« New Materials for Hydrogen Storage | Main | Toyota Brings Electric Personal Transit Concept to New York: the i-unit »

More GM E85 Promos

22 March 2005

Following on its announcement of providing 28 Flex-Fuel Avalanches to member states of the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition (earlier post), GM has announced several other E85 promotions:

• The company will provide an E85-capable Avalanche to the Illinois Corn Growers Association for use in the state as part of a campaign to promote ethanol and E85-capable vehicles in Illinois.
• General Motors will provide another  E85-capable Chevrolet Avalanche to the public-private Minnesota E85 Team, led by the American Lung Association of Minnesota. The E85 Avalanche will be used in the state as part of a campaign to promote ethanol and E85-capable vehicles in Minnesota.

March 22, 2005 in Ethanol | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/2113631

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More GM E85 Promos:

Comments

According to http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/suv-05.htm

The avalanche gets a 1/10 for air pollution even when running on Ethanol, and it gets as low as 11 mpg in the city, and as high as 19 on the highway mpg.

Can't say that I'm wishing for even more Avalanches on the road, even E85.

Posted by: Mikhail Capone | Mar 23, 2005 8:01:24 AM

Fuel consumption increases with ethanol—not as much energy. But it’s not petroleum-based, so there’s your trade-off.

Posted by: Mike | Mar 23, 2005 10:59:19 AM

I still find it strange that air pollution doesn't seem to get better. I thought that ethanol was cleaner-burning?

Posted by: Mikhail Capone | Mar 24, 2005 10:56:54 AM

Hmm, I’m not sure why the emissions score is so low. The E85 is rated as ULEV-1 on emissions, and the studies I’ve seen all indicate reductions in criteria emissions compared to gasoline.

Earlier figures from the EPA pegged GHG emissions from an E85-fueled Avalanche at 8.5 tons per year, as opposed to 11.7 tons from a gasoline version. That’s a 27% decrease...so how does that end up as being the same score? Unless the fuel consumption is so high that even relative improvements are still quantitively poor on the scale.

Posted by: Mike | Mar 24, 2005 3:52:22 PM

Post a comment
[Please keep comments on topic. Disagreement is fine, insults, abuse or wild diversions are not. Comments not meeting those standards will be deleted. Abuse of another commenter’s email address will result in the banning of the offender from this site. In an attempt to prevent the posting of insulting and abusive comments, this site maintains a list of prohibited words and phrases, which, unfortunately, grows with time. Including one of the prohibited words or phrases will flag the comment as "spam", and it will be blocked.]