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

catam · May 2006

The biggest obstacle to transistioning to E85 and biodiesel it getting the lay public to understand their usefulness, and trust them as reliable consumer products. The audience that posts here doesn't qualify as "lay public" when it comes to cars. We are enthusiasts, and as such have a deeper background (both good and bad) to build on.
NASCAR's popularity is growing fast, it would be a huge deal in terms of ligitimizing E 85 as a viable alternative fuel source to the general public.
Oh and GO Jeff GO! Been a fan since the "rainbow warrior" days.
Tony Stewart should be banned!
Let the insults come.

gem069 · May 2006

The biggest obstacle to transistioning to E85 and biodiesel it getting the lay public to understand their usefulness

Now if, E85 becomes available enough and is cheaper than reg gas, for some unknown reason the public will find it.

nwng · May 2006

say we got E85 and a whole bunch of FFV engines coming on line, the question is: are we still gonna be driving big suvs with one person on board and f150's hauling nothing but air?

gagrice · May 2006

are we still gonna be driving big suvs with one person on board

That is what is being offered in FFV. There are no 4 cylinder vehicles set up to use E85 as of today. The smallest 6 cylinder is from Chrysler. It gets a combined 17 MPG burning E85. Not much incentive to go E85 unless you want a GM PU or SUV. The Lincoln Town Car V8 gets 18 MPG Hwy, that is close to the Chrysler Sebring with its 2.7L FFV engine. Toyota is the only Japanese company claiming to offer an E85 vehicle sometime in the future. It will be interesting to see how theirs stacks up mileage wise.

Another big downside to E85. Range is cut by a third. So you have to find an elusive E85 station much more often.

snakeweasel · May 2006

There are no 4 cylinder vehicles set up to use E85 as of today.

A few years ago Isuzu and GM had 4 banger FFV's

Toyota is the only Japanese company claiming to offer an E85 vehicle sometime in the future. It will be interesting to see how theirs stacks up mileage wise.

Along with Isuzu, Nissan and Mazda both offered FFV's a few years back, as did MB. As with the Big three these cars suffered about 25% loss in mileage using E85 (per the EPA estiments).

gagrice · May 2006

A lot of E85 FFV have come and gone. Kind of like CNG. It is such a niche market that the auto makers probably do not want to bother. I think most GM & Fords are sold to fleet buyers. I don't think you could buy one here in CA. They can keep them in the Midwest as far as I am concerned. I would not own one. I can tell you the same thing happened in the 1980s. We started to push ethanol and the price of oil dropped like a hot potato. Until the Middle Eastern oil is close to depletion they are not going to let some corn burners cut into their profits. Watch how loyal E85 advocates are when gas is 2 bucks and ethanol is $3. Their green stripe will turn to yellow.

snakeweasel · May 2006

I would not own one.

Why not? They are Flex Fuel Vehicles which means they can run on E85 or pure gas or anything in between. If you burn gas there is no real difference from a engine thats just gas only. It just gives you the option of using E85.

gagrice · May 2006

Why not?

That is a reasonable question. I am protesting the damage that raising that much corn will cause. I am protesting the fact that ethanol is a corrosive that will undoubtedly shorten the life of our engines. I am protesting the fact that it takes almost as much fossil fuel to make ethanol as you get out. When you consider the loss of energy it may be more than you get back. I am protesting the E7 mandate that was not scientifically implemented. We could very well have another MTBE mess on our hands. Sure the Midwest loves it as it brings dollars from all parts of the USA into their pockets. It was only a couple years ago that the city of St. Paul, MN was suing the Ethanol industry for polluting their air. I guess ADM money shut them up.

jkinzel · May 2006

I believe it is a net energy LOSS of 9 gallon per barrel to make ethanol.

snakeweasel · May 2006

I have seen studies that show it takes .4 gallons of fuel to make a gallon of ethanol and I have seen studies that say 1.4 gallons and I have seen studies in between.

jim314 · May 2006

NYT 5/18/2006 Solution or Distraction? An Ethanol Reality Check

Even bullish investors wary of ethanol
Is the corn-based fuel a harbinger for the energy market, or just a lot of hogwash? CNNMoney.com May 17, 2006: 2:49 PM EDT

smatt11 · May 2006

The first Ford cars ran on ethanol. Oil became cheaper to produce by government subsidies to help out the gulf states. The government is just trying to fix their mistake. :-) I have no politics at play here, other than vote against the incumbent regardless of party.

Exxon has the same right to make a profit as everybody else, and the profits they have reported are not out of line for the rest of the market (~11% net profit). If Toyota is the only company smart enough to profit from the battery technology, then so be it. The last figure I heard Toyota employed over 30,000 Americans, and they are increasing, while GM and Ford are significantly reducing their employemnt of Americans. If you use GM's theory about recirculating dollars (their employees buy products at a store, who then sells more and hires more, repeat) then Toyota is responcible for 200,000 American jobs.

