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

snakeweasel · June 2006

Then to clarify, **I** am talking about the political aspects,

To clarify I am not and you are trying to turn what I am talking about into the political aspects and I would appreciate you not trying to highjack what I am saying.

Again the political ramifications is NOT germane to the microeconomic realities of E85

The reason that oil is as costly as it is today is largely because of the lack of planning and a coherent, long-term energy policy that has made us so utterly dependent upon it.

And a poorly planned incoherent embracing of E85 isn't going to help.

The free market alone won't solve this problem.

If the free market were allowed to work it would provide a workable solution. But then the free market is hindered by government interference. More government interference is not the answer. I am not advocating no government interference just limited well thought out government activity (yeah I know thats a pipe dream).

socala4 · June 2006

To clarify I am not and you are trying to turn what I am talking about into the political aspects

What I am doing here is underlining the point that a position based strictly upon short-term pricing is short-sighted, and disregards the significant hidden subsidy needed to ensure oil supplies.

If the question is strictly a matter of whether the free market will, by itself, result in the widespread adoption of E85, then I think that it is clear that the answer is "no."

But this discussion has largely become a debate about what should be done, rather than what is happening at the moment, and to that, I say that a broader vision is required. As I noted, oil is not truly a free market solution because of the significant costs of maintaining governmental policies that fight to ensure its supply, so any course of action will require government involvement/ interference/ etc.

As a nation, we cannot afford to ignore one uniquely difficult aspect of oil supplies -- much of it happens to be concentrated in dictatorships that are not especially stable or friendly to the US. This comes at a great price which goes well beyond the pump price, and should be addressed lest we end up back in a repeat of the 70's fuel crisis or something worse.

snakeweasel · June 2006

What I am doing here is underlining the point that a....

Again you are trying to interject something that is not part of my original posting and I will not go down that road.

If the question is strictly a matter of whether the free market will, by itself, result in the widespread adoption of E85, then I think that it is clear that the answer is "no."

And there is a reason why that answer is "no" it is because it is not an economically viable solution. Forcing a solution that isn't economically viable is not going to work in the long run.

seniorjose · June 2006

.. increasing regulations (more strict for 2007) on diesel engines that are keeping diesel off US highways in large numbers.

CA caused all VW auto and Jeep diesels to be discontinued in 2007...! Seems to be a shortsighted legislature and lobbying effort by the Sierra club.

seniorjose · June 2006

Bad illustration..I am not interested in what Joe sixpack or any other Redneck thinks or does on this subject.

snakeweasel · June 2006

It wasn't CA that did that, it was a Federally mandated increase in the emission standards for diesel engines and fuel. Diesel pumps are now starting to say that it is illegal to put that fuel in 2007 or later diesel vehicles.

snakeweasel · June 2006

Well if Joe Sixpack rejects E85 then E85 will not be the fuel of the future. For E85 to be anything more than a designer "feel good" fuel it has to be able to play in Peoria.

You promote it but don't care if the end user will use it? doesn't sound right to me.

socala4 · June 2006

A solution that does not address adoption and consumer demand is not a solution.

I can see a place for ethanol among a number of solutions, but it will likely require a costly government initiative, including R&D investment, a whole host of subsidies and taxation policies meant to encourage its use. Assuming current government policies (minimal ethanol investment, combined with a significant hidden subsidy to support oil), you won't see E85, biodiesel or any of these other alternative fuels going anywhere.

Even at $3+ per gallon, US fuel prices are not currently high enough (at least with the current fuel tax structure) to encourage alternative fuels. You would need to have higher gas prices (either via taxes and/or oil price increases), lower ethanol prices, more FFV vehicles, and more E85 distribution to make it work. Otherwise, it's also a non-starter.

john500 · June 2006

1. CO2 emissions and the potential for global warming
2. the US dependency on foreign oil as a transportation fuel as opposed to domestic energy
3. the currently existing power grid infrastructure of the country and how it affects fuel processing
4. the effect of change upon geographic regions

It appears that each person prioritizes one aspect over the other. The ethanol advocate uses 4 to assert their opinions (economies will grow in the midwest) and states that domestic coal can be used for a portion of the energy costs (3). The gasoline advocate uses 1 and 3 to assert their opinion (clearly ethanol does not improve the environment and the mandate for oxygenated fuels is obsolete). From an environmental perspective (i.e. prioritization of 1 and the angle I look through), ethanol clearly does nothing to improve the situation. I do not agree with any logic that supports emitting more CO2 to justify having domestic energy unless severe reductions in vehicle weight and increases in fuel economy are initiated FIRST.

rorr · June 2006

"Bad illustration..I am not interested in what Joe sixpack or any other Redneck thinks or does on this subject."

