Grab our RSS Feed

AND

GM Teams up With U.S. Governors to Expand Ethanol Infrastructure

July 13th, 2008 | Posted in: Fuel

GM has a marketing motto, "gas friendly to gas free", and although we here clearly are focused on the Volt, GM has been moving towards energy diversification, including promoting the use of E85.

On Sunday, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty announced that the National Governors Association and GM will work together to expand the nationwide ethanol (E85) infrastructure and distribution network.

GM has been steadily expanding the percent of their new vehicles that are flex-fuel capable, and for 2009 will have 18 flex-fuel models. Indeed the Volt’s generator, when it arrives, will also be E85 capable.

GM has recently formed strategic partnerships with the companies Coskata and Mascoma both of which aim to efficiently mass-produce ethanol from non-grain sources.

As per GM VP of Energy Beth Lowery, “GM continues to believe ethanol is the most significant near-term energy alternative to offset the increasing demand for oil. To make ethanol a viable alternative to gasoline requires sustainable production methods, a variety of vehicle offerings and a robust infrastructure to make the fuel available to consumers.”

It is noted that at present there are less than 1700 E85 pumps at the nation’s 170,000 gas stations.

Source (GM )

Posted by: Lyle

194 Responses to “GM Teams up With U.S. Governors to Expand Ethanol Infrastructure”

Paul Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Volt,

An American E-Volution

(Quote)
Ask GM Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

First to post here, hope Flex fuel will be successful in 5 years!

(Quote)
Paul Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

)

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

ethonel running volt BOY that would make those middle eastern pajama wearing men real unhappy… im all for it( and no im not against muslims .. just the fanatics who prolly wear gold plated undrwear under those pajamas… who give muslims a bad name

(Quote)
Amed M Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Food to fuel – crime against humanity!

Hey I got an idea, we can burn mummies for fuel! Our best interest is to invest in battery technology, but if we can redesign our communities and make our bio waste into fuel then I would support that.

(Quote)
Amed M Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

In case anyone questioned, I was referring to an old joke about burning mummies.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020222.html

(Quote)
hayley Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

In my Energy Efficient Housing course, we learned that the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of American ethanol is nearly 1:1, meaning it takes one unit of energy (in gasoline, coal, whatever) to produce one unit of energy in ethanol. Brazilian ethanol produces a net gain of 8:1 because they use sugar cane instead of corn, I believe. I also read that the amount of corn used to make a gallon of ethanol is enough to feed a person for a year or something to that effect. In any case, I’m not a fan of ethanol as an alternative fuel… solar/wind/hydro for electricity is much better in my opinion

(Quote)
Arch Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Glad to see this. Back in the 70s GM fought us tooth and nail. I served on President Carter’s National Alochol Fuels Comission. ALL of the auto companies fought us. Maybe the game has changed. We shall see.

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm

It is like a drug addict switching from heroin to cocaine.
It hardly addresses the real issues.
I have seen a statement that if USA converted all its waste streams to ethanol it would only supply 30% of the demand for transport fuels.

(Quote)
Brian M Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:12 pm

corn ethanol makes no sense, but cellulosic ethanol does, and it is right around the corner.

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

thats true + it does use some oil in the process of making ethanol 85 correct? like 15 % by volume but its still i think slightly better then dependence on crazy middle eastern guys..
instad we can be dependant on crazy midwestern guys lol
either way i know electric power> all other energy using vehicles right nowbut atleast gm is doin whatever it takes short term and longer term .. for us to stop beggin them pajama wearers for oil
either way gm takes us ethanol makin our farmers rich.. or our electric companys slighlty richer .. either way its win win for us the americans the money is stayin here with eiither electic and/ or ethanol which by all means is what i want more then having an electric car or ethanol cars lol .. i want out boys home safe.. i want the world to be around for my grand kids someday.. i want .. not to be bombed by guys we spoon feed dollars every day …
not a bad wants right?
no not a tree hugger. no not a communist no not a anti war protester. i dont care about alot of crap, but what i do care about r my family and my suurvival.. which is tied to usa and its well being .. as most of us volt lovers in america.. are lol.. i know alot of europeans love the volt/bevs ieas alot .. who come to this site too..
go volt

(Quote)
Estero Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

This may be a little off topic. Hope you don’t mind.

I live in SW Florida but am on vacation back in central Illinois where I grew up and lived before retirement. A year ago I noticed a few windmills had been constructed north of Peoria, IL. This year, I am amazed to find windmills by the 100’s in the same area. I am told this is just the beginning; many more are on the way.

Thought some of you might be interested in this. It all helps getting us off foreign oil.

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:20 pm

http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/foreign_oil.php
even tesela agrees with us .. not suprising tho
btw this is a quote from tesela site too lol..
Motor
Some people find it hard to imagine our car’s Lamborghini-beating acceleration comes from a motor about the size of a watermelon. And while most car engines have to be moved with winches or forklifts, ours weighs about 115 pounds — a strong person could carry it around in a backpack (although we don’t recommend it). Compare that to the mass of machinery under the hood of $300,000 supercars that still can’t accelerate as quickly as the Tesla Roadster.

But more important than the motor’s size or weight is its efficency. Without proper efficiency, a motor will convert electrical energy into heat instead of rotational energy. So we designed our motor to have efficiencies of 85 to 95 percent; this way the precious stored energy of the battery pack ends up propelling you down the road instead of just heating up the trunk

the volt should have semi compareable stats .. given the volt will be a bit heavier for sure but being such a advantagous design and preformance.. id assume the volt would be like a v8 for comparison wise

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

umm…wow.

I suspected something like this might begin to happen, in fact Arkansas seemed to be the start of a trend but I honestly didn’t think it would start happening this soon.

In case anyone is wondering 50 State Governor’s just got together circumvented the federal government and passed part of an “Energy Policy” that has been stuck in Congress for almost 7 years.

Look and see if they don’t do more of this in the days ahead with regards to Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and imported Ethanol.

(Quote)
LazP Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Ethanol is fool’s fuel.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:27 pm

RE-POST from previous thread….Thought people might want to know and was posted at end of last thread.
————————————————————————————-

117 omegaman66

Well you could in theory do this. The issue is that you cannot just make a Y-plug that splits your standard 110 outlet, and creates 2, 110 outputs (well, you can, but you won’t, as I discuss). The standard 110V outlet is rated at 15 amps (you might have 20 amps for bathroom, if you followed code). So, if you just split the outlet, you would only get 1/2 the amperage per plug (7.5 amps each). This will not do you any good.

Now you could use 2 totally seperate plugs, connected to different outlet, BUT then you need to be sure that this outlet is on a seperate branch from the other one. Because, even though the outlets are rated at 15 amps, you are sharing this 15 amps with whatever else the electrician decided to wire to this branch. Believe me, electricians will do the job the quickest and cheapest (some say the laziest, but I feel that is unfair, unless you specifically designed your electrical distribution, which I would and recommend for anyone build a new home…going off topic…stay focused). So, you can bet that all the outlets and probably the lighting are wired on the same branch.

Now another issue that everyone will have IF they actually believe they can use an existing 110V outlet and just let it charge in the 14 hour time period. You will likely have problems. As I just discussed, the outlets in a home are NOT on a dedicated branch, they are shared. So, if you have your auto plugged in and charging (rough power guesstimates: 16KWhr, for 14 hours, gives about 1.2KWhr rate of charge, which is 1200/110 = 10.9 amps….this is VERY rough), you will be drawing nearly 11 amps continous on a 15 amp breaker. Now, you open your electric garage door, and maybe have a couple lights on….Bang, off goes your circuit breaker! You exceeded the 15 amp rating. Oh, and it will only get worse because the breaker will get weaker if you continue to punish it.

So, bottom line is that you might as well plan on having an electrician ( or a competent do-it-yourselfer) plan on making a trip to your home to add the new 220V, dedicated outlet (you could have him put in a 110, but the price difference wont be much, so go big or stay home). This will make the electricians union happy, at least. : )

(Quote)
jeff Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

All the myths about ethanol are just myths.

http://www.change2e85.com/servlet/Page?template=Myths

Google — The worlds biggest myths buster.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

E85 is not an answer. period.

This article is not worth the pixels it was painted on.

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

i dont mean to keep tooting teselas horn alot tonight i dont work for them and no i cant aford there car but the volt is sort of like a tesela and gm needs to steal some the marketing/selling points and the evidence of what i already qouted them of saying…in my previous posts.. but unlike a tesela volts have alot longer range due to the ice
and cheaper soo yah .. gm has win./win/win going for them if they just mass produce it as promised. and put it in al the mags and tv superbowls..radio newspapers .. all that jazz just a few qoutes woulsd get people in a frenzy. 0 to 60 in 6/7 seconds seconds get u excited? gas price woes? sport car envys? the volt the real american revalution~

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

#17 Jeff

From myth-buster reads:

8. It takes more than a gallon of energy to make a gallon of E85.

This was true at one point in time. Today’s advanced technology and distilling processes actually create considerably more units of ethanol than units of energy used. The processes continue to advance and the ratio will continue to increase

——————————————————————————
So, why don’t they state what the number is today. It’s because it’s so close to 1:1 they are afraid to say so. Why else not state facts, on a site that claims to state facts!

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

E85 is NOT folly or “fool’s fuel” (as one poster said) on a short-term basis because it can reduce the oil we use for transportation more rapidly than any other means! And in a few years that extra pump at your friendly local filling station might be replaced by a clean diesel pump, and a few more years after that by a hydrogen “pump”.

Meanwhile, my 2011 Volt plug-in sports sedan and my 2011 Vue plug-in CUV can tank up on 85% ethanol to minimize “stale fuel” problems & air pollution when the batteries need charging while I’m under way!

Don’t worry, E85 is NOT a diversion ….there’s plenty of momentum among the world’s car manufacturers to be assured cars will be electrified in massive numbers!!!

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

The only thing that keeps corn based ethanol alive today are corn subsidies.

So, you see them build these very large, expensive ethanol processing plants, and now they have to pay for them. The government has created a false economy in corn, and this is going to fall.

Corn is King! These subsidies are bascially providing manufacturers with cheap product, that they will process and sell back to consumers. Corn is in nearly EVERYTHING you eat and drink (don’t believe it? Open your pantry and start reading. And yes, HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) is in almost anything sweet.)

Now, the ethanol business is taking advantage of these subsidies to make us think were getting cheap gas. We are not.

Here is a link showing corn subsidies for the past decade:
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

jeremy

I hope you are decent enough to take this constructively; using the slur “Pajama wearing” makes you sound ignorant and hateful. I guess you were trying to be funny. It didn’t work for me. I hope you don’t judge me by my clothes. In fact, if you care about your family and your survival, it is better to make friends than enemies. Respect for other cultures would be a good start.

I personally think “pajamas” look a lot more comfortable than a western suit and tie, or jeans.

I didn’t want to let this slide. I felt, in the interest of combating ignorance, I would engage you on it. Maybe you have the capacity for growth. Maybe not. If you won’t accept my comment constructively, it isn’t worth my time, beyond what I already said.

(Quote)
Switchgrass McFly Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

I say lets nix the mid-grade 89 octane pump offering and instead, replace it with E85.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

Ah, the ethanol boondoggle (for the mid-west states) again!

If the US and the government really think corn based ethanol is viable then they should let it stand on it’s own and revoke the tarrif of about 53 cents per gallon on imported ethanol. If corn based ethanol can’t stand on it’s own and be profitable without imposing tarrifs on imported ethanol that essentially jacks up the market price, in a climate where it should be able to be profitable with gasoline at $4/gallon, then it should fail. Not to mention the other government subsidies for corn based ethanol.

We are all paying for it folks… corn grown for ethanol production displaces other food crops that could be grown on that same land, jacking up food prices (and this year we are getting hit double whammy with droughts and floods and storms also destroying food crops). If we are going to subsidize ethanol, we should pay tabacco farmers to plant corn for ethanol instead and solve two problems in one step.

Folks should also keep in mind that ethanol per gallon contains less energy than gasoline. I believe it’s like 10% less. So a gallon of E85 I think has 8.5% less energy than a gallon of pure gasoline (compared to E10 which most of us fill up with now that is 1% less than what we used to get before they blended in 10% ethanol).

And also beware of some of bio-oils… Europe’s plan to require more of it has back fired… the demand for biodeisel has farmers in those tropical countries cutting down and burning forests so they can’t plant more crop. The crops act as only a small fraction of the carbon sinks of the mature forests they replace.

As hayley learned in the course… corn based ethanol by some accounts is 1:1 or worse return on energy consumed by some accounts (again keep in mind that ethanol contains less energy than gasoline). Even the best positive estimates give it 1:1.3.

To make corn based ethanol you need energy to power the equipment to til the fields, plant the seeds, fertilize (which takes energy to make, often petrochemical based with the makers of it releasing a fair amount of CO2), water***, spray insectisides, harvest, transport to ethanol producer, energy to ferment, then more energy to distill the alcohol, and then more energy to truck the ethanol to where it’s mixed with gasoline (this is because ethanol is too corrosive to be piped more economically like gasoline is).

*** regarding water… that’s what they say the next big wars will be about instead of oil. From the Brooking’s Institute, “Using modern methods, It takes about 2,000 gallons of water to grow a bushel of corn” (in the dryer Plains states).