The oil industry gets all the major subsidies. There are many studies that find a gallon of gas would be more expensive without all the government subsidies. I have seen estimates from pennies more up to 30 cents more. I bet if I look hard enough I would find articles stating it could be cheaper, or it would be dollars more expensive than it is in today's market.

It does not take a gallon of oil to make 1.21 gallons of ethanol. First, a MI State University found that ethanol production from corn nets a 56% increase in energy. Second, little oil is used in the production of ethanol. The number you state is trying to match the energy output, normally fuel inputs to ethanol production is natural gas or coal. Both of which are primarily US products.

If small farmers cannot make money selling corn, than they should not be in the business. It is the same as the gas stations...most are corporate owned and the rest soon will be corporations or be gone.

The available supply of useable Uranium is just about depleted. Few or no new reactors will be able to be built. The only option is to find technologies to make the waste products useful in future reactors. The arguments against coal are universal against any fuel. There are always waste products. What they do not tell you is that the waste from coal is a lot easier to trap than from other sources. Your source is MN public radio which is notorious for the NIMBY stance on everything, hence their very carefully worded message that CO2 was their concern (it should be sulfer). CO2 is easily removed from the air with scrubbers, the "problem" is the volume. If it were not, we would not have crews on space ships nor in submarines.

Diesel's significant drawback almost destroyed Europe...Soot is part of the exhaust. There is little that can be done about it cheaply, and the soot is more toxic than gas burning engine exhaust. Although recent improvements to remove the sulfer content has helped greatly, and bioDiesel would help here too. You still end up with soot everywhere and a lot more C02 that is produced from coal burning.

I do not know what to tell you about your GMC. GM trucks are known to suck down gas if you have a lead foot, but they also get great mileage (relatively speaking) when driven with a light foot.

jae5 · May 2006

Thats the question I was asking as well. Seemed to me, and I may be wrong, that all the advertisements from GM on E85 vehicles are their trucks. Now I do see & hear ads and commercials sporting their cars, but those are just on fuel economy, not E85 promotion.

The only FFV cars I've seen in recent memory are the Taurus / Sable rentals and a couple personally-owned ones, that's about it. And even then the people were pumping unleaded fuel into them.

gagrice · May 2006

It does not take a gallon of oil to make 1.21 gallons of ethanol. First, a MI State University found that ethanol production from corn nets a 56% increase in energy. Second, little oil is used in the production of ethanol.

Tell that to the farmers paying 3 bucks a gallon for diesel for their tractors and combines. Or the truck driver that is required to get ethanol to the market place. Or the coal needed to fire the new ethanol plants. I would like to see the study that shows this wonderful net gain in energy. Preferably from a state that is not cashing in on the ethanol boondoggle.

Carbon cloud over a green fuel

An Iowa corn refinery, open since December, uses 300 tons of coal a day to make ethanol. Late last year in Goldfield, Iowa, a refinery began pumping out a stream of ethanol, which supporters call the clean, renewable fuel of the future.

There's just one twist: The plant is burning 300 tons of coal a day to turn corn into ethanol - the first US plant of its kind to use coal instead of cleaner natural gas.

The trend, which is expected to continue, has left even some ethanol boosters scratching their heads. Should coal become a standard for 30 to 40 ethanol plants under construction - and 150 others on the drawing boards - it would undermine the environmental reasoning for switching to ethanol in the first place, environmentalists say.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0323/p01s01-sten.html

catam · May 2006

Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12872060/

The most interesting point to me was that research done recently shows that producing gasoline is actually less energy efficient than producing ethanol.
Here's the quote, "the delivery of 1 million British thermal units of ethanol uses 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels. (That does not include the solar energy -- the sun shining -- used in growing corn.) By contrast, he finds that the delivery of 1 million BTUs of gasoline requires 1.23 million BTU of fossil fuels.
Pretty much debunks the naysayers out there about energy efficiency related to production.
Hopefully the cellulose production will take off soon, asthat would provide a huge natural resource for production, in the form of nearly all agricultural byproducts becoming a useful commodity.

agalas · May 2006

I read in a book once that lawn grass is the largest crop in the US. I also notice that my lawn grows very quickly. I have to mow it 1/week.

Imagine if all the grass mowed could be trapped in those bags that people once placed on the end of their mowers. 150 million or so homes, most with lawns, not to mention gulf courses and corporate lawns.

I imagine that lawn clippings could supply billions of barrels of cellulose ethanol, and in accordance with switch grass provide much of the fuel America needs.

From there conservation, through the use of plug in hybrids,(powered by clean tech such as wind, solar, ect) and smaller, lighter vehicles,(carbon fiber cars weigh half as much as steel) could diminsh demand enough so that bio-diesel, grown from various crops, could supplant any excess demand.