You'd better if you think Ethanol should be accepted.

rorr · June 2006

"Assuming current government policies (minimal ethanol investment, combined with a significant hidden subsidy to support oil)..."

Minimal ethanol investment? A 51 cents/gallon subsidy is minimal? Considering we consume 140 Billion gallons of gasoline per year, a similar 'hidden subsidy' would be to the tune of 70 Billion dollars per year.

BTW - not all money spent in the Mid-east can be laid directly on any need for the U.S. to secure a stable oil supply. Like it or not, oil is what makes the whole PLANET run. A stable supply benefits the economy of EVERYONE. One can't simply imply that all money spent in Iraq is just to ensure a steady supply of oil for greedy Americans.

socala4 · June 2006

Minimal ethanol investment? A 51 cents/gallon subsidy is minimal?

Given the minimal amount of ethanol currently in use and the developmental stage of the product, that's to be expected.

In any case, that's still less than the $0.75 per gallon cost of the Iraq war. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that our expenditures are going to produce the desired results.

A stable supply benefits the economy of EVERYONE.

Agreed, but it is largely Americans who are financing the cost of ensuring that supply. The fact that others also use it does not mean that it isn't expensive for Americans. If anything, the spike in global demand is yet another good reason why the US needs to start weaning itself off of it -- does it help the US to have greater competition for a resource that is controlled largely by nations not friendly to its interests?

tpe · June 2006

Actually I think the subsidy for ethanol is 54 cents but I agree with your point. Since the production of ethanol is petroleum intensive it might be that for every gallon of ethanol we produce we are only saving what equates to 1/4 gallon of gasoline. If that's the case the government is spending $2 for every gallon reduction in gasoline consumption. There's got to be a more cost effective approach.

I also agree that if we're spending 100 billion a year in the Middle East that should be spread amongst all oil importing countries and users of oil.

I know that there are a lot of ethanol refineries currently being built and I've got to imagine a lot of farmers are expanding they're operation to produce more corn. The question/concern I have is whether this is another government bailout in the making? What if this current ethanol craze fizzles out?

rorr · June 2006

...if the thrust of ethanol is to reduce the demand for foreign oil, which is more cost effective:

1) Developing an ethanol industry able to supply 6.7 Billion gallons of ethanol a year (which works out to 18.4 million gallons/day or 437,000 barrels/day of ethanol or the energy equivalent of 267,000 barrels/day of crude oil)

Or...

2) Developing ANWR?

Anybody got any solid guesstimates for expected crude oil production if ANWR was developed?

tpe · June 2006

Anybody got any solid guesstimates for expected crude oil production if ANWR was developed?

I've heard around 1 million barrels of oil per day at its peak. It would be 20 years from the start of development until it reached that peak. I've also read that the impact it would have on our oil dependence would be about 3%. Meaning that instead of importing 60% of our oil we'd only need to import 57%. I don't have really strong feeling about ANWR but its hard to get too excited about a 20 year plan that will have that small of an impact.

rorr · June 2006

"I don't have really strong feeling about ANWR but its hard to get too excited about a 20 year plan that will have that small of an impact."

Um, since we import roughly 10M bbl/day, production of 1M bbls/day would be somewhere around 10%, not 3%.

Besides, if 1 Million bbls/day of crude oil production doesn't help with making us more independant of foreign oil, I fail to see how producing the ethanol equivalent to a quarter of that helps.

tpe · June 2006

Um, since we import roughly 10M bbl/day, production of 1M bbls/day would be somewhere around 10%, not 3%.

I'm just telling you what I've read. I agree that the numbers don't seem to make sense. I suspect that part of the discrepancy is due to a projection that in 20 years we will be consuming closer to 30 million barrels of oil a day as opposed to the 21 million barrels we are currently consuming. It might also have something to do with oil companies tapping those wells that are cheapest. So ANWR could potentially displace a small percentage of domestic producers. Like I said, I don't know. Regardless, we are in agreement when it comes to this ethanol boondoggle.

gagrice · June 2006

Your 1 million figure is about correct on ANWR. Best guess estimates are 16 billion barrels. That may be conservative. When they let the leases for Prudhoe Bay in 1969 it was estimated at 9 Billion barrel reserve. They started producing in 1977 at a little over a million barrels per day. They peaked at 2.2 million per day and now the Prudhoe field is less than a half million per day. Last I read they had taken about 17 Billion barrels out of that field. Now they are producing fields as far west as 100 miles of the beginning of the pipeline out in what originally was the Navel Petroleum Reserve.

