« EPA Will Fund $3M in West Coast Diesel-Reduction Projects | Main | Gold in the Sands »
GM: “Live Green Go Yellow”
25 January 2006
|
| The price of ethanol futures has been rising. Note that the Y axis scale begins at $1.60, not 0. |
GM, continuing its new push on E85 and flexible-fuel vehicles (earlier post), today launched a national advertising and marketing campaign to build awareness and market acceptance for E85 vehicles.
The campaign, “Live Green Go Yellow,” will begin during the Olympics and continue throughout the year. The campaign is designed to make consumers, energy producers and policy makers aware of GM’s E85 capability in current and future models.
With the on-going concern over national energy policy, the need to have more renewable fuel choices such as ethanol blended fuels is a great energy option available today. This campaign will ask the simple question, “what if every vehicle was yellow?” In a way, in the world of ethanol, yellow is the new green, since today its main source is from corn.
—Brent Dewar, GM vice president of marketing and advertising
Consumers may be surprised by the impact E85 has on their fuel bill, however.
Because ethanol has less energy than gasoline, engines consume more to deliver equivalent power—in other words, burn E85, and your fuel consumption increases.
As an example, the 2006 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV delivers 13 mpg combined when burning E85 and 17 mpg combined when using gasoline—in other words, due to its lower energy content, ethanol imposes a 23% fuel consumption penalty in this vehicle. The Chevrolet Impala FFV delivers 19 mpg with E85, versus 24 mpg with gasoline—a 21% penalty.
E85 pricing tends to track with gasoline pricing, for a number of reasons. Add in the increasing demand for ethanol both as a standard blending component in gasoline as well as in higher-concentration E85 blends, and the price delta between E85 and regular gasoline may not be enough to offset the decreased fuel efficiency vehicles deliver when running on E85.
According to the most recent (September 2005) Alternative Fuel Price Report from the DOE, E85 averaged $2.41/gallon and regular gasoline averaged $2.77 for that reporting period—a 13% difference.
For the week of 20 January 2006, Axxis Petroleum reported an average fuel ethanol rack (wholesale) price in the Midwest of $2.10, while the EIA reported an average retail gasoline price of $2.282 in the Midwest.
Using the E85 figures from the DOE, a Tahoe FFV driver would pay $2,781 for a 15,000-mile year using E85, compared to $2,444 with regular gasoline. An FFV Impala driver would pay $1,902 with E85, $1,732 with gasoline.
Consumers may be willing to take the additional hit on fuel cost for the offsetting benefits of a biofuel (non-petroleum fuel, reduced greenhouse gas impact). But switching to E85 should not preclude the urgent development of more fuel-efficient FFVs and hybrid FFVs, such as that previewed by Ford. (Earlier post.)
In 2006, GM will offer nine E85 FlexFuel models, bringing an additional 400,000 E85 FlexFuel vehicles into its fleet.
January 25, 2006 in Ethanol, Fuel Efficiency | Permalink | Comments (50) | TrackBack (1)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/4127150
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM: “Live Green Go Yellow”:
» Yellow Gas Caps from After Gutenberg
GM marketing and advertising wants you asking, “What if every vehicle was yellow?” rather than What if every vehicle had a plug?
... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 2, 2006 6:56:25 PM
Comments
This is what I don't understand. Why not a similar-sized diesel version that would get 25 maybe 30+mpg. This ethanol gambit is suspect.
Posted by: fred | Jan 26, 2006 2:14:04 AM
Consumers may be willing to take the additional hit on fuel cost for the offsetting benefits of a biofuel (non-petroleum fuel, reduced greenhouse gas impact).
There is no *may* here -- consumers are willing to take an additional hit. The proof is in the hybrid drivers -- in general, they aren't the most cost-efficient way to get high mpg. The question is, will enough consumers be willing to take the hit to make a significant impact on the market.
Remember too that if it looks like ethanol sales will take off, more refineries will be built, resulting in more supply, helping to reduce prices.
Posted by: stomv | Jan 26, 2006 4:04:06 AM
If GM took their Saab technology and applied it to other engines they would be able to run them with the same fuel efficiency and output more power when using ethanol. It's very high octane so the engine needs to be re-configured to take advantage of that and operate more efficiently. That may require a turbo since E85 can use higher boost.