Any thoughts on this?

catam · May 2006

In theory the idea of recycling grass clippings from your lawn sounds great. However there would be a huge logistical problem of collecting those clippings and delivering them to an ethanol plant.

Maybe in the future somone will invent a Still for home use that works on the cellulose concept.

Clearly your idea would be great. Just not practical, YET.

gagrice · May 2006

There's no absolute consensus in the scientific community

We know that you have to use oil to make gasoline. I question the figures. But his figures go along with what most have said all along on ethanol. Wang shows a net gain of 26%. Most say 21%. Still not a good trade off. Plus you add the 54 cents a gallon subsidy and it is even less of a good deal.

Hopefully the cellulose production will take off soon

If you are holding your breath you will die. It is at least 10 years off according to the people pushing it. They have not come up with a practical way to get the sugar out of the switchgrass. It is not as simple as sugar cane or sugar beets. I would think that we would use our sugar beet crop for ethanol. That does not get mentioned. Any ideas why?

ethanol by country

catam · May 2006

So you state you question the figures in the article, but then state they are in line with what other experts state.
He shows a 23% net loss in energy to produce gasoline, and a 26% gain producing ethanol.
You state, "Most say 21%. Still not a good trade off."
If a 21% gain is not worth it to you, then what do you think of a 23% loss????
Why does ethanol have to pass a "litmus test" that you don't expect from gasoline?? The simple fact is that it requires the use of energy of some form to convert oil to gas or corn to ethanol.

snakeweasel · May 2006

He shows a 23% net loss in energy to produce gasoline,

That doesn't sound right at all. If it takes more fuel to produce gasoline than you get out of it how do you get the first drop of fuel?

gagrice · May 2006

then what do you think of a 23% loss????

That is the figure I am questioning. It may or may not be correct. If it is true that makes ethanol an even worse deal. It takes fossil fuel to make ethanol.

Why does ethanol have to pass a "litmus test" that you don't expect from gasoline??

What litmus test? ADM paid off Congress and we are stuck with that crap. Just watch when they try to take the tariff off of ethanol from the brazilians.

Ethanol is not a great fuel. It takes about 130% more to go a given distance in a vehicle using E85. It is far less useful than biodiesel. You go ahead and run that stuff in your car. It is not going into mine at any higher rate than we are forced to use. I cannot wait for the diesel vehicles to get here. At least I can get a decent range out of a diesel vehicle. That will not happen with a vehicle using E85.

I am just in the wings waiting for Louisiana and Mississippi to get their act together and sue the heck out of all the corn growers in the midwest for polluting their fisheries. You do not have the majority of the USA on your side with this stuff.

jkinzel · May 2006

I noticed that the article said nothing about the millions of acres of rain forest that Brazil cuts down on a regular basis for the production of sugarcane. It has been proven that the destruction of the rain forest could have a disastrous effect on our planet. It seems to me that the systematic destruction of the Brazilian rain forest to produce ethanol is one of the worst things that could happen to our environment.
Im going with diesel/bio diesel.

gagrice · May 2006

Of the FFVs offered in 2006 the best combined mileage comes from the Chevy Monte Carlo. It gets a combined 19 MPG using E85. Will the EPA give GM a break on the CAFE standard that is supposed to be 27.2 MPG? The other cars currently available for E85 the Sebring, Stratus & Taurus get a combined 17 MPG on E85 and the big Fords get 14 MPG combined.

I wish I could see ethanol as progress. If we allowed VW & other small car manufacturers to sell their very economical diesel cars in all 50 states, then offered biodiesel which is less expensive to produce than ethanol, we would see some progress toward weaning us off Middle East oil.

john500 · May 2006

You need to careful how you interpret information. While it may be true that it takes more energy to produce the 40 % or so yield of gasoline from crude oil, there are a lot of other commodity products that are obtained in the production of gasoline from the various distillate fractions (diesel, heating oil, lubricants, chemicals, etc). I am not aware of ethanol production resulting in anything but agricultural waste (hopefully usable as fertilizer) and ethanol. The data should be normalized for the heating value of the other commodity products (if they are to be burned as fuel) or simply normalized for the % yield since you are actually talking about multiple industries lumped into one.

seniorjose · May 2006

More on Biodiesal -- Biodiesel is a combination of soybeans and Canola Oil that is imported from Indonesia...on TV last night!

gem069 · May 2006

More on Biodiesal -- Biodiesel is a combination of soybeans and Canola Oil that is imported from Indonesia...on TV last night!

Actually, that is only a small way of making true biodiesel.
There are dozens of ways to make true biodiesel.

Even @ biodieselnow.com has many blogs to list them.

