Do you think GM would drop their E85 campaign if the EPA did not give them credits toward their CAFE ratings?
EPA credits?
- Thread starter Louie's gone fishing
- Start date
- Status
No, it markets well to their rural midwest agricultural industry slaves er I mean customers.
Actually, GM is really behind this stuff, to the point that they don't list the EPA mileage for E85 on the sticker, just the gas mileage. It's going to be interesting, to see if E85 expands into non corn states. Also, I wonder how much the corn growers are getting helped on the front end of this deal. I worry that it's going to take more energy to get the E85 in our tanks, than the E85 produces pushing our cars around.
quote:That is a valid concern. However, it is not true. There is a wealth of information out there on the internet. Some of the information is bad, some is questionable, and some is just good objective studies. The biggest problem with ethanol is - transportation - its not readily transporatable in the pipeline system. So, by asking questions like this on this forum you are going to get more "crackpot" theories then you will actual facts. So use google and see whats out there.
Originally posted by Louie's gone fishing: Actually, GM is really behind this stuff, to the point that they don't list the EPA mileage for E85 on the sticker, just the gas mileage. It's going to be interesting, to see if E85 expands into non corn states. Also, I wonder how much the corn growers are getting helped on the front end of this deal. I worry that it's going to take more energy to get the E85 in our tanks, than the E85 produces pushing our cars around.
quote:They do publish that information, though: Chevy Avalanche Specs
Originally posted by Louie's gone fishing: Actually, GM is really behind this stuff, to the point that they don't list the EPA mileage for E85 on the sticker, just the gas mileage.
This was published on September 11, 2006 by Harry Stoffer of Automotive News:
Energy Dept.: E85 is an energy winner
Harry Stoffer | |
Automotive News | 6:00 am, September 11, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Along with automakers, the Bush administration wants to end debate over whether ethanol made from corn yields more energy than does the fuel used to produce it.
The Energy Department's verdict: It does.
A new department brochure says that 740,000 British thermal units of fossil energy are consumed to make and deliver ethanol that contains 1 million Btu of energy. The latest version of the brochure, issued last month, is part of a broad department defense of ethanol.
The department cites an analysis by the Argonne National Laboratory, which identifies a big positive energy balance for corn ethanol. The calculation includes the natural gas, petroleum products, electricity and coal used to grow corn, distill it into alcohol and deliver ethanol. It does not count solar energy in the corn.
The analysis "has laid to rest some long-held misunderstandings about ethanol," the department says. Critics who call ethanol an energy loser don't account for the improving efficiency of ethanol plants or other benefits, the department adds.
When scientists perfect methods for making ethanol from plant debris -- so-called cellulosic ethanol -- the energy equation will look even better, the department says.
E85's bottom line
To power a vehicle the same distance as gasoline, E85 made from corn
Requires 24.3% more overall energy input
But consumes 32.9% less fossil energy
And expends 69.5% less petroleum energy
Source: Argonne National Laboratory
Critic unbowed
"Every argument they make is bogus," says Tad Patzek, one of the leading critics of ethanol, of the administration's defense. Patzek, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, vows to keep fighting ethanol.
Even if the administration's optimistic assumptions are granted, Patzek says, ethanol at best breaks even. That is, the energy derived from ethanol would be no greater than the energy used to make it, he says.
The technology to produce cellulosic ethanol is far from proven, Patzek adds. And it would threaten tropical ecosystems where plants would be harvested for ethanol.
Automakers build hundreds of thousands of vehicles each year that can run on E85. Those manufacturers -- especially the Detroit 3 -- want to see the debate ended in ethanol's favor. E85 consists of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.
Beth Lowery, General Motors' vice president of environment and energy, says she knows of at least a dozen major studies of the energy balance of ethanol. Nine of them find ethanol to be an energy winner, she says. The Argonne study is the most important, she adds.
The disagreements among the studies reflect researchers' assumptions, Lowery says. Some analysts who declare ethanol an energy loser count the energy used to make trucks that haul corn, she says.
They also don't account for the value of ethanol byproducts, such as cattle feed that remains after the fuel is made, she adds. And ethanol critics rarely consider the amount of energy needed to deliver a gallon of gasoline to a service station, Lowery says.
Other hurdles
Ethanol faces other big obstacles. The fuel requires heavy government tax breaks to be economically competitive with gasoline. Fewer than 900 of the nation's 170,000 filling stations sell E85.
Ethanol got a big boost this year when President Bush, a former oil man, touted it as a way to break the nation's "addiction to oil."
The Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group, says ethanol made from corn offers limited environmental benefits and limited potential for large-scale replacement of petroleum. But it is a key to the transition to cellulosic ethanol, the group says.
Michael Wang, the Argonne analyst whose research model calculated ethanol's positive energy balance, believes the debate is overblown.
Wang says about two-thirds of the energy used to make electricity is lost before the current reaches consumers.
You may e-mail Harry Stoffer at [email protected]
If it takes 740,000 BTUs to make 1,000,000 BTUs but the 1,000,000 BTUs are less efficient (24.3% is mentioned)...hmmm
I'd like to know how many BTUs it takes to make 1,000,000 BTUs of gasoline.
I think real world consumers who get curious will have their curiosity squelched real quick when they see what E85 does to them. You saw the Avalanche numbers above. It's even worse for a 3.5L Impala. On gasoline, the Impala is good for 21 city and 31 highway, not bad for a full-sized car. On E85, it's back to being a downright guzzler as the numbers drop to 16 city and 23 highway!!! If the pump price is around that of standard gasoline (which I understand it is, but I've never seen an E85 pump), who on earth is going to actually choose to use this worthless swill. What sort of fools do they take us for???
"WASHINGTON -- Along with automakers, the Bush administration wants to end debate over whether ethanol made from corn yields more energy than does the fuel used to produce it.
The Energy Department's verdict: It does."
This is a perfect example of the kind of
agenda-driven research and study that one should dismiss with a grain of salt if one seeks the truth about something. The Bush administration wants to end debate about EVERYTHING that it supports. The Energy Department's pronunciations are not to be trusted, since the dept. simply advances the Bush agenda regardless of the facts.
Is the best answer to start drilling more of our own. The problem is that we're too important to drill our own, it's nasty stuff and spills, a lot. But we go to others and let them drill it, because it's ok if they spill it. They are not as important as we are. Besides, we have our cars and air conditioners and shopping malls.
quote:It won't take long for the truth to shine through on this E85 nonsense. "Debate" will reliably re-ignite as the people gradually buy E85 capable cars and suddenly find themselves paying 20-25% for for fuel to get from the same Pt A to the same Pt B!
Originally posted by jmacmaster: "WASHINGTON -- Along with automakers, the Bush administration wants to end debate over whether ethanol made from corn yields more energy than does the fuel used to produce it. The Energy Department's verdict: It does." This is a perfect example of the kind of agenda-driven research and study that one should dismiss with a grain of salt if one seeks the truth about something. The Bush administration wants to end debate about EVERYTHING that it supports. The Energy Department's pronunciations are not to be trusted, since the dept. simply advances the Bush agenda regardless of the facts.
I don't care about mpg, I care about mp$...miles per $.
So until ethanol get equal to or better than gasoline in terms of mp$. I'll buy gasoline.
Long live government/lobbiest controlled capitalism! Oops, I mean long live the USA.
- Status