Posted by: Schwa | Jan 26, 2006 5:16:31 AM
The best strategy is to consume less, period. If lower fuel mileage is taken into account, then the well to wheel numbers for ghg emissions need to be adjusted. We also need to keep in mind that ethanol is subsidized, so the real total cost differential is even greater than above.
Posted by: t | Jan 26, 2006 6:50:45 AM
Remember that the USDA claims a 1.34:1 EROEI for corn ethanol, meaning that each BTU at the pump was made with .74 BTU of fossil fuel upstream; if you can achieve the 1.67:1 which is supposed to be the state of the art, that only falls to .60 BTU. The net benefit of E85 from corn is VERY small.
Flex-fuel credits should only be allowed to the extent that the ethanol production capacity exists to feed the new vehicles in addition to the existing fleet. That will stop the funny business.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 26, 2006 7:22:37 AM
Why those GM doesn't recalll its experience with EV2? Solectria sunruise is another example. They (GM) want to solve energy dependance problem and don't change there core business - (ICE cars). If they let out people to see
benefits of driving EVs there will be many new companies
who will enter auto business and squize them out as making an EV is much simpler process in terms of nbr of parts and their superior quility.
There problem is that each day more people are aware of HOW they (GM and others)want America to be free of islamic oil. I for one don't want to buy this supposedly "american" car. That what is there problem.
People feel being cheated and will not buy there cars.
Word of mouth is spreading and GM better watch out.
Again, too sad that its Wagner and his surrounding officers who is responsible for this failure and ordinary ppl will loose jobs, while execs in the worst case will bail out in golden shute.
Posted by: Alex | Jan 26, 2006 7:52:16 AM
Not to mention that farms emit the lion's share of water pollution, so add that to the farm subsidies and energy inputs (with carbon emissions) required to make ethanol. When it can be economically made from plant waste like stalks and leaves, then ethanol will be a winner.
[q->t to email]
Posted by: Adam | Jan 26, 2006 9:08:05 AM
Alex. I had a little problem following your comment but if the gist is that EV is the way to go, I agree. According to a study done by the State of California, EV has the lowest GHG emissions even if you use coal. That is to say, it beats out even Ethanol as far as net emissions.
Of course, one has to sacrifice performance, but that's part of the problem we have in America, isn't it. As long as performce is king, we won't be able to make much of a dent in the oil or GHG problem.
Posted by: t | Jan 26, 2006 10:01:54 AM
t: why does one need to sacrifice performance in an EV? The GM EV1 went from zero to sixty in something like 8 seconds, and strong low-end torque (flat torque curve) makes EVs as strong as ICEs in competitive drag racing.
[q->t to email]
Posted by: Adam | Jan 27, 2006 7:05:18 AM
So now the goal is not only to reduce dependence on oil, but also to save money? And we want it all in the short term? What about the life expectancy of the batteries in EVs - I guess it's not expensive to replace those? Ethanol is a decent, renewable fuel which is available and implemented *right now* and costs roughly the same as non-renewable gasoline. Ethanol is an excelent candidate for a transitional alternative fuel until other, more efficient fuls are developed - or until the Ethanol industry is better developed so costs can go down & manufacturers start geting better efficiency out of Ethanol engines. I remember a time in the not-so-distant past when I would've been overjoyed to find a gasoline-powered automobile which could get a consistent 19 MPG...
Posted by: Danny | Jan 30, 2006 9:07:47 AM
FYI
Posted by: Ben | Feb 11, 2006 7:31:19 PM
I grew up on a farm and I have a bachelor's degree in chemistry.
The farmer in me says: Growing corn uses a lot of energy. (Fuel for the tractors)
The chemist in me says: The highest concentration of ethanol that can be made naturally is about 12-13%. The distillation process to take 12-13% ethanol to high purity fuel-grade ethanol requires a high input of energy. (Think of the high cost of Everclear. Everclear is high purity ethanol.)