The thing is, there is real no direction from anybody to take the lead and since politics as usual, it won't be.

gagrice · May 2006

there is really no direction from anybody

That is somewhat true. Willie Nelson is the biggest name associated with biodiesel. There are no mandates as in the EU to use a percentage of biodiesel, such as B5. Engine manufacturers are afraid of the myriad sources of biodiesel. If the EPA were to mandate B10 for all diesel vehicles it would be a good start. Then they would require a standard to be followed. It all has to do with who lobbys whom.

catam · May 2006

I agree with all of you that biodiesel is an excellent alternative fuel source. The problem is the personal consumer market if diesel cars in the US is very small. Many consusmers either don't like diesel powered cars, or don't want to pay the purchase price difference for a diesel engine, (not to mention the price difference at the pump). For this same reason, hybrids are still limited production vehicles.

American consumers are used to gas powered cars. FFV's have ZERO upfront cost difference. FFV's run on gas or E85. The main reason I am a big proponent of ethanol is the benefits it provides in bringing us closer to energy independence.
Cellulosic ethanol is closer than you think, I read an article today, (I'll find the link), http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3844462
that stated the first cellulosic production plant should begin construction next year in Idaho, I believe it said they will be using barley and wheat stalks. (I did read the article, the author makes many good points. I still believe we should pursue corn based ethanol production, until cellulosic ethanol is widely available.)
BTW, I do currently own an FFV, but I do not know of a single E 85 pump in the state.

I think America would be much better off if we had choices at the pump : Gasoline, E 85, diesel, biodiesel. Brazil has done this ,(except the biodiesel), and they are not only energy independent, but also, they pay a whole lot less at the pump.
A big part of the reason prices are so high right now is that big oil has a collective monopoly. There is no reason for them to lower prices if we don't have another choice. For those of you that forgot Economics 101, the capitalist system only works when there is a competitive market, it does not work when monopolies exist. If alternative fuel sources become widely available, it will benefit us all. (Well almost all, Exxon, Shell, and BP would take a hit, and I would smile all day when that happens).

addedit · May 2006

Ethanol takes energy to produce just like gasoline. You pay for the materials, cost of production and the profit margin. E85 is a good alternative now and will improve. Production costs will drop, engineers will make car engines more efficient burning E85, investors will fund E85 capable pipelines to expand availability and further reduce prices. Having all vehicles made as flex fuel will give consumers choices. Everyone posting that loves burning their Saudi Gold will be still be able to pump their fuel of choice. I also look forward to the day of mowing my grass (5 acres) and tossing the clippings into a home ethanol plant. After it's ready, add some gas and into the tank. Nothing more American than do-it-yourself.

gem069 · May 2006

stated the first cellulosic production plant should begin construction next year in Idaho, I believe it said they will be using barley and wheat stalks. (I did read the article, the author makes many good points. I still believe we should pursue corn based ethanol production, until cellulosic ethanol is widely available.)
BTW, I do currently own an FFV, but I do not know of a single E 85 pump in the state.

I think America would be much better off if we had choices at the pump : Gasoline, E 85, diesel, biodiesel.

I've been watching 60/60, dateline and reading about all the different alt/fuels that could be made and how efficent they can be made.
For example, there is a ethnaol plant in Canada that is totally run from the byproducts of making ethnaol from cellulos products and not using any fossil fuels what so ever. Hummmmmmmmm I wonder why the USA is actually making some of the new plants using coal? Yea jobs will be created but it's still using fossil fuels and not totally self sufficent of natural materals. Would the gud ole lobbist have anything to do with this, like so any other things.
And the guy of dateline stated that parire grass in the USA would be and excellent way to make ethnaol and biodiesl and yes still use corn, wheat, and many others products to make fuels.
Yes, the USA is sucking up energy(25% of world world's production) and needs various types of fuels and ways to make them.
True the USA has not really embraced diesel's for passenger cars too much, because until recently, they stink, has lack of power and don't forget the sound. However in Europe and the rest of the world, fossil fuels cost 2 to 3 times as the USA, so diesel is very helpful in savings.
Yup, competition is gud, too bad clintion let oil companies merge and now we pay for thier benefit.
Just like they are making record profits andnot really investing in much just token projects fo show. Short of like the other day in Wash DC. the typical politicals of both parties drove in their Support Usama Vechicles(SUV's) and did a showopp for the camaras and left in thier Support Usama Vechicles for a well to deserved lunch break.
Of course I believe if the public can stay focused long enough and direct the bitching directly towards the gov;t to actually makes things happen, it can, even if slowly.

gagrice · May 2006

first cellulosic production plant should begin construction next year in Idaho,

If the following becomes reality I will change from an opponent of ethanol to a proponent. It is not as easy as using corn or sugar cane. It is far less destructive to our environment than corn or sugar cane. I would still be more inclined to buy diesel vehicles and go for biodiesel.

