Clean cars, Dirty secret?

[shesulsa]

I'm hoping a member or two here who works in the Auto industry will comment as I'm not sure how I feel about this article.

It was smiles all around as the automakers announced they would make half of America's vehicles ethanol-ready by 2012. "If you want to reduce gasoline usage—like I believe we need to do so for national-security reasons as well as for environmental concerns—the consumer has got to be in a position to make a rational choice," said a beaming Bush.

But there's a dirty secret about clean cars. The policies for flexible-fuel vehicles—those that can run on mixtures of gasoline and more than 10 percent ethanol—are written in such a way that they result in a number of unintended consequences. One result is that automakers gain some leeway in meeting fuel-economy standards if they produce flexible-fuel cars and trucks. So Detroit's automakers have been pumping out hundreds of thousands of the vehicles, even though most consumers have no access to alternative fuels because they're available at only a fraction of U.S. gas stations.

Here's why that's an issue. Automakers need to meet certain government standards for the fuel economy of their fleets. For flex-fuel cars, fuel economy is calculated based on the assumption that their owners use 50 percent gasoline and 50 percent ethanol. But the reality is that just 1 percent of the nation's flexible-fuel vehicles actually use what's known as E85—85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. The remaining 99 percent are using good old-fashioned gasoline.

Read more ...

 

[Ninjamom]

I'm afraid it gets MUCH worse than that........

I just read a series of articles in World magazine (available online with a paid subscription only; sorry) about the growth and mystique of biofuels. These are all the rage in Europe because biodiesel can help all Europe meet its required numbers under the Kyoto protocols. The problem is, in order to meet surging demands for biodiesel in Europe, large tracts of rainforest land in Indonesia, Thailand, etc. are being deforrested to make room for palm plantations. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul!! This is 'reducing greenhouse emissions' by reducing or eliminating the earth's natural system for scrubbing the air of carbon dioxide and replacing it with oxygen.

Ethanol and biodiesel are well and good in theory, but they are not a cure-all to the problem - they create problems of their own, and all these problems must be addressed if there is to be any hope of a comprehensive solution to fuel/environmental problems. Personally, I have a moral problem with the ethics of turning any food material into fuels, when there are still large areas of the world filled with starving people.

If I were running the world ( ), I would like to see someone with the charisma of JFK stand up and start the fuel-sufficiency equivalent of a 'moon race' in our generation. John F. Kennedy issued a challenge to see America land a man on the moon by the end of the decade, and with both a clear goal and the resources to make it happen given, we met the challenge. Would that someone would issue a clarion call to eliminate dependence on foreign fuel sources within ten years!!

This is something I think all sides of the political spectrum could get behind and agree on. Want renewable resources? Invest in solar energy? Want to improve our economic situation and the balance of trade? Develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Want to end half the wars in the middle east and cut the funding for foreign terrorists at the same time? Eliminate our need for middle-eastern oil.

It will take a combination of things that are sure not to please everyone (solar, nuclear, coal/oil, hydroelectric, as well as major advances in battery and power distribution technology), but I think it is a goal worthy of the knowledge, skill, and dedication of a generation.

 

[exile]

This is something I think all sides of the political spectrum could get behind and agree on. Want renewable resources? Invest in solar energy? Want to improve our economic situation and the balance of trade? Develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Want to end half the wars in the middle east and cut the funding for foreign terrorists at the same time? Eliminate our need for middle-eastern oil.

It will take a combination of things that are sure not to please everyone (solar, nuclear, coal/oil, hydroelectric, as well as major advances in battery and power distribution technology), but I think it is a goal worthy of the knowledge, skill, and dedication of a generation.

Great idea, but there's one big problem with implementation: in the development stage, you'd have to get people to curtail their demand significantly (it's not necessarily clear that the mix you're talking about would ever be able to supply the same volume that ready-to-hand fossil fuels and their associated technologies do). And that's the heart of the problem: getting people to reduce their consumption. Kennedy's lunar program didn't really ask people to control their demands for endless fun at the planet's expense; it might have meant a bit more in taxation, but not enough even there to hurt. But gearing back on energy consumptions... that's gonna cut into a lot of people's playtime and comfort (no more artic-temperature air conditioning in summer or rainforest heating in midwinter). Way tougher to sell, NJM.

People are great at ignoring the urgency of problems that are going to present their bills to future generations... that's really the heart of it. Even the petrodollar/terrorism connection is a bit too abstract and distant for a lot of folks....

 

[mrhnau]

First, great post Let's get into the nitty gritty

I'm afraid it gets MUCH worse than that........

I just read a series of articles in World magazine (available online with a paid subscription only; sorry) about the growth and mystique of biofuels. These are all the rage in Europe because biodiesel can help all Europe meet its required numbers under the Kyoto protocols. The problem is, in order to meet surging demands for biodiesel in Europe, large tracts of rainforest land in Indonesia, Thailand, etc. are being deforrested to make room for palm plantations. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul!! This is 'reducing greenhouse emissions' by reducing or eliminating the earth's natural system for scrubbing the air of carbon dioxide and replacing it with oxygen.

I've yet to see anything conclusive regarding how much crop must be produced in order to make a good supply of fuel. I have heard that biodiesel is driving up the price of corn, which has had a few economic effects around North America. I don't think its "reducing or eliminating" the scrubbing of CO2, but changing it to a different source. We can argue about the ills of deforrestation, but we are removing one carbon cleansing plant and introducing new ones. Not the original source, but still useful. I'd be curious to see how changing crops/trees changes CO2 uptake. Would be interesting if its actually increased

Ethanol and biodiesel are well and good in theory, but they are not a cure-all to the problem - they create problems of their own, and all these problems must be addressed if there is to be any hope of a comprehensive solution to fuel/environmental problems. Personally, I have a moral problem with the ethics of turning any food material into fuels, when there are still large areas of the world filled with starving people.

In the case of corn, corn is still available, just more expensive. Even if we don't work with biofuels we will still have starving people, and likely we always will. I think the problems are not hopelessly intertwined.

If I were running the world ( ), I would like to see someone with the charisma of JFK stand up and start the fuel-sufficiency equivalent of a 'moon race' in our generation. John F. Kennedy issued a challenge to see America land a man on the moon by the end of the decade, and with both a clear goal and the resources to make it happen given, we met the challenge. Would that someone would issue a clarion call to eliminate dependence on foreign fuel sources within ten years!!

This is something I think all sides of the political spectrum could get behind and agree on. Want renewable resources? Invest in solar energy? Want to improve our economic situation and the balance of trade? Develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Want to end half the wars in the middle east and cut the funding for foreign terrorists at the same time? Eliminate our need for middle-eastern oil.

It will take a combination of things that are sure not to please everyone (solar, nuclear, coal/oil, hydroelectric, as well as major advances in battery and power distribution technology), but I think it is a goal worthy of the knowledge, skill, and dedication of a generation.

A JFK figure is needed, but I don't want the Gore-esque type "inspiration", where fear is the primary weapon. I think national pride had a large part in the space race, not a desperate fear of Russians succeeding. I think alternative fuels are going to be critical in the future, but a couple of things need to happen first:

It needs to be affordable and available. I don't care if its super green if it cost me 10x as much to drive my car to work. Thats going to be a common sentiment, especially with those seriously involved in transport. It's also not going to be helpful if I have to drive 50 miles to get fuel.

It needs to be easily producable. If we go biofuel, we need to find some crop that is easy to raise and does not totally destroy other crops or drastically raise the price of crops. It's great if we can produce enough to be energy dependant, but if that requires 75% of our airable soil, then we have problems.

I honestly think the solution is going to be multi-faceted. Nuclear fussion is hopefully going to be coming online in the next 25ish years. If we can start increasing solar panel efficiency, that energy source would be helpful. Biofuels can slow down our consumption of gas. I've even read of cars in India running on compressed air So, over time, new ideas are going to come along... a government can encourage these ideas by either investments in new technologies or tax breaks for companies that do the research. I tend not to be obsessed with the looming "crisis" and remain optomistic. I think man is bright enough to overcome our energy needs for the future.

 

[Ninjamom]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I agree on most all points.

As far as reducing consumption, I think that will only be addressed through (*gulp * I can't believe this word is coming out of the mouth of a die-hard wu wei lassez faire economic Libertarian!) TAXATION. In principle, I am against any tax whose main purpose is to change social behavior. The purpose of taxation should be to raise revenue for the necessary functioning of Govt.; nothing more or less. Even if I swallow my socially-conservative, economically-Libertarian pride and agree to a consumption tax, I could ONLY agree to it if EVERY PENNY raised by such a tax were plopped right back into research on alternative fuels and associated technologies.

Mr.H, I agree wholeheartedly on the 'multi-faceted' approach. This is another reason why nothing is getting done - those who want to reduce carbon emissions for environmental reasons generally don't see the necessity for including ideas like drilling in ANWR, development of new refineries, and building of additional nuclear power plants in that multi-faceted mix.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Its growing countries like China and India that are the biggest threat to the future environment. China is burning coal like theres no tomorrow. And they are starting to make Cars on a large scale.

 

[mrhnau]

As far as reducing consumption, I think that will only be addressed through (*gulp * I can't believe this word is coming out of the mouth of a die-hard wu wei lassez faire economic Libertarian!) TAXATION. In principle, I am against any tax whose main purpose is to change social behavior. The purpose of taxation should be to raise revenue for the necessary functioning of Govt.; nothing more or less. Even if I swallow my socially-conservative, economically-Libertarian pride and agree to a consumption tax, I could ONLY agree to it if EVERY PENNY raised by such a tax were plopped right back into research on alternative fuels and associated technologies.

AAAIIIIIIEEE!!!!!! NO!!!!

Part of the problem with what is happening is the concept of increasing taxes! That is NOT the answer! Do you honestly think that increased taxes will go strictly to research? Even if so, beauracracy is going to eat up a good chunk of that in an attempt to distribute it. Taxes, almost by their very nature, are meant to change social behavior! Why do you think they have such high taxes on "bad" behavior such as cigarettes and alcohol and tax breaks on "good" behavior, such as charitable donations, purchasing a house, energy efficient cars, etc.. I think you can encourage research by energy companies by granting tax credits/deductions for alternative energy research. If you start giving -credits-, you will see some massive research efforts started. I might even suggest a requirement for a percentage of profits from energy companies be earmarked for energy research.

I don't want MORE money flowing into DC. Politicians seem to love to control the purse strings too much. Let industry have a fresh influx of cash for researching alternative energy. PLEASE don't let that cash be filtered through the sticky fingers of government!

On a related note, I think that consumption tax is GREAT, but only in isolation (or mostly isolated). If you go the consumption tax route, drop all other taxes. I think I'm like yourself, leaning a bit libretarian when it comes to economics Well, at least I sure don't align with recent Republican economic ideals.

Mr.H, I agree wholeheartedly on the 'multi-faceted' approach. This is another reason why nothing is getting done - those who want to reduce carbon emissions for environmental reasons generally don't see the necessity for including ideas like drilling in ANWR, development of new refineries, and building of additional nuclear power plants in that multi-faceted mix.

I agree... there has been a stigma associated with nuclear power in the past. I think its lessened over time. If fusion ever comes online and the power companies make a nice PR effort, I think almost all of our energy problems can be solved. Please note, fusion, not fission (the Uranium stuff)...

I thin ANWR needs to be drilled for a few reasons... even if we get alternative energy sources, our need for oil will not drop to 0. Even if it does, we still need a few decades of fuel to get those new energy sources online.

The concerns about carbon emissions are based on the fear of global warming, which is, IMHO, not well founded. I'm more concerned about the possibility of running out of oil in the next hundred years or so. It's a limited resource...

 

[Rich Parsons]

I'm hoping a member or two here who works in the Auto industry will comment as I'm not sure how I feel about this article.




Read more ...

"G" et al,

I know that one major company has worked with a retail store with gas stations to make E85 (* 85% Ethanol Fuel *) available in a growing amount of stores/stations.


I do not know the specifics about fuel economy offset for alternate fuels, but it would not surprise me.

I do know that in the near future MY 08 a change will be made to how Fuel economy is calculated for stickers. Currently there is one test used that has much of the time at 55 MPH and little time at 70 MPH. The new tests will look at temperature and also higher speeds for highway. All teh automakers will be taking a hit. I have heard that some will be hit harder than others who have optimized their functionality for the test.

 

[jdinca]

The problem is that the sound bites make biofuels look great but underneath the fluff there are a number of issues, many of which have already been mentioned.

It takes more energy currently to create biofuels than it does to refine fossil fuels.

Corn prices are going up, raising feed prices, which raises consumer prices.

Farmers are planting land corn on land that would normally be scheduled for crop rotation to regenerate nutrients. The same goes for fallow land. What's the long term impact going to be on our food supply? We don't grow enough corn for food, feed, and fuel.

Proponents of electrical vehicles gloss over the environmental impact of making the batteries and then disposing of them once they're used up.

One of the promising alternative fuels is using waste cooking oil in diesels. I know a couple of people that have invested a few hundred dollars for the filtration equipment and the changes that have to be made to the vehicle. It's a cheap waste product that's being used instead of discarded and the reduction in the amount of diesel used is significant.

We need to keep looking for alternatives but hopefully we won't shoot ourselves in the foot by going overboard on something that's promising yet not fully developed yet. Remember MTBE?

 

[Rich Parsons]

The problem is that the sound bites make biofuels look great but underneath the fluff there are a number of issues, many of which have already been mentioned.

Yes this is very true.

It takes more energy currently to create biofuels than it does to refine fossil fuels.

Also Ethanol has at best 30% less energy per volume and this assumes the systems is calibrated to use ethanol as the primary source. If not then the system is not optimized and will be less efficient. Or there must be much more cost in sensors and equipment that can go bad or get coated which costs lots of money to consumer to get into their vehicle.

The best way to get very poor fuel economy is to run some gas and then some E85, and keep it mixed so that it is not pure E85 and not Pure Gas which can be up to E15.

So if it is less efficient then the cost should be offset to make it viable. The issue is that the cost is about the same and therefor it costs the consumer more to travel. i.e. vehicle gets 30 mpg on the highway with Gas at $2.89 (* Current Price *) and then with the E85 expect about 25 mpg or lower until the system learns or adapts to the E85 at about the same price of $2.83 for E85 (* Maybe higher as this isthe price I saw when Gas was $2.73 *)

Corn prices are going up, raising feed prices, which raises consumer prices.

And in some South America countries the cost of Corn is going up so people are unable to buy it.

Farmers are planting land corn on land that would normally be scheduled for crop rotation to regenerate nutrients. The same goes for fallow land. What's the long term impact going to be on our food supply? We don't grow enough corn for food, feed, and fuel.

Yes the immediate growth of the market will cause long term issue with the ecology and farming.

Proponents of electrical vehicles gloss over the environmental impact of making the batteries and then disposing of them once they're used up.

Yes I have been saying this for years. It costs more to prepare alternate fuels and to use electric and the emissions in many cases are worse as they use coal at power plants that do nothave the same regulations as the vehicles do for tail pipe emissions.

The disposal of the betteries was one of the reasons GM Leased Electric Car(s) when they had their vehicle.

One of the promising alternative fuels is using waste cooking oil in diesels. I know a couple of people that have invested a few hundred dollars for the filtration equipment and the changes that have to be made to the vehicle. It's a cheap waste product that's being used instead of discarded and the reduction in the amount of diesel used is significant.

Yes this is very true. Unfortuantely I have heard of this being done, but then once the local companies who used to give it away versus having to pay for disposal find out the benefit to you, they start to charge you for it. Once again this can drive local prices up above the bulk fuels.

We need to keep looking for alternatives but hopefully we won't shoot ourselves in the foot by going overboard on something that's promising yet not fully developed yet. Remember MTBE?

I agree the cost of Alternative will never come down if it is not researched and developed for production. The cost of something made in bulk brings down the cost of development and production.


Now for a side note:

The Governement wants to seriously reduce the amount of CO(2). The issue is that if you have Methane CH(4) with O(2) one gets CO(2) and H(2)O as the results. Now most people know that air also has lots of N(2) Nitrogen. This adds into the equations to produce NO(x) where x=1 or 2.

So the current regulations control nMOG or Hydrocarbons, CO and NO(x). CO and NO(x) are radicals that cause further reactions in the air. So it is the job of the combustion experts to make sure that the amount of NO(x) is very low and CO is also very low as well as the amount of hydrocarbons produced at the tailpipe. It is the intial start where hydrocarbons are produced as most that escape the cylinder are burned in the Cat. So until the Cat gets to temperature this is the area where it can be msot sensitive to hydrocarbons.

By making sure the CO is all converted to CO(2) in the intial reaction or in the Cat is how the companies control to the CO regulations.

So the only way to reduce the amount of CO(2) is to reduce the amount of C (Carbon) going into the system up front. This means we need more fuel economy. Hybrids are a great start as they capture and store energy into the system that was lost before. The issue with Hybrtids though is the initial cost and the financing that cost of the life of the vehicle and the cost of fuel.

So we need more efficient C reactions. If there were more efficient C reactions I believe they would be in place today unless the cost of such would not allow for the usage.

Or we can find a reaction without C in the equation.

To me these new regulations lead to people driving technology based upon wishes not upon data. This is pushing the usage of Hydrogen that is very expensive to produce at the moment. It does reduce the amount of "C" in the equation. It is good to investigate and develop as I stated above. But to dictact the reduction of CO2 is not only dictating additional costs to the vehicles such as Hybrids but also to meet the regulations but also forcing the usage of technology that may not be efficient enough and cost mroe in the long run for total energy and emissions produced.

Just my rant there. Sorry, for I agree with increased goals, as they push new development and targets. I agree with looking into it. I only wish they would be intelligent about it and not use emotions and wishful thinking to make their decisions.

 

[jdinca]

Just my rant there. Sorry, for I agree with increased goals, as they push new development and targets. I agree with looking into it. I only wish they would be intelligent about it and not use emotions and wishful thinking to make their decisions.

Don't apologize! That was a great rant. I think the biggest problem with the whole thing is that it's being driven by politicians who respond to constituents who don't know, or haven't bothered to do any research for themselves. As a result, the politicians say "just get it done!" without due regard to the consequences of what they're demanding.

I like Dennis Miller's take on the whole thing. He drives his SUV because the sooner we run out of oil, the sooner we'll come up with a viable alternative. It's the American way!

One bit of irony is that it's the left wing that's pushing so hard for biofuels and one of the biggest backers of ethanol is ADM. Talk about strange bedfellows.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Don't apologize! That was a great rant. I think the biggest problem with the whole thing is that it's being driven by politicians who respond to constituents who don't know, or haven't bothered to do any research for themselves. As a result, the politicians say "just get it done!" without due regard to the consequences of what they're demanding.

I like Dennis Miller's take on the whole thing. He drives his SUV because the sooner we run out of oil, the sooner we'll come up with a viable alternative. It's the American way!

One bit of irony is that it's the left wing that's pushing so hard for biofuels and one of the biggest backers of ethanol is ADM. Talk about strange bedfellows.

Hmmm, trying to be in on the ground floor for the next big thing?

 

[jdinca]

Hmmm, trying to be in on the ground floor for the next big thing?

Who's the biggest producer of corn in this country? ADM.