Making fuel-grade ethanol requires more energy that the ethanol can put out. This is never going to be a sustainable process. MORE ENERGY IS USED IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING FUEL-GRADE ETHANOL THAN THE FUEL WILL EVER HAVE. People might use ethanol to fuel their vehicles and it might make them feel like they're doing something good for the environment and the dependence of foreign oil, but the production of ethanol as a fuel is an energetically wasteful process. I have no idea how this idea is getting so much attention as an alternative to foreign oil.
The only sources of energy that are truely "green" that are known today are those that harness natural occurances: solar power, wind power, water power, etc.
Posted by: Kara | Feb 11, 2006 8:15:13 PM
This is bullshit. You guys this is simply economical from the standpoint that the Midwest all by itself could produce enough ethanol to supply the whole world! How much more money and disasters from drilling, shipping, and pumping of crude oil will it take to say enough is enough. Before this country realizes that we dont have any oil, unless we want to destroy Alaska. Maybe its the tree hugger in me saying that oil spill clean ups are costly, dangerous, and stupid.
Ultimately this live green go yellow campaign creates jobs in our country! Damn the fuel efficiency, put a bigger gas tank in the new product line. Other countries that dont have the money to easily pull of the best new thing to the environment, The United States of America, the world, and each other will be kicking themselves in the end.
By turning this alternative fuel source into a needed commodity all around the world would put this country right back in the driver seat. Supply and demand are met by means of the product life cycle. When the supply is low and the demand is high, prices soar! And vice a versa right?
By making ethanol readily available to all consumers in the states and around the world will drop prices to an all time low because the new processes will revolutionize the industry. Like Henry Ford's assembly line, we need to be thinking more positively.
The best thing this country can do for itself is to recycle as much as possible with what we have already before us. Cars that run on batteries should be used in conjunction with these other sources as we convert our current vehicles through entrepreneurs believing in their newly found products. Ultimately, this will make us self sufficient through exporting and using more goods (General Motors), and commodities (corn) than we are importing from other countries.
To summarize we need to find ways to use the cars we have and convert them to using alternative fuel sources like ethanol, cooking oil, batteries, nuclear, and solar energy by creating jobs here and over seas. Education in the new components will be vital in achieving economic prosperity. Converting gas pumps, cars on the road today, service stations, dealerships, parts stores, and vehicle manufacturers is the only way to overcome changing times and needs.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 13, 2006 12:01:44 AM
There are more than a few states that do not even have E-85 fuel stations. The real problem with alternative fuels is the lack of infrastructure to support them. Consumer demand is there; it's the infrastructure that is lagging.
While considering my own options for AFVs I noticed that some states include incentives for them as well - like sales tax free. But for me, in NY, the only E-85 pumps are for governement and not open to the public.
This address http://e85vehicles.com/e85-stations.htm shows how many states lack pumps.
GMs efforts are laudable but meaningless unless some form of incentive is made to fuel station operators to install the pumps; and it's a tricky deal because they won't want to until they percieve 'consumer demand' which can't exist until the infrastructure is in place, which won't happen till there is consumer demand...
Posted by: costa | Feb 13, 2006 6:47:58 AM
How does this compare to biodiesel?
Posted by: Karen | Feb 14, 2006 1:40:25 PM
Ethanol is a biofuel substitute for gasoline. Biodiesel is a biofuel substitute for diesel.
Posted by: Mike | Feb 14, 2006 4:09:25 PM
Why do we have to go all the way to 85% ethanol? Currently 10% is being added to Unleaded and there is certainly less mileage and efficiency loss at that rate--it fact it raises the octane of gasoline.
Why not make it a 50/50 blend?
Posted by: Jennifer | Feb 16, 2006 7:08:03 AM
Why do we have to go all the way to 85% ethanol? Currently 10% is being added to Unleaded and there is certainly less mileage and efficiency loss at that rate--it fact it raises the octane of gasoline.
Why not make it a 50/50 blend?
Posted by: Jennifer | Feb 16, 2006 7:08:55 AM
Doesn't hemp make better quality Ethenol and better for soil in a rotating crop agricultural plan?
Posted by: Johnny | Feb 16, 2006 1:23:11 PM
if we use corn oil does that mean that we can get gass at the stores ans still use th oil for our food?
