Half GM Cars On Ethonol By 2012

[Ron61]

Well it looks as if GM is going to try and corner the corn busines too.

GM plans half its cars on ethanol by 2012: report - Yahoo! News

Ron

[427 S/O]

Ron, I argued with a friend on this subject. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it generates. Also, it takes half again as much ethanol to go the same distance on gas. Where's the beef????.

My argument is from what I've read.

[Ron61]

Perry,

I have heard and read that also. I also read in some report that Ethanol would eventually start to cause rust and breakdowns in the engines. Don't know if that part is true or not. When I saw that GM owned part of the company that is going to supply it, I figured it was money talking and not logic.
Guess I had better get my corn field started.

Ron

[Joe Wicked]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Perry,

I have heard and read that also. I also read in some report that Ethanol would eventually start to cause rust and breakdowns in the engines. Don't know if that part is true or not. When I saw that GM owned part of the company that is going to supply it, I figured it was money talking and not logic.
Guess I had better get my corn field started.

Ron

I grew up on ethanol blend gasses. We had them in Nebraska since the 80s. I am not sure about the takes more energy to make than it gives, but as far as the rust and breakdowns. I do not believe that is true. My uncle has a 93 Ford Pickup that he now uses on his farm during the winter for plowing roads. The truck has almost 200,000 miles on it. He has only used ethanol blend in it and it still runs fine, has no issues.

My experience with ethanol is that it does give a little less gas mileage. It is not as bad as 50% less that I hear a lot of. The funny part is that up in Nebraska, it was the cheaper gas to buy. It costs less than normal gasoline to make, so therefore it costs less for the ethanol blends. At least that is how it was pitched. Now here in Texas, it is mandated that all pumps contain at least a 10% blend. When that went into effect during the price increases a couple years back, it was said that the additional added cost of producing ethanol forced the gas companies to raise prices. Now with the ethanol blend being cheaper in Nebraska (89 octane blend is still cheaper than 87 octane non blend), it was cheaper to drive the same distance on the blend than on the non blend, even though gas mileage was down. You would have to fill up more often, but at the end of the year, you spent less money on gas. You have to start figuring in Cost/Mile instead of Miles/gallon. Here in Texas, that whole deal is out the window because the blends raised prices and all grades have the blend. No option for non blended.

[Ron61]

Joe,

From the little I read in the article, I really am not sure just what percentage of Ethanol blend the cars are going to run on. And I am sure that here in Calif. they will use that as an excuse to raise the price of gas even more. Also what happens to the older cars that aren't made to run on this stuff when they change it all over? I can just see the Shelby Cobra badges being replaced by stalks of corn badges.

Ron

[427 S/O]

Forgot the web site, but some fella built a hydrogen generating station about half the size of a refrigerator that runs on 110V. This was particularly interesting because I like the idea of hydrogen powered cars. Anyway..I was thinking if the hydrogen generator was powered by solar panels, you would have an upfront costs but not an ongoing costs.
It would generate and store hydrogen during the day, and seems to me that would be more than enough to supply adverage needs?.

[Joe Wicked]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Joe,

From the little I read in the article, I really am not sure just what percentage of Ethanol blend the cars are going to run on. And I am sure that here in Calif. they will use that as an excuse to raise the price of gas even more. Also what happens to the older cars that aren't made to run on this stuff when they change it all over? I can just see the Shelby Cobra badges being replaced by stalks of corn badges.

Ron

Ron, the fuel burns as clean as gas and I haven't seen any issues. Same uncle has a 65 Ford F100 that he uses the blend in. He had to change the jets in the carburetor to a little bit larger to accommodate the need for more fuel, but that is it. Worst case, you would need a larger fuel pump, larger jets, and larger fuel line. Although, I doubt the fuel line would be necessary. From my understanding, the Flex fuel vehicles have a dual injector system. one set for gasoline and one set for E85.