An interesting side note. Everyone has their shorts in a knot over that pipe splitting and dumping oil on the tundra. Don't they know that is how the Navy found that oil existed in the Arctic. It is laying in huge pools on the tundra. Course you can't sue God for leaving it there. So go after the oil company. A case of environmentalism going too far.

fireball1 · June 2006

I know that there are a lot of ethanol refineries currently being built and I've got to imagine a lot of farmers are expanding they're operation to produce more corn.

According to the USDA, corn plantings are down 5 percent this year because of the skyrocketing costs of natural gas, which is used to make nitrate fertilizer.

brett5 · June 2006

cool

gagrice · June 2006

corn plantings are down 5 percent this year

I don't see how a farmer can make any money at $2 a bushel. We were getting close to $3 in 1977-79 and going broke at that. Of course Carter had interest up near 20%. You could not borrow any money to get your crop in. It was a horrible time for farmers. With irrigated land in the Midwest you are very lucky to get 225 bushels to the acre. That is a $450 per acre crop in a good year. Not enough for me to go back to my farm.

tpe · June 2006

According to the USDA, corn plantings are down 5 percent this year because of the skyrocketing costs of natural gas, which is used to make nitrate fertilizer.

That may be the case right now because we still grow a huge surplus of corn that gets exported. If ethanol production triples by 2015, which is projected, there will no longer be a surplus without expanding corn production.

snakeweasel · June 2006

With irrigated land in the Midwest you are very lucky to get 225 bushels to the acre

According to the Corn Refiners Association (at www.corn.org) the average US yield is 160.4 bushels/acre with Washington state having the highest per acre yield at 200 bushels/acre.

gagrice · June 2006

If there is a surplus that would explain the low corn price. I see July futures up $2.75. What will that do to the price of ethanol? If we use the corn here and don't export it, there goes our balance of trade higher. All subsidized by the US government. Beautiful the way their minds work.

seniorjose · June 2006

I am a humored a bit by how many myths and falsehoods abound about Ethanol and its effects on this country. The myths and falsehoods about Ethanol, Biodiesal or other renewable energy sources are still being perpetuated. It is especially humorous to hear all thr comments from people who have never driven one mile in ANY Ethanol using auto and can quote myths about gas/ethanol mileage -- as PT Barnum once said...! Renewable fuel is not some plot by unnamed sources to try to make the USA independent of the dictatorships of the oil cartel. We can't keep up the ostrich approach forever.

THE REAL WORLD TODAY...NOW! I traveled 300 miles yesterday on E10 (NOW) and my mileage was 33MPG on my Accord I4..."Its a fact jack!" If I wasn't traveling 65-75 MPH maybe my mileage would be better. I also traveled from Iowa to upstate New York last month. Initial Iowa fillup got me 35MPG...filling up in Indiana got me 36MPG. To me and most E10 users, mileage differences are either non-exstant or irrelevant as E10 is a cheaper fuel than straight gasoline.

The days of trying to kill all alternate fuels by demogogery are over. Implementation of E85 and E10 are here...not instantly as many people want but using a renewable source of energy is not rocket science or future-think but are practical solutions NOW. Gee, corn made ethanol has an octane rating of 100-110 and it is potable and drinkable...with no harm to the environment and generates less CO2 than straight gasoline. By the way, corn is not grown with any irrigation methods in the midwest...just another myth and falsehood.

Hydrogen would be the answer if the monumental infrastructure and safety problems could ever be solved for mass production, but not apparently anytime soon. Ethanol is usable (E10) in any auto right NOW and E85 capable autos will gain another million vehicles this year. All-in-all ethanol is safe, environmentally harmless and just fits our life styles. Use it or don't that is the choice of auto owners.

There are many on this forum who are thoughtful and ask meaningful insightful questions. I try to post articles that contain facts about Ethanol and the pros and cons of this fuel. Ethanol right now is a Midwest developed fuel (and a Southern drinkable corn squeezin I might add) and it is starting to be additionally developed by Eastern and Southern states, granted a totally different environment from our bleak and lifeless environments of the Far West mountains/deserts. As an example, CA is dead set against any type of ethanol according to her US senators...so be it, it is not and will not (probably should not) be available in all parts of the country. There will be other solutions for renewable energy sources in other parts of our country.

The priority is to get weaned from oil cartel dictators -- the days of $30-$60 a barrel oil are GONE FOREVER. China, India and other third world countries need the energy that oil provides more than we do.