Posted by: carolina | Feb 16, 2006 3:49:07 PM
I agree with Kara. One thing we have to remember is the compotition with petrolium. Oil companies recorded $11 trillion in profits last year(CNN). If Ethenol from corn could turn that much profit we could really give those greese monkeies a run for their money. Same with bio-desiel. Hopefully with advances in the technology involved we could see that happen in our life time.
Posted by: Jesse | Feb 18, 2006 7:13:23 PM
Here's a bit of information to all you tree huggers out there who think that ethanol will be the answer to all the evils of the petroleum industry: I have worked in both an ethanol plant and in an oil refinery - there is very little difference in the environmental impacts of these two processes. The one big difference, however, is that an ethanol plant makes the air in miles and miles of the surrounding area stink like a corn liquor still, which is what an ethanol plant acutally is. Sure, you don't get the potential for transportation accidents associtated with the oil industry, so I guess that as long as the stink and the hazards aren't in your own backyard, then ethanol is a good alternative fuel for you. If you hypocrites are really that concerned with environmental pollution and "ozone depletion", stop using your cars and walk.
Posted by: Scott | Feb 18, 2006 9:14:11 PM
I thought it might come to this one year. Studebaker built cars that made 32 MPG in 1948. Why not build engines with there technology.
Posted by: DALE | Feb 19, 2006 5:26:37 PM
Subject: E85, E95 and Ethanol Production & Use
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/gm_live_green_g.html
I've enjoyed your E85 post immensely. There are a number of ethanol plant is the US which manufacture ethanol with “legacy” technology & processes. However, the level of efficiency used today in new plant is vastly more efficient. Our firm is building one of these new plants today. We are “NOT” using fossil fuel to power our plant. Instead, we’re using biomass for our thermal feedstock. Biomass thermal feedstock has a dramatic impact on all aspects of our plant; and this energy balance ratio (0.74:1) that’s been discussed could be null. As our feedstock is renewable, does that number matter? And if so, as a plant developer, what is the optimum energy delta?
There may be 200 ethanol plants in operation by 2008 (or more). There will be a mix of technologies and processes in play; with more on the way. We will be using a full range of feedstock’s that “do” make sense within 10-15 years; even if corn doesn’t today.
Try to think of the ethanol industry the way the oil & gas industry evolved from 1895 to 2006. The ethanol industry is at about 1910 the 1915 by comparison. We will find our way – the same way we found our path to the moon. Remember folks – this is America. When we set our best minds to it we can’t be stopped – so hang in there and give the industry the support it needs to mature. With corn, hull-less barley, oats, wheat and later, biomass feedstock’s for ethanol production (and thermal feedstock’s) we can shift from 100% oil-based fuels to 100% domestically produced fuels. But we do need your support to do that……
I short comment about E85 cars: the Saab 9-2 is a bi-fuel vehicle. With gasoline its low-pressure turbo engine produces and 140-150 Hp. However, with E85, the same car produces 185 – 190 Hp. This is due to the higher octane rating of ethanol; over gasoline; AND, the Saab’s EMS (engine management system) adjusting the turbo pressure (higher) for ethanol. Hence, the lower BTU rating of ethanol v/s gasoline is offset by the EMS increasing power out-put. The question is: “is Ford & GM using this technology in their cars & trucks?”
In closing, this is an industry the will not be out-sources to China or some other country. This industry will create jobs, industry and support for local farm products.
Regards,
The1energy
CEO for a current ethanol plant in the US
Posted by: The1Energy | Feb 20, 2006 2:36:11 AM
can't MOST vehicles run on E85 or any ethanol product anyway? GM's vehicles are not that different right?
Posted by: Cedric | Feb 22, 2006 10:23:10 AM
i HATE paying high prices at the pump.why not explore ALL types of alternate fuel sources?i HATE even more,becoming more and more dependent on arab countries.surely, we need more than just gas!!