Please keep in mind that my experiences are with E10 to E20 blends, and my comments are on those. Most pumps in the area I grew up are E15 or E20. The mileage went down but so did the price. I have no experiences with the E85 blend. Texas mandates that all pumps have at least 10% blend. My uncle will readily tell you he has been using the ethanol blends since the 80s and has not experienced any difference in maintenance costs, life of the vehicle or performance. One interesting thing to note, it is more efficient to use sugar to produce ethanol than corn. Corn is just more readily available in the US. Any vegetation can be used, but there are different degrees of success.

[Ron61]

Joe,

That sounds good. We need to do something to stop having to be at the mercy of the foreign oil countries. And if our Govt. would stop the selling of the Alaska oil to Japan that would help.
Now if I could just build a car that would use a small nuclear reactor to generate the electricity, I could go a long time between stops.

Ron

[Joe Wicked]

What would really rock is a power plant that could take water to HHO, then collect the water by product and recycle it back into to the water tank. I know you don't get 100% recycle, due to losses, but even if you could recover 25%, you can get that 25% reused, then 25% of that reused, etc... 1 gallon goes a lot further.

For all the physics guys, I know that it is a probably just a pipe dream. I just think it would rock if we could do it.

[HI Cobra]

Here in Hawaii the 10% ethanol is also mandatory. Prices did not go down.
I am sure they have to ship the ethanol over here too = more cost.
I started using some 110 avgas blended in and the Cobra runs much better
and the mileage went up 2 - 3 miles /gallon so it paid for itself.

[1ntCobra]

I think that GM is making vehicles that can run on ethanol or gas. That does not force the buyer to use ethanol. Further I think that GM gets a break on CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) for every car they sell than can run on E85 (or whatever it is called).

So this seems more like a corporation just taking advantage of a loop hole in the economy laws.

But it probably makes them look "greener" to the average person who does not know better.

So mixing the taking advantage of the laws with a good marketing spin is a win-win situation for them, eh?

[Joe Wicked]

Originally Posted by HI Cobra

Here in Hawaii the 10% ethanol is also mandatory. Prices did not go down.
I am sure they have to ship the ethanol over here too = more cost.
I started using some 110 avgas blended in and the Cobra runs much better
and the mileage went up 2 - 3 miles /gallon so it paid for itself.

It didn't go down here in Texas either, it went up. The media reported that it went up because ethanol costs more to make, but in Nebraska, it went down because it costs less to make. Now one of these is not true. Now either up north the companies are not being truthful and claiming it costs less, so they lowered the price just because they want to help the people and are taking losses on every gallon sold, or they are not being truthful here in Texas and are just pocketing the profits because the people do not know better. If I had to guess, I would say that it does cost less, but then I am not an expert, maybe there are oil companies who are taking a loss.

[GlynMeek]