And I also just learned from the Brooking’s website that for each gallong of ethanol produced it’s “also effectively putting several pounds of Iowa topsoil into the Mississippi River and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico (not to mention the pesticides and fertilizer runoff)”.

I don’t know about you guys, but I’d rather eat affordable healthy food grown in the USA, and drink clean cheap water, than fill my tank with corn based ethanol.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Switchgrass….

Weren’t you Marty McFly yesterday?

I thought you would recommend replacing with that flux capacitor gismo?

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

#26 JEC
Mr. McFly often changes his first name. He comes up with some pretty good ones.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

25 Jeff M.

I agree with your stance. I am a mid-westerner, and I have no use for producing a product that is so destructive to our environment.

Also, regarding water, it takes 4-5 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.
http://www.startribune.com/local/14471982.html

The great lakes are one of the largest stores of fresh water in the world. Maybe someday we will be selling water, by the barrel to the mid-east?

Let’s put our efforts into something more worthwhile than ethanol. There seems to be so many better choices (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, clean coal…)

(Quote)
Ryan Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Unless these guys start using CELLULOID ethanol instead of the corn based fuel they are going to end up burning a VALUABLE food stuff! PLEASE tell me that this is CELLULOID based ethanol and not corn ethanol!

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:17 pm

nasaman, I think the end of your 1st paragraph detracts from your credability on this subject… ie. where you believe the step after ethanol is hydrogen. If you really believe in the hydrogen hoax, which is 10 times worse than the ethanol boondoggle, then I have to take your optimism about ethanol with a grain of salt. Unless of course your 1st paragraph was intended to be sarcasim?

I do at least agree with your last paragraph… the ethanol boondoggle won’t stop the electrification of the automotive transportation sector… though the government subsidies for ethanol, combined with the ones for hydrogen research, is taking money away from real technologies and research like batteries, solar thermal, wind, EV’s, etc.

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

look i realizei n the desret climate clothes must fuction diferently then say.. clothes in the artic . with that said.. who .. said i likes suits and ties? who said i like western clothes? perhaps ur mind is closed as much as the rest of us and i wasnt even dising all people who wear the middleastern style clothing.. just the ones with all the terrorists on there pay roll all the crazy notions they have in there heads and practicly no common sense perhaps u should tell them to make friends and stop bullying the rest the world .. so we dont poke fun out of them in the first place.. its there own fault people dislike them nowdays u have to admit the few spoil it for the many
soo yes maybe im alitlte hurtful and hateful to the few guys over there that incite holy wars and bomb us..but instead of wanting to kill them in return.. i do want peace i do want to survive and have my family live .. just like THETY DO for their family’s . the best solution? take the power away from the bullys.. show them we arent scared of them and dont lower ourtselfs to their crazy means .
if u need a example.. iran.. saudi NEED i say more?
btw some customs are not so great and wonderful and practical the world.. round take for instance slavery thats a bad custom right?
not saying a choice of clothes r wrong.. by any means.
some the people that wear them might be wrong in the head lol.
and yes id poke fun outa the big corperate suits and armani and goichi .. just as much as the other kinds of clothing.
theres something .. wrong in everything.. and something.. right in anything
food for thought
btw.sorry i dont mean to offend anyone that comes to the site except maybe rich oil shieks who fund terrorists..

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Lyle,

This topic/post on this site was long past due. I’m glad you finally dispelled the rumors that the Volt’s ICE WOULD NOT be E85 capable. Now we can move on, this is GREAT news!

There are so many myths about E85, most are untrue, that it boggles the mind. Just goes to show how effective the Big Oil publicity/propaganda team has been. Is anyone surprised? Or do you think that Big Oil can’t possibly afford a publicity campaign like this?

We can’t move from a gasoline economy to a BEV economy without a transition plan that involves some sort of liquid fuel. Given the limited roll that liquid fuel will play in an E-flex proliferation, how could we better reduce our dependence than to use E85 in RE engines?

Again, this is great news!

(Quote)
LyleL Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Whenever money or the making of money is involved there will be controversy as each side speaks only the information to support their agenda. These are call half-truths. Claims have been made stating there isn’t enough arable to make us energy independent from oil. It would seem as land is repurposed to grow anything for fuel, it will reduce production for the purpose of food, whether it’s corn, wheat or cellulosic in substance. Even just taking corn husks and stalks will have an impact on the land turning the soil into hardpan.

The World Bank has produced or is working on a final report that blames biofuels as the reason for the 75% increase in food prices.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/secret-world-bank-report-on-food-prices.php

I don’t “know” what the answer is, but have decided not to jeopardize our food supply or participate in driving up food prices for people in third world countries where the bulk of their annual income is used just to eat. I’ve stopped buying even 10% ethanol.

Why isn’t the U.S. spending a few billion on updating the power grid, incentivize solar, wind and electric cars along with massive research projects in to electrical energy storage (fantastic batteries). Umm… maybe again as we started, it’s special groups that have gained power and influence where the hope of monetary gain outweighs sanity.

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Methanol should be able to run in the Volt. Interesting note below, from Set America Free newsletter.

Throw it all in one bag. Corn ethanol, sugar cane ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and methanol as backup energy sources to electrically driven vehicles, and our oil problems are over.

——————–
For a long time Set America Free has emphasized the benefits of full fuel flexibility which includes ALL alternative fuels, not only ethanol. We have nothing against ethanol but we oppose the myopic, ethanol-only approach that currently dominates our energy debate.

Volvo has recently validated our approach, producing seven truly flexible diesel trucks modified to run solely on biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, DME, synthetic diesel, and hydrogen gas combined with biogas. Volvo conducted a comprehensive assessment of which fuels faired the best. There were seven categories: impact on climate, energy efficiency, land use efficiency, fuel potential, fuel costs, vehicle adaptation, and fuel infrastructure.
The results may surprise many:
First Volvo showed that ethanol and methanol work equally well in the same system which means that there is no reason why flex fuel cars sold in the U.S. not be able to run on methanol in addition to ethanol.
Second, the comperative study showed that DME and methanol ranked among the highest in all but the last two, while ethanol ranked low to lowest in all categories.
The promising results for methanol and DME were based on the assumption that the fuels would be produced via the black liquor gasification process, which has been developed in Sweden. Black liquor is a sludge byproduct of paper pulping.
According to the methanol Institute if every paper mill in the U.S. used this process we could produce 9.3 billion gallons of methanol per year–almost double the amount of corn ethanol currently produced in the U.S.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Regarding wind power…. an ex-oil man from Texas think for an investment of $1.2 Trillion to put enough wind power online (and upgrade distribution infrastructure to transmit it) to get 20% of our electricity from wind. Apparently the Great Plains States are the Saudi Arabia of wind resources…. and the wind mills still allow the land to be farmed.

Also what appears to be a much more viable alternative to ethanol is making liquid fuels from algae. They have bioengineered them to make specific types of fuel directly as well.

ps: and thanks JEC… didn’t realize code requires GFCI in the garage

(Quote)
LazP Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Once the electrification battle is won, the best range extender is gasoline. Just as the 20 feet electrical cord is the infrastructure for the plug in. Gasoline already has the existing infrastructure for backup.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

LyleL, just curious where you are able to get gasoline w/out ethanol blended in (ie. E10)?

(Quote)
Adam Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

OMG # 18, JEC..

E85 is not an answer. period.

This article is not worth the pixels it was painted on.

We need a disclaimer, no pixels harmed in the posting of this blog!

I can think of better ways to use corn, lets see here.. Mostly eatable items, but we might use corn for upholstery in some new “biodegradable” cars. Where would we be if Frito’s, or taco shells, or even corn on the cob wasn’t around?

Not only that, those of you who think E-85 is a wonderful idea, you better check out fuel economy standards. E-85 doesn’t have the BTU’s that normal fuel does, and guess what….. it costs almost the same!!!!!!!

If we grew enough corn fields to support this country, every acre of field would need to be farmed, no new highways, or buildings.. I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Not to mention the drought were in here, there wouldn’t be enough water. Even if we transported sea water, but before a person could do that, you would need to get rid of the salt. The best right now is battery/ultracapacitor, and (as bad as I hate to say it) hydrogen.

Oh, #29, it’s based strictly on corn.. Hate to ruin your day, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. There was talk about making CELLULOID ethanol, but I have yet to hear anything more, partly because, they could really care less. They think we’re stupid, and they can say something like the formentioned, but we know they’re full of it, but they try to save face….. I’d rather not continue.

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:47 pm

ethanol for 2 /3 years as crently produced will just help the Evs when they come out in force how u ask?
being the middleman just like hysrogen and hydrids r they are just here to bridge the gap till evs because if anything we learned fromn this site.. besidesmy horrible jokes r that evs are the most cost effiicent most powerful and cheapest/ easiest to maintain of all the options but the side effect… cleaner and quieter… gee id just hate that.. too..lol~

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:53 pm

I am really impressed with GM taking the lead in getting these alternative fuel infrastructures implemented – ethanol, hydrogen, etc. They simply can’t wait for someone else to do it.

I would suggest they start in Michigan and other nearby sites, so that they can frequently see the progress for themselves.

(Quote)
jeff Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:54 pm

If the same thinking being applied to the counter of ethanol was applied to other things in life we’d be living in caves. No books, because you’d have to kill trees and make paper and that process wastes water. . . How about the making of concrete. The list is endless and all a waste by overly conservative standards.

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 10:57 pm

It took millions (trillions?) of sunny days to lay down the oil fields we have been guzzling for the last one hundred years.
Now in some miraculous way we are going to replace that with the energy that falls on the earth in one year.
I think not.
We can get into coal as the last resort but growing our fuel seems a dead end to me.
Yes, we do have a nuclear capability..for a while, perhaps until our great grand children are born…

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

i just googled on the news tab .. seems alot of countrys are targeting 2010 2011 doe electric cars including a manufacturing plant in fiji lol and other countryds like italy and Portugal have plans relating to and manufactoring of evs
the world is waking up the voltalution is coming.. in more ways then one

(Quote)
Koz Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Grizzly, Nasaman, et al

I agree with non-food based bio-fuel as you do. Everyone should drop the hystrionics and discuss the matter logically. GM’s push is to cellulosic ethanol. There are firms ramping up this production now. Issues with corn (food) based ethanol do not automatically translate to non-food. If waste biomass is used then fuel and water to grow the crops become that much more efficiently used than if the crops were used for fuel alone. I believe there is another issue of fertilization and crop production that needs addressing. Perhaps someone has some good information about what will be done if the biomass is used to make fuel and not returned to the soil. EREV’s that require only a fraction of the liquid fuel needed by conventional ICE vehicles seem like a perfect fit with non-food based ethanol to me. One detractor noted that only 30% of our current gasoline needs could be covered by waste based fuels. Well 30% of all transport needs + light duty EREV’s sounds like WIN, WIN to me. What’s the problem? Yes, I know it’s going to take a long time to get to mostly EREV’s and BEV’s, but gasoline will still be there as we ramp up waste based ethanol and EREV’s. There are other alternatives like methanol too. We just need to start on the path to reduce and eliminate our dependance on foreign oil one way or another. EREV’s and BEV’s appear the best path to me and any additional reduction that can be achieved cost effectively by alternatives is a bonus.

(Quote)
jeff Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

I will say that the world is over populated and that is affecting all resources, bad times ahead.

(Quote)
Koz Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

#44 me

s/b…”by alternative fuels is a bonus”

(Quote)
Hous Volt Pharteen Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

There is no point in driving a car if I am hungry and that is why I think ethanol made from corn is not the answer. And no, I dot eat corn everyday, but the farmers feed their cows and chickens and pigs/hugs with corn everyday. Meaning higher prices for everything we eat. Unless ethanol is made from sugar cane or other bio-mass, I am not a friend of ethanol or alcohol like the brazilian called it. Thus, Go GM.

(Quote)
dagwood55 Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Using E-85 in an engine designed for 87 Octane gas means pissing a good part of its energy away. E-85 is best used in a high-compression engine.

Just another part of the folly that is E-85.

(Quote)
Doc Brown Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

@JEC:

Don’t knock my Flux Capacitor that I used in a DeLorean DMC biofueled vehicle. If I remember correctly that vehicle generated over 1 gigaWatt (NOT kW) of power at the rear wheels.
That was some serious get-up-and-go!

(Quote)
John Es Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:37 pm

I think this is really interesting, and cause for optimism:

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com

In a nutshell, their process uses algae, CO2 (from an existing power plant), and salt water to produce ethanol on desert land. The quantities per acre blow everything else out of the water. I don’t see a down side, and we should know if it is for real before we know if a mass-produced Volt is for real. They predict production of 100 million gallons at a plant in Sonora Mexico, by the end of 2009, and a billion gallons from the same site by 2012.

Several sites in the US have been identified as favorable for this technology, and, I believe, one in Florida is moving forward.

(Quote)
LyleL Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

37 Jeff M

LyleL, just curious where you are able to get gasoline w/out ethanol blended in (ie. E10)?

Here in the Midwest where ethanol is prevalent. We are not required to use it as an oxygenate by the EPA yet. Did notice the other day when filling, that 10% ethanol is now added to the premium gas. So the pump dispensed standard gas, gasohol (10%) and premium with 10% ethanol. Looks like in the future, the choice of straight gas may be removed.

