 is going to be expensive outside the Midwest.
None of this changes my opinion that E85 will be an important fuel down the road (5 years+), however.
And for those of you that want to track E85 prices in Nebraska try this site
http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/137.htm
Common sense will rarely prevail because there is very little money in it. Those with common sense and basic deductive reasoning can see what is going to be the most reasonable solution to alternative fuels.
Others will follow the latest craze promoted by the deep pockets and when it fizzles to an end like a sparkler they will look up with that blank stair and wonder, what the?
My next car is going to be a diesel. It’s reliable, it’s time tested it’s more efficient and it can run on any % of bio diesel.
I’m sorry, but none of this ethanol hype makes sense except as an emergency fuel during a national crisis that requires gas rationing and I believe the last time that occurred was World War Two. And no, the 70’s do not count, no national crisis was involved.
Name a large oil spill?
Name a large ethanol spill?
Name a large ethanol spill?"
Is there a point to those questions?
Hmmmmm, and how much oil has been moved around over the last few decades and how much ethanol has been moved around over the last few decades?
What are you trying to say? Do you think the high BOD levels will end up in a stream or river? Wastewater and industrial users have permits that require them to meet limits for BOD, TSS, pH, ammonia, metals and fecal bacteria. Some industrial plants (ethanol for example) will pretreat the discharge before sending it a POTW. Some plants are non-discharging facilities. They treat the wastewater in anaerobic, facultative and/or aerobic lagoons.
If you are worried about the high BOD levels we better shut down all the cheese plants, slaughter houses, dairy farms and CAFOs too.
Yes, some ethanol plants had issues with VOCs, and guess what, they had to address the issue. The states made them fix the problem. The same thing goes on with oil refineries and other industrial plants.
You have thrown out a few really big numbers like 37,000 ppm BOD or 370 times stronger than municipal wastewater. Did you know that antifreeze has a BOD level of about 600,000? Dumping one gallon of antifreeze down the sewer is roughly equal to the amount of BOD 37 people produce in one day.
I will continue to argue that E85 is a good deal from the pollution standpoint. Is it perfect, NO. However, when I look back through history, with regards to oil production and then compare that to ethanol production, I come to the conclusion that Ethanol and E85 is an option we should explore.
Saltwater spill may prompt new oilfield rules, regulator says
January 2006
U.S. Water News Online
BISMARCK, N.D. -- A pipeline that ruptured and spilled more than 900,000 gallons of salt water into a creek in rural northwestern North Dakota did not have equipment that is normally present to detect leaks, a state regulator says...The accident caused a fish kill..
http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcpolicy/6saltspil1.html
You are aware that there are naturally occurring oils spills in the worlds ocean every day? There are parts on the Gulf of Mexico where you can visibly tell that there is oil there and it seeps into the gulf from fractures in the Gulfs floor. IIRC the equivelant of one Exxon Valdez seeps into the oceans naturally every day.
Don't think any amount of ethanol seeps into the ocean naturally.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
From what I understand, ethanol is more corrosive to underground storage tanks. So the LIKILIHOOD of underground tanks leaking is greater with ethanol than with gasoline.
Also, ALL ethanol must be transported by truck. Many would consider this to be more dangerous than transporting gasoline via pipelines.
If oil is spilled on the ground, it doesn't move much beyond the surface. Yes, you've got a sticky mess, virtually all of it is retained in the top inch or two of soil. Ethanol, being soluable in water, can move MUCH more rapidly through the ground and contaminate groundwater.
"If a super tanker spills ethanol, is that better or worse than spilling oil?"
You can clean up the oil spill since it floats on top of the water and can be contained. Ethanol spills from tankers CAN'T be cleaned up since the ethanol is water soluable and very very quickly dissipates in the water.
It was not my study. Take it up with the environmental group FOE that studies such things. I just put it out for debate. Are you saying that ethanol would be safer in a spill situation than saltwater?
As far as oil spills. The last one up in the Arctic had me laughing. Worrying about oil spilling in the Arctic is like worrying about spilling a glass of water in your swimming pool. The only reason the Navy found oil in the Arctic was it was laying in natural pools on the Tundra.
