So....What is the future of E85?

[j24816]

It seems the 'big 3' are hitching their star to E85 as the solution to environmental and energy issues.
- Is this legitimate or a marketing ploy?
- Is E85 truely green?
- Is congress going to pump millions (billions?) into E85 distribution subsidies?

[fshagan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(j24816 @ Jun 29 2006, 10:02 PM) [snapback]278983[/snapback]</div>

It seems the 'big 3' are hitching their star to E85 as the solution to environmental and energy issues.
- Is this legitimate or a marketing ploy?
- Is E85 truely green?
- Is congress going to pump millions (billions?) into E85 distribution subsidies?
[/b]

Ethanol has some pretty big corporate guns (besides the car companies) behind it ... ADM, for instance. And they are gearing up some refineries to produce more of it. The E85 flex vehicles run on either standard gasoline or E85, so it looks to be a good transition fuel.

I've heard conflicting details on the "green" aspect, with some saying the carbon uptake of the plants producing the fuel balance each other out, so the CO2 production out the tailpipe doesn't really add to the global climate change scenario. Others claim that you need all of the farmland in the country to produce enough corn to make enough ethanol to remove our dependence on foreign oil. I suspect that's not true because the math is making some assumptions (corn is grown at a certain density because of its eventual use; corn grown for fermenting probably doesn't need to be protected as much from vermin, etc.) And there are other plants that can be used.

I would be OK with subsidies if it worked toward ending our dependence on foreign oil, and the necessary entanglement with primative governments that entails.

[john1701a]

The focus on E85 specifically is definitely a marketing ploy. It has been available here since the late 90's. So it is pretty darn obvious that the sudden attention is an effort to draw attention away from the failure to deliver something that actually reduces consumption.

A far more effective way of reducing dependence on imported oil would be to focus on E10 instead, since all gasoline vehicles are already equipped to use it. 10 percent use from everyone would undeniably add up to more ethanol than just those capable of 85 percent.

---

The subsidy issue is a nasty one, since gas is also getting some. Proper use of profits, like to build local production facilities, is acceptable in most people's books. That's like using gas tax to pay for road upkeep & repair. Money like that is only bad if it is not used appropriately.

---

As for clean, yes it is. But ethanol alone is not the solution. Don't fall for the greenwashing. Consumption must be reduced too.

By the way, I've used E10 in my two Prius to drive 116,000 miles.

[TonyPSchaefer]

Someone over on the "Ford backs out of hybrids" thread mentioned something that got me thinking. They said that it's not about the fuel. Rather, manufacturers make more profit on the larger vehicles than on the smaller vehicles. I mean, I knew that part, but hadn't made the mental leap.

Profit-driven, short-term thinking manufacturers will do whatever they have to in order to continue promoting and selling their large vehicles. If E85 and flexfuel are the ways to continue selling large vehicles, then they will work their butts off to make sure those fuels are available. And as we've seen in the past, when the automoble manufacturers want (or don't want) something, they lobby and promote and slander and make sure they get their way.

[Syclone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Jun 30 2006, 08:50 AM) [snapback]279042[/snapback]</div>

The focus on E85 specifically is definitely a marketing ploy. It has been available here since the late 90's. So it is pretty darn obvious that the sudden attention is an effort to draw attention away from the failure to deliver something that actually reduces consumption.

A far more effective way of reducing dependence on imported oil would be to focus on E10 instead, since all gasoline vehicles are already equipped to use it. 10 percent use from everyone would undeniably add up to more ethanol than just those capable of 85 percent.

---

The subsidy issue is a nasty one, since gas is also getting some. Proper use of profits, like to build local production facilities, is acceptable in most people's books. That's like using gas tax to pay for road upkeep & repair. Money like that is only bad if it is not used appropriately.

---

As for clean, yes it is. But ethanol alone is not the solution. Don't fall for the greenwashing. Consumption must be reduced too.

By the way, I've used E10 in my two Prius to drive 116,000 miles.
[/b]

In my opinion, it's a pretty cynical ploy. I costs under $10.00 to modify a car's fuel system to run on e85. Ford Explorers have been E85 capable since the mid-nineties. It costs hundreds of millions to develop hybrid, Hydrogen, or fuel cell technologies.

As of now E85 is a dead-end. There is no requirement to distribute the product. The oil companies are fighting it tooth and nail. The pipeline companies won't distribute it. Unless our den of thieves ( Congress) gets off its collective ass, nothing will ever happen.

The domestic manufacturers ( Ford and GM ) just want to sell SUV's because, in spite of all the rebates, and "free" gas, they still make more (or lose less) on SUV's than passenger cars. And, by the way they get credit on CAFE for producing E85 vehicles, even though none of them is likely to ever run on anything more than E10.

[ShellyT]

It is a ploy. For even with a breakthrough in production, like the cellulistic(sp) method, ethanol is a poor choice of a replacement. It has low energy content, is corrosive, and its affinity for water compounds this. Plus, to get the most out of it, the engine needs to made for the ethanol content, and not a flex fuel.

While it may only cost $10 to built an E85 flex fuel, retro fitting existing cars won't be as cheap or easy, and likely be out of the reach of most car owners.
Pipeline companies won't pump it for the same reasons you can't put it in a standard engine.

There are better alternatives. Butanol is closer to gasoline in energy and physical properties, and be made from a variety of biomass sources.

If we are stuck with it, better to use E10 as John says. Refineries are likely to make it to get away from MBTE.

[brandon]

Well, let me take this question one step further: In the big picture, is there a net benefit from E85? I've heard it takes a significant amount of energy (likely from fossil fuels) to produce and distribute ethanol (yes, just hearsay, not research). Are we better off with it, or are we just creating more work for ourselves without decreasing consumption, reliance or pollution?

[EricGo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(j24816 @ Jun 30 2006, 01:02 AM) [snapback]278983[/snapback]</div>

It seems the 'big 3' are hitching their star to E85 as the solution to environmental and energy issues.
- Is this legitimate or a marketing ploy?
- Is E85 truely green?
- Is congress going to pump millions (billions?) into E85 distribution subsidies?
[/b]

- ploy
- no. About 10% CO2 reduction, emissions pollutants traded for agriculture pollution (fertilizer, pesticides)
- If it is stupid but sounds good, the shrub is all over it.

More specifically on the last point, the general electorate wants, and the repub electorate demands, low fuel prices. If the cost of Etoh can be made to 'look' inexpensive, they will do it.'

Brandon: Somewhere around 5 studies attempting to quantitate fossil fuel use and the CO2 lifecycle of corn to Etoh are published. They span the gamut from reporting a net decrease, to a net increase. As you might expect, the majority of the optimistic studies have come from groups with lobbying interests; if I remember correctly, usually agribusiness.

Again from memory, perhaps the best study came from Stanford which concluded that Etoh can me mildly (~ 10 - 20% net CO2 reduction) beneficial, but not if corn is used as the feedstock. In all the studies ancillary pollution problems such as fertilizer runoff were ignored.

[j24816]

I'm still stuck on this.

After doing some reading on the Brazilian experience (see representative links below) I'm kind of leaning to the belief that ethanol is environmentally the correct choice, troubled somewhat by the lack of support from environmental groups. (and Eric, if I am missing something could you post some links to reading I should be doing...thx!)

Largely based on the Brazilian experience and the opinions expressed here I think 1) Ethanol, from whatever source, will not survive without Govt. funding, 2) This spending would be a good use of funds, and 3) The way GM is using E85 is a very irritating ploy.

As an aside, there are 3 public E85 gas pumps within 250 miles of Los Angeles (1 in San Diego, 2 in Las Vegas (much to my surprise)). This site will search for E85 pumps in your neighborhood. http://afdcmap2.nrel.gov/locator/FindPane.asp


Representative Sources (Google 'Brazil Ethanol' and 'Brazil Ethanol Problems'):
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fe...ow_20060522.pdf
http://www.climateark.org/articles/r...p?linkid=55870

[EricGo]

http://pangea.stanford.edu/ESYS/Energy%20s...nergySems.shtml