Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
I consider a loan guarantee the same as me paying for it. The plant will be obsolete in 10 years and the loans will be paid by OUR tax dollars. The same as it was in the 1970s. Same boondoggle different year. This was just finalized in July. Posted in a pro ethanol publication... No way that ADM can lose. They spent their lobby money well.
Rules for the long-awaited U.S. DOE loan guarantee program have been published. The DOE announced the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the loan guarantee program May 10. Once published in the Federal Register, the proposed rules were open for public comment for 45 days. Application deadlines will be announced once the rules are published in final form.
The loan guarantee program was authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and finally funded for up to $4 billion in loan guarantees in the budget for fiscal year 2007. Congress is considering the DOE's request for up to $9 billion in loan guarantee authority in the 2008 budget.
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3074
The way it is being pushed down our Nations throat can only end up in a mess. Sorry you cannot see past the dollar signs in your eyes. It has not cut our imports by ONE Penny from those countries you like to bash. In fact we are using more this year than last.
edit- here's an oft-quoted article stating greater deaths from air pollution with E85. Can't attest to it's accuracy.
E85 pollution analysis
Ethanol emissions versus Gas #1
Ethanol emissions versus Gas #2
Dueling results - Put up yer E85 Dukes, Dude !!
It appears as if the jury may still be out on this issue.
In his paper, Jacobson concluded in the abstract that “Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline. However, because of the uncertainty in future emission regulations, it can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles. Unburned ethanol emissions from E85 may result in a global-scale source of acetaldehyde larger than that of direct emissions.”
In remarks outside the paper, Jacobson was somewhat more aggressive in characterizing the results of the study.
Today, there is a lot of investment in ethanol, but we found that using E85 will cause at least as much health damage as gasoline, which already causes about 10,000 U.S. premature deaths annually from ozone and particulate matter. The question is, if we’re not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote ethanol and other biofuels?
This link presents both sides of the debate.
E85 Good or Bad?
I’ll bet the prohibitionist (dry law) are giddy, our nation forced into economic abstinence of drink.
The reason was stated as: a poor hops crop and that farmers had planted less hops and barley than in the past.
Less hops and barley? My goodness, for what reason why?
Also, another unrelated news item mentions that wheat products could cost more due to the increased price farmers are getting for wheat.
I want be very clear in the fact that I believe farmers more than anyone should make a very good wage, they feed me and I don’t like to be hungry. That is the reason I work, food, shelter, clothing.
Thanks ethanol, you have made my life that much more expensive. :mad:
All the same, a very, very sad situation..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
My main complaint is that the government gives automakers a "break" on meeting CAFE standards for flex fuel vehicles, regardless of whether the vehicle drinks a single drop of E85. Here in NJ, I have seen flex fuel vehicles rumbling down the highway, but I seriously doubt that any of them is running of E85. This is because there ARE NO E85 stations in NJ!! I did a search to see if there were any stations within 100 miles of my location in neighboring states, and I found one in Philadelphia and one "coming soon" in upstate NY. The fact is that there are very few E85 stations in this part of the country.
The problem I have is that since auto makers get "subsidized" for selling flex fuel vehicles, in the sense that it helps them meet their mpg quota, they don't have an incentive to increase sales of vehicles that are going to an actual impact on petroleum consumption. While the Big 3 are investing some money in alternative fuel autos, my opinion is that they would be investing in these technologies even more if they weren't getting this flex fuel credit, even for vehicles which don't use E85.
My opinion is that ethanol represents a "perfect storm" of political goodness. Support for ethanol means that you can go on record as helping the farmers, helping the environment, and helping curb foreign oil dependence. What politician can argue with that? Opposing ethanol is like saying that you oppose mom and apple pie! Of course, as with all political issues, the truth isn't quite that simple.
Rush To Judgment
What's happened?
How is it that the ethanol industry went from joke to hero to goat in less than three years?
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071118/BUSINESS/711180- 325/1017/SPORTS06
The ethanol lobby is claiming that mixing a higher percentage blend of ethanol actually increases mileage. Read the article and Alternate Route's take at:
You're geting Sleepy
So why do these people keep spewing this stuff?
The cynical and obvious answer would be money.
I'm gonna have to become an honorary citizen of Missouri on this one and they'll have to show me that this claim is true because on the face of it, it makes no sense at all.
Not to belabor the point. This is typical of the 110th Congress. Not much logic or good economics in what they are doing. Last I read cellulosic ethanol is still the holy grail of ethanol production. What a joke this bill is. I can live without the 100 watt bulbs as we have switched most to those curly Panasonic jobs.
Biofuels Snafu
(What) Were They Thinking?
I was an early believer in biodiesel. I still think it can have an impact if made from some source like algae or waste oil. I would not advocate cutting down tropical rain forests and planting palm oil trees as a mega crop for biodiesel production, like they are doing in many parts of the World.
http://www.coskata.com/
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Press_Release_12507-1.pdf
And my experience is the more ethanol added the lower the mileage on my 3 vehicles.
Biofuels increase GHGs
“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”
These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example.
The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”
Specifically this (if it works):
Coskata said its process uses less than one gallon of water for every gallon of ethanol produced and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 84 percent compared with gasoline.
Tests carried out by Argonne National Laboratory showed the ethanol generates 7.7 times the energy used to produce it, compared with 1.3 times for corn-based ethanol, Coskata said.
Coskata vice president Richard Tovery said by the end of 2008 the company will have a location for its first production plant, which will cost between $300 million and $400 million and produce 100 million gallons of ethanol a year by 2011.