1) Corn generated ethanol is a 'net negative' fuel in that (currently) it DOES cost more net energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you can get out of it by burning it...but there are some new proposals about how to make it more efficiently by a) microbial generation of ethanol or b) using sugar cane instead of corn as the base (this is how Brazil has become energy independent in their use and generation of ethanol, but there are climatic issues about where in the US we can successfully grow sugar cane, and some governement restrictions to 'protect' the corn farmer currently in place.)
2) Hydrogen would indeed be the perfect fuel for cars, and my understanding is that it wouldn't take that much to convert current engines to run on it, although we would have to re-equip them with fuel tanks that hold liquid hydrogen (might be interesting to see what happens to such a fuel cell in an accident!!!), and we'll need an effective way of getting the liquid hydrogen into the tank from a 'gas' station. The problem here is that (over-simplified!!!) the way to generate hydrogen in the quantities needed to change our economic base is to pass electricity through sea water (ionized water) and of course, we can always get LOTS of electricity by burning coal or oil ( ...hmmmmmm!!!!!!)
3) Short term, excessive profits for oil companies are but a blip on the economic timescale. The Hubbert Peak for oil is expected in 2012-2015, so GM's mandate, though noble, is somewhat like pi$$ing up a rope. We probably have 10 years to convert Western (and now Chinese and Indian) economies from oil-burning economies to 'alternate energy' economies! (theories say that even finding a new oilfield the size of the Arabian one would only move the Hubbert Peak back by maybe 7 or 8 years), and once we reach the Hubbert Peak, today's 'oil war' in Iraq will look like a knife fight at the local 7-11 once the Western democracies REALLY face an oil crisis that is essentially unsolvable! Cast your mind back ten years and think just how far (NOT) we have come in those 10 years to moving off oil as the world's energy driver and the whole scenario becomes REALLY depressing. We could build more nuclear power plants (if only the average, numbnut citizen would get over an irrational fear of the word 'nuclear'. They even changed the name of NMR scans to MRI scans just so as not to scare folks with the term Nuclear Magnetic Resonance...jeeez!), but we are also close to the Hubbert Peak for Uranium. We DO have VAST coal reserves that would also help in the short term, but these have their own environmental issues (which we will not give a rat's about once we NEED to burn them!) and at some point there is a Hubbert Peak for coal.

The direst prediction I have read says that by the end of this century, perhaps 75% of the Earth's population will perish and we will be back to an 18th century agrarian economy!

Everything helps, of course, and so one must applaud solar energy, wind energy and biofuel research, but the ONLY long-term solution for electricity generation (and hence hydrogen production) in the mind-numbingly vast quantities that we need it is to find a way to tap the Earth's geothermal energy which is the one form of renewable energy that we have done very little to master, but is MUCH more efficient than the others (wind, solar, biofuel, hydroelectric and why is it that the FRENCH (??) are the ONLY country that have figured out how to build a wave powered electric generating station?).

I do NOT want to sound like Al Gore here (god forbid!), and mine is just one opinion, but until one of our politicians has the nuts to make this THE singularly most important issue facing the human race (which it IS!!!) we are "fiddling while Rome (or ethanol) burns".



Sleep well everyone

Glyn

[Ron61]

Glyn,

I live about 60 miles from Mt. Lassen which is an active volcano and has all kinds of thermal activity. In the past years, they have done two or three studies on tapping into some of the active steam vents to generate power and then just dropped it. I guess the whole study thing was just get the millions that they were paid and then do nothing. And never mention nuclear power plants here as all these people can see is mushroom clouds. I can't even convince them that the Chernobyl (spelling), explosion wasn't a nuclear one. We have power from the dam, but the environmentalists refuse to let any more dams be built. I don't have an answer, but they need to start getting serious about doing something instead of talking to get votes.

Ron

[imagine2frolic]

Cuba grows sugar, why can't many of the southern states? Not to mention drop the insane policy towards Cuba. Especially since sugar is the most cost effective way to produce ethanol.

I believe it is Iceland, or Greenland that pretty much runs on thermal energy. I am sure there are many lessons to be learned from which ever country it is that is using less, and less oil.

[1ntCobra]

I guess fusion reactors must be too futuristic to think about.

Knowing our government, they probably cut research funding in that area.

[Wayne Maybury]

This has been discussed here quite a few times. Without getting into the whole issue again, ethanol production from corn is net energy negative, that is more BTU's are required in the production of the ethanol than are released when it is consumed as a motor fuel. Even if it were energy positive, approximately 35% more ethanol is required to go the same distance in a car.

Now for cost. The production cost compared to gasoline depends on the price of corn as well as the price of oil. The higher the price of oil, the more attractive corn based ethanol becomes. Actually very little fuel ethanol would be produced if it were not for the government incentives. Now the kicker; the price of oil goes up, the governement says we need more ethanol, the price of corn goes up (this is basic economic supply and demand theory at it's best), the President says plant more corn, the price of corn goes down temporarily then goes back up as more and more ethanol is produced and the price of oil continues to rise.