Ethanol in and of itself is not my reason for being in this debate. It is two very big related items. First and foremost is the devastation being caused by growing Corn the way it is currently being grown. It takes more fossil fuel to raise corn to maturity than any other crop. Then the excess Nitrates are washed down the streams into the rivers and then into the ocean. The dead zone is a well known problem caused by midwestern corn growers. Second is the current mandate to use ethanol no matter what it costs us to produce. It is raising the price of gas that it was purported to decrease.
And as a side note the farmers are more productive now than ever before. Yet more are going broke. The reason is it costs more to grow the corn than ever before. Iowa is a prime example of a state that is nearly decimated by modern corn growing techniques.
I previously provided a link to a trade association for storage tank manufacturers (yes, there is a trade group for everything under the sun) that disputes this argument. I know that this corrosion argument floats around the internet, but I would think that the UST makers would be up in arms about ethanol if they believed that it was bad for their businesses. (I'm sure that they wouldn't want to be held liable for any leaks.)
The EPA implemented a drastic overhaul of UST systems back in the nineties that included higher construction standards and leak detection systems.
In my part of the world, many a gas station shut down because of the cost of replacing their tanks. In effect, gas stations are not going to have UST's that were built before 1988, and monitoring systems are in place.
Don't think any amount of ethanol seeps into the ocean naturally.
so what?
what does that mean, to you? Is there some conclusion that flows from this?
are you saying that the Exxon Valdez spill was not a big deal? That animals didn't die? That livelihoods weren't negatively affected?
I am guessing that you do understand that oil leaking from a seafloor vent is likely to have far different impacts than an oil spill in sound/harbor/inlet, right?
(I know you are smart enough to understand all of this, so I am guessing that you are trying to mislead with your argument.)
Hardly. I was referring to the spill in the Arctic at a BP gathering center. It was big time CNN propaganda against going into ANWR. There have been many spills since the Exxon Valdez. It was a big one that did much damage to Prince William Sound. Thankfully it has come back and the fishing is better than ever. To many that was a disaster. To the state of Alaska it pulled them out of a bad recession. So not all was lost. Many fishermen made more money working in the cleanup than they could possibly make fishing.
PS
You can thank the Congress for the extent of damage to the Exxon Valdez. They are the ones that allowed us to use single hull transports to save a little. They also allowed the crews to be cut to a minimum that was a contributing factor.
I'm not sure about your "fishing is better than ever," but I'll let that one go
:-)
I never said Congress wasn't to blame. But ultimately it's the oil companies who decide that they are comfortable with the risk of running single hulls out there. I expect companies to take some responsibilities for their actions. Simply saying, "Congress let me do it" doesn't wash with me.
There have been many many oil spills, and there will be many more. There will be plenty of ethanol spills. That's the nature of the beast. Anything that is in wide production is going to end up flowing down a river at some point.
And the impact of an oil spill is not only measured in whether the fishermen did OK.
PS You still haven't said what your point was about mentioning the natural seeps.
Yes it means that the worlds oceans are full of oil and over the centuries must have had as much oil seeped into it than all the oil we have ever pumped out of the earth and it hasn't hurt the oceans yet.
That animals didn't die?
Dump a tanker full of ethanol into a bay and see the animals die.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I see a few folks are ignoring the points I made earlier regarding the CLEANUP of both oil spills and ethanol spills.
In water, the oil floats and can be reasonably contained so it CAN be cleaned up. Ethanol is soluable in water and would dissipate much quicker. Since the ethanol 'disappears' while the oil continues floating on top, would most folks consider the ethanol 'cleaned up' since it's 'gone'?
On land, oil can't migrate very quickly through the soil. It typically only contaminates a thin layer of soil at the surface. Ethanol has a much higher conductivity through soil and would contiminate groundwater MUCH quicker than oil.
but isn't the truer comparison between ethanol and gasoline?
not sure what point snake is making - I'm guessing he is an economist working for Exxon.
quite possibly.
I'm just replying to the original questions posed by avalon. He specifically mentioned oil spills and tankers.
Regarding ethanol and gasoline, I'm honestly not sure just WHICH are worse from a spill/cleanup perspective.