Any thoughts??
Chemistry teaches us that molecules can be changed, but in order for an element - such as Carbon, to be changed requires a nuclear reaction, then if the carbon is not being emitted as CO2, then it is emitted as some other molecule. So what is it coming out as CO - carbon monoxide? CH - an unburned hydrocarbon? what?
What goes in must come out. It all must balance.
Let me see here what this means:
The new U.S. energy bill signed into law by President George W. Bush in December mandates a huge jump in biofuels production for America's automobiles - 36 billion gallons by 2022, with 16 billion gallons from cellulosic ethanol.
If my calculations are correct. And it costs $300,000,000 to $400,000,000 per production plant for each 100,000,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol. We will have to spend $48 to $64 billion from 2011 to 2022 to reach this goal of 16 billion gallons of ethanol. That does not even take into account where they will get that kind of cellulosic materials. From my recollections most of the wood chips and pulp are used by the lumber and paper companies. It is already been determined that the CO2 produced by clearing land for crops will take 93 years to balance out with ethanol production. We have caused major grain shortages with the small ethanol production currently with corn. We have raised the price of bread and tortillas for the poor. What will this do? Knowing that every action causes a direct reaction. My thoughts are it is another government handout to big business. If they can build the plant with investor money and make ethanol at a profit without the subsidies, I say go for it.
You can bet these materials will have a big price when people realize that field of weeds will support their family. How many gallons of ethanol can be made from an acre of switchgrass? Does anyone think the landowner will want less than he can get growing a cash crop on that acre of land?
No, your calculations are correct, IF this is the best they can do. This may just be a test facility. If it works out as planned, I don't see why a larger plant couldn't be built.
I also recall reading, though not in this article, that they could make the ethanol out of any biomass. I believe they were saying any waste material (our garbage??). IF this is true, would that not cut down on costs??? Anyhow, we are a long ways away from this being full bore.
Per Coskata, it will cost $1/gallon to make. And anything thing supports a flame can be turned into ethanol. They will be using ground up tires, for one.
It's ethanol from garbage and it's reality, right now. Here's some more info about the biomass technology http://bluefireethanol.com/
BurninE85.com
http://bluefireethanol.com/images/IZUMI_Status_2004_for_BlueFire_051606.pdf
I don't see any small fuel efficient cars being offered as FFV. All 6 & 8 cylinder engines.
They say that Methanol corodes metal and damages plastic & rubber and that damage is not covered by warranty (note, there is now word VOID in there).
What is the difference between not being covered by warranty and voiding the warranty? Your article states for just about every brand NOT to use any gas with more than 10% ethanol. I don't think they can make it any clearer than that. Anyone telling you to run E85 in a NON FFV should give you a statement saying they will cover any damage the automaker refuses to cover. Aside from the fact that you are not saving US from buying one drop of foreign oil by using ethanol.
Again, this Plant will be up and running in 2 1/2 years.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/coskata-owes-launch-to-swamp-bacteria-512- .html
And in Michigan, the Masocma company will have a joint venture with Mich Tech.
http://www.grainnet.com/articles/Mascoma_s_New_Ethanol_Plant_to_Put_MI_First_in_- Race_to_Turn__Wood_to_Wheels__-46329.html
Conventional gasoline is nasty. Just because we have been using it for the last 100 years, does not mean it's the best fuel. It causes more driveability problem than people realize. It clogs injectors, causes varnish build up in your engine, contributes to engine wear and it's the most carcinogenic chemical producing industy in the world. What do you think they add to fuel to take it from 87 octane to 94 octane? Cancer causing/toxic chemicals.
At least with E85, 85% is biodegradable and it's 105 octane without all those nasty additives. Indy is using it and so is the Le Mans.
Keep burning your nasty gas. I choose ethanol.
Well,I wish I could choose ethanol. I think there is another thing that may be more important than the green aspect: Self sustainablity when it comes to fuels. One major factor in us defeating the Germans in WWII was cutting off their fuel supply. Ethanol may just be a major component in keeping whack jobs like Chavez and the freak in Iran in check.
I would personally rather be using biodiesel. It just does not present the opportunity to fleece the populace as ethanol is doing. There is still only one station in the whole state of CA selling E85 to the public. And last I checked it was about 50 cents higher than regular unleaded. So my FlexFuel Ford and all the others in the state are just a big joke.
That's too bad that you don't have access to it in CA. We have 51 stations within a 100 mile radius of Detroit. I have no problem fueling up.
And the national average is 15% CHEAPER than reg unleaded with a prediction that it will be 17%-20% cheaper in the near future. Some states, it's already $1 cheaper.
http://www.e85prices.com
For people that have to burn premium or they will damage their engine, it's a cost save to use E85 (even with the possible mpg loss). It's an excellent premium substitute. High compression engines run better on it (above 10:1) and that's a fact.
Only if the car is designed to use E85. You will void your warranty if you use it in a non flexfuel vehicle. Ethanol and aluminum do not get along. Ethanol is far from a universal replacement for gasoline.
Most of the concerns with ethanol are due to it's solvent abilities (disintegrates plastic, rubber, fiberglass and aluminum engine parts) and it's unique ability to absorb large amounts of water into fuel tanks.
Marine engines have had the most problems with ethanol, since they exist in a water environment, which increases the possibility of water contamination. Also marine engines tend to keep gas in the tank longer than automobiles which increases the possibility of water absorption.
http://www.fuel-testers.com/ethanol_fuel_articles.html