Posted by: paulla | Feb 23, 2006 3:34:32 PM
yeah i really agree w. what everyone is saying on here that we really do need to find an alternate fuel cause if we keep goin w. gas we will def. run out of our own resouces & then were will we be
bone dry just like the rest of our past w. fuel & we will have no resources left to use so we really need to think this one thruogh im sure everyone want's to save something's for future generation's so they can have the same thing's we had but if we keep goign there will be nothign left for them
so let's use the best fuel we have CORN let's all go yellow w. this next year it will help conserve & it is a resouce we can use again & agian cause it grow's back every year
Posted by: Aaron | Feb 23, 2006 8:31:23 PM
its great alternate energy---but isnt it fact---that for 1 gallon of corn stuff -it takes 1.2 gallons of regular gas?
Posted by: brian | Feb 23, 2006 9:33:22 PM
We just need to do it. Thats what america is good for. Leading the world in innovative ideas. We all know that as demand increases so do our ingenuity. As an MBA I know far to well what demand dos.
Let just do it!!!!!!
Posted by: Al Tooks | Feb 24, 2006 8:58:19 AM
Someone needs to get an American Oil company to get out of bed with the Arabs and open just two pumps per station that offer E-85 that would solve our delivery problem and with the availability of the this product we could easily see what the consumer will do. Right now it is all speculation. I can tell you this so much profit taking from oil, the ones who have the delivery process have no incentive to help and though they will lie to us and tell us they want to the truth is they have kept these types of products from getting to market for a long time.
Hence we already have a delivery system, we just have to find a company more loyal to America then to their pocket books and the Arabs.
Posted by: Phil | Feb 27, 2006 2:06:51 PM
The tag, “Live green Go yellow”, first sounded strange to me. “Live green” is easy to understand. That means driving a car run on ethanol is eco-friendly. “Go yellow” is hard to understand. “Go yellow” usually means “feel sick”, my dictionary says.
The quote from Brent Dewar gave me an answer. The main source of ethanol is from corn. “Go yellow” must be “to harvest and refine a lot of corn.” Is my understanding right?
From Japan
Posted by: kimura88 | Feb 28, 2006 5:30:45 AM
We need to have an alternative fuel that we can use
if the price of gas hits $3/gal again,which is more
likely to happen in the future bec.of the increased
demand for oil by China and India.Ethanol is the best
alternative fuel esp.that it is produced domestically and it will create a lot of jobs here rather than abroad.
The automotive industry should all produce flex fuel
or total flex vehicles so the commuters will have a choice to fill their vehicles with ethanol next time
the prices of gas go up again.So, we need a lot of fuel
stations that offer ethanol in different blends(50,85,100)for the commuters to avail of such alternative fuel.I think a lot of Americans are fed up
with the rich Arabs and other lunatics who control the
world's supply of oil,and it's high time to show to them
that we can run our vehicles using our own resources(our
oil,ethanol,natural gas,hydrogen,methane,etc.)
How about creating a Movement,so people can register
and pledge to use alternative fuels if they become avai-
lable and our politicians and leaders will take notice.
Posted by: neil | Feb 28, 2006 9:32:23 AM
how about everyone stop thinking about how this will effect OUR lives, but focus on how the environment, wildlife and nature in general are dying because our society is only conserend about ourselves and how it will effect our lives. im sorry, but this is all BS, we can all make due with less energy in general. And weatern society can make due with walking there fat asses to work instead of sitting on a cramped freeway, being pissed off that everyother person drives too!
seriously, think about what we are doing to ther environment, is the extra money not worth it? just please sit back, pull your head out of your ass, and think about how selfish and self absorbed or society is, that we can not see that by killing the environment we are killing ourselves too.
Posted by: jess | Feb 28, 2006 2:35:41 PM
I live up here in Alaska. We travel via snow machine which seems to get about 9 miles to gallon. Most people up here have SUV type equipment or some kind of 4 wheel drive cars such as the Subaru.
The fancy fuels being used down there in the lower 48 may not work up here with the cold weather.
On the other hand, we are not to worried about the fuel situation up here. We live so far away and most people do up here, there is no place to drive to for the most part.
Fuel types up here are minimal, mostly just reg. gas, only one place to get hi-test. Diesel is most popular.
Today, 11 March, fuel prices here are $2.56 gas and $2.54 diesel.
There is no "fancy fuel" to be had up here.