Yes socala4, I know that the fiberglass tank industry is willing to stand behind their product in regards to ethanol. The points remain however that:
a) ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline
b) there is more to the UST than just the tanks
c) not all USTs are fiberglass (including many tanks which HAVE been upgraded since 1998 but which won't necessarily handle ethanol)
d) all ethanol distribution will have to be done by truck. A large portion of gasoline distribution is done by pipeline (at least from the refineries to the regional distribution centers). Perhaps that in itself might be a debate issue. Would widespread ethanol use require a lot more truck traffic? What does this do to highway safety or to the state of our roads?
But if the tanks won't likely corrode because of it, anyway, that's not really relevant. The relative corrosiveness isn't the issue, but rather the likelihood of corrosion, and I'm not seeing anything that indicates this as being likely. (I haven't thoroughly studied it, either, so I could be wrong, but I don't see any objective data showing this to be the case.)
c) not all USTs are fiberglass (including many tanks which HAVE been upgraded since 1998 but which won't necessarily handle ethanol)
I don't think anyone is advocating that fluids should be stored in inappropriate tanks. The question is whether the UST infrastructure is adequate to handle whatever quantities of ethanol are to be delivered, and if it is not, what it would take ($ and time) to upgrade the system accordingly.
Would widespread ethanol use require a lot more truck traffic? What does this do to highway safety or to the state of our roads?
Fair question. I'd be curious to see something that studies this, and compares it to the alternatives.
And no I do not work for Exxon or any other oil company.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Carry on!
PF Flyer
PF's Carspace
Sorry, didn't intend to be disagreeable - only intended to point out that there might be a reason my question was being ignored
I would think that it should. The 80 + million gallons a year that comes from Brazil & elsewhere will be in some type of tanker or barge.
What does ethanol do when dumped in water? I know in Prudhoe anti-freeze is closely monitored. You will be cited if your truck leaks one drop on the road. That is mostly ethanol or alcohol. I also had a friend that his two golden retrievers died a slow agonizing death after licking on anti-freeze that someones car leaked out in the street. I imagine we are on the tip of the iceberg in finding the downsides to ethanol. It took over 10 years to realize that MTBE was bad stuff. It is still being used in some states.
no worries, however - I think we've moved on
Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
The main thing ethanol in water makes is an alcoholic beverage. Beer is ethanol in water. As is a martini. Dogs would get drunk, pretty much like anyone, fish included.
What's in anti-freeze is ethylene-glycol. It tastes quite sweet, but acts as a poison - see http://www.beaconforhealth.org/Ethylene%20Glycol.htm
However if it corrodes critical fittings, ethanol might lead to a gasoline leak, which is smelly and dangerous and may be carcinogenic.
Ethylene glycol, the active ingredient in most anti-freeze, has the formula HOCH2CH2OH and so just has one more oxygen atom than ethanol, and that oxygen is just in another alcohol group (OH), but it is toxic to mammals, although it takes about 100 mL for a human (1.4 mL/kg body weight). I thought it was more toxic than this!? So it's not in the class of say cyanide. The problem is that ethylene glycol has a sweet taste. The combining form "gly" in its name comes from the Greek word meaning sweet.
Non-toxic (or at least much less toxic) anti-freeze contains propylene glycol which has the formula CH3CHOHCH2OH, which means that it has the same two alcohol groups as ethylene gylcol, but an extra CH2 in the form of a methyl group (CH3)next to one OH. The formula could also be written HOCHCH3CH2OH. Propylene glycol is less toxic than ethylene glycol (approximately 22 times less at 31mL/kg orally in rats according to the Merck Index) and it may not taste quite as good so there would be fewer ingestions given the same opportunity. Personally I think all automotive antifreeze should use propylene glycol, and ethylene glycol should be banned for this use.
Diethylene glycol has the formula HOCH2CH2OCH2CH2OH is also toxic. According to the Merck Index it was diethylene glycol which was the toxic agent in the elixir of sulfanilamide poisoning in the US in the early middle of the 20th century. This incident led to FDA getting authority to regulate the safety of pharmaceuticals.
Sources CNN Sunday, February 29, 2004 and Washingtontimes.com
Too see how dangerous E85 is you can check out a MSDS at
http://www.speedway.com/AboutUs/ProductSafety/PDFs/0137SPE012.pdf
Money: Farmers stand to make more money as demand for corn increases. An often quoted number is 25 to 50 cents more per bushel. As farmers make more money it will be easier for them to deal with pollution problems. (buffers, restoring wetlands, precise nitrogen application) Farmers will find it harder to avoid pollution rules. Regulators find it easier to deal with a business that is doing well.