The key to kicking what President Bush calls the nation's oil addiction could very well lie in termite guts, canvas-eating jungle bugs and other microbes genetically engineered to spew enzymes that turn waste into fuel.

It may seem hard to believe that microscopic bugs usually viewed as destructive pests can be so productive. But scientists and several companies are working with the creatures to convert wood, corn stalks and other plant waste into sugars that are easily brewed into ethanol  essentially 199-proof moonshine that can be used to power automobiles.

Thanks to biotechnology breakthroughs, supporters of alternative energy sources say that after decades of unfulfilled promise and billions in government corn subsidies, energy companies may be able to produce ethanol easily and inexpensively.

"The process is like making grain alcohol, or brewing beer, but on a much bigger scale," said Nathanael Greene, an analyst with the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. "The technologies are out there to do this, but we need to convince the public this is real and not just a science project."

Using microbes may even solve a growing dilemma over the current ethanol manufacturing process, which relies almost exclusively on corn kernels and yielded only 4 billion gallons of ethanol last year (compared to the 140 billion gallons of gasoline used in the U.S.). There's growing concern throughout the Midwestern corn belt that the 95 U.S. ethanol plants are increasingly poaching corn meant for the dinner table or livestock feed.

The idea mentioned by Bush during his State of the Union speech  called "cellulosic ethanol"  skirts that problem because it makes fuel from farm waste such as straw, corn stalks and other inedible agricultural leftovers. Cellulose is the woody stuff found in branches and stems that makes plants hard.

Breaking cellulose into sugar to spin straw into ethanol has been studied for at least 50 years. But the technological hurdles and costs have been so daunting that most ethanol producers have relied on heavy government subsidies to squeeze fuel from corn.

Researchers are now exploring various ways to exploit microbes, the one-cell creatures that serve as the first link of life's food chain. One company uses the microbe itself to make ethanol. Others are taking the genes that make the waste-to-fuel enzymes and splicing them into common bacteria. What's more, a new breed of "synthetic biologists" are trying to produce the necessary enzymes by creating entirely new life forms through DNA.

Bush's endorsement of the waste-to-energy technology has renewed interest in actually supplanting fossil fuels as a dominant energy source  a goal long dismissed as pipe dream.

"We have been at this for 25 years and we had hoped to be in commercial production by now," said Jeff Passmore, an executive vice president at Iogen, an ethanol-maker Iogen. "What the president has done is  perhaps  put some wind in the sails."Ottawa-based Iogen is already producing ethanol by exploiting the destructive nature of the fungus Trichoderma reesei, which caused the "jungle rot" of tents and uniforms in the Pacific theater during World War II.

Through a genetic modification known as directed evolution, Iogen has souped up fungus microbes so they spew copious amounts of digestive enzymes to break down straw into sugars. From there, a simple fermentation  which brewers have been doing for centuries  turns sugar into alcohol.

Iogen opened a small, $40 million factory in 2004 to show it can produce cellulosic ethanol in commercial quantities. In the last two years, it has produced 65,000 gallons of ethanol that is blended with 85 percent gasoline to fuel about three dozen company and Canadian government vehicles. Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has invested $40 million for a 30 percent ownership stake in Iogen; Petro-Canada and the Canadian government are also investors.

Now the company is ready to build a $350 million, commercial-scale factory in Canada or Idaho Falls, Idaho, next year if it can secure financing  long one of the biggest stumbling blocks to bringing the stuff to gas pumps.

Bugs to ethanol

catam · May 2006

Great article Gagrice. It is nice to learn about some of the details involved in the science of cellulosic ethanol.
Lets all hope that the industries involved get going on this soon.

gem069 · May 2006

This is an interesting article about congress:

=====================================================

Senate Democrats Introduce Broad Energy Package
News and Analysis by Jesse Broehl, Editor, RenewableEnergyAccess.com

http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=281D79F1687A522705BC9- 3028DCDC8C1?id=44954

gagrice · May 2006

I agree with the following comment on those energy proposals. How do we use 6 million less gallons per day when we are mandating FFVs that are 25-30% less fuel efficient? Typical Demo offering a "Free Lunch" that includes the Martini.

There is very little that will actually result in less petroleum use, including the obvious remedy of doing something to encourage conservation.

The Democrats are not much better than the Republicans as they want to be the party of "no hard choices". Predictably, the are using ethanol as the new free lunch. Require the auto companies to allow the use of ethanol, and, voila, everything is solved. But wait until consumers begin to actually understand what ethanol does to their gas mileage and hence their per mileage fuel costs. Unless there is a very large differential between gasoline and ethanol, you won't see many consumers switching.