The big fuel users up here are the boats. For example, our vessel only gets about 1 mile/gallon and the skiff may get about 6 mpg. if lucky on perfect day.
The Bush planes must have good fuel to handle the cold.
I think all the fancy fuels are mostly for the lower 48 folk who live in large population areas.
So far, looking/listening at all the different lower 48 fuel and hybrid situations, I don't see much of any of it which would work up here for the Alaska wilderness life style.
Hybrid - Okay for the Anchorage City folks but can't see much use for one in the back country. Have to run the engine all the time to get heat out of the heater.
Fancy fuels - guessing no good in sub zero weather. And no use in snow machines, boats, and planes.
However, standing by to see if something other than the current fuels/engines will be suitable up here which will make a difference in fuel consumption/cost of operation.
I feel the main problem enviromentally anyway is, way to many people.
We put way more miles on our boats/planes/snow machines/ATV's than we do highway auto's up here. In March already, we have used 300 miles on the snow machines while only 16 miles with our highway equipment.
But fun to monitor what is going on down there, see if you guys come up with some kind of enjoyable fuel/engine combination.
Bill, End of the road'er.
Posted by: Bill | Mar 11, 2006 10:10:50 PM
Do you know at least three people that drives a car? Yes!
Would you think they would like to save on there gas mileages? sure
who wouldn't They would need to check up, from the neck up !!
we are tapping into the big oil company's profit!!! at www.bioleaders.mybpbiz.com
Rev. James H.,
$1,037,303.00 (THAT'S A MILLION!!!!) in commissions and 2,807 commission checks will be mailed this Friday, March 31 for the pay period of March 13 - 19.
141 people earned OVER $1,000.00 during this pay period!!!!
Here's the breakdown:
The number of people who earned $1,000 - $1,999 = EXACTLY 100 people
The number of people who earned $2,000 - $2,999 = 12 people
The number of people who earned $3,000 - $3,999 = 9 people
The number of people who earned $4,000 - $4,999 = 3 people
The number of people who earned $5,000 - $5,999 = 3 people
The number of people who earned $6,000 - $6,999 = 2 people
The number of people who earned $7,000 - $7,999 = 1 person
The number of people who earned $8,000 - $8,999 = 2 people
The number of people who earned $9,000 - $9,999 = 3 people
The number of people who earned $11,000 - $11,999 = 1 person
The number of people who earned $14,000 - $14,999 = 3 people
The number of people who earned $19,000 - $19,999 = 2 people
BioPerformance does not guarantee incomes whatsoever. This is just a way to strictly congratulate the Top 10 Earners!!! $8,731.00 was the lowest amount earned in the Top 10! Let's congratulate the Top 10 Earners for the pay period of March 13 - 19:
BioPerformance, Inc. started on Thursday, December 8, 2005... only 3 1/2 months ago!!!
29,101 people have signed up since BioPerformance started on December 8!!
500 - 600 new people are signing up everyday!! Note: This past Sunday almost 400 people signed up... and normally in Network Marketing, Sunday is a very, very slow day!!
$13,248,012.00 total sales!! (That's MILLIONS!!!!)
We predicted $6 MILLION in sales for March, but $6,157,476.00 sales so far in March... and March isn't over with yet!! (That's MILLIONS!!!!)
$8,692,711.00 total commissions earned!! (That's MILLIONS!!!!)
22,892 commission checks mailed!!
We predict the company will do $161,000,000.00 the first year!! (That's MILLIONS!!!!)
85% of the people are on auto ship in BioPerformance!!
We Are A Product Driven Company!!
All commissions are earned strictly from product sales!!
Posted by: Rev James | Mar 31, 2006 8:08:17 PM
Check out the article on Cleantechblog.com on GM's Live Go Green Live Yellow campaign. Says as a marketing campaign it's great, but questions the motivations for e85 versus improved fuel efficiency a bit.
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2006/02/gm-goes-yellow.html
Posted by: Eric | Apr 4, 2006 6:34:33 PM
Lots of views here, but too much emotion. I agree the E85 efficiency is low right now, but it is a baby that needs nurturing. Look out 5 to 10 years and wow.
One thing I see as a common element in several bio scenarios is the computer controlled turbo. Real flex fuel means E85, CNG, electric, etc. Most of the alternate fuels have lower energy content but HIGHER OCTANE. Doesn't a turbo make up the energy content difference - especially with hybrids where you store the energy peaks. I like the Saab and Prius activity because it brings some of this tech to the volume world.
I like the CNG option in DUAL FUEL mode for the shorter term - yes it is non renewable, but it is LOCAL and a great way to bootstrap us to a better set of future options. I would love to fill up at home and flip a switch to continue a trip on gas or E##.
We have to do what is sensible in the short term, while the infrastructure and efficiency issues improve, so we get away from energy imports - read imported oil.
Posted by: bill | Apr 14, 2006 8:32:08 AM
I've been doing a lot of research on E85 lately, and it seems that one of the big drawbacks of E85 is that you have to own a flex fuel car to use it, and that there is no conversion system for existing gasoline cars.
Times are a changin'---
Check it out...
http://www.flextek.com.br/?lang=eng
It's coming faster than you think.
Posted by: Danielle | Apr 26, 2006 12:27:26 PM
Hmmmm, if a gallon of gasoline at Sunoco costs $3.49 and a gallon of corn oil at Waldbaum's costs $8.99, does any of this really make any sense??????
Posted by: Edwin Dones | May 4, 2006 6:24:54 PM
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. It's all about supply and demand. Right now, there isn't lots of demand because people don't really know about it. But as soon we raise awareness--for example Bush did a speech on it about two weeks ago and it's all over the news lately...
Once people know, and more stations start offering it, the prices will go down. It just takes time--people don't like change. And necessity makes change. Gas prices are only going to go up from here, and once people decide to put their foot down and use ethanol, it will happen.
Posted by: Danielle | May 6, 2006 2:12:39 PM
Has anyone heard of this new Fuel Pill put out by a company BioPerformance? If so what have you heard and what do you think. It seems this can be a solution to a number of the fuel problems. I found a website on this pill at http://www.americanfuelpill.com
Thanks
Tom
Posted by: Tom | May 6, 2006 8:38:49 PM
Tom, I'm a distributor for BioPerformance. My official site is www.go-bp.com
Our product does help save on Fuel! It is an enzymatic catalyst in a medium of hydrocarbons and aromatic substances that simply lowers the flashpoint of gasoline. The results? Improved performance, reduced emissions, and increased mileage.
Visit my site to learn more; go-bp.com
Cheers;
Posted by: Wells | May 6, 2006 8:49:05 PM
////Ethanol is an excelent candidate for a transitional alternative fuel until other, more efficient fuls are developed - or until the Ethanol industry is better developed so costs can go down & manufacturers start geting better efficiency out of Ethanol engines.////
Ethanol is a waste of taxpayers monies and should not be used. Its neither an alternative to oil more is it renewable. The questions you should be asking yourself about ethanol is what happens in 20 years if ethanol isn't the viable alternative to oil everybody thought it was.. Then where are we?? Wasted efforts and time. I suggest reading the remarks at http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/grain-derived-ethanol-emperors-new.html about the TRUTH ABOUT ETHANOL.. If you support ethanol you're not going to like the FACTS!!
Posted by: reno | May 11, 2006 8:06:13 AM
Here's a bit of information to all you tree huggers out there who think that ethanol will be the answer to all the evils of the petroleum industry: I have worked in both an ethanol plant and in an oil refinery - there is very little difference in the environmental impacts of these two processes. The one big difference, however, is that an ethanol plant makes the air in miles and miles of the surrounding area stink like a corn liquor still, which is what an ethanol plant acutally is.
--- This is not necessarily true because this assumes only one kind of ethanol production process. There is an alternative to the ethanol plants that are as polluting as petroleum -- fermentation. Apparently, countries such as Brazil have been able to take the waste from sugar cane crops and ferment it into ethanol. It is a highly efficient and low-eco-impact process. It is my belief that because the US is such a monolithic economy, nations such as Brazil, Venezuela, China, etc are going to leap-frog over this nation and we are going to crumble as part of the Greco-Roman fallen empire.
Posted by: alterity | May 13, 2006 11:50:46 AM
Now that I've heard opposing sides---I have a couple questions. Do those of you against ethanol think that we should just forget about it and keep using gasoline? Sure ethanol may be a quick fix, but don't you think that 10 years or so of using ethanol vs. gasoline may help turn some things around? At least until we do more research on other alternatives? What about our oil dependence? Don't you think we need to do SOMETHING about it? I really need to hear both sides on this...
Posted by: Danielle | May 16, 2006 6:41:23 PM
You people who vote can make a difference.
Those of you who voted for Bush / Chaney made your choice to go with there God and not care what they were doing with our economy, environment or the department of energy. Next election think about those three issues when you vote.
Posted by: Martin | Jun 3, 2006 9:21:42 AM
I don't work for them...but I think their technology has a lot of potential and solves nearly every problem to the satisfaction of gasoline and ethanol enthusiasts.
http://www.butanol.com/
Posted by: Neil | Jun 29, 2006 6:18:05 AM
E85 is yet another sham to maintain the status quo while appearing to create a solution to oil addiction. The car companies are doing this because E85 manufacturing modifications cost less than $100 per vehicle, far cheaper than hybrid or other useful technology.
A recent analysis of the viability of E85 says that if NO fossil fuel is used at any point in the process, then planting every square inch of America with corn for fuel would replace about 1% of our current gasoline use. (We starve to death but the super wealthy %1 get to drive cars.)
Another problem is that as the effects of 'peak oil' worsen, our roads will fall into disrepair and become useless rather quickly, so there will be no place to use your shiny new E85 Avalanche. The road system in America needs huge amounts of oil to pave and maintain it.
The reality is that there is no way we can continue to drive our cars. There is no possible combination of alternatives that could possibly replace more than about 20% of our current gasoline use, and that would only happen with about a 10 year lead time.
Our current energy crisis will soon make us wonder how we are going to get food, not how we can drive our SUV cheaply.
Posted by: Bob | Jul 7, 2006 4:10:02 PM
Bob is right, we have been warned for over 50 years that eventually world oil production would peak, and the results would be devastating.
Matt Simmons, one of the worlds foremost energy finance bankers and energy council to the President and Vice President of the United States, said in a speech a few days ago that the energy crisis feared for so long is upon us. When asked how immediate the situation was, he responded that it is now time to learn to grow your own food.
T. Boone Pickens, America’s most famous oilman, said a few days ago that world oil production has peaked.
The Wall St. Journal reported June 12th that Saudi Arabia oil production was down 400,000 barrels a day as of last month, after holding steady for years. In Matt Simmons book “Twilight in the Desert”, he said that when Saudi Arabia peaks, the world has peaked.
Al Gore and Bill Clinton have both recently warned of Peak Oil and asked the media to begin informing the public.
Find out more about how peak oil will change our lives by reading from these sources.
1. Powerdown by Richard Heinberg
2. The Long Emergency by James Kunstler
3. The Party's Over by Richard Heinberg
4. Twilight in the Desert, by Matt Simmons
5. High Noon For Natural Gas, by Julian Darley
6. Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth Deffeyes
7. Half Gone by Jeremy Leggett
8. The End of Oil by Paul Roberts
9. The Coming Oil Crisis by Colin Campbell
10. Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil by David Goodstein
11. The Oil Factor by Stephen Leeb, PHD
12. The Coming Economic Collapse by Stephen Leeb, PHD
13. http://www.energybulletin.net/
Posted by: Tom | Jul 7, 2006 4:20:28 PM
It is indeed a constructive debet on our future enger problem. It seems US govt once more keeping common people at large in the latest Nuclear deal. My country india is still having bio-diversity and potential to sustain a eco-friendly alternatives. But capatalist force in usa and as well as in india are after making more money and thus very much inclined to sell nuclear power plant which will hurt bio-diversity of india. Capitalists both in usa and as well in india are fooling people in the name of developement. Please help us to fight these back. I have worked in usa and could make out common people are no way different from that from india. Thus ask you senators what is real intension of the nuclear deal!
Posted by: anilesh mohari | Dec 18, 2006 12:47:47 AM