Goodwill: As farmers grow more crops for fuel instead of food they will be treated differently.
Rules: I wonder if farmers will be impacted by using corn for fuel instead of food. Are the Ag rules written to cover food crops only? What happens when they provide feedstock to chemical companies. They may find it more difficult to get loans and qualify for certain exemptions.
Awareness: Places like this forum are actually helping by providing awareness of some of the pollution issues. Awareness is the first step in solving a problem.
Solutions: One way to reduce the problem in the Gulf of Mexico is to recycle more wastewater on non-food crops. Wastewater from treatment plants can be used on non-crops instead of dumping it directly in the Mississippi river system. Recycling wastewater is currently being done in St. Petersburg (lawn irrigation) and out west to grow hybrid poplar trees.
That seems like a good thing. However when corn gets up around $3 per bushel ethanol cost goes higher than gasoline. I thought farmers were doing well with producing 200 plus bushels to the acre. It is not so. The US government in 2005 gave subsidies and price support to corn to the tune of 5 billion dollars. That has nothing to do with ethanol subsidies. That is just what we pay the farmers to grow more corn. The simple fact is the more corn they grow the more fertilizer they use and the more pollution is dumped into the streams. The only ones getting rich are Cargill & ADM. Cargill is the largest privately owned company in the USA.
Steve our host suggested a good book on the subject of corn. "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. The truth is that as of 2005 corn farmers are losing money on every bushel of corn they grow. We pick up part of that loss. Many go broke each year and someone else jumps in to try a go at it. Many are 3rd and 4th generation farmers that were doing fine until they went to growing corn to feed the masses. Growing more corn to make ethanol is not a good solution at all.
Farmers get more money for corn, corn prices go up therefore ethanol gets more expensive, therefor people stop buying it, demand goes down, price goes down.
The cost of ethanol right now is noncompetitive to gas, its will only get worse if the price of corn goes up.
Goodwill: As farmers grow more crops for fuel instead of food they will be treated differently.
How so? Maybe people will hate them more since by growing crops for fuel less will be available for food increasing food costs.
Solutions: One way to reduce the problem in the Gulf of Mexico is to recycle more waste water on non-food crops.
IIRC the big problem here is not the waste water but run off from farming, thats something that is very difficult to capture for treatment.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
He said (the chemist, not Willie):
The issue with Ethanol has to do with three things: 1 the amount of land that would have to be used to grow corn and the fact that you can build a plant to refine corn OR "switchgrass" but a corn plant is not going to produce Ethanol from other biomass; 2 the lower fuel economy of Ethanol; and, 3 the fact that Ethanol contains less energy per gallon than it takes to produce it (we'll lose some BTU's per gallon and "make it up in volume"!?!)
The requirement of 12 gallons of water per gallon of Ethanol is also an issue, but NOT of quite as much concern to this chemist as the other issues.
He said, "diesel, is the best current solution and also one that would "get the attention" of the middle eastern countries when the US basically would be able to say, "no thanks, we don't need any more of your oil."
Sorry, but how does importing diesel allow us to say "no thanks, we don't need any more of your oil"? We'd be buying diesel from the same folks who sell us gasoline, so we're not really much better off.
And I still haven't seen the method by which everyone is supposed to be motivated to make the great switch. It's one thing to advocate the existence of a technology, it's quite another to get consumers to actually use it.
Two issues with that:
-No one on the thread has found a way that this level of diesel usage would be achieved in the US. Since new light vehicle registrations of diesels comprise about 3% of total new sales, this strikes me as wholly unrealistic.
-Not only could this be expected to increase the price of diesel, but it doesn't come close to solving the issue of dependency.
And let's remember that it isn't just US dependency that's of issue, but the need for other western nations, China, India and others to also import it. The Middle East will continue to have strategic importance that burdens the US, no matter who is demanding the oil.
I’m talking about the US not the rest of the world. Yes, there is an influence, but that is not the scope of this thread.
And that fact alone should tell you that the automakers don't believe in diesels being demanded by their US customers. A couple of them offer them as niche products, but that's about it.
These automakers offer diesels elsewhere in their lineups. They don't offer them here because they believe (quite rightly) that we don't want them. If they thought that there was demand here, they would already be selling them.