The Democrats have discovered a new way to pretend to solve the oil problem without actually doing anything which would cause anyone the slightest bit of inconvenience or responsible action to conserve.

catam · May 2006

I agree that they need to address the cafe standards. However, the rest of the bill sounds very well thought out and certainly adresses many of our country's current and future energy problems.
I am a pragmatist, this bill certainly seems possible, and I think its a great place to start.
It certainly beats the heck out of the energy bill that the Republicans passed and King George signed last year.
That thing did nothing except provide $2 billion in tax breaks for big oil.

gagrice · May 2006

I believe there is about 2 billion for ethanol expansion. Over half a billion for hybrid incentives for the wealthy hybrid buyers. I would rather they got out of the energy business altogether. Raise fuel taxes to fix the roads and bridges. Seems every time they get involved it ends up costing us more to survive in this country.

Henry Ford and the boys from Detroit did not need the Feds to get them going in this automobile business. Let the people figure out how to keep the cars moving. We run out of oil and can't figure it out the government will not be able to do anything anyway. We expect too much out of a bunch of fat politicians that have done so little over the last 75 years that was worthwhile.

tpe · May 2006

I've been following the development of new battery technologies for the past few years and here is a recent press release from Alair Nanotechnologies. They are just one of many companies currently doing R&D on Lithium Ion batteries suitable for electric vehicles.

http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=546&ResLibraryID=157- 11&Category=856

What will also be interesting is to see if and when these types of batteries get close to viability will the oil companies buy up these companies to control the patents. Chevron bought a 50% stake in ECD/Ovonics about 6 years ago and almost immediately filed suit against anyone attempting to make large format NiMH batteries, the type that would be suitable for plug-in hybrids. Chevron named this company Cobasys and they do enter into licensing agreements with battery manufacturers to use their technologies. These agreements are very restrictive. Either the batteries must not be used for propulsion purposes or they must be limited in size. I don't tend to buy into conspiracy theories but for Chevron to have control over the usage of battery technology seems somewhat sinister in nature.

Another interesting article if you have a little time.

http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/hurryupandwait.html

gagrice · May 2006

get close to viability will the oil companies buy up these companies to control the patents

OIL companies are interested in making money. They know that oil will not always be as easy to get at as it is now. ARCO is a leader in photo voltaic solar panels. I see where Shell bought a 30% interest in Iogen the leader in biomass to ethanol production. I would trust the oil companies with the various technologies over the automakers. If Toyota had control of the best batteries do you think they would be likely to share with other auto makers at a fair price? I don't think so. They are already squeezing Ford out on hybrids by holding a gun to the head of the manufacturer that supplies many of the parts in the HSD system. If there is money to be made every one will try to get a piece of the action.

seniorjose · May 2006

What is the problem with reduced gas mileage...10-15%? E85 is already 85 Cents a gallon cheaper than 87 Octane with no ethanol...some $1.15 cheaper than 91 octane premium! E85 works, 10% Ethanol mix works, Biodiesel works....NOW! not some 20-50 years in the future like Hydrogen. We are saving energy NOW with E85. What comes down the pike out of some professor's lab may or may not ever work. Biodiesel is being produced NOW in Washington State, and a Biodiesel plant is being built in Iowa NOW. We have solutions getting started NOW in the USA, how much we use is just a matter of what politicians allow. Let's see where it leads. If CA and other water-strapped states cannot figure out how to use Ethanol, then maybe population shifts will be in the future...exodus from the dessert areas. Ethanol is here NOW without any exotic Rube Goldberg engines or dangerous rocket-type fuel.

We have plenty of coal, plenty of land, plenty of solutions NOW! Add the oil we will get from ANWR and the continental shelf plus additional exploration, we should be able to wean our autos off Middle East oil!

gagrice · May 2006

we should be able to wean our autos off Middle East oil!

My question is WHY? I think it is best to use all that is available. Nothing wrong with developing alternatives as we use other people's oil. It should be done in a responsible environmentally friendly way. I do not think it has been shown here that ethanol from corn is helping us use less fossil fuel or is it environmentally healthy. If you don't like using foriegn oil by your gas from ARCO, they are mostly using Alaska crude oil in their refineries. Biodiesel being used on a voluntary basis is the way things should be done. Shoving ethanol down every ones throat is science gone crazy. Producing ethanol in CA is not practical any more than it is in Iowa. More money can be made from other crops than corn. What happens when Kellogs decides to raise the price they are willing to pay for corn to make flakes? There goes any price advantage that ethanol might have had. You need to read about the mess in Brazil when they went gungho into ethanol 30 years ago. Many people got stuck with ethanol only cars and NO ethanol. Price of sugar went up, oil prices went down and the ethanol distillers were out of business. It will happen again and our tax dollars will make that sucking sound as they are flushed down the ADM toilet.

tpe · May 2006

If Toyota had control of the best batteries do you think they would be likely to share with other auto makers at a fair price?