(Quote)
Marty Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:44 pm

Hi Doc,
I remember that Delorean DMC-12, it was fast and got great mileage. They sure don’t make cars like that anymore.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:54 pm

E85 pumps just need to be STRATEGICALLY located and E-85 vehicles rolled off the assy line to make this a reality. This has ALWAYS been a chicken or the egg type problem. The big problem here is that although GM has more E85 capable vehicle on the road, currently these vehicles are not within the more practical end of their line-up. This NEEDS to change RIGHT now.

GM needs to start rolling, delta, kappa, epsilon etc. platforms off the line as E85 capable PRONTO. This is much less expensive than developing “hybrids” which are essentially toast as a going concern.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, E-REV will dominate, it’s just a matter of getting there!

(Quote)
Roger Staubach Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Here in D/FW all gas has E10 mandated, but just up the road in Oklahoma they do not require E10 (at least not outside OKC). I noticed I have considerably quicker acceleration with the Oklahoma gas. I think Ethanol is not a very effecient energy source. But then ICE is not a very effecient energy source either. I think an A/C brushless motor is highly efficient and the instant torque is a neck breaker.

(Quote)
kubel Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:13 am

The current generation of corn-based ethanol is a joke.

Energy yield:

US ethanol: 130% to 160%
Brazil ethanol: 800% to 1000%

Plus the US government pays $0.51 for every gallon produced in the US. That’s a huge subsidy for an already inefficient alternative. That’s over $3b per year. Stupid!

(Quote)
UN Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:18 am

@45 Jeff:
Don’t worry about world over-population because grain-based ethanol is also considered a population-control device. It is already being blamed for causing thousands of deaths according to the United Nations (UN).

(Quote)
Mike Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:31 am

I say screw GM, FORD, Chrysler, HONDA, Toyota, …… Screw them all. Make your own car and have it run on water. At this day and age we should no longer be using oil, it’s that simple.

(Quote)
Black Gold Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:42 am

I read that there is over 1 trillion barrels of oil just in Colorado. That is more oil than the entire world has used since its discovery. The only problem is they need vast quantities of WATER to extract it from the Rocky Mountains. But the oil is there for the taking, so puhleeease, no more talk of oil “peaking” or running out. There is way too much dis-information by the media these days.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:47 am

Black Gold

“I read that there is over 1 trillion barrels of oil just in Colorado”

*** *** ***

Good, let them stay there. We really don’t need them, we’re well on our way to EVs and we don’t want anything to get in our way. Let the price of oil continue to rise!

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:53 am

black .. we are currently ueing alot more then we had ever before.. china… india has to do wth that dont u think they factored in that into the equasion ur colorado black gold~ if not ok.. lets se… more demand every year by thousands of fars. they take what? how many barrels a year does that 1 added car take hmm now multiply that by how many new people buyi ng cars per year.. now multiply that every year for the next 30 years…
yes the numbers are hard to calculate but needless to say we are still running out sorry to say
id rather use what oil we have left.. over a much longer period of time.. dwindle our use down to a trickle that we need to lube our car parts n plastic making.. instead of renting oil then not being able to reuse it ..becase lets face it its like that old sayin about beer u dont buy it u just rent it
just my two cents

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:55 am

oh besides black gold
evs> ice for performance and cost of use…

(Quote)
GM Goodwrench Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:02 am

I am your favorite auto mechanic and I love the smell of gasoline in the morning. I know for some of you its the smell of coffee, but for me nothing beats the wonderful aroma of gasoline. It really clears my head in the morning and gets me fired up for the rest of the workday. I just don’t know what I would do if gas cars where replace with EVs. I am sure I would have severe withdrawal symptoms. I may have to go to a detox program. This whole EV thing makes me nervous.

(Quote)
Fred X Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:13 am

all this alternative fuel stuff is “just around the corner” or in other words 5 – 10 years out. In the mean time we need to drill drill drill on the coasts and in ANWR.

You all should read the problems occuring at Tesla. If GM gets the volt out on time I will wager it will have some fairly severe problems for the first owners. Not that it is a bad idea…only that it is a metaphor for alternative energy.

There is a reason it is still called alternative……we need to drill now as the dollar is in collapse from the 700 billion per year shipped out of the country. Disagree? Ok you do now but as the pain is ratcheted up you will comply. Resistance is useless!

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:13 am

GM Goodwrench #62

Nothing will happen overnight, keep this in mind. You have more talent that you realize and you’ve got to look outside the box. This EV thing WILL BE A REALITY. You’re not someone left in the fold, but part of our country’s future! Work with all of us!

(Quote)
Fred X Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:14 am

Just read some of the comments here. You guys are a bunch of snobbish elitists. The liberal mindset is the tyrannical Stalin mindset as far as I can tell.

(Quote)
Fred X Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:17 am

Mr. GM Goodwrench you are all rainbows and unicorns! ……. LOL ….. I’m an engineer so unlike most of the posters I actually know what it is like to develop new tech. VERY painful. VERY slow. I will be interested to see how many of you granola eaters actually support GM when they finally come out with the car. Seems unlikely to me knowing the TypLib

(Quote)
Eric E Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:26 am

Hugh!…What?…Ethanol?

You’ve got to be kidding. I was happily napping and you had to bring up ethanol?

Does ethanol make cars super quiet like Electricity? No.
Does it make the internal combustion engine more efficient? No.
Does it displace food? Yes. 11.5% in 2005.
Do ehtanol engines have any emissions? Yes.
Is the manufacture of ethanol efficient? No. About 10-15%
Does ethanol displace crude oil? Yes.
Is ethanol bio-degradable? Yes.

Conclusion: Ethanol will be a necessary player in the diversification of energy but will play a small part.

I’m going back to sleep…somebody wake me when they show us the production model of the Volt.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

(Quote)
Detroit Deisel Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:29 am

Deisel is the most efficient fuel. We need more tiny turbo-deisel cars in the USA, just like those Euros. The deisel get much better mileage than the Ethanol blended gasoline occupying the fuel tanks in those American autos. Go with Deisel in the short term and electric for long term. And as a bonus the deisel comes with whiplash torque that gasahol engines can only dream about. Make the move. The move to Deisel.

(Quote)
Eric E Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:34 am

Fred X…

How long have you actually been paying attention to this web site? Obviously not long. Otherwise you would know that many of us on this site ARE ALSO engineers AND have contributed to GM in several ways towards the design of the Volt.

We may like granola, but it has little to do with our devotion to GM or the Volt.

How about if you start acting like an engineer with some class.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:37 am

Detroit Deisel #67

It’s all a matter of pollution and environment. Energy wise, diesel has it , but it’s dirtier than sin. It also comes from the mid east. With the right engine design we can RE our planned EVs on ethanol and pollute far less.

No matter how you slice diesel, you’ve got to deal with the mid-east. Not so for cellulosic ethanol. Let’s move forward and understand what it will take. Let’s be responsible citizens!

(Quote)
Eric E Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:43 am

I’m totally on board with diesel. Bio fuels and diesel will be a great option for large trucks, aircraft, trains, etc. And I think bio-diesel range extenders are also a good mid term solution.

(Quote)
Grass For Gas Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:46 am

Using Grass or Algae for Ethanol will not be reliable from year to year, just like other farming, it depends on many environmental factors and the last time I checked mankind still cannot control the weather. So it is and unpredictable and unstable source, just like wind and solar, therefore I will have to scratch it off my list. The only thing left on my list at this time is NUCLEAR. Yep, that’s the ticket. If it can safely power ships and submarines for decades, why not cars.

(Quote)
Nuke M Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:02 am

Atom powered car could technically work, but the American public would have to go through an entire series of brainwashing sessions via media , subliminal messaging, etc. Before they could ever get over the 3-mile-island effect. If somehow GM could hide the fact that there was a tiny reactor at the core they might have a chance. But sooner or later some boy genius is going to wonder out loud how his car can have 1000 horsepower from that tiny “spherical object” under the hood that never needs a fill-up.

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:05 am

#50 John Es,
Do you know anything about the company called Algenol?
I did a quick search and there are no references predating four weeks ago.
But they will have a massive plant operational next year.
They must have been a well kept secret

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:10 am

Grass For Gas #71
“The only thing left on my list at this time is NUCLEAR. Yep, that’s the ticket. If it can safely power ships and submarines for decades, why not cars.”

*** *** ***

The conversion from gasoline to pure BEV will require quite a bit more, and definitely more liquid fuels. This is where E85 will shine.
It’s all part of the plan our Govt can’t come up with. We’ll have to leave it to GM and our Governers!

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:17 am

Wow, I must admit, I’m a little shocked at all the negativity on this thread.

Is E85 the answer? That is an incomplete sentence…

Is E-85 the answer to dependence on foreign oil? It could be if the 15% petro is from non-foreign oil when combined with electric cars and hybrid fuel sources like the Volt.

Is E-85 the answer to greenhouse gases and climate change? Not completely. 100% ethanol is carbon neutral because every CO2 emitted was taken out of the air by a recent plant, not some fossilized plant. 100 / 0.85 = 117.6…meaning, for every 100 parts C02 removed, 117 emitted, which is a lot better than 100 parts emitted and 0 removed.

Is E-85 energy efficient to make? No, but neither is gasoline.

Is it possible to be 100% E-85? Brazil is energy independant, but they use sugars instead of starches. There have been advancements in US plants available for sugar fuel, particularly tropical maize whcih grows faster, no fertilizer, easily rotated with other crops, 25% more sugar and less processing. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016101454.htm).

Is cellulostic ethanol better? Energy input wise, no, but multiple sources of ethanol is needed to meet demand . I’m still hopping the research for cellulostic ethanol, particularly with termite enzymes…well, any method, takes off as fuel from waste crops because currently, those same crops are just burned C2 is emmitted without any energy use from it. And it is better than using eatable food for fuel. I’m still waiting for the day that grass clippings, sawdust, anything that could be put in a compost, old wood furanture, etc can all be broken down for fuel.

And most importantly, for all you who say you “MUST” have a range extender because of “American society won’t allow an all electric car”…and you know who you are, the same ones saying “what if I just get home from work” AND “I work more than 50 (100 miles round trip) from work” AND “my daughter has to go to the hospital” AND “this particular American home only has one car” AND “no ambulance service is available” AND “I have no friends or family that would give me a lift”…..excuses galore….If you same people want the range extender, you same people must be willing to have flexability of future sources and E-85 is MOST DEFINATLY the answer. For the other 90% of us, a pure BEV is just fine.

/rant

(Quote)
Johnny Rotten Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:20 am

The U.S. Governors Plan – I can see it now:
Every gas station has a extremely high-pressure Hydrogen Fuel Pump and High Voltage electric charging cables. How long will it take before that gas station disappears faster than a Syrian Nuclear Reactor.

(Quote)
Jeff J Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:20 am

10 cent per watt is coming soon solar power plastic .
http://www.konarkatech.com/
http://www.techbriefs.com/content/view/2803/23/
I lease a building to Lambs tree service they throw away over 50 tons of waste every day . ethanol will work with the right technology .

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:25 am

I have a friend who is working on a plan to move the planet closer to the sun (she/he is a frustrated engineer).
He/She believes this will increase the solar radiation and solve our problems one and for all.
I cant see any problems with that..

(Quote)
Jeff J Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:25 am

Jes #75 Scream it from he mountain top. Couldn’t agree more!!!!!

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:27 am

Grizzly #59

Don’t confuse oil with oil shale which is much more intensive for refining into useable fuel. It is much more effecient to drive an electric, or even hydrogen cars (which I am no a fan of) than use oil shale.

The US has tons of oil shale, but it is not the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale

(Quote)
Johnny Rotten Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:29 am

@jes:
I don’t think Brasil is oil-independent. Do all their planes, trains, trucks, ships etc. run off of that sweet sugar cane they are liquifying. They also get terrible mileage causing them to consume huge amounts of fuel. They have an insatiable thurst for fuel. I think they are addited to sugar down there. I think it may be a contributing factor to the huge crime problem they have.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:29 am

bruce g #78

Except global warming would feel 1000 times worse.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:34 am

#81 Johnny Rotten
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-03-28-brazil-ethanol-cover_x.htm

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:39 am

#76 Johnny Rotten,
That is one of the best laughs I have had in a long time..

(Quote)
Johnny Rotten Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:44 am

@jes:
It would be cheaper for U.S. to just import all of Brazil’s Ethanol via pipeline directly to a U.S. coastal port city. It would have to be an exclusive long-term contract. Unfortunately, that would leave no ethanol for the Brazilian people, since our pipeline would have to take precedent over their local pipeline. Also that would be one very long pipeline and would take years to build.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:50 am

#85
Johnny Rotten

It would be cheaper to not be dependant upon on other countries and send out troops to Brazil.

Importing “some” ethanol is fine. But the 2005 # of 109 mil imported to 3.9 mil US produced is terrible.

Unfortunately, your sarcastic and contrarian ways are not appreciated by me at this moment in time because it epitomizes the American ignorance and apathy.

Hopefully you are not spreading that nonsense to those who don’t know any better.

(Quote)
Johnny Rotten Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:02 am

@jes:
Nothing will solve America’s appetite for energy unless it is done in a BIG way. Ethanol will never be a viable solution because it is not cost effective unless it is done in huge volumes, which would far exceed Brazil’s current capacity. Also, anything beyond E10 would cause engine damage to 95 percent of the U.S. autos currently on the road. You are not going to convert 200+ million american vehicles to run on E85.