What is the result? Lots of ethanol is being produced and used to power cars. There is no reduction in oil being used as explained above. However, the price of corn and most other grains is now at, or close to, all time record levels so using corn to produce ethanol is going to drive up the price of many food items. Historically, corn sells for $2.25 to $2.50 per bushel whereas it is now over $5.00 per bushel. Wheat is now at an all time record level. Bread, pasta, meat, and anything containing corn sweetner is going to cost significantly more.

There is a positive side to the fuel ethanol use in the US as it has also been used as a replacement for a gasoline additive called MTBE which was contaminating ground water.

In the future, fuel ethanol will be produced from waste cellulose which will be a much more efficient method. Unfortunately, the cost of cellulose to ethanol production is far too high right now but technology will be improved and a new way to do will be discovered.

Wayne

[Wes Tausend]

...

There is quite a bit of info in the March 2008 issue of Motor Trend in their Future Shock cover story, but most of it is hybrid and electric technology. Some info on the reason for delay of the hot Tesla electric sports car is also in the issue.

Gm is coming back pretty strong against Toyota and has a special advertising section (page 28) that describes their 2009 pick-up's and SUV's and the tech that they will use. Ethanol is part of it, along with cylinder cut-out and Two-Mode Hybrid System. The Two-Mode Hybrid System is mostly a special 2 electric motor gearbox, about the size of a conventional 6-speed automatic, combined with a 6.0 L V-8. I think the technology is the same as the pre-2004 Toyota hybrid. There is a neat blow-apart tranny pictorial.

They are claiming a 25% overall fuel economy gain with a 40% gain in city driving for their Hybrid Silverado. It will be available in 2WD or 4WD, crew cab or regular cab, with 5900 lb towing for 4WD and 6100 lb towing for the 2WD.

Although the ethanol fuel isn't the most efficient renewable right now, it does fit in best with conventional liquid fuels for handling and implementation. To have the political support of the petroleum industry is a biggy. After all this is something they can sell through normal distribution chains. Another semi-supported technology is liquid hydrogen fuel since this, too, can be sold nearly* as easy as liquid propane. The greatest fear of the petroleum industry is that significant transportation could go electric. Talk about loss of market share when citizens plug in at home in a somewhat re-vamped grid. Not that generated electricity is free from fossil fuel but it might use far less overall.

*The beauty of hydrogen fuel is that for every gallon of hydrogen (H2) we burn, we get about a gallon and a half of water. And that's all. When we burn gas, ethanol or any other carbohydrate (CHO), we get the over-a-gallon per gallon water emission thing again but we also get CO2, a greenhouse gas. So hydrogen would make a far better energy storage medium than ethanol because it is the least harmful. The flaw is that liquid hydrogen doesn't store anywhere near as easy as propane which will remain liquid under relatively low pressure. Right now the most practical way to store hydrogen is to let it supercool itself by venting from a thermos container which reduces the pressure requirement (@ very cold) to nearly atmospheric. Can't do that in a garage (Hindenburg). One alternative is a superstrong, and very heavy, tank which is impractical. Another possibility is a catalyst which will bind the hydrogen compactly, until used, but it needs more development. When it is solved, we can avoid the Columbia Space Shuttle scenario in the driveway.

The whole thing is a pressing need. To use a parable, it's like the oblivious village has already chopped most of the nearby forest down for firewood. We don't really have a good alternative plan yet.


...

[427 S/O]

Yes, I'm waiting on more hydrogen storage development, a fella gave me an example of how hard hydrogen is to store, he said if you were to fill for example, an oxygen or acetylene tank with hydrogen, it would leak out. Something about the molecule's or atoms being really small.

[GlynMeek]

ah yes but...read my post about the PRODUCTION of hydrogen! GREAT and perfect fuel though it is, how are we going to produce enough of it?

Glyn