Probably not but I don't think that is what is going on in the ECD/Ovonics, Cobasys business relationship. Why would they license their battery technology but often preclude it from being used in propulsion? Why would their agreement with Panasonic limit the size of the batteries they can produce? From everything I've read they get a 3% royalty. Seems to me the bigger the battery the bigger the royalty. Unlike your example of Toyota trying to maximize their profit I get the sense that isn't the primary goal of Cobasys. I'm sure I don't understand all the complexities of the business world but on the surface it is curious. And a web search has found other people that feel the same way.

tpe · May 2006

Why do you keep using the word NOW? ANWR would be 20 years from peak production. Coastal exploration represents another future source. How long until significant amounts of ethanol can be produced? Certainly not NOW. Ethanol represents future planning just like all the rest that you criticize for not being available NOW. Not that it matters because it will get shoved down our throats by the geniuses in Washington. Once one of these train wrecks is put in motion it is almost impossible to stop. Imagine the politician that tries to cut back on these programs? The fact that he represents common sense will be lost in all the anti-environment, anti-farmer rhetoric.

Turning the chemical energy from gasoline, ethanol, biodiesel, etc. into mechanical energy by burning it in an ICE is Rube Goldberg as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you think 35% efficiency represents a well engineered approach.

snakeweasel · May 2006

What is the problem with reduced gas mileage...10-15%?

Its more like double that. And while I can't say for where you are E85 is only like 35-40 cents cheaper than regular unleaded. So it still costs more to go the same distance with E85, not to mention having to stop for fuel more often.

Ethanol is not the solution nor is it part of the solution, it would be just to much for us to produce the ethanol we would need.

gagrice · May 2006

Ethanol is not the solution nor is it part of the solution

Not only a poor solution it is a disaster in the making. Too bad our government is so disjointed that one department cannot communicate problems that another is causing.

Mississippi Dead Zone

Recent reports indicate that the large region of low oxygen water often referred to as the 'Dead Zone' has spread across nearly 5,800 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico again in what appears to be an annual event. NASA satellites monitor the health of the oceans and spots the conditions that lead to a dead zone.

Enhanced phytoplankton blooms can create dead zones. Dead zones are areas of water so devoid of oxygen that sea life cannot live there. If phytoplankton productivity is enhanced by fertilizers or other nutrients, more organic matter is produced at the surface of the ocean. The organic matter sinks to the bottom, where bacteria break it down and release carbon dioxide. Bacteria thrive off excessive organic matter and absorb oxygen, the same oxygen that fish, crabs and other sea creatures rely on for life.

NASA Dead Zone

I hope the people in the Midwest feel good about the fisheries they are destroying each time they fill up their vehicle with E85 poison.

gem069 · May 2006

I hope the people in the Midwest feel good about the fisheries they are destroying each time they fill up their vehicle with E85 poison.

Wow, yea, so you would feel so much better buying gas and funding Usama and his bombs?

gagrice · May 2006

Wow, yea, so you would feel so much better buying gas and funding Usama and his bombs?

The sooner we suck up all that Middle East oil the better. Then they have no stroke. In the mean time find GOOD energy alternatives. Not ones that will cause us greater harm down the road. The current ethanol program is poorly conceived and executed.

tpe · May 2006

The sooner we suck up all that Middle East oil the better

The problem with that is we seem to be sucking up everyone's oil as fast as we can. So as time goes by the country/region with the greatest reserves will have an ever increasing share of what's left. If that region is the Middle East our current path is only giving them more leverage. Again, I agree that ethanol is an ill conceived, destined to fail, corporate welfare type plan. Its defenders commonly state that its no worse than other plans and subsidies that exist. IMO, a pretty weak defense.

gagrice · May 2006

I know what you are saying about the OPEC cartel. I don't think there is anyway we can eliminate the need for oil from at least a few of our potential enemies. I would think buying oil from the Middle East is actually preferable to using all our known reserves first. I realize the deficit is a factor also. It seems the only thing they are interested in buying from us is our military hardware and a little food. I also do not see much of a move to conserve by Americans. I would have thought that $3.25 gas would slow people down and lessen the load on the highways. I see NO change. I think gas would have to top $5 to have the average CA joe even think about conserving. I would bet if Jay Leno asked the people on the street in Los Angeles what E85, is none would have a clue.

seniorjose · May 2006

Ethanol in California is NOT a viable solution, so California goes with MTBF or something else...so what?

Ethanol production in the midwest is viable, the farmers will be happy and marginal land, like in Minnesota and other northern tier states can help farmers up there. There is a local Quaker Oats plant that is only about 5 miles from here -- they use corn oil. The General Foods huge plant has waiting railroad cars, at about 500, to move the corn oil needed for use. Trains constantly move out full corn oil tanker cars at all hours of the day or night.