(Quote)
Johnny Rotten Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:12 am

Another cheaper, quicker and much easier option to solve America’s immediate short-term need to obtain cheaper oil would be to simply take over the Saudi Oil fields and nationalize them. It would be a relatively simple military operation. They have supposedly trained 75,000 troops to protect their infrastructure, but they would be no match for the U.S. Army. Remember we overran the world’s fourth largest Army in just two weeks. I think the House of Saud would fall in less than 48 hours after a U.S. invasion. We could be awash in cheap oil very quickly if we just had the conquest like the British Empire used to have.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:14 am

#87 Johnny Rotten

No one is saying
1) E-85 is the ONLY answer. I believe a diverse energy portfolio is the only way to go in electricity production, transportation needs, heating and cooling sources. Solar is not the answer. Wind is not the answer. Tidal energy is not the answer. Wave energy is not the answer. Fuel cells are not the answer. Hydro / micro-hyrdro is not the answer. Nuclear is not the answer. FOSSIL FUELS are not the answer. Methane from waste water treatment plants and cow manure is not the answer.

2) That every car needs to be converted to E-85. But downplaying the supporet for E-85 infrastructure, the ability to produce large volumes of ethanol from varying sources, and the manufacture of cars with E-85 ability is just suicidal. On that same logic, I am not saying that converting 200+ million american cars to electric is feasable either. But as cars get old and new ones bought, the environmentally better cars will trickle their way down used car lots to those who only has a 15 MPG gas hog from the 70s and can’t afford to buy a new one.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:16 am

People! Stop ripping 1st generation biofuels. My GOD! We all know they suck. However, they are a good bridge to 2nd generation biofuels. That’s algae and cellulotic biomass. This will take time to perfect so using corn at least gets the pump and automobile infrastructure moving forward. You naysayers sound like a bunch of girls. Yes, corn sucks but doing nothing but saying nothing can be done sucks worse.

T-Boone’s father said it best, “Son, it’s time to try something else, even if it’s wrong.”

So true. We have to pull out the shotgun and try anything and everything to get some options. You will only learn by finding out what doesn’t work and why. Stop yer darn crying.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:18 am

#88 Johnny Rotten

There you go again with the immediate short term dollar. I just don’t think you get the big picture at all. Big picture being the the savings from energy independance. The savings from world peace (well, closer…there will always be conflict). The savings from slowing down climate change (which is a whole topic of its own since we have been getting worse for about 15 years now and are already in climate change).

F’k the all mighty “what would be cheaper is to invade other countries for my Friday night joyride” attitude.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:19 am

Texas

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

(Quote)
OSU Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:24 am

Don’t bring up T-Boone, the only thing he is trying to fix is that massive hole in his wallet that was recently discovered after he just pumped hundreds of millions of jack into his alma mater (Oklahoma State University).

(Quote)
Studley Doright Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:41 am

The only way to get the correct solution is to immediately form an international commision that would have industry representatives from all nations as members and do a long-term thoughtful scientific analysis that would solve the world’s energy problems once and for all. Wait a minute !! This sounds like the United Nations and everyone knows they have never solved a single global problem in their entire lifetime. Well I guess its back to the drawing board. I am outa ideas.

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:57 am

I can understand the attraction for ethanol because with very little alteration we could drink it as a mind altering substance.
However,, that aside, why not bio diesel instead as it could be poured straight into the existing diesel distribution network.
Existing guzoline vehicles will not adapt to E85 according to one commentator and diesel engines are inherantly more efficient according to diesel.
The diesel and the distribution network already exist, why change?

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:05 am

bruce g

The two are not in competition to each other. Currently, there is so much of a demand for biodiesel, that it cost about $1 more per gallon right now…well, at least that is what my friend (in Portland) that drives his diesel PU on biodiesel says; I personally have not been watching the market of biodiesel. In addition, biodiesel has more blends IIRC. B20, B90 and B100. Someone correct me if I am wrong on that.

We need both for easing the environmental, political and international conflicts fossil fuels give.

BTW, E-85 gas stations is not an issue technology wise, it is just the buisness owner choosing which 3 do I want…87, 89, 91, 93, E85. Since the amount of cars that use E85 is not large yet and the production of E85 is not large yet, the number of stations that provide it are not large.

(Quote)
Studley Doright Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:10 am

I think the U.S. has a huge known supply of Natural Gas. They have this thing called the Barnett Shale that sits under the D/FW airport that is generating tons of gas,money and jobs in Texas. This reservoir is so big I think they could power every vehicle in the U.S. for years off this recent find. CNG is known to work in fleet vehicles, but its range is questionable.

(Quote)
Hungry Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:18 am

I was behind this bio-diesel pickup on the highway and rolled down my window to smell this strange overwelming odor. That pickup smelled just like a mobile McDonalds, complete with a drive-thru window. I was overcome by a desire to consume mass quantities of french fries. I think those bio-fueld cars need some kind of warning label on them.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:25 am

#97 Studley Doright

Natural Gas is best used with fuel cells IMHO.

MCFCs and SOFCs can produce 45-50% effecient electricity from natural gas and other hydrocarbons (instead of the 33-38% from typical gas power plants). That % increases with it’s waste heat is used in cogeneration or CHP (combined heat & power) which can get a combined effeciency of 80-85% or as space heat if used onsite. It can also go through a heat engine to gain pure electric combined effeciency of 73%.

Using natural gas in cars instead of electricity is obsurd IMO, but hey, I’m just one person.

BTW, that is why I am not a big fan of PEM fuel cells in vehicles; it is cheaper and more effecient to use electric cars powered from a fuel cell generator than use PEM (platinum catalyst) fuel cells in cars….especially since H2 takes 4 times as much energy to produce than it supplies.

One other note, I spent the first 27 years of my life in Dallas and never heard of the Barnett Shale…do you have more info on it?

(Quote)
Len Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:41 am

It won’t solve everything but I like the idea of scrubbing CO2 from power plants by running the exhaust throught alge ponds to create biodiesel.

Making fuel from paper plant sludge sounds good to me.

My mpg varies and my current theory is there is more or less E85 in the mix (up to 10%).

Subsidy is another way of saying for you pay. It artifically screws up cost to create a demand that wouldn’t be there if you had to pay the true cost. We definately need to stop subsidising E85.

Even if we started drilling for oil off the coast and in Alaska now it would take longer than 5 years to see any of it. It is a short term fix and we should not destroy the tourist industry (and the environment) for such a short term fix. The oil companies are sittling on leases and not drilling. Congress is about to float a bill that basically says drill or give up your lease. Emotions run high and bIg oil is going to get all the milage out of this they can.

I am a fisical conservative, but to me that means balanced budget. These prolific spenders in Washington don’t have a clue what being a conservative is, they seem to think it means “let your child pay”.

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:49 am

Jes,
It seems easy to blend E10 for existing engines and that is fine.

After that the biodiesel seems a better path. Daimler and VW are claiming they can get 70 and 60 mpg out of a diesel.

E85 seems too close to CNG as a fuel, and CNG will run in existing engines with little modification I think.

However, yes, if alternative energy sources are the criteria, not outright efficiency, the E-flex concept seems to provide more options.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 5:00 am

OK all of you who have been b.. I mean complaining about the small gas tank, what are you waiting for. The range of the Volt using E85 will be significantly less than while running it on regular gasoline.

Somebody do the legwork and post up the names of all the people that complained about the smaller gas tank but then hyped ethonal.

(just a little humor people)

The only thing I don’t like about Biofuels is that they aren’t produced enough currently to make a dent in the oil usage. Come on somebody solve the algea problems and lets move on… without the middle east.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 5:59 am

The U.S. government should mandate that all new cars are Flex-Fuel capable by 2011.

A federal mandate will guarantee demand for E85. With guaranteed demand, private enterprise will take over. Gas station owners will have a reason to sell E85. New private sector investments in ethanol research and production will significantly increase supply.

If GM really wants E85 to take off, then GM should be asking for a federal mandate. This would level the playing field for car manufacturers and trigger E85 demand, which will lead to increased supply.

It costs car manufacturers $100 to add E85 capability to a gas engine car. Assuming this cost will pass through to consumers, this is less than 1% of the purchase price of any new car.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 6:04 am

Also the government should outlaw the midrange octane gas. There are no cars that are built that are designed for the “extra” octane. Most cars run on regular and a few should be run on “Supreme” but none or build for mid range octane.

Just doing this would save money because it is easier (less retooling time) for the refineries to make two octanes grades instead of three.

But the biggest benefit would be freeing up that pump and tank for E85!

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 6:10 am

#102 omegaman66 says: “The only thing I don’t like about Biofuels is that they aren’t produced enough currently to make a dent in the oil usage.”
————————————————————————————–
That’s because there’s no demand.

There’s no demand because the vast majority of cars on the road today can’t use E85. With very few E85 cars, gas station owners don’t have a reason to sell it. With very few gas stations selling E85, most car buyers aren’t asking for it.

With no strong demand or distribution channel, major investments in ethanol research and production won’t happen.

So the key is to trigger demand. A federal mandate will guarantee demand. With guaranteed demand, major investments in ethanol research and production will begin.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 6:13 am

Once again, I’m late to the party.

If ethanol is not made from food, and is made from garbage, then I am totally onboard.

(Quote)
Jim F. Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 6:25 am

99 jes

“One other note, I spent the first 27 years of my life in Dallas and never heard of the Barnett Shale…do you have more info on it?”

The Barnett Shale is a big play right now. In fact, my neighborhood association in Fort Worth is presently negotiating the leasing of mineral rights to Chesapeake Energy. New techniques have been developed to extract natural gas from shale. The Barnett Shale is just the first of several shale formations (Missouri, Pennsylvania) to be drilled in the next several years.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 6:36 am

The arguments against ethanol usually fall into the following myths:

1) Ethanol can’t be produced in enough quantity to replace oil, so it won’t work.
————————————————————————————–
This is a myth because there is no intent for ethanol to completely replace oil. The idea is for ethanol to be part of the solution. With plug-in hybrids, ethanol, bio-diesel, and better fuel efficiency, we have a potential solution to get off of oil.

2) Ethanol would cut into our food supply
————————————————————————————–
Corn is probably the worst source for Ethanol. Cellulosic Ethanol is much better. Switch grass and other sources for Cellulosic Ethanol can grow on land that’s not usable for food crops.

3) Ethanol takes more energy to grow than it produces.
————————————————————————————–
This myth is again based on corn, and even then it’s based on old technology. With Cellulosic Ethanol, very little or no fertilizer is required. By the way, one thing many people miss is that after ethanol has been extracted from plants, there is leftover biomass which is perfect for soil remediation. So fossil fuel based fertilizers are not necessary.

4) Gas stations don’t sell E85.
————————————————————————————–
That’s because very few cars on the road today are E85 capable. If, say, 30% of the cars on the road were Flex-Fuel, then E85 pumps at filling stations would be much more common. If there was a federal mandate that all new cars were E85 capable, then 30% of the cars on the road would be Flex-Fuel within 2-3 years.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 7:26 am

IMO GM needs to stay out of the fuel-supplying business because they’ll get burned. They need to focus on vehicles, which is their obvious forte… How about batteries so we don’t get bogged down in this debate that is going nowhere.

GM, let the market decide what we put into our flex-fueled VOLT!

(Quote)
cyclop Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:00 am

96 jes Most of the major oil companies (bp, shell, etc) do not allow any kind of fuel (such as E85) to be sold at stations carrying their brand unless the fuel comes from them. So even at an independently owned station, the owner is not allowed to put E85 in place of one of the gasoline levels in the regular pump.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:12 am

Well E85 has shown up at our Sams Club. Something must be up. Just showed up last week.

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
cyclop Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:18 am

111 Arch E85 now is at many Sams Club locations. They have become one of the major E85 distributors,nationally, perhaps in part because Walmart has the marketing clout to put whatever kind of fuel they want into their (self-branded) stations.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:19 am

This is fuel related, and I thought it was interesting:

“…gasoline consumption dropped 3.3% from last year to 9.347 million barrels a day, according to weekly data released by the federal Energy Information Administration. For the first week of July, that is the least drivers have used since 2003, when consumption was 9.05 million barrels a day.”

Just thought it was interesting, maybe $4.00/gallon is the ‘ouchie’ point where people cut back. If it is, it would ‘theoretcially’ set a cap on limits of crude prices (or at least slow it down significantly).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564732244940919.html?mod=AutosChannelMain_RelatedStories

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:19 am

In 2011, if I have a choice between filling up my Volt with gasoline or ethanol, I would definitely go with the ethanol. Until we have inexpensive fuel cell “range extenders” running on hydrogen, methanol, or butanol or whatever, it’s better for the environment and our energy independence to use ethanol. It’s beats using gasoline from Hugo Chavez and the fatcat Middle East oil sheiks who might be supporting Islamic extremists.

Hopefully, by 2011, the ethanol industry will have converted from corn ethanol to CELLULOSIC ethanol. Maybe there will be particular gas stations you can go to where you know that the ethanol you put in your tank comes from cellulosic ethanol that was made from switchgrass or whatever … grown on lands not normally used for growing food. Maybe they’ll call this type of ethanol “certified C85″ or something … like they do with “certified organic” food in grocery stores. They could put the “certified C85″ on the pump so everyone knows HOW the ethanol they put in their tank was made.

By the way, even if there aren’t that many “certified C85″ pumps available in my area in 2011 that won’t be TOO much of a big deal because us Volt owners probably won’t be filling up our tanks more than 4-5 times per YEAR anyway. That’s what is awesome about the e-Flex powertrain … the IC engine and liquid fuels will be kind of an afterthought for 90% of the people. Just get some sort of charging system for your garage that automatically kicks in at night and it will be easy to keep your Volt running at the lowest possible cost.

I’m hoping that it will be possible to do WIRELESS charging of my Volt someday. Maybe they’ll come up with a super safe wireless charging system where a waterproof metal thing pops up out of your hood (like a radio antenna). That metal thing then “talks” to the wireless charging system in your garage and starts a charging session when it is programmed to do so at night … when the electricity is the cheapest. Even better would be to charge up your Volt with electricity from “garage batteries” that have stored up electricity from the solar panels on your roof during the day … using grid electricity as a backup source for cloudy days.

All a person would have to do is get the car in range of the “garage charger” and then a light would come on in your dashboard saying “set to charge” or “charging now” or whatever. I want to make charging up your Volt something that you don’t even have to consciously think about. You just get the Volt in range of the charger and then go in the house. Just making sure your Volt stays fully charged at all times will save people a lot of money and will keep them from having to buy liquid fuels and run the IC engine. They already have the wireless charging systems for power tools, laptops, cellphones, etc. One company making these systems calls it “eCoupled technology”.

http://www.ecoupled.com/technologyMain.html

(Quote)
Mike A Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:23 am

Ethanol made from corn is not efficient. (I am speaking as someone who has use gas-ahol since 1984) However we are maing inroads in making it from sorghum. The energy output for sorghum is 8X the energy input. Farmers in the mid-west who had their corn crops flooded out have been told to replant sorghum (shorter growing time to maturity). With sorghum the crop (seed head) is used as cattle feed and the stalk is squeezed for it molasis content fo the fuel.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:47 am

The benefit to corn subsidies is they hide the true cost, allowing ethanol to develop. The problem with subsidies is they hide the true cost, and an uneconomical solution will develop. The better solution is to let the free market do the picking, it’s far more honest. If corn truly consumes a gallon of fuel for each gallon of ethanol, the cost would be cost of fuel + cost to produce the ethanol. But with the subsidies covering much of the costs the consumer can’t tell which is better.

It doesn’t make sense for agriculture, so why do many people think they make sense for the Volt? If this technology is our savior (in my opinion it will be, at least by the second gen) let it stand on its own two feet. Obviously GM wants a handout but consumers need to be smarter. All subsides do is take money from one group (taxes) and gives them to another. It hurts society because costs are hidden.

(Quote)
&eye Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:49 am

I’m sure this makes Archer Daniels Midland happy, because it means millions of dollars in profits for them. I’m sure the independent American farmer is unhappy, because ADM has a more-or-less exclusive contract to produce ethanol from corn. I’m also quite sure that this is a horrible idea, as Ethanol has lower energy density than gasoline, making fuel economy decrease by about 15%. Not to mention Ethanol from corn has a negative EROEI–meaning it takes more energy to produce Ethanol from corn than you get from burning it in your automobile.

E85 from corn should be killed immediately. It’s just a bad idea.

(Quote)
Jay Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:57 am

The simple facts are these:
1. Fuel in any form will always be available for a price
2. The US has the largest distillery capacity in the world. When fuel becomes more valuable then spirits your will be able to fill up at your local still.
3. In any given situation, follow the money!
4. Keep in mine that the US and Canada has more oil then the rest of the world put together, we just need to drill it and/or process/refine it.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:58 am

Why is it so difficult to get a definitive answer on the energy required to produce ethanol? Brazil seems to be convinced that is worth it.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:58 am

You shouldn’t bash nasaman for liking hydrogen, he comes by it honest.

NASA invented the fuel cell, to support manned space flight; where it has worked well for decades. You will never find more hydrogen believers in one place than at NASA.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:02 am

One can’t compare Brazil to the US without realizing 3 crucial differences:

1) Two words: SUGAR CANE

2) Tropical growing season

3) State owned energy production

I’ve heard at least one proposal to import the sugar from Brazil as a feedstock for ethanol and other biofuels.

By the way, has anyone heard of a huge new petroleum find, offshore from Brazil? I seem to recall hearing about it in May, with very little follow-up news.

(Quote)
cyclop Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:15 am

#120 Jackson and others. Hydrogen is a good fuel, just expensive and hard to find, at the present time. Hydrogen cars can be good cars, but at present the fuel cell makes them very expensive. It is the economics of hydrogen, not the principle, and the absence of any visible path to less expensive hydrogen cars that causes me to be skeptical about them.

If one compares hydrogen to the Volt, then for the Volt and battery powered cars more broadly we see the path to volume production (cheaper batteries). Though uncertain as to when they will be available at the right prices and numbers, it appears that automation and industrial-scale production will make the economics competitive. There are disagreements as to what will be better design choices or best for customers for battery powered cars, e.g. EREV v BEV, but the facts known now suggest that things will work out, one way or another, or maybe several ways at once.

So I don’t think we should treat hydrogen yes or no as if it is a matter of fundamental principle. People can make satisfactory hydrogen cars. The issue is how much they will cost, relative to other choices. If someone finds a way to make a cheap fuel cell, hydrogen cars may become quite competitive. Until then, no way.

(Quote)
Serpent2 Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:34 am

@23
what is wrong with calling them pajama wearing people?! Ok, so man jams is probably not what they call them … next americans will start getting fanatic-like for being called jean wearing corn producers… then softly threaten the people that said it..

Anyway, I am for E85 as long as it doesn’t affect food chain.. right now I can still find corn easily.. and the price is about the same.. so if more corn is being produced, everyone is still able to eat their cornbread.. what crime is being commited? When I start seeing corn costing 10$ an ear i will worry.

I agree that their a better ways to get energy.. solar, wind, tidal, etc. .. however, we still need something combustable until battery power and weight evolve

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am

#21 nasaman

I thought the problem with hydrogen was that, because of its volume, the energy cost of transporting it was too high for it to be a viable alternative. If this is true, how do you envision this being addressed?

I agree with you that E85 doesn’t seem to be a diversion. It’s a step in the right direction. I’d like to see the tariff come off imported cane ethanol but since Iowa is in play this election cycle I think that unlikely.

How about Hawaii as a source? Seems like if land isn’t for a house or a golf course it’s a cane field.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:47 am

#100, Len
I agree about the E10. Most gasoline pumps have a disclaimer on their gas saying that it may contain up to 5% ethanol. When Jessie Ventura was govoner of Minnesota, he passed a law requiring E10 for all their pumps. If every state would do that, that 5% difference would make a huge difference in the consumption of biofuels to help the industry, but being satified at that mark and never making E85 mainstream is a mistake.

#101 bruce g
read my comment to Len. Also, making more diesel cars is a mistake right now. Biodiesel production can’t keep up with demand and there is still plenty of 100% petro diesel and B20 than can be replaced if the limited supply of biodiesel were somehow quadrupled. Taking fuel away from the 18-wheelers, UPS trucks, fed ex trucks, construction equipment, boats, boat hauling PUs, RV haulers, school and public transportation should not be the competition. Those vehicles rum more effeciently on diesel than gasoline and E85 will not work in them. E85 is needed for all those cars that run on gasoline.

Also, bruce, E85 = renewable, near net zero…..CNG = non-renewable, limited range, carbon non-net-zero fuel. The two are nowhere near close.

#107 Jim F.
Thanks for the info, I have to chech more into that. Hopefully, the natural gas is put to high effeciency use. I wish all 80% furnaces would have a pollution tax that helps lower the cost of 95% effecient furnaces (roughly $4000 for 80% and $6000 for 95%). Of course, in Texas, every house should be built with a high effeciency heat pump….talking about what the government “should do” all new house construction should include geothermal heat pump installs while the heavy machinery is still onsite. That would help tremendously.

#110 cyclop
That is still someone “choosing” not to sell E85 and the individual gas station “choosing” which brand of gas they use. Nothing different than what I said.

#111 Arch
For all the negative press Wal-mart / Sam’s club gets, it is one of my favorite stores because of their efforts for being green. They are one of the first stores to use hybrid lighting systems (if you don’t know what that is, it was developed by Oak Ridge National laboratories) while they still cost $4-8K per unit, they are the first major chain to get off incadecent bulbs, they are the first major chain to have specialy CFLs (globe, dimmable, black light, flud, etc.), they have goals of building enough of their own wind turbines to not only supply their stores nad distibution centers, but to sell some back. I can go on, but my point is, E85 at their pumps don’t surprise me at all.

To everyone talking about ethanol subsidies….GET REAL! Gasoiline and Big Oil gets TOOOONS of subsidies. Hell, some farmers get subsidies NOT to grow anything on their land. Til you address those issues, get off the E85 hatred.

#118 Jay
you #4 point is pure BS. Saudi Arabia alone has 30% more than US and Canada combined. The entire middle east, ats 354% more than US and Canada combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

#119 Jeff
There is a big difference btwn sugar cane (which can’t be grown in volume in the US) and corn.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 10:03 am

#117 Cautious Fan
E85 does make sense for agriculture. And “Why does it make sense for the Volt?” Well, the volt goes 40 MPC before it kicks in the backup ICE. If that ICE is meant to be for “backup purposes only” then having 6 gallons of E85 is perfectly fine. The worst estimates I have seen for 100% ethanol is 75% distance compared to gasoline (BTW, E85 is 75% of the cost at the pump also…food for thought).

Here is a simple calculation for ya…
6 gal X 50 miles/gal X 75% = 225 miles

Is that enough to help you get home? Or do you drive more than 265 miles per day? Even if you are out on the road, that is still 3-4 hours of driving before you need another 6 gal ($18) of E85.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am

Last week I asked whether gas would go sour in the Volt if left in the tank for an extended period. A couple of people here thought this wasn’t much of a problem since they left gas in their tractor and so forth wihtout a problem.

I did find an interview that Lyle did with a GM engineer on this issue. The engineer said that yes, it was a possible problem, and it was one of the (thousand) things they had to look at as development proceeded.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if E85 poses a similar, lesser, or greater problem than gas in this regard? (You can see how, with all the possible permutations and combinations that need to be addressed, development can fall off its time lines),

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am

#128, DonC
Yes, E85 has potential to sour over time as well. Wether it is more or less than gasoline, I don’t know, but it is still a long time. Realistically, the E85 will get used before it goes sour.

Biodiesel, on the other hand, can seperate rather quickly (less than 6 months IIRC). Biodiesel must be used before this happens.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 10:39 am

#18 JEC:

I agree.

Up to now, “Flex Fuel” has been a scam by GM and others to tap dance around CAFE. They get a large credit aginst their CAFE requirement for every “Flex Fuel” vehicle they produce, whether or not there is any E85 available to actually run it on. In LA, there are thousands of “Flex-Fuel” Tahoes and Suburbans running around, and 1 (one) E-85 pump in the whole of LA County.

This is a dumb loophole in the CAFE law, and it has been cynically exploited by GM and others, IMHO.

“Greenwash” is too polite of a term.

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 10:42 am

Bruce G #9 – If we could divert waste streams (e.g. turkey guts) from the landfill and to something productive (E85), isn’t that worth something in and of itself?

(Quote)
Greg Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 10:51 am

ThombDbhomb

Sorry, your living in fantasy land. Do the guys over in the middle east that are controlling the oil wearing what most of us in the U.S. would call Pajamas? Yes. Do most of these countries continue to churn out terrorists? Yes. Is the only reason we put up with these countries and the craziness because of OIL? Yes. Electric vehicles, in my mind are about the security and freedom of our country and my family.

(Quote)
Ash Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 10:52 am

Is there enough common components in Corn Ethanol plant and a Cellulose ethanol plant to convert Corn plant to Cellulose plant?

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 11:07 am

GM Goodwrench
I am your favorite auto mechanic and I love the smell of gasoline in the morning. I know for some of you its the smell of coffee, but for me nothing beats the wonderful aroma of gasoline.
look at naked pictures of misses goodwrench and a cup of coffee .. that should get u going lol

July 14th, 2008 at 1:13 am Fred X
hey fred the oil companys got 68 million achres they bought already for oil development if u wanan go cry about more oil tell them to get off there ass and drill in the places they already have k? no oil companys wont risk gonig lower in production they they have now .. but they are greedy and want more ..then they need
but yes we will run out as production is already peaked.. and demand will sky rocket ..as the years go by
dear johny .. do u think they like us in afganistan? no do u think iran likes us? or saudi? or pakistan? or iraq for that matter.. the answer is no.. lets beat the richest oil producer in the land piss everyone off with even higher gas prices and expect a holy war on us even worse. that solves everything..
why not for the same price of those 75k guys for 2 years.. and build wind mills and solar panels and bevs? and make the saudis poor bastards lol

(Quote)
Chris Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am

Ethanol COULD be viable, but it would take an amazing effort on all involved. For instance, grocery stores and restaurants and even individual homes have tons of vegetable/grain waste every year that could be converted into ethanol. However, I’m not really for anything that takes away from our food sources either. To fuel one vehicle for a year requires somewhere in the ballpark of 7 acres of corn.

Chris

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 11:45 am

#101 Len: “Even if we started drilling for oil off the coast and in Alaska now it would take longer than 5 years ”

That would be a tad optimistic. More like 25 or 35 years. The MMS, which is notorious for being overoptimistic, says it could happen by 2028. However, besides assuming no delays on the leasing side, it doesn’t account for the fact that there is a seven year waiting list for the ships that do the exploration and a shortage of rig workers.

To believe that offshore development will change anything is to believe in the “oil fairy”, a relative of the “tooth fairy” we knew so well in our childhood. The numbers tell the story. In this thread a lot of people have derided ethanol as being an inadequate source of energy, but ethanol looks like the proverbial 1000 pound gorilla compared to offshore oil development.

If the production of ethanol continued to grow at the rate it did from 1997 to 2007, by 2027 we’d be producing 104 billion barrels of ethanol annually (415 billion barrels annually by 2037). Given that MMS estimates the total of all undiscovered offshore reserves at 86 billion barrels (it’s usually off by a factor or 2-4 so 20-40 billion barrels is likely), and given that the oil is extracted over a period of years, offshore oil production would be a rounding error in ethanol production.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am

ThombDbhomb 23 —

I agree with you. We have everything to gain by addressing everyone in a respectful way, even when our disagreements with them are stated directly. So doing also allows this blog to proceed in a more informative and intelligent way.

(Quote)
Jim D Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 11:47 am

Concerning Ethanol, I used to like it, but now I am concerned, due to some recent reading.

Years ago I thought I understood that oil is accumulated from hundreds of millions of years of biomass converted to oil, [and coal, and gas and other similar resources].

So, the sun, over hundreds of millions of years, created plants, the animals ate the plants, and all these biological molicules, with their sun-derived energy, settled into the earth, and has been harvested and nearly depleted over the last hunderd years…..

So where is the study which shows the magic by which we can produce in real-time the necessary energy to fuel our vehicles from [non-food] biomass?

I really hope it will work, and I certainly hope we are not putting all our eggs in that basket without a proper study.

Maybe a microbe-based method of producing ethanol or methanol will work, but I want to see the quantitative study which shows the path to success.

Does anyone know where I can see that?

thanks, Jim

PS: I am really concerned about this.

(Quote)
Jon P. Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 11:52 am

#31 Jeremy

“soo yes maybe im alitlte hurtful and hateful to the few guys over there that incite holy wars and bomb us..but instead of wanting to kill them in return.. i do want peace i do want to survive and have my family live .. just like THETY DO for their family’s . the best solution? take the power away from the bullys.. show them we arent scared of them and dont lower ourtselfs to their crazy means ”

If you think there the bullies you really have no idea what your talking about. You think them flying a couple of planes into 3 of our buildings makes them bullies. You should check your history, and not the redacated version you get on Fox News. We have purposely kept that entire region in disarray for nearly 60 years in order to milk their natural resources (oil). If you think they “hate our freedom” and thats why they want to kill us then thats just silly, and a show of your level of knowledge into our “real” foreign policy history. You should look up the term “blowback”. Read a little about the iraq/iran war, the shah of iran, the house of saud, and then ask yourself “why do they hate us”.

If you want peace then before the next election do a little more research than watching 30 second campaign ads.

I’m irish and as american as they get so i have know muslim bias. but i can’t stand a guy whose entire us histroy has been formed buy fox news and what he sees on tv, then starts spouting off about things he knows nothing about.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am

There has been a lot of bad information on this topic. First when
you make alcohol from corn the only part of the corn you use
to make ethanol is the STARCH. All of the protein still remains intact.
Feed lots LOVE distillers dried grain as a food source. It has
ALL the protein of corn with the addition of the yeast which
has some protein and lots of vitamins.

Please show me one country that has a shortage of starch.

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 11:58 am

#127 Jes

I’m not saying E85 is good or bad. I’m just saying that because of the subsidies, we really can’t tell. If it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, cut the subsidies and let it stand like a big boy. Personally, I like the idea of using E85 as I’d rather support local production. But I want to know what the real cost is. Same goes for the Volt. If this idea makes so much sense, why do we need a subsidy that hides the cost. Let it face reality the like the rest of us.

To answer your question, I don’t need an ICE. I ride my bike 5 miles to work. An electric only would suffice but, being a family man, with limited disposable income, it has to make economic sense.

And speaking of economic sense, with a Volt at $33,000 (subsidized) and a gas substitute at $20,000, driving 40 miles per day with gas at $4.00 / gal, and electricity at $1.00 equivalent, assuming 30 mpg for both, I have to drive the Volt (electric only) for 7 years before the gas savings pay for the extra cost. I’m all for these electric cars but until the number make sense, they’re not going mainstream. Though we’re moving in the right direction. The Toyota Pious (yes Pious) takes over 10 years to pay off.

(Quote)
Jon P. Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

As far as dril dril drill now as a solution to our immediate oil crisis.

This entire “crisis” is being finnaciallly created by the same people who want to use the public outcry to force the congress to allow them to drill in anwar, and elsewhere. If we started drilling in anwar today it would be at least 10 years before we saw a drop. The high gas prices are totaly a result of market “spekulation” which is BS for some really greedy rich guys are trying to create a public freenzy to put the clamps on congress before Bush gets out of office knowing he would sign a bill in a minute that lets big oil drill anywhere.

Assuming “market speculation” was the real problem and Bush wanted to do something about it here’s how you solve it. Dump 30% percent of our strategic oil reserve into the market tomorrow, crude prices would plumit, and all the speculators would be crushed. Oil prices would go back to there normal values, and gas would return to $3.00 a gallon.
That being said it won’t happen because there is no “market speculation” it’s a created crisis inorder to pass legilation to drill anwhere supported by big oil and there rich friends in washington. If you want to believe that demand is what caused the price of a barrell of oil to nearly double in 1 year than fine, but just because the TV said so dosen’t make it true.

Statik,
I’d be interested to hear your take on this!

(Quote)
shaun Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

isn’t gas still subsidies? I just dont understand why the subsidies issue come up every time someone mentions E85. Also, I don’t corn!!!!!

(Quote)
Lou Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

My 2 cents worth
Don’t worry about GM and the Volt, it will come out well and just in the nick of time. It is my opinnion that most of the new generation of cars will follow the Volt.
Why? It will be a better system than the Prius because it does not need a double drive train, i.e Mechanical and electric. The system of the Volt can only become better as the battery technology increases, and will not become out of date.
GM has lots of Diesel electric expierience with heavy locomotives. I can see this technology being applied to heavy trucks in the near future.
It will safe us from imported oil and our own reserves are enough to supply our non car energy use thus keeping our money home.
This is not a time for dispair but of great opertunities and thousends of new jobs at home will be created.
Also on the subject of solar panels, I have put 16 Sanyo (195watts) solar panels on a single Wattsun solar tracker in my back yard just over a year ago and because I live in Ontario, Canada the power authorities pay me 42cents per KWH and I buy it back from them at 12cents a KWH, such a deal and the equipment and installation is tax deductable. This gives me all the power for my house and the Volt when it arrives. The only supprizing thing not many people are picking up on this.
Many, many good things wil come from all this, huge trains driving over the Canadian and US prairies and Rockies and instead of a coal tender (Joking) behind the locomotive we can put a wagon full of super Capacitors to take the energy out of the down hills and use it going up hill!.
All the best to all of you and welcome to the dawn of the new energy age in transportation.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

#142 Jon P

I think we agree somewhat. I know there is a great deal of speculation in the market.

I don’t think it’s the “greedy rich guys” at this point, it may well have contributed to the run up from $60-$100/barrel. However, the price is being sustained now by everyone and their dog trying to find a place to park their cash.

I think the word ‘dump’ when it comes to the strategic reserve into the market place to bring the price down would be a bit strong…I do know what you are going for though.

It is a interesting scenario. Do we blame oil for inflation pressure? Do we blame it for the economic downturn? Do we blame it for the housing crisis? If the answer is yes, then lowering oil would have a benefit.

However, what is more likely is the weak America dollar, overspending/over importing coupled with the credit crunch is/will push America into a prolonged recession.

If that statement is indeed true, intentionally devaluing oil, will infact take the last remaining strong sector of the market and tear it to shreds. Almost everybody’s money at this point is overvalued to resources, and that is where all the corporate capital spending is coming from. I think you would (may still) see a drop in oil to even $75-$90 would have catastrophic consequences at this point. It might even push America into a depression…especially if the housing/American dollar is still weak.

$4 gas by itself, should have little to no bearing on the America people day to day. It’s not that much more, and people know how to cut back if they have too. It is getting alot of focus, because it is a tangible number and is seen as the ‘tipping point’ for the economy and the ‘final push off the cliff’ for people who are already being forced out of their homes/losing their jobs.

I’ll give you a personal example. Before I went 95% cash, almost half of my non-cash/cash equivalent assets were resource based. If the government interfered, or oil mysterious dropped back to $90, it would have virtually obliterated my positions, I probably would have taken a 10-15% net worth hit. For some other people/institution it would have been much worse and could trigger margins and force panic selling of assets.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

I would just like to say, that things in ‘quotes’ are awesome. I shouldn’t use them, but I can’t help it….it is my ‘addiction’

/that is all

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

125 DonC….

You asked, “I thought the problem with hydrogen was that, because of its volume, the energy cost of transporting it was too high for it to be a viable alternative. If this is true, how do you envision this being addressed?”

I’m a bit reluctant to answer your excellent question, but only because I’d hate to see it result in a “firestorm” of pointless speculation or uninformed arguments. However, I believe it’s very likely the President, GM (& many others) who’ve shown support for hydrogen as a fuel know something we don’t —that ONBOARD generation of H2 at high efficiencies is being researched in our national labs (Argonne, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, NASA, etc) and this work is highly classified and will be made available only to those with the necessary clearance and “need-to-know”.

Why would it be highly classified? Because one of the most expensive, time-consuming, restrictive and vulnerable aspects of warfare is the LONG, VISIBLE, SLOW-MOVING AND HIGHLY-VULNERABLE SUPPLY LINE OF TANKERS NEEDED TO SUPPLY THE VAST NUMBER OF VEHICLES & TANKS ON ANY BROAD BATTLEFRONT. This was true in WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and both wars with Iraq. If an efficient, practical means of generating Hydrogen ONBOARD a vehicle could be developed, this massive logistical problem might be largely resolved. I believe it’s possible, perhaps even probable, and I’m 100% certain any research by government or private labs on this would be highly classified!*

*Yes I’m guessing ….based on the on-going expensive work on H2-powered vehicles by GM, Honda and many others funded largely by government money. The UK, Germany & other Allies are also likely funding similar research on ONBOARD Hydrogen generation, IMO.

(Quote)
R U Kidding Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

The head of Tesla is predicting $30K electric cars in 4 years:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145876

Looks like Chevy Volt needs a price reduction to be competitive.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

#122 Jackson asks “By the way, has anyone heard of a huge new petroleum find, offshore from Brazil? I seem to recall hearing about it in May, with very little follow-up news.”

You remember correctly. Go to Google and enter the phrase Brazil new oil wells. Then go to the link to the BBC. There is a lot of information there, and on the related links.

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

It sure sounds like former Intel Chairman & CEO Andy Grove is on board with GM’s extended range electric vehicle (ER-EV) vision.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/our-electric-future

Andy Grove is definitely one of America’s great visionary leaders … no doubt about it. He was there at the dawn of the semiconductor industry in the 1960s. He is a “founding father” of Silicon Valley. He was one of the original geniuses involved in the first microprocessors in computers.

When Andy Grove visualizes a bright future for “dual fuel” hybrids like the Volt and “all electric cars”, I tend to get ALL the way on the bandwagon with him. GM is definitely doing the right thing with this Volt program. It might go down as one of the biggest business success stories ever. The E-flex concept is good. The range extender can evolve into many forms in the next 10+ years. Fill it up with ethanol, methanol, butanol, hydrogen, etc. As long as the range extender is inexpensive, lightweight, reliable, and it helps the environment somewhat we’ll use them in our future ER-EVs … that is, until the battery technology gets so good that we don’t need them anymore. That would be the ultimate. No range extender at all … just a quick charging, 300+ mile range super high tech battery with a lightweight, aerodynamic car body.

Further down the road, I’m sure these high tech all electric cars would evolve into all the big trucks and SUVs we have right now. It’ll take awhile, but we’ll eventually get there. With elder statesmen like Andy Grove helping us out, I’m sure we’ll get there a lot sooner.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

#144 Lou

“Also on the subject of solar panels, I have put 16 Sanyo (195watts) solar panels on a single Wattsun solar tracker in my back yard just over a year ago and because I live in Ontario, Canada the power authorities pay me 42cents per KWH and I buy it back from them at 12cents a KWH, such a deal and the equipment and installation is tax deductable. This gives me all the power for my house and the Volt when it arrives. The only supprizing thing not many people are picking up on this.”

Just thought I’d say hey. I used to talk solar quite a bit here, but it generally goes all over the place and gets fuzzy, so I’ve back off. I am hooked up to the standard offer program myself. I’m running 30- 200w Sharp panels. I’m going to lose my set-up with the sale of my house, but would be interesting to know your thoughts. (as I will definitely be doing it again at my new place…although with Amorphous silicon-based panels this time. Much larger, but cheaper)

I just wanted to ask you how you like the Wattsun solar tracker? What kind of returns are you getting where you are (I’m TO area).

I looked into it myself, I just could not make the math work for me on the payback. I did most of the work myself/friends, so the system costed out at just under $5/watt, which I think is pretty good, all things considered (got a refurb on the inverter, etc). If I just bought it straight from a retailer it probably would have been more like $8/watt and the tracker seemed to fit that model.

I’m currently averaging about 25kW/day, south facing, tilt latitude15. I figured maybe I could get a 30 percent improvement with a tracker?

/apologies to the board for straying

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

sorry about the divide on this thread lyle i hoe u dont think badly of me but i do ned to clarify again that im not a racist.. far from it i even want to marry a filipina girl shes a sweetie i have cousins who are half hispanic.. and some that are half black im part polish german italian and irish.. i know they all have a bad rep themselves my last name is used against me as a slur even in kindygarden..beliveme i dont mean pajama wearers in a bad way.. al tho.. the ones that wear the gold plated undrwear. .the oil shieks and princes.. r the only ones in the media lately *and they are the only crazy terrorist funding people im aware of…. soo i digress .. thats the only reasoni care abouyt gettin off oil so fast i care not what religion they r or what customs they hae .. it must work for them right? soo its cool… just dont feed the terrorists is all i am saying..
and no i dont like fox news either atleast we have something in common lol.

(Quote)
Tom M Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Howdy to All,

GM also has fleets of NG vehicles out there. Why are these not being made available to us, the consumer?? Honda has theirs out there and the refueling systems are available from PHILL of Canada which can be installed in your home and you refill at night for the next day. Range is reported to be 300 plus miles. This is something that can be done immediately to lower the use of gasoline. This would also be easy to have commercial filling stations that have the availability of natural gas.

Tom

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

#145 Statik “It is a interesting scenario. Do we blame oil for inflation pressure? Do we blame it for the economic downturn? Do we blame it for the housing crisis? If the answer is yes, then lowering oil would have a benefit.”

This is an interesting question and the answer would be a qualified yes. Did oil do any of these things directly? Of course not. But it is indirectly implicated in all.

The attacks of 9/11 can be directly tied to our presence in the Middle East. And why are we there? To protect our oil supplies. In response to 9/11 the Fed kept pushing down interest rates which fueled the housing boom and the resulting financial problems.

On inflation it’s much the same story. We invade Iraq and spend $12-25B a month. Why? To advance our interests by protecting our oil supplies. Since we don’t have the money to pay for this, and since we have gutless leaders unwilling to tell people the truth, that taxes will have to be raised to pay for it, for the first time in our country’s history we cut taxes during wartime. What happens? Since we still have to pay for the war, we end up borrowing the money from foreign depositors. What does this lead to? Simple, a weak dollar and inflation.

We’re better off spending the money to get everyone in a Volt (i-Miev, Prius, whatever) and getting out of the Middle East than we are to ruin our ecnomy in a vain effort to protect our oil supplies, especially since most of what we spend for gas just ends up funding terrorists as well as hostile governments like Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:12 pm

“Assuming “market speculation” was the real problem…”

It’s hard to see how oil prices come from market speculation. Everyone who buys oil as a speculator has to sell it again in a few months, as oil is not easy to store, and there is no evidence that anyone has been hoarding oil somewhere. “Speculators” is the kind of vague dark agent it is satisfying to invoke, but without any evidence it is hardly satisfying to think about more carefully.

The direct explanation is supply and demand, a proven economic principle. There is increasing demand from Asia, and explaining price changes based on increased demand has the benefit of data demonstrating that usage really is increasing and likely will continue to do so, particularly so long as China maintains an artificially low price.

(Quote)
Lou Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

#151 Static
Tracker is way to go.
First year production was 6.2 MWH
Also consider the toy factor.

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

that ex chairman of intel says alot of truth
and .. nice a imagrint making usa better…. tesela founder / ceo is from africa? cool another suscess story of usa~ wtg
nice links gys nice reads i may have to install some solarpanels too heh ivel iked the idea since i was a kid but thought it would be to expensive to install i hope that film? kind is much cheaper soon

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

The Coskata process is an “add on” facility that can be placed such that it processes things that would normally go into a landfill. That doesn’t seem like it’d affect food proces or availability.
I’m with Nasaman. Any non-petroleum, non-food fuel for transportation has to be considered.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

150 GM Volt Fan…..
You said, “It sure sounds like former Intel Chairman & CEO Andy Grove is on board with GM’s extended range electric vehicle (ER-EV) vision. http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/our-electric-future”

I want to thank you for finding this article & posting it! Andy Grove and I go way back to before he founded Intel and I have immense admiration for him. I’ll save this artcle, which is an excellent treatise on where we are, where we have to go and how we can get there in electrifying transportation and thereby once again become energy independent as a nation! And as he says, “duel fuels”* are clearly an unavoidable intermediate step! GREAT ARTICLE!!!

*i.e., gas-electric, E85-electric, diesel-electric, hydrogen-electric, etc

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

#148 R U Kidding

Thanks for that link.

Looks like I will be buying a Tesla.

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

yes i agree with nasaman great find and before i eve ncame here i knew u had to have an intermedate.. a middleman aka.. duel fuels
and if one of them is electric.. that works on our end plan to electify the cars that is why everyone is excited about the volt.. we kinda know it deepdown that this is a very long term deal and know that if we buy a volt it wont be obsolete in a few years it has staying power and worth the money .
despite what many oil companys want us to belive they cant blind us all the way

(Quote)
Rob Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Ethanol produced from food crops feed cars, while people hunger.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

#147 nasaman

Interesting. Thanks for the insight.

On a related point, we never mention the issue of oil dependency for military operations on these boards. Even if we stop using oil for all civilian needs tomorrow we’d still have the military applications for which it is still essential. A plug in serial hybrid is not going to solve that.

And yes, the oil supply line is always a big issue. Certainly so in Iraq, where the line runs through the Shia South, leading to the concern that Shia groups sympathetic to Iran could easily disrupt it were we to take military action against that country.

(Quote)
Jon P. Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

#155 RB

“The direct explanation is supply and demand, a proven economic principle. There is increasing demand from Asia, and explaining price changes based on increased demand has the benefit of data demonstrating that usage really is increasing and likely will continue to do so, particularly so long as China maintains an artificially low price.”

Are you implying that demand is the sole reason that we have seen such a dramatic increase in the cost of a barrell of oil? You think that Asia’s demand increased so much in 18 months that it doubled a barrell of oil? That’s silly and makes no mathematical sense. I’m aware of the 87demand/85production numbers but they have only moved slowly in the last few years. Actually the USA has moved down in our oil demand even though only slightly.

I agree with some of statik’s reply every invester is looking to resources to put their money since the dollar is faultering. But that dosen’t make it okay, that because the dollar is floundering investors are driving up the price of a barrell of crude which is effecting the cost of gas for every american. If that is true shouldn’t the SEC / US Gov step in and take action.

Statik,
your reply leads me to a nother question. If the dollar is so tightly tied to the cost of oil, with the dollar proped up by the fact that oil is denominated in dollars, which means there is alot of it moving around. Do you think if USA goes to a mainly electric vehicle, and our demand lowers drasticly over the next 10 years. That Opec could look to other denomminations to sell its oil, like the Euro, or Yen, or whoever else is buying the most oil?
And if so wouldn’t that send the American economy into a huge depression because of the loss in value of the dollar?

(Quote)
George K Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

#158 Tag
“The Coskata process is an “add on” facility that can be placed such that it processes things that would normally go into a landfill. That doesn’t seem like it’d affect food proces or availability”

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2008-01-13-gm-ethanol-coskata_N.htm

Absolutely. Coskata’s process can use garbage, old tires and other wood waste. Plus, it uses 1/3 the amount of water used in today’s processes.

You can feel as good using Coskata’s E85 as you can driving the Volt…. Well, almost as good.

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Looks like we might be able to get fairly inexpensive hydrogen via electrolysis from home tap water in the future … instead of having to get the hydrogen via natural gas in the steam reformation process.

http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=146264

“Efficient hydrogen fuel generation enabled by Nano NiFe electrodes unlocks the potential to simplify the hydrogen infrastructure and accelerate other renewable energy technologies while also providing a clean solution for industrial applications,” said Kimberly McGrath, Ph.D., director of fuel cell research, QuantumSphere, Inc. “We envision the consumer being able to refuel their vehicles at home from garage electrolyzer units using water and off-peak electricity at night and solar power during the day.”

Now, if only we could get inexpensive thin film solar panels on everyone’s roof to use for the electricity for electrolysis we’ll be doing wonders for the environment.

Hmmm …. we also need Honda or GM or somebody to come up with a MUCH cheaper hydrogen fuel cell “range extender” to go with the homemade hydrogen. THEN, we might could forget all about gasoline and ethanol and other liquid fuels.

Who knows, maybe QuantumSphere will come up with an inexpensive way to do electrolysis “on demand” under the hood of a future car … which would then feed the hydrogen to the fuel cell, etc. We might could fill up our tanks with a garden hose for real. I’m sure Big Oil and OPEC would NOT be happy campers if we could power our cars like this. Never know. It might just happen in the next 20 years or so. No telling what some company with genius scientists might be doing back in their labs these days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGlrobvb-ao&feature=related

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

#147 Nasaman,

One of the issues that need to be debated is the difference between reality , conjecture and pure fantasy.
Top secret projects always sound to me like the plot of the movie “Independance Day”. I like that movie but it was pure fantasy.

The i-miev however may be catagorised a reality because it is due on the road next year.

The Volt perhaps is still mostly conjecture.

If there is some idea that E85 will change the politics and economics of oil over the next five years, I think that is conjecture as well.

Hydrogen is pure fantasy

Life is going to get tough.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

#154 Jon P

“Statik, your reply leads me to a nother question. If the dollar is so tightly tied to the cost of oil, with the dollar proped up by the fact that oil is denominated in dollars, which means there is alot of it moving around. Do you think if USA goes to a mainly electric vehicle, and our demand lowers drasticly over the next 10 years. That Opec could look to other denomminations to sell its oil, like the Euro, or Yen, or whoever else is buying the most oil? And if so wouldn’t that send the American economy into a huge depression because of the loss in value of the dollar?”

Actually oil is not pegged to the dollar based on the fact we have the greatest consumption at this point. It is pegged as such because of the infrastructure behind the dollar. Many OPEC countries would like to have it base in Euros or ‘would like to in theory’because they are not ‘big fans’ of America. However, because of our deep credit/treasury markets it is really the only currency equipped at this moment…the Euro still has no such vehicle behind the currency. (On top of that, the Saudis are the real player in OPEC…and they are adament about it being pegged to the US dollar).

I’ve said this before but, the perceived notion that there are people/nations/speculators moving behind the scenes that have moved gas prices from $1 to $4 is just not true. Gas has moved higher, for sure (and some of those who I mentioned before may have had some small hand in it)…but the weak American dollar is responsible for probably half of this move.

You need $4 today to equal $2.40 of value just 6 years ago on the world stage.

Now put on top of that countries selling the oil don’t want to sell future contracts in a currency that will be worth less…and another premium is build on top. I would wager that if the US dollar had held steady, the price of gas at US pumps right now would be about $2.25 (+/- 25 cents).

As an example. I live in Canada, the average price at the pump in 2000 was 80 cents…today it is $1.35. An increase of ‘only’ 60 percent.

Wait, what was the question again? Lol. “…wouldn’t that send the American economy into a huge depression because of the loss in value of the dollar?” In theory, no. The pegging of any resource to a commodity should not affect the base fundamentals behind that currency …but psychological factors would be hard to assess (depending on the circumstances at the time of the switch). The change would more than likely be a result of other economic realities that would have destabilized the US dollar to a extent where it made it a less acceptable currency to trade…in relation to one of it’s peers.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

#148 R U Kidding:

Yeah, thanks for the great link. Sometimes I even permit myself to hope! The guy Musk is positvely scary! Isn’t he the one who also founded a company to build commercial rockets to orbit satellites? Solar City? Who knew? I have basically looked at this stuff and thought that the guy was just going to p**s away his PayPal money on these crackpot schemes. I dunno though, sometimes it looks like he might actually make some or all of it work. More power to him, I guess.

#153 Tom M:

Amen on the CNG vehicles. I’d buy a CNG Chevy today. How about a Colorado, with the home refuel gadget?

#154 Don C:

I could not agree with you more. Thank you.

#163 Don C:

Actually, the military is doing some ground breaking work on hybrid big trucks. The have at least one prototype Mack, I believe, the size of a standard 10 wheel dump truck, that is up and running with a hybrid driveline. I coud never figure out why until your comment came together with nasaman’s. Obviously, anything which cuts down on the logistics tail is all to the good. Duh!

#164 Jon P:

Well I hate to keep harping on Kevin Phillips, but he discusses this issue at length in his current book, “Bad Money”. He reaches essentially the same conclusion as yours. There is a reason why Iran and Venezuela, for starters, are beating the drum to de-link the price of oil from the dollar.

First of all it would be a devastating economic weapon against the US, and second they are getting screwed on everything they want to buy from Euro, Yen, Pound, et al, currency countries.

If the dollar continues to devalue against the Euro, for example, it will happen. Wait for it.

All:

You guys are on a roll today. Awesome comments. Blog On!

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

GMVOLTFAN
Hydrogen as an energy carrier is so flawed that it;s hard to know where to start discussing it. Even if the H2 came from a tap in your garage, how do you get it to the 5000 PSI an H2 vehicle uses to get any kind of range?
As you say, who knows what the future will bring. They never thought that the flux capacitor would get the professor Back to the Future (g).
Be well,
Tag
PS (to another poster) The military is one of the largest sources of interest in battery tech. They don’t want tanker trucks running those supply lines either.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Side note:

I think my most recents posts may actually be worse than the renewed hydrogen talk.

Don’t worry…tomorrow morning is going to bring a whole new world of conversation.

/buckle up

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Hydrogen is an energy-carrier (like electricity), not an energy source. The argument on this blog has been “why use electricity to make hydrogen, when you can use it to charge a battery, instead?”

Perhaps hydrogen can still make sense as a way of storing power from intermittent energy sources (such as small-scale solar and wind power). If you make hydrogen when the sun shines in order to use it when it doesn’t, the idea of a hydrogen car begins to make more sense. Unfortunately, there is still at least one major hurdle yet to overcome:

The fuel cell, expensive as it is, is the strongest part of the hydrogen argument; there is still a component that needs to be made: a foolproof way of storing hydrogen. Hydrogen gas, composed of the smallest atoms and molecules on Earth, has a way of migrating into the structure of most metals; causing them to become brittle, and fail. Liquifying hydrogen takes loads of energy, too much for small-scale applications.

Nasaman points out that there is research going on into making the hydrogen a car needs onboard, but since hydrogen is an energy carrier and not an energy source, what’s really happening is that chemical energy of some kind is being expended, either to liberate the hydrogen from some other substance, or to create the substances used in the system. The stuff you have left over after driving awhile has to be collected and reprocessed somehow if it is to be used again. I don’t think most drivers will put up with fueling and “de-fueling” every few hundred miles, though if both things happened together, I could be wrong about that.

What’s needed is a material which can absorb, hold and release hydrogen on demand; with good density, and very little energy cost. There is a lot of research going on into such materials, as well.

Once you have the fuel cell, and a reasonable way to store it, only cost reduction remains before hydrogen as a small-scale energy storage scheme can start to make sense against large scale batteries of the sort already under test for the Volt, and for other uses.

A wild card may be some way of turning sunlight and water into hydrogen via some photochemical reaction more efficiently than turning sunlight into electricity first; but who knows if that’s coming? Algae and CO2 to biodiesel does something similar, and there are working systems for that being tested now.

Like I’ve said before, I believe a wide scale hydrogen economy is something which lies further, rather than nearer, into our future.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

We must use all available sources of energy to get us through the next half century. As we can do so, we need to move completely away from petroleum as a transportation fuel except in those situations where there is no other alternative. Ethanol can be made from a number of sources without affecting the worlds food supply and should be produces in as much quantity as possible. We are just now starting to see more auto companies other than GM offer flex fuel vehicles. It is a pattern that must be accelerated. Flex fuels can help get us through this in between period until electric cars are able to take on the majority role.

There is need for all fuel sources and methods should be developed to insure our availability to those sources. We must drill for more crude oil in our own country and along our shores while at the same time producing more ethanol and bio-fuels.

We have a long dark road ahead of us. We, as Americans, have never had to travel the type of dark journey we are going to be experiencing over the next 5 to10 years. We will find the going to be quite tough at times and we will have problems staying the course. But staying the course is our only option. There are no easy options ahead of us. We must make some tough decisions and suffer some expensive lessons that some of us will not survive economically and possibly in other ways.

Go GM and Go, Go, Go Volt.

(Quote)
Jeff J Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

#166 GM Volt Fan thanks for the link , I am already running a two cell HHO gen. from http://www.waterthrottle.com on my H1 hummer. I have seen a large MPG gain almost 40% . AT this point the truck is getting 4 liter per min HHO . Running @ 10 amps . If this Nano NeFi plans out the little Generators could be producting 12 liters HHO per min. Thanks again Jeff

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

This thread is old, and less ‘hijackable,’ so I’m going to elaborate on some foreshadowing for tomorrow:

GM announced after the close of business today that, “GM executives, including Wagoner, scheduled a series of briefings for employees, analysts and reporters on Tuesday, starting at 8:30 a.m. EDT ”

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINWNAB061720080714?rpc=44

“Chief Executive Rick Wagoner is set to announce further steps on Tuesday morning to cut costs in the face of slumping sales.”

One would expect him open underlining some market realities, maybe bring expectations in line, then probably detail the envitable slashing of white collar jobs. Maybe some further plant reductions/realignments.

I doubt he would be expanding on plans for credit facility at this point, probalby this is more of a day-to-day ‘how new GM is going to operate from now on’.

Apparently, internal memos (meetings) to key managers have been/were sent out (occured) late last week detailing some of these changes…and for them to be prepare for some quick action

(Quote)
TL Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

#6
Amed M

You have such good idea. We can recycle not the mummies but our dead and decesed to make bio-fuel out of the organic tissues. Imagine funeral homes with bio-gas stations attached.

(Quote)
LH1 Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 6:06 pm

#175 Statik

I think tomorrow morning is going to be uglier than people expect.

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

This is all happening with speed and spine chilling predicatability.
Fuel prices are going to rocket until new sour crude refining capability is on line, and even then it may only stabilise at that point.
Maybe 2012.
To me it is time to grab what is proven and that is the nickel metal hydride technology and build some factories, the US goverment may be kind enough to underwrite the risk.
Also speed up the construction of the Lithium ion battery factories.
Again, Uncle Sam may provide.
E10 was a good move but I would not go further until the US is self sufficient in ethanol, surely importing ethanol is just out of the frying
pan and in to the fire.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

TL: “You have such good idea. We can recycle not the mummies but our dead and decesed to make bio-fuel out of the organic tissues. Imagine funeral homes with bio-gas stations attached.”

New meaning to organ donation…. (I’d hope that they harvest the organs and just convert the “remains”). Maybe relatives could get a nickel discount at the pump outside or put Uncle Bill in a jug on the mantle.

bruce g
The “govt” money for all of that factory building doesn’t come from the “govt” it comes from us.
Tag

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

#179 Tagamet:

Works for me. Might as well get some use out of the remains as to have them cluttering up the mantle for 20 years. I am an organ donor, but I have a terrible fear that they will look at the birth date on my DL and just laugh. What do you figure a 150# male is worth, about 1 gallon of biodiesel? Beats blowing the family fortune on some big funeral ritual.

Don’t tell anyone, but I have made my wife promise to sneak out at night and dump my ashes on the inside of the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca. They can mix in with all of the fiberglass shards I have left there. If we could get the octane up enough, maybe we could just blow them out the tailpipes of the Corvette and get some positive benefit instead.

Anyway, I think that you are on to something here. Keep up the good work.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

noel park
Yeah, I’m donating everything including skin. The rest may end up at a Univ (probably the humor department)
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm

#179 Tagamet:

BTW, if the “govt” is going to spend my money I would one h**l of a lot rather have them spend it on battery factories than on blowing up Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, et al. Or occupying Okinawa, Korea, West Germany, Diego Garcia, Guantanamo Bay, Bahrain, Italy, and all of the other hundreds of overseas military bases we maintain in our imperial arrogance. Two words. Chalmers Johnson.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

noel park
Two words Ronald Reagan.
Spinning America as an imperialist nation does nothing that I can see that builds our country.
We are definitely never going to see eye to eye on this one, so I’ll move on.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Tag,
The money comes from your taxes but if it is’nt spent on taxes it will be spent on fuel.
I suspect that capitalism needs a strong legal frame work and unlimited resources to function as we imagine it.
I think the unlimited resources bit is looking less likely for energy.
.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 7:44 pm

bruce g
If the govt doesn’t spend my money I decide what it’s spent on.
“Unlimited resources” is an oxymoron, btw.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Tag,
You must feel bitter about the global altercations the government spends your money on, surely it would be better spent closer to home?

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

bruce g
said:
“Tag,
You must feel bitter about the global altercations the government spends your money on, surely it would be better spent closer to home?”

A) I think it best if I decide what, if anything, I’m bitter about.
and
B) IMHO, money doesn’t much matter, if my family dies in a 911 type attack. But that’s just me.
and
C) That’s all from me to you (I know, you’re crushed) (g)
Tag

(Quote)
Koz Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Static,

Solar question for you: How much effect on your asking price does your solar have? I read a lot of differing opinions on the value it adds and it would be good to to hear a first hand real world example.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Koz,
There was just an article on that on GreenCarCongress.com. Basically they said it’d add ~$3K to the price and add the energy that could be provided by $1K in more batteries.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 8:01 am

#188 Koz

“Static, Solar question for you: How much effect on your asking price does your solar have? I read a lot of differing opinions on the value it adds and it would be good to to hear a first hand real world example.”

Well, it’s still hard to say as I have had 3 offers on my place, but have yet to accept one. (Can only count money in your pocket really) I have priced my place about about $60,000 higher than a similar house for sale. (but I have received a offer within 30K of asking). So right now, in theory I could have banked a extra 30K…the system cost be around 25ish. Small premium as it stands right now…you get your money back, thats for sure.

(Unexpected drawback…waaaaaaay too many showings. Alot of people just have solar questions I think, want to see it up close and pick my brain. I have had to say, if you want to see it, you come on XXX day between this and this…like a open house).

#171 Statik

“Don’t worry…tomorrow morning is going to bring a whole new world of conversation.
/buckle up”

#175 Statik

“One would expect him open underlining some market realities, maybe bring expectations in line, then probably detail the envitable slashing of white collar jobs”

Yes, not so good.
He slashed the dividend today. (Not a shock as the yield was over 10%) .

(Quote)
Jon P. Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 9:38 am

Statik,

“The change would more than likely be a result of other economic realities that would have destabilized the US dollar to a extent where it made it a less acceptable currency to trade…in relation to one of it’s peers.”

That is my point exactly, if a barrel of oil was denominated in say the euro, there would be less dollars moving around, while at the same time the dollar would flounder against other currencies, and since we import so much of our goods, our dollar would buy alot less (inflation). So our dollar that use to buy a can of soda, now a can of soda would cost 4 dollars. Driving every americans cost of living thru the roof.
No?

Noel Park,

Chalmers Johnson = True Patriot

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 10:57 am

#191 John P:

Amen. Thanks.

(Quote)
ghost Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 1:50 am

Burning food.

Honestly listen when you say that.

We have starving people here. Not just in Africa but in our own backyards – yet people think burning corn is a good idea?

Do you folks even realize that FOOD farms will start producing this cash crop instead of your normal food items?

This is a terrible idea.

Terrible.

(Quote)
Tara Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

This is the same brand of grandiose, ‘wait ’til you see this!’ approach that GM has burned the Volt with. The vaunted Volt is already obsolete. It took GM too long (some say they’re 25 years late) to make up for lost ground–and then they placed all their eggs in this car whose technology is no longer cutting edge. GM is spending $_(obscene)____ on their marketting campaigns while flying to Washington in corporate jets to blackmail the american taxpayer into bailing GM and the other two dinosaurs out. still, they pitch their product asking the american public to greet this vehicle as a revolutionary. ” those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”, know what i mean?

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Embrace technology to turn nuclear energy into environmental solution November 6, 2009
From the Seattle Times: "STEWART Brand, author of "The Whole Earth Catalog," visited Seattle last week, promoting his latest environmental manifesto... […]
misslexi
Lutz to Head Opel November 6, 2009
Der Spiegel reports that Lutz is going to head up Opel: Spiegel Online(link)... […]
dagwood55
Do home chargers include meters? November 6, 2009
I conduct a real-world fuel economy survey (http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php), and will want to adapt it for electric and range-extended... […]
mkaresh
HHSE (Hybrid-Hybrid-Serial-Electric) vehicle invented November 5, 2009
A HHSE is a cross between using a lower efficiency but more functional serial hybrid drivetrain for city driving and using a mechanical drivetrain to... […]
Texas
Renault, Nissan to build $892 million battery factory outside Paris November 5, 2009
“This will be the center of our lithium battery production for all of our assembly plants and for other carmakers,” Ghosn said. “It’s a major... […]
Texas
GM to cut 10,000 Jobs Across Europe After Sudden U-Turn on Opel Deal November 5, 2009
Max Keiser on Russia Today. " ... General Motors cut ten thousand jobs across Europe at its Opel unit in favor of Christmas bonuses." -Max... […]
Guy Incognito
Nissan Releases Concept Sketch Of Light Commercial Electric Vehicle November 5, 2009
NISSAN RELEASES CONCEPT SKETCH OF LIGHT COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler

GM Teams up With U.S. Governors to Expand Ethanol Infrastructure

194 Responses to “GM Teams up With U.S. Governors to Expand Ethanol Infrastructure”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts