I am so ready for an alternative fuel for my car I don't know what to do. Over the past year I have taken an interest in ethanol and was happy to see the report last month from the University of Nebraska about the possibility of switchgrass being used to make ethanol. Doing my on-line research I have noticed that the anti-ethanol crowd sort of pics and choose their "facts" to support the anti-ethanol (pro-oil stance).

One argument they keep throwing around is the vast amount of land it would take to replace gasoline as a fuel. I am not sure why they try to make this argument because I don't want to get rid of gasoline. What good would it do to go from one source to another? Having both at the same time would introduce competition in to the equation and lower prices for both fuel sources. I don't have anything against the oil industry, but I have an extreme dislike for OPEC. If an American farmer can give Chaves a kick in the nuts then I would be willing to pay a little extra to see it happen.

Not sure where I am going with this topic other than I wish I could get real facts from people that really know.

Here is a bit of good news about ethanol:
http://www.okctalk.com/current-events/11879-gm-bets-1-gallon-ethanol-maker.html
http://www.okctalk.com/current-events/11885-gm-switching-e-85-bio-fuel-corvette-racecar.html

At best ethanol is a stopgap alternate for a good, clean and cheap energy source to run our automobiles. The petroleum companies can still make huge profits if we switch to ethanol, so that option will probably be the way we go.

Electric from nuclear powered electric plants, wind farms and photovoltaic cells would be a better solution because it is by far the cheapest energy source that will power almost everything from vehicles to manufacturing plants. Nuclear power is doable right now, but there is quite a bit of opposition to it because it scares people that know nothing about nuclear power except what they learned from 1950s sci-fi movies.

Probably the biggest hurdle to electric powered cars is batteries. Although there have been some huge advances in battery technology, it is still behind the curve and more efficient batteries are needed to power vehicles just like internal combustion engines power them now.

The main problems with Ethanol are that it takes so much more energy to make ethanol than it does to make say, gasoline or bio-desiel that it almost results in a zero net gain for the producer. Also, Ethanol has been found to be a HIGH polutant both in production and for the end user.

We should be focusing more in things like Synthetic diesel (GTL using Fischer-Tropsch) technology or bio-diesel using cotton seed oil or castor oil. We do not get much gasoline from our friends in Venezuela. We get DIESEL from them...66% of our national import in fact. When you consider how dependent our commercial businesses and farmers are on diesel...that's a scary number.

just a thought...

What we NEED, is for automakers to pull their head out of their collective asses.

This guy dropped out of school in the 7th grade, and he's just plain schooling GM on how to make a Hummer more eco-friendly than a Civic.

Johnathan Goodwin, Motorhead Messiah. (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html)

**Caution, reading that article will make you both optimistic and angry at the same time**

The main problems with Ethanol are that it takes so much more energy to make ethanol than it does to make say, gasoline or bio-desiel that it almost results in a zero net gain for the producer.

See, this is one of those "facts" that isn't true. Corn based ethanol has a 38% energy gain. That is better than gasoline and the corn based ethanol has the energy used to grow the corn factored in the caluculation. The gasoline doesn't include the energy used to make oil in the first place. However, the latest switchgrass based ethanol has something like a 560% energy gain.

It doesn't matter if we develop cars that can run on dead leaves. If dead leaves are our only option for fuel then dead leaves will start costing $3 per gallon. We need to have multiple sources of fuel that run in the same car at any time. This is why I love the idea of E85. Having 2 options to use in my car everytime I fill up introduces competition to the fuel suppliers and will bring the price down on both types of fuel.

Kerry, did you read that link I posted? That dude has some amazing ideas on how to run vehicles on multiple fuels.

And isn't sugarcane how Brazil has gone 100% independent on fuel because it's better than corn? Why don't we use that?

The only issue with E85 are the number of people that can use it. My car is a 2005 and even it can't handle E85. We can trumpet it all we want, but it is going to come down to the car markers actually making cars compatible to use the new fuel sources.

OGS - I read the links - Good stuff.

Venture79 has a point about which cars can use E85. I have a 2006 Ford 500 that cannot use E85. However, every car made after 1981 can use E10 without any modification. My wife has a 2007 Armada that can use E85. There was a kit that allowed any car to switch to E85 but the EPA banned it because they said emissions on the car being retrofitted had to be lower than when the car ran only on Gasoline. About the only way to do this is to have the technology built into the car when it is manufactured. I understand there is a new conversion kit that will meet this requirement but is still pending EPA approval.

Brzil does run almost 100% on ehtanol made from Sugarcane. There is a plant being built in Lousianna that will convert sugarcane to ethanol so we will see how it goes. The biggest problem is creating the distribution network to get Ehtanol to market. Ethanol cannot be sent through a pipeline so states will have to build their own Ethanol production facilites, which is a feature I love. Imagine how much different our energy situation would be if every state had to build their own oil refineries. Missouri just passed a law that every station that sells gasoline has to also sell E85. That should make it readily available for anyone that wants it.

Well, it's not going to happen over night I guess.

We're moving in the right direction though. Most of the new full sized GM trucks are flex fuel and have AFM (Active Fuel Management) where it cuts off 4 out of the 8 cylinders when they're not needed. It's a bandaid, but it's one more baby step.

What this guy says makes sense. Why would anyone want to trade their current big, gas guzzler for something smaller and more fuel efficient if the new vehicle isn't be able to perform the work required and overall cost ends up the same or higher because what is saved by lower fuel expenses is negated by the higher vehicle cost?


GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz says U.S. consumers have little incentive to buy fuel efficient vehicles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By JAMIE LAREAU, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS

General Motors sees E-85 and biofuels as the best near-term solution to lowering U.S. usage of petroleum.

But new federal fuel regulations will only mean higher vehicle prices, slower new vehicle sales and continued consumer resistance to smaller cars.

“We refuse to let the price of fuel rise gradually in the United States and therefore we fail to induce change in consumer behavior,” Bob Lutz, GM’s vice chairman of global product development, said at the Automotive News World Congress on Wednesday evening.

Lutz said while GM is working diligently on alternative solutions to gasoline such as the lithium-ion battery powered Chevrolet Volt, consumer behavior is very difficult to change. And it takes a long time. New federal regulations requiring a 35-mile-per-gallon national average by 2020 will not inspire consumers to purchase more fuel-economic vehicles.

European prices

Only gas prices at the level that Europeans pay will cause Americans to rethink their vehicles, Lutz said. Current European gasoline prices are the equivalent of about $8 a gallon, he said.

“If for the last 15 years we’d had a slow but sure rise in federal fuel taxation of, say, 15 cents a gallon per year -- that would have gradually put the customer in the equation,” he said.

Over time and without any federal fuel economy regulation, the markets could have naturally and gradually transitioned Americans into smaller and more diesel-oriented vehicles, Lutz said.

“I’m not advocating tax hikes or calling for higher fuel prices, I’m just explaining the difference between the European fleet and our own,” he said. “In America, instead of raising fuel prices, we’ll end up having to raise new vehicle prices, because of the increased use of lightweight materials and fuel-saving technology.”

That will cause more people to hang on to the vehicles they have longer, slowing down new sales growth, “which is exactly counter to the intended effect,” Lutz said.

“Europeans, at their fuel prices, are willing to pay premium prices for premium small cars that deliver terrific fuel economy. That is not the case here in America, land of the big truck and big horse” and, he added, “the big American.”

The new federal regulations will also fail to lower the U.S. dependency on petroleum and imported oil, Lutz said. The best near-term solution to doing that is to adopt more E-85, ethanol-burning vehicles.

“It’s just common sense,” Lutz said. “You don’t roll over the whole fleet at once. It takes decades -- and the bigger the price disparity between the old ones and the new ones, the longer it takes.”

Making a dent

GM’s goal for electrically driven vehicles is attainable, but Lutz said it will take many years for those vehicles to be on the road in volumes to really make much of a dent in petroleum usage.

He argues a faster solution is E-85. There are already more than 6 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road right now in the U.S. alone. Those vehicles could be running on ethanol if it were more readily available, Lutz said.

If all the flex-fuel vehicles that GM, Ford Motor Co., and Chrysler LLC have committed to have on the road by 2020 were to run on ethanol, that could displace 29 billion gallons of gasoline annually, Lutz points out. That is roughly equivalent to 18 percent of America’s projected petroleum usage in 2020, he said.

He said other benefits of E-85 include that it’s better for the environment, it doesn’t have to be imported and it requires little change in consumer behavior.

On the other hand, he said with diesel fuel at the same price as gasoline in the United States, there won’t be many Americans willing to pay a “$3,000 to $4,000 premium” for diesel vehicles unless GM is willing to eat that cost.

Lutz also reiterated GM’s stance that electrically driven vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries are the long-term future of the automobile industry. He argues that naysayers don’t understand that not all lithium-ion technology is created equal.

“It’s like beer. Some people say beer tastes bad. But there are many different types. U.S. beer, imported beer. You’ve got pilsner, ale, stout, wheat beer,” Lutz said. “Some beers are better than others. Just because somebody said one particular lithium ion technology is a little bit aggressive and it’s been known to cause thermal problems, does not mean they all do. The technology is advancing every day.”

Lutz is blowing smoke. The price difference between, for instance, the Mercedes-Benz E350 sedan and the E320 Bluetec diesel sedan is $1,000; likewise between the ML350 and ML320 SUVs. (Manufacturer's suggested retail price; see dealer for details.)

I've filled up with E10 on some of my road trips, and it's largely indistinguishable from plain ol' gasoline.

I still think hydrogen is the way to go. No emissions!

I've filled up with E10 on some of my road trips, and it's largely indistinguishable from plain ol' gasoline.You probably filled up with E10 more than you know. It is very hard to find a gas station that doesn't have 10% ethanol blended in their gasoline. The government passed a law in 2006 that says gas stations no longer have to put a sticker on the pump if the ethanol content is 10% or less.