I personally think the the largest environmental boondoggle of all time was damming up the Columbia river to make a few super-agriculture companies rich using cheap help! If that should change, then we will see the great mother of exodus'

ANWR is right now being opened, by Presidential order, so solutions ARE getting promulgated. The junior senator from NYS has switched her opinion to the pro-Ethanol crowd.

There are NO USA auto rules that force any auto to use Ethanol, except for those states that want to get rid of MTBF. We have the current 10% Ethanol/Gasoline blend for a cheaper price of about 10 cents a gallon and E85, 85% Ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend for a cheaper price of of less than $2.00 a gallon.

Another Ethanol source: The price of sugar is very, very low compared where it should be...ask the Fanjul sugar cane company in Belle Glade, Florida. Sugar Cane is one heck of an air polluter, burning sugar cane "ashes" settles on most autos and homes some 50-60 miles away from the actual burning...but it has to be done. Asking for more sugar at higher prices will expand use for Ethanol.

Another Ethanol source: An alternate Ethanol source is sugar beets. Sugar beets were NOT allowed to be grown because of sugar price supports...now if they open that up, sugar beets will readily be grown in any state that has decent (non-dessert_arable land. We started to grow sugar beets on my dad's farm in upstate NY, but the good old FDR dumbocrats couldn't tolerate small farmers unhooking themselves from the teats of the gov't mindless pig (circa 1960).

Another Ethanol source: Many NYS farmers were also driven out of business because of the inane wheat allotments...when the wheat grown in NYS was "hard" highest quality baker's wheat, not the "soft" type of wheat grown in our extreme northern tier of states and Canada. I understand wheat or oats straw can also be used in the Ethanol process.

Fuel for Ethanol plants: Drive through Pennsylvania after our last gas crisis of the 70s when we were really starting to use hard coal for heating...All od a sudden a tremendous amount of mines were being bought up be oil companies, Gulf, Mobile and Exxon...I guess to squeeze the market so that there would be no coal to ship to eastern markets. Force the opening of closed mines will make coal-firing another Ethanol option.

Using Ethanol MAY or MAY NOT be a temporary solution for the next two decades, but if it were outlawed tomorrow, there would be NO impact on USA autos. I am at a a loss for words that Ethanol may be harmful to the environment as you state...the experimental Ethanol (moonshine) experiments were done over a 200 year time frame. What Brazil got "stuck" with, unusable autos, has NO bearing on what we in the United States are doing.

ADM is one of the largest farm-oriented companies that is helping to bring fresh new ideas to the farmer's marketplace. If they screw up..will it affect Ethanol? NOT!

I have seen both sides of the coin, farmer's and PC development in business. The truth lies in all phases of our USA capitalistic society working together...not driving the familiar wedge of "US vs Them". I lived in Upstate NYS as a farmer (23 years), Philadelphia city as a computer repairman (6 years), Boynton Beach, Florida (25 years), Cedar Rapids (See der rabbits), Iowa (4 years) and various other places.

Kellog Corn Flakes price rise kills Ethanol... what?

gagrice · May 2006

There are NO USA auto rules that force any auto to use Ethanol, except for those states that want to get rid of MTBF

You need to read the 2005 Energy bill. It mandates that all unleaded gas be treated with at least 7% Ethanol. MTBE is no longer allowed as an oxygenator. It is a carcinogenic substance that has seeped into the water sources in about 1500 US cities.

Last year, investors say, Congress gave ethanol its biggest boost yet. A provision in the omnibus Energy Policy Act requires Exxon Mobil Corp. and other refiners to almost double their biofuel use by 2012, guaranteeing ethanol distillers a market for the first time.

Congress last engineered an ethanol boom in the 1970s, and most producers went bust a few years later. The Carter administration, facing oil prices of $13 a barrel, the equivalent of $40 today after factoring in inflation, supported a new ethanol tax break for refiners in 1978.

For each gallon of ethanol they mixed into gasoline, refiners received a 40 cent reduction in the federal excise tax on gasoline. That helped stimulate a 10-fold increase in the number of producers to a record 163 by the end of 1984.

When oil prices crashed, falling to $11 a barrel in 1986 from $37 in 1981, the price of ethanol was no longer competitive with gasoline, and demand plummeted. More than half of the ethanol distillers went out of business. ``Even with a subsidy, nothing was enough to prevent the high rate of market change,'' a U.S. Energy Department history of the era says.

For the past eight years, ethanol has cost an average of 49 cents a gallon more than gasoline, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Last year, even with oil reaching a then record $70.85 a barrel, it cost refiners $1.61 to make a gallon of gasoline -- less than the $1.80 it cost to buy a gallon of ethanol.

Exxon Mobil, the world's biggest oil company, has no interest in making ethanol, a fuel dependent on government assistance, Chairman Rex Tillerson says. ``Pull the subsidies off and see how much ethanol gets made or used,'' Tillerson, 54, says.

Bloomberg on Ethanol

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles