Ethanol - good news and bad
#1
Ethanol - good news and bad
First I want to point out that ethanol significantly mitigated the oil/gas costs in 2008. As such it is a strategic resource and important for our national security. However, there is another side that have been abused by GM and other companies to 'green wash' their inefficient vehicles:
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...ON03/812210313
I endorse ethanol as a USA based, liquid fuel. However, I object to claims that it substitutes for designing and building fuel efficient vehicles.
Bob Wilson
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...ON03/812210313
Bentley, the British-based luxury carmaker owned by Germany's Volkswagen, reckons biofuels are the key to cutting its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on the way to a greener future.
In the short to medium term, this means embracing ethanol as the main so-called renewable fuel. But, unfortunately for Bentley and the likes of GM, the science points increasingly to this being a dead-end street. Some experts reckon this push for ethanol shows Bentley needs a quick and cheap way to at least appear to be improving fuel economy.
. . .
To be fair to Bentley, it is not alone in this belief. At last year's Detroit car show, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said ethanol was the best way to cut CO2 emissions. He said hybrids and fuel cells would have little impact on overall use of gasoline over the next 15 years, but half of GM's vehicles will be able to run on flex-fuel (ethanol or gasoline) by 2012. Wagoner said that if all the flex-fuel vehicles made by GM, Ford and Chrysler were to run on ethanol through 2020 the U.S. could displace 29 billion gallons of gasoline annually, or 18 percent of the projected annual usage.
. . .
Bedwell [J.D. Powers analyst rjw] said though it's not surprising that Bentley is turning to ethanol now.
"As for Bentley, they need to do something quickly as regards CO2. Low production volumes mean developing new powertrains for Bentley cars may not be feasible, whereas conversion to E85 (ethanol) is pretty cheap. Also, Audi is pulling back from hybrids so there wouldn't be a suitable donor system. Diesel is an option, but again, I think the volumes are too low. V8 diesels are generally being replaced by six cylinder diesels, which aren't suitable for Bentley. V12 diesel is a possibility, but it's not that frugal," Bedwell said.
. . .
In the short to medium term, this means embracing ethanol as the main so-called renewable fuel. But, unfortunately for Bentley and the likes of GM, the science points increasingly to this being a dead-end street. Some experts reckon this push for ethanol shows Bentley needs a quick and cheap way to at least appear to be improving fuel economy.
. . .
To be fair to Bentley, it is not alone in this belief. At last year's Detroit car show, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said ethanol was the best way to cut CO2 emissions. He said hybrids and fuel cells would have little impact on overall use of gasoline over the next 15 years, but half of GM's vehicles will be able to run on flex-fuel (ethanol or gasoline) by 2012. Wagoner said that if all the flex-fuel vehicles made by GM, Ford and Chrysler were to run on ethanol through 2020 the U.S. could displace 29 billion gallons of gasoline annually, or 18 percent of the projected annual usage.
. . .
Bedwell [J.D. Powers analyst rjw] said though it's not surprising that Bentley is turning to ethanol now.
"As for Bentley, they need to do something quickly as regards CO2. Low production volumes mean developing new powertrains for Bentley cars may not be feasible, whereas conversion to E85 (ethanol) is pretty cheap. Also, Audi is pulling back from hybrids so there wouldn't be a suitable donor system. Diesel is an option, but again, I think the volumes are too low. V8 diesels are generally being replaced by six cylinder diesels, which aren't suitable for Bentley. V12 diesel is a possibility, but it's not that frugal," Bedwell said.
. . .
Bob Wilson
#2
Re: Ethanol - good news and bad
Um... Isn't ethanol a *big* part of the reason why the price of food/fuel jumped so high in 2007 and 2008? The only reason why fuel prices are coming down now is because Bu$h Corp is leaving office in 8 weeks.
#4
Re: Ethanol - good news and bad
Well, Bush is certainly a bash-worthy president. He's actually the first president I've been alive to see that never made one single good decision in eight years.
That said, I cite the fact that the Bush ethanol initiative benefitted the Archer Daniels Midland corporation quite hansomely as one of my many gripes against corn-based ethanol. The manditory E10 also shortened the lifespan of my last car. Since corn-based ethanol actually requires more fossil fuel to create than if you had just burned gasoline in the first place, that's why I say that the E10 agri-corp bonanza had the effect of raising food and fuel prices concurrently.
That said, I cite the fact that the Bush ethanol initiative benefitted the Archer Daniels Midland corporation quite hansomely as one of my many gripes against corn-based ethanol. The manditory E10 also shortened the lifespan of my last car. Since corn-based ethanol actually requires more fossil fuel to create than if you had just burned gasoline in the first place, that's why I say that the E10 agri-corp bonanza had the effect of raising food and fuel prices concurrently.
#5
Re: Ethanol - good news and bad
The manditory E10 also shortened the lifespan of my last car.
This study:
Study on E20 and Results of Materials Compatibility and Drivability at this link:
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/ethanol/default.htm
indicates no harm with use of E20. Does this mean there is an issue with build quality with your previous vehicle?
Since corn-based ethanol actually requires more fossil fuel to create than if you had just burned gasoline in the first place, that's why I say that the E10 agri-corp bonanza had the effect of raising food and fuel prices concurrently.
These studies indicate opposite of what you stated:
http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05
ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata
/ag/story/data/agNews_050328crETHANOL.xml&catref=ag1001
Furthermore, fuel prices have dropped in 2008 while ethanol production continues. With this information, there can not be a direct relationship.
#6
Re: Ethanol - good news and bad
I used Ethanol in my truck for about a year, Frankly I liked the way it ran with this fuel (smoother, more pep) and I knew it made the gas guzzler run cleaner but since gas is now $1.45 & Eth is 1.90 plus the fuel penality (equevlent of about $2.45 a gal) nooooo, I don't think so.
In MY opinion, for Ethanol to be a product of value it has to be AT MOST the same price as gas because of the mileage penality (11.5 mpg vs 15).
Granted, I don't drive the truck that much except when winter gets ugly (right now, 7 degrees & 3.5ft of snow) I probably still use less than 6 tanks of gas a year.
In MY opinion, for Ethanol to be a product of value it has to be AT MOST the same price as gas because of the mileage penality (11.5 mpg vs 15).
Granted, I don't drive the truck that much except when winter gets ugly (right now, 7 degrees & 3.5ft of snow) I probably still use less than 6 tanks of gas a year.
#7
Re: Ethanol - good news and bad
Does that mean you were dead during Clinton or Carter?
#8
Re: Ethanol - good news and bad
Martin
#9
Re: Ethanol - good news and bad
Martin
Last edited by martinjlm; 12-28-2008 at 08:34 AM.
#10
Re: Ethanol - good news and bad
No, Bush is still worse. Here's why:
-- Carter: An honest man, but a lousy president (high inflation, high unemployment, high gas prices, high deficit).
-- Clinton: A dishonest man, but a a competent president (low inflation, low unemployment, low gas prices, a decreased rate of deficit spending)
With Bush, you get dishonest ("Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Saddam has nukes", free rides for Halliburton, "mission accomplished", Patriot Act). But, as an added bonus, you also get lousy president (high inflation, high unemployment, high gas prices, and super-high deficit).
So, yeah, Bush will be remeembered by history as the worst post-WWII president hands down.
-- Carter: An honest man, but a lousy president (high inflation, high unemployment, high gas prices, high deficit).
-- Clinton: A dishonest man, but a a competent president (low inflation, low unemployment, low gas prices, a decreased rate of deficit spending)
With Bush, you get dishonest ("Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Saddam has nukes", free rides for Halliburton, "mission accomplished", Patriot Act). But, as an added bonus, you also get lousy president (high inflation, high unemployment, high gas prices, and super-high deficit).
So, yeah, Bush will be remeembered by history as the worst post-WWII president hands down.