Renewable energy is a national presidential priority and a personal priority. I fish at our local nuclear power plant reservoir...a beautiful park-like setting. I see wind farms generating electricity as I drive through Eastern Iowa -- hmm another power source for distilling ethanol. I see some local Buffalo grazing on prairie grass which is similar to switch-grass, I drive with E10 89 octane in my, gas tank...10 cents a gallon cheaper than straight 87 octane gasoline -- screw the oil cartel for 10% of my auto energy needs.

Using "Pinochio Logic" (myths and falsehoods) to try to bait those of us here in the United States and intentionally foster anti-american hatred, would be hilarious if we were not so serious. Hatred of the United States' institutions, companies, government and hatred of our ideals and democratic ways, to me, are the property of the Islamic terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Canada, United Kingdom, Iraq, Iran and the oil cartel dictators -- but not exclusively. We must guard against them as we prepare a national goa; of enrgy independence.

seniorjose · June 2006

MIDWEST BRIEFS

E85 incentives pay off
Tribune staff, wire reports
Published June 9, 2006

GM said Thursday that it got a hefty return for dangling $1,000 in front of consumers in the Chicago-Rockford area and Minnesota to get them to buy its vehicles powered by E85. Sales in those regions surged 222 percent in May, the first month of the offer, as 2,238 Chevrolet and GMC vehicles that use the ethanol/gasoline blend were sold. Under the deal, GM offered a $1,000 debit card to be used to purchase fuel for those buying a 2006 and 2007 GMC Yukon, Yukon XL and Sierra and Chevrolet Tahoe, Suburban, Avalanche, Silverado, Impala and Monte Carlo that run on E85. Nationally, sales of GM's flex-fuel vehicles that can run on an 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gas rose 128 percent. The promotion ends July 31. GM said it has no plans to extend the program nationally because E85 has only limited availability in other regions of the country.

seniorjose · June 2006

Stations selling E85 below cost
By Dan McFeely
dan.mcfeely@indystar.com
Its costing a little bit more for patriotic E85 drivers to stick it to foreign oil suppliers these days.

Ethanol-blended fuel - made from Midwestern corn and touted as one way to wean America off of foreign oil dependency - is selling almost 70 cents higher than it was just a few months ago.
A check this morning with a few of the 32 Indiana gas stations that sell E85 shows the price hovering between about $2.70 to $2.80 a gallon. At Joes Junction on Kentucky Avenue on the Southside, the price was $2.84, compared to $2.09 in February  and compared to $2.86, the average for regular unleaded fuel.

But even that higher price for ethanol is less than what station owners are paying, according to Kellie Walsh, executive director of the Central Indiana Clean Cities Alliance, which promotes alternative fuels. Rack prices  the industry term for the price a station pays to a fuel supplier  for ethanol are about $3.36 in central Indiana, which includes fuel, taxes and transportation costs.

Some of these owners are really taking a hit in order to keep E85 on the market, said Walsh. They know that this time next year, production will be up and prices will come back down.

Ethanol price increases are being blamed on high demand from states that have phased out MTBE as an octane booster (which helps prevent engine knocking). Ethanol is used (at 10 percent) to boost octane and does not have the environmental health risks that are present in MTBE.

Meanwhile, production and sale of E85 continues to climb.

Indiana has five new ethanol plants under construction with two scheduled to open by this fall. Plans have also been announced for future ethanol plants in Hoosier towns such as Rushville, Bluffton, Marion and Rensselaer. South Bend-based New Energy Corp. is the only active plant in Indiana, churning out 100 million gallons per year.

National retailers Wal Mart, Meijer and Kroger have each announced aggressive plans to add E85 pumps to their fueling stations in the Midwest and around the country. This week, the first E85 plant in oil boomtown Houston was opened at a Kroger store.Indiana has 32 E85 pumps, a number that is expected to climb this year. Meijer, for example, opened its first city pump in May and announced plans to have 20 pumps in operation by the end of the year.

seniorjose · June 2006

E85 has been repeatedly shown to produce more power than a comparable gasoline fuel, especially in engines that need high octane fuels to avoid detonation.[9] Ford Motor Company found that power typically increased approximately 5% with the switch to E85 [10]. Researchers working on the equivalent of E85 fuel for general aviation aircraft AGE-85 have seen the same results with an aircraft engine jumping from 600 hp on conventional 100LL av gas to 650 hp on the AGE-85. Recorded power increases range from 5% - 9% depending on the engine. [11][12]

Due to pressure to remove leaded fuel even from racing environments, several racing organizations are looking at ethanol or E85 fuels as suitable alternative fuels for high performance race engines.

In 2006, the "National Street Car Association" is adopting E85 as an approved fuel for both their American Muscle Car and Street Machine eliminator racing classes.

The National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) currently allows ethanol as an approved fuel in several of its racing classes. NHRA approved ethanol is allowed in their bracket classes, Hotrod, Modified, ProFWD, and ProRWD classes to name some of the more popular. At this time NHRA has not announced any plans to include E85 as an approved fuel in the classes that are currently limited to "pump fuels".

The Indy Racing League is likewise moving to ethanol based fuels in 2006, with 10% ethanol 90% methanol fuel blend, and switching to a 100% ethanol fuel in the 2007 racing season.

There is much discussion of NASCAR also making the switch to an alcohol based fuel in the future.

Interest in E85 is high enough that there are now competitions for engine builders to develop winning combinations for both power and fuel economy on this fuel. One such competition is sponsored by the AERA Engine Builders Association. [13].

seniorjose · June 2006

Life cycle impact of E85 on greenhouse gas emissionsUse of E85 results in reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and energy use for each gallon burned, compared to the emissions and energy use for the gasoline it replaces.

Using corn based fuel ethanol production, E85 has a significant impact on total fossil fuel / energy usage and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As process efficiency increases over the coming years, these benefits are expected to continue to improve.

Using dry milling process technology (circa 1999) each gallon of E85 burned reduced petroleum usage by an estimated 0.949 gallons. Reduced GHG emissions by 23.8%, compared to burning a gallon of gasoline, and reduced life cycle fossil energy consumption by 44.4% compared to gasoline.

On a per mile driven basis, using 1999 technology, dry milling process derived E85, reduced petroleum usage by 74.9%, GHG emissions by 18.8%, and total fossil energy consumed by 35%. Wet milling derived E85 with 1999 technology would net reductions of 72.5% in petroleum usage, 13.7% in GHG emissions, and 34.4% in fossil energy used.

Using current state of the art (circa 2005) these reductions in GHG and energy usage improve slightly. Dry mill current technology reducing petroleum usage by 75.6%, GHG emissions by 25.5% and fossil energy use by 40.7%. Wet mill current technology reducing petroleum usage by 73.7%, GHG by 23.8% and fossil energy by 42.5%.

Using cellulose based processes, the reductions in petroleum, GHG and fossil energy are expected to reach the following levels in a mature production environment. Cellulose based ethanol production is nearing commercial viability at this time (2006). Woody biomass process (near future technology) petroleum reduction 69.9%, GHG emissions 102.2% and fossil energy usaged 79%. Herbacious biomass process (near future technology) petroleum usage reduction of 71.4%, GHG emissions 67.6% and fossil energy 70.4%

Current values for the energy balance of production show that gasoline returns only 80% of the energy invested in its production and delivery to the consumer. It has a negative energy balance of -20%. Current technology fuel ethanol, returns 139% of the energy invested in its production and delivery for a net +39% energy return, due to the free solar energy captured by the plants used for its production. Near future cellulose based ethanol is expected to reach an energy return of 169% of the energy invested in its production and distribution.

fireball1 · June 2006

By the way, corn is not grown with any irrigation methods in the midwest...just another myth and falsehood.

?????????????????????????????
You (1) are living on another planet, or (2) have a strange definition of "Midwest."

I am guessing that 90 percent of corn farmers in Nebraska irrigate, either thru center pivot or canal. Irrigation is prominent in Nebraska, Minnesota, South Dakota, Missouri, Michigan and Kansas -- states located, by your definition, somewhere on the West Coast. Irrigation is less likely in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio because they receive more rain in the average year. (U.S. Geological Survey facts) Naturally, irrigation is more predominant in California and other western states because those are semi-arid lands, if not flat-out deserts.

In the Great Plains area located over the Ogallala Aquifer -- much of Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma, part of South Dakota, the eastern third of Colorado, northeast New Mexico and the Texas panhandle -- irrigation consumes 95 percent of ALL GROUNDWATER USED! (U.S. Geological Survey again) That includes water used for domestic consumption, industry and other purposes.

And the No. 1 crop irrigated? By far, far and away, it's corn.

Farmers are increasingly drying up parts of the Great Plains to grow subsidized corn that is made into subsidized ethanol that is sold at gas pumps with yet a third subsidy.

I would more inclined to support corn ethanol if we grew our corn where it didn't require 50 percent or more of its water through irrigation.

tpe · June 2006

I would more inclined to support corn ethanol if we grew our corn where it didn't require 50 percent or more of its water through irrigation.

I'd be more inclined to support ethanol if I believed it had any chance of alleviating our dependence of foreign oil. Right now ethanol accounts for less than 4% of our fuel usage. In 10 years it will still provide less than 10% of the fuel we need and we will still be importing more oil than we are today. Even if you are an ethanol proponent there isn't much urgency in rushing out to buy a flex fuel vehicle because we will never be able to produce enough ethanol for more than a small percentage of drivers to burn E85.

In the next 10 years how much is the government going to spend on ethanol subsidies? I don't know the answer but I'm sure its considerable. I believe the government could spend a small percentage of this amount and develop better electric motors and batteries for an all electric vehicle that would be more than adequate for the vast majority of us. This would allow for an actual reduction in fuel consumption. In other words it would represent progress as opposed to an approach that, at best, slows the bleeding.

snakeweasel · June 2006

I am a humored a bit by how many myths and falsehoods abound about Ethanol and its effects on this country.

So I can take it that you are humored by your own posts?

The myths and falsehoods about Ethanol, Biodiesal or other renewable energy sources are still being perpetuated.

OK lets look at a couple ok?

To me and most E10 users, mileage differences are either non-exstant or irrelevant as E10 is a cheaper fuel than straight gasoline.

I don't know about you but Me and others who have checked their mileage find a small but significant drop in mileage using E10. Most cars will see a 4-5% drop in mileage using E85. To me with gas near $3.00 that significant.

corn made ethanol has an octane rating of 100-110 and it is potable and drinkable...with no harm to the environment and generates less CO2 than straight gasoline.

While the burning of E85 generates less CO2 the processing of the corn to Ethanol adds it right back.

By the way, corn is not grown with any irrigation methods in the midwest...just another myth and falsehood.

It is obvious that you have never been to the Midwest. Come by some summer and I will drive you by farm field after farm field of corn with irrigation equipment on it. And it ain't there for looks. Corn is a very water intensive crop that in the western Midwest cannot be grown without irrigation.

I find it very interesting that you post that you find humor in the lies and myths of E85 in the very same post you post lies and myths about E85.

snakeweasel · June 2006

I would more inclined to support corn ethanol if we grew our corn where it didn't require 50 percent or more of its water through irrigation.

Not only that but that it would take 525% of the US corn production to supply us with all the ethanol we would need so that we could replace all our gas usage to E85.

tpe · June 2006

I'm estimating that the average driver in this country would need about 500 gallons of ethanol per year. That would require an acre of land growing corn that then needs to be harvested and distilled for each driver. That seems like a lot to me. This same driver would use about 15 kWh per day in an electric vehicle. This could be provided by 15 square meters of photovoltaic cells. Not to mention that efficiency of PV cells and the manufacturing process will almost certainly improve over time resulting in lower energy costs. Will the cost of growing corn decrease over time? Plus it provides the potential of not only being independent from foreign sources for your fuel but being independent from domestic sources. Could it be done today? Probably not but definitely in less than 10 years, which is far sooner than ethanol will even make a dent in our oil dependence. I truly believe that the reason this solution isn't being more aggresively pursued is that it cuts too many special interests out of the loop.

snakeweasel · June 2006

I whole heatedly agree with you there. What would really be great is if someone can come up with a system that includes an electric car that can run 100 miles or so on a single charge and a photo voltaic cell system that charges a capacitor or battery in the persons garage that the car gets plugged into at night to recharge.

tpe · June 2006

Its already been done. I recently read an article written by an owner of a Toyoto RAV4 EV, which can go over 100 miles per charge. He charges his vehicle from home grown PV electricity.

I realize that EVs currently have some shortcomings that won't make them suitable for everyone but for the vast majority of us they would be ideal. How expensive would they be? That depends a lot on how many are manufactured. At the present time they probably will be considerably more expensive than a comparable ICE vehicle. Even though I'm not a big fan of government subsidies the reality is that they exist. So the question becomes, how do we get the greatest return on the government's investment in terms of reduced oil consumption. For instance, how much would the government have to spend to get 1 million EVs on the road and how much oil would this save over the life of these vehicles? Now compare this with how much the government would spend to get an equivalent oil savings through ethanol. The other difference is that an EV subsidy could eventually be phased out as they become cost competitive in their own right. I seriously doubt an ethanol subsidy can go away without extremely high oil prices.

seniorjose · June 2006

Sorry about the wrong information on the high plains where agriculture has always been a question. Maybe the agriculture department should shut down irrigation of corn in your state. Sorry about the facts, I was focusing on the deserts in CA where the greatest water boondoggles occur.

seniorjose · June 2006

Since we are talking EV, then we will need additional nuclear power plants, solar plants, thermal plants tapping underground heat or windfarm generated electricity. You know what that would cause, the TREE-HUGRs anti-americans will go nuts.

