GM Partners with VeraSun and Shell for E85 Push in Chicago
08 February 2006
In conjunction with the Chicago Auto Show, General Motors announced the addition of 26 additional E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) refueling pumps to stations in greater Chicago through collaborative partnerships with Shell Oil Products US and VeraSun Energy Corp. The collaboration is part of a national GM campaign to boost the use and awareness of E85 fuel in the U.S.
South Dakota-based VeraSun Energy, the nation’s second-largest producer of ethanol, announced the availability of VE85 (VeraSun’s branded E85) at 20 Gas City stations in the Chicago metro area. As part of the initiative, GM will promote the availability of the fuel with consumer and dealer outreach. The collaboration is similar to one VeraSun and GM entered into last May in the Sioux Falls, S.D. area.
Shell will supply E85 refueling pumps at approximately six stations in Chicago, and GM will market the availability of those stations to its customers and dealers. Shell will monitor consumer behavior at the pump to gauge interest in alternative fuels.
GM is pursuing gasoline-savings solutions on many fronts on the way to our ultimate vision of hydrogen fuel cell-powered transportation. E85 ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline and is a renewable, domestic fuel that can enhance the nation’s economy and energy security.
—Elizabeth Lowery, GM vice president of environment and energy
GM also will leverage its OnStar technology in the E85 promotion effort. Customers with an active OnStar subscription needing help locating an E85 station can contact an OnStar advisor, who will provide the nearest station’s address, city and phone number to Safe & Sound package subscribers and full route support to Directions & Connections subscribers. There are currently 420 E85 stations in OnStar’s database, with plans to update the database six times a year.
Also at the Chicago Auto Show, GM is introducing the all-new 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche, which blends an SUV with a pick-up truck.
The 2007 model is based on GM’s new full-size SUV platform. At the start of production, Avalanche will be equipped with a 5.3L V-8 delivering 320 hp (238 kW) and 463 Nm of torque, along with Active Fuel Management (GM’s version of displacement on demand—earlier post) which seamlessly switches between eight- and four-cylinder power to reduce fuel consumption.
Two versions of the Vortec 5.3L Gen IV V-8—including an aluminum-block version that is standard in 4WD models—are compatible with E85. Coming later in the year is a powerful, new all-aluminum 6.0L V-8 with variable valve timing and Active Fuel Management. The engine is rated at an estimated 355 horsepower (264 kW).
The E85 version of the 2006 Avalanche delivers 12 mpg US combined when using E85, and 16 mpg US combined when using gasoline. Although the Avalanche is based on GM’s full-size SUV platform that will see the first applications of the two-mode hybrid systems, the company made no announcement about future hybrid application in the Avalanche.
Shameful amount of HP and mileage. For decades, trucks have moved people and materials on 1/2 the HP of 355. Yes, a little slower. Should auto manufacturers agree to stop the hp race and meet a goal of minimum combined mileage
of 20mpg for GVW of less than 8,000lbs?
Posted by: tonychilling | 08 February 2006 at 12:48 AM
I don't know if it's me, but it seems that I keep seeing Shell investing in many of these promising endeavors to help reduce our petroleum consumption. Yeah, they are making a ton of money on petroleum and it will be their base for years to come, but at least they are making an effort.
MSNBC posted an article this morning about a top Exxon exec basically saying it was hopeless to pursue energy independence.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11221159/
This tells me a lot about the different strategies of these two firms. Here is a company like Exxon that could single handedly have the biggest influence on our foreign oil dependence, and they have already given up! Shell is investing huge into solar as well as cellusoic ethanol (via Iogen)!
I know my own boycotting of Exxon isn't going to do anything, but I'll tell you, I'm going to do everything I can to avoid going to an Exxon station from now on, and encourage everyone I know to do the same.
Posted by: Angelo | 08 February 2006 at 04:26 AM
Angelo: You have a good idea, specially for the same quality at the same price, why not choose the supplier with a better strategy for the future. Shell and BP seem to do more for alternate cleaner fuels than their US counterpart. Is there a reason we do not know?
Posted by: Harvey D | 08 February 2006 at 08:15 AM
Do the net return on energy analyses take into account the decreased gas mileage with ethanol?
If one adjusts the mpg numbers, considering the energy inputs required to produce the ethanol,the energy input would have to be relatively low to bring one back up to the mpg achieved using 100% gasoline. Using an energy input of .8, for example, makes the gas only vehicle the preferred alternative.
I don't know what the real number is, since they vary so much depending on the study.
We continue to name vehicles with names like Avalanche and Tundra, both of which will disappear if global warming continues its apparently inexorable March.
The vast majority of consumers, of course, won't even be aware of the energy input issue. But they may balk when they see the differences in gas mileage. A 25% hit may be too much for consumers to swallow.
As I've said elsewhere, this is mainly an attempt by GM to make people think they're doing something about the problem of oil consumption and global warming. Based on current technology, they're doing damn little, if anything.
Posted by: t | 08 February 2006 at 08:26 AM
What is the price difference between E85 and gasoline? A business perspective puts miles per dollar as more important than mpg.
Posted by: tom deplume | 08 February 2006 at 09:26 AM
From a cost perspective, it will clearly cost the consumer more to fuel with E85 than gasoline right now. I don't know how the average prices per gallon compare, but I'll bet they are very close. I've seen some stations where E85 was cheaper and others where it is the same price. I'm sure that ratio will vary throughout the country.
Regardless, using E85 still reduces overal gasoline consumption. We finally have some good information on that from the recent UCAL-Berkely study. I believe this will be the primary motivation of those who elect to refuel with E85. It will be a small niche in the immediate future, but why not give everyone the option to do this? It costs so little to make current cars flex-fuel.
This does not even factor in the benefits from using cellusosic ethanol. Because of that, I'd bet it's likely that ethanol prices go down or at least hold constant, while gasoline continues it's upward trend.
The last thing that is not being factored in is that all of these initial flex-fuel vehicles are still optimized and sized to run on gasoline. Even still, they produced more power running on E85. Small modifications, such as increasing the compression ratio to take advantage of the significantly higher octane rating (proven by Saab's Biopower concept), can boost power by over 20%. These engines could then be sized down, while still producing the same power, to help offset the lower energy density of ethanol.
Posted by: Angelo | 08 February 2006 at 10:15 AM