Oil fired electric power stations seem to be in great abundance in the USA now. What should we convert them into...huge flower pots????

We have tried EVs, and nobody would buy them, lease them or be seen in one...sigh, except on a golf course, chuckle. Most EVs could not meet the federal safety standards so they were labeled experimental. There are many solutions out there, we just have to find the people who give a damn -- not the couch potatoes of the USA, but real smart people trying to gather and develop real solutions. Ethanol is a handy way to get started at a minimal cost...clean fuel, loe environmental impact, high octane and easy to get started.

gagrice · June 2006

I was focusing on the deserts in CA where the greatest water boondoggles occur.

You really need to get out of Iowa more. You would be stuck eating corn fritters and hot dogs if you depended on Iowa to feed your family. What difference is there in subsidizing rice in CA or corn in Iowa.

How long will the gas stations continue to sell E85 at a loss? That is according to one of your uncredited factoids.

snakeweasel · June 2006

For instance, how much would the government have to spend to get 1 million EVs on the road and how much oil would this save over the life of these vehicles?

Well I think the average commute in the US is something like 16 miles one way. Thats 38 miles round trip. Lets say that on average everyone gets 25 MPG commuting, that means they use up about 1.5 gallons a day. So a million EV's in the hands on commuters would save 1.5 million gallons a day.

It would take 1.96 million gallons of ethanol to save that 1.5 million gallons of gas. Given the current subsidy that Ethanol gets I would guess that that would come to be about $250 million in subsidies per year. So give everyone who drives electric $250 a year. (thats just based on commuting and not other forms of driving)

snakeweasel · June 2006

Since we are talking EV, then we will need additional nuclear power plants, solar plants, thermal plants tapping underground heat or windfarm generated electricity.

Are you following the same conversation I am?

tpe · June 2006

We have tried EVs, and nobody would buy them, lease them or be seen in one...sigh, except on a golf course, chuckle.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. At the time that GM and Toyota killed the EV1 and RAV4 EV there were 2+ year waiting lists of people wanting to buy them. These manufacturers are quick to point out that since they only sold a few thousand of these vehicles that indicates there was no demand. Well if Toyota decided to only make 1,000 Camrys next year they could then make the same claim. The fact is that EVs don't fit into the business model of our established auto manufacturers.

gagrice · June 2006

Oil fired electric power stations seem to be in great abundance in the USA now

Another factoid that is not factual. Coal is still over 50% of our power. Unless you consider oil generation at 4% a great abundance. I guess you do that is about all we can expect from Ethanol.

In 1998, primary power generation resources converted to electricity were coal, accounting for 52 percent; nuclear, 19 percent; natural gas, 15 percent; oil, 4 percent, and hydro, 9 percent.

seniorjose · June 2006

To me and most E10 users, mileage differences are either non-exstant or irrelevant as E10 is a cheaper fuel than straight gasoline.

I don't know about you but Me and others who have checked their mileage find a small but significant drop in mileage using E10. Most cars will see a 4-5% drop in mileage using E85. To me with gas near $3.00 that significant.

So you want us to continue to ignore solutions that are real and learn how to whine and cry to the oil cartels dictators on a daily basis. let's see, to force a better supply of oil means that the USA will be in all dictators faces and the military costs will continue to be prohibited...ahhh, a solution, bring back the draft and then we will have enough women and men to be blown apart all over the world...is that what we should want?

Electric autoa have been a joke so far, as their motors go slower andd slower and slower as they run out of electrical charge. The hybrids did not save us any oil, even though the engineers meant well in designing and building their Rube Goldberg contraptions.

Population shifts can help our environment, and suburbs (bedroom communities) will be the first place to change. Inner cities are and have been reconstructed to lower energy usage. Are our suburbs in the throes of death!

socala4 · June 2006

At the time that GM and Toyota killed the EV1 and RAV4 EV there were 2+ year waiting lists of people wanting to buy them.

Sorry, but that's not a reasonable point. For one, these electrical were produced in very small quantities, well below one percent of the overall US car market, which indicates that demand for the cars in their then-current form was very low compared to the demand for cars run on gasoline or even diesel.

In any case, the market says it all: if there was strong demand for electric vehicles in their present form, and they could be sold at a price that consumers are willing to pay, then manufacturers would be building and selling them now, today -- after all, why wouldn't they enter a viable segment?

Clearly, the consumer has little to no interest in electric cars as of now, hence they are not getting built. The hybrid is catching on, because it solves two of the primary problems of electric cars -- limited range, coupled with a slow refueling process that can be difficult to access when required -- but the pure electrics simply aren't cutting it, at least as of today.

You can't poo-poo ethanol on one hand as experimental and subsidized, while lauding electric cars that have even less demand and distribution. ALL of these technology "magic bullets" being advocated here face significant stumbling blocks, none of them are ready to go today, and all will need significant investment, subsidies and legal mandates before they become practical and viable. To fixate on one's technology's faults while glossing over those of the others is simply disingenuous and unfair.

seniorjose · June 2006

There are many people that believe that the Great Plains should be returned to prarie land...hmmm, lots of ethanol...chuckle!

gagrice · June 2006

It was also CARB & the EPA that pulled the mandate out from under them. I am sure it was politically motivated by our friends in the oil business. That and the automakers did not want to warranty the batteries for 150K as the mandate says and still does. That is the reason the hybrids are stuck with the 10 Yr 150K mile warranty in CARB states. Not out of the goodness of Toyota's heart. It was only after a huge outcry that Toyota went ahead and sold the RAV EV cars, then quickly dropped the line. It is a shame that they did not put the money into developing them further than they have in the Hybrids. I am sure there were compromises on the different boards that share members.

tpe · June 2006

Ethanol is a handy way to get started at a minimal cost...clean fuel, loe environmental impact, high octane and easy to get started.

What's this fascination with high octane? My understanding of higher octane is that it allows for greater compression, which can increase the power potential of an engine. So what? This thread is not about increasing power. The fact that it might allow an engine to generate more hp does not mean there is more energy in ethanol. If you want more power just get a car with a bigger engine or a turbocharger. It will still get more miles per gallon than an engine running on ethanol. Its an indusputable fact that there is less energy in ethanol and that really needs to be put to rest.

tpe · June 2006

Sorry, but that's not a reasonable point. For one, these electrical were produced in very small quantities, well below one percent of the overall US car market, which indicates that demand for the cars in their then-current form was very low compared to the demand for cars run on gasoline or even diesel.

I agree that the demand was limited but the supply was even more limited. This was also 5+ years ago, long before we had $3/gallon gasoline. So we really don't know what the demand would be and right now the auto manufacturers seem to have no desire to test these waters. Auto manufacturers not only make money selling their cars but selling replacement parts. Auto dealerships make the bulk of their profits from the maintenance department. An EV not only has fewer parts but they are of the type built by GE not GM. They also are very low maintenance. Don't assume that the auto manufacturers would be eager to jump on the EV bandwagon as soon as they perceived a market.

socala4 · June 2006

Don't assume that the auto manufacturers would be eager to jump on the EV bandwagon as soon as they perceived a market.

A large automaker would love to have a popular product that operates by means of a technology that others do not have. That's precisely why Toyota has marketed the hybrid as it is, in order to differentiate itself from other automakers and to build its brand with consumers. If Toyota could score with EV's today and make them work, it would have already done it.

Electric cars in their present have a lot of barriers:

-Heavy batteries that are costly to replace (although this may be improving)
-Low range (unless refueled by an internal combustion engine)
-Slow refueling time (unless refueled by an internal combustion engine)
-Limited places to refuel as needed (unless refueled by an internal combustion engine)
-A long history of excessive hype that has rendered them as cliche
-Perception as glorified golf carts or otherwise as weird

All of these barriers to adoption have to be considered, and they are serious barriers. The supplies were inadequate because they were being built at a loss, but meeting demand would have nonetheless resulted in very few EV's on the road.

The general problem with this thread is that the advocates of a given solution are quite quick to point out the flaws of competing technologies while completely ignoring the problems of their own favored plays. We cannot have a fair discussion unless we do the following:

-Stop claiming that Technology X is ready for prime time. None of these alternative fuels or technologies is yet ready for widespread use and distribution, all of them lack at least a couple of key components to make them viable today. All of them involve lag time, and these need to be considered.

-Stop calculating the costs of one idea while ignoring the cost of the others. All of them will take time and capital to make viable -- some might arguably have more potential than others, but none of them will be free.

-In this case of ethanol, stop arguing everything from the basis of corn. There is other biomass that has been identified as more efficient than corn, and like the other possible solutions, will require more research and investment.

Again, none of these alleged solutions is ready to go, and can be introduced without further spending. If they were so viable, we'd already be using them en masse, but they aren't. Electric cars don't cut it as of today, there aren't many E85 pumps or cars near most of us, biodiesel is not in production beyond the experimental stage, I've yet to see a dealership selling cars that run on tap water, etc, etc., etc. It's fine to hypothesize about the future, but we're not there yet.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles