pic: Ethanol powered car from GM

[KenWittlief]

I was under the impression all you had to do to run a conventional car on ethanol was to re-jet the carberator (if it had a carb, making the jets about 15% larger)

I would think with a fuel injected engine it would be a trivial tweak to the engine control SW, or even a switch on the dashboard

so I am sitting here wondering, what exactly makes this an 'ethanol powered car' ?

I remember reading about people running cars and tractors on pure ethanol in The Mother Earth News (magazine) back in the '70s

[Schnabel]

Ethanol is not really that great if you think about it. My dad told me that consumer reports did a test with it and found out that it is actually cheaper to buy gas (more miles to the gallon). Also, if you were to take all of the kernels of corn in the U.S. it would only supply about 16% of the demand per year. Now how useful is ethanol in reality? I think I'm going to stick to the petroleum for now!

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Schnabel

... if you were to take all of the kernels of corn in the U.S. it would only supply about 16% of the demand per year...

well, yeah, but you are talking about 16% of billions and billions of dollars per year that are presently going to other countries, that could stay here.

and I believe the pollution from burning ethanol is near zero.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

well, yeah, but you are talking about 16% of billions and billions of dollars per year that are presently going to other countries, that could stay here.

Why should they stay in the U.S. if other countries can produce the product more efficiently? After all, even after transport costs are taken into account, Middle Eastern oil is cheaper to produce than American oil, and much cheaper than anyone's ethanol.

So, would you accept higher prices for fuel, just to keep jobs in America? What does that accomplish, on average? The American worker pays more for transportation, causing a decrease in consumption (i.e. buying things), because of reduced disposable income. On the other hand, employment levels presumably increase due to the need to produce locally. Except that reduced consumption could easily cause reduced production, meaning that jobs may be eliminated. How can you be sure that you're balancing these factors?

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

and I believe the pollution from burning ethanol is near zero.

In some ways, it's better, because of the type and concentration of impurities (e.g. sulfur is typically present in gasoline, but not in ethanol). But in terms of things like CO emissions, it's the same carbon in either fuel; it depends on whether the engine is mechanically capable of sustaining relatively complete combustion, and whether the operating conditions permit it. Any hydrocarbon fuel is burned at the whim of its engine.

Also, at present, infrastructure and transportation costs for ethanol exceed those of gasoline. This has plenty to do with the inability to transport ethanol through pipelines, or store it in tank farms, for fear of accumulating water in the fuel. The current solution is to use trucks to transport the fuel; this is impractical given the volume of fuel needed to serve the North American market.

Brazil, which has been using ethanol for years, has a significant advantage over North America: tropical climate. This allows them to grow sugarcane locally, for conversion to ethanol fuel. They therefore eliminate the transport and storage difficulties. But recall that the price of this convenience is a dependence on slash-and-burn agriculture to sustain many cane plantations—they cause environmental damage by eliminating rainforests, rather than by necessitating more transport trucks.

When you look at the whole picture, the operating energy costs of an ethanol infrastructure are at best insignificantly better than gasoline, and in reality, probably somewhat worse. Improvements in transport and storage technology may eventually bring this around, but for today, especially in the Northern U.S. and Canada, a 6-month growing season is not a practical way to sustain a year-round need for fuel.

[KenWittlief]

So, would you accept higher prices for fuel, just to keep jobs in America? What does that accomplish, on average?...

the billions of dollar per year that we would be putting into our own economy (which is presently going into the pockets of obscenely wealthy kings and families in the middle east) would provide meaningful jobs for thousands of people in this country

and it would also drive the growth of an ethanol based transportation system, resulting in the needed infrastructure being created and built up over the years

the best part is this is a renewable resource. It wont be gone in 50 or 100 years.

people have demonstrated the will to do the right thing regarding our economy and our environment. The hybrid electric cars that are being purchased in large numbers today cost more to drive in the long run than a base-model gasoline car, but people are still willing to pay more for them.

[6600gt]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

and it would also drive the growth of an ethanol based transportation system, resulting in the needed infrastructure being created and built up over the years

the best part is this is a renewable resource. It wont be gone in 50 or 100 years.

How much corn are we willing to grow for fuel while people are starving?

Is ethanol really worth the massive fertilzer run off into our streams and rivers? These are not grown organically folks.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

he billions of dollar per year that we would be putting into our own economy (which is presently going into the pockets of obscenely wealthy kings and families in the middle east) would provide meaningful jobs for thousands of people in this country

One hummer probably offsets the gain of multiple ethanol and hybrid vehicles. Until people stop buy bigger and bigger vehicles every year, a couple of hybrids or E85 vehicles here and there, aren't going to make a dent in the Middle East economy.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

the billions of dollar per year that we would be putting into our own economy (which is presently going into the pockets of obscenely wealthy kings and families in the middle east) would provide meaningful jobs for thousands of people in this country

and it would also drive the growth of an ethanol based transportation system, resulting in the needed infrastructure being created and built up over the years

the best part is this is a renewable resource. It wont be gone in 50 or 100 years.

What sort of infrastructure? Trucks? They need a breakthrough in large-scale storage and transport, before this is reasonable in anywhere but the U.S. Midwest.

And realistically, no matter who's running the hydrocarbon fuel show, the profits get absorbed by those in positions of power. It's not just sheikhs; Americans, Europeans, and eastern Asians all have their own homegrown oil magnates. If you don't like the profit sharing, simply transferring responsibility to the domestic arms of Exxon or Texaco (or maybe Monsanto, if corn-based fuel becomes popular) won't solve the problem.

And while I certainly can't make a definitive prediction based on such a small set of evidence, remember that even if thousands of jobs are created in America, if higher fuel costs make disposable income decrease, the standard of living might well follow. Even a small (percentage) decrease, because it's due to something as ubiquitous as automotive fuel, will have significant effects on GDP. So one can only hope that the increased consumption due to slightly lower unemployment will mitigate this.

Originally Posted by Ken Wittlief

people have demonstrated the will to do the right thing regarding our economy and our environment.

Consistently? I doubt that. The "right thing" for the economy depends greatly on your views on such things; it's a complex enough system that it's difficult to prove any particular economic strategy is the correct one. Effectively, that means that damned near anything can be justified as the "right thing". Environmentally, people are willing to do token things, like buy organic foods, once in a while—but on average, there's not much evidence for people doing the "right thing" on a consistent basis. The lifestyle that we all enjoy simply doesn't lend itself to very environmentally responsible choices. Demand that people drive more efficient cars? They complain about their liberty. Ask them nicely? They don't do it. You have to trick them with hybrids (and the associated mystique—like "atomic" in the 50s) to get them to embrace efficiency—until they realize that current hybrid technology can't pay for itself in gas savings, not even with $1.20/L gas.

[KenWittlief]

My wifes best friend recently purchased the Toyota Hybrid (the Prius?)

she is the head nurse at a hospital, and her husband is an industrial engineer. Nobody tricked them into buying the car, they understood the long term cost vs the money they would save on fuel

and they had to take what they could get from the dealer when they could get it, at the list price, because the car had a 3 month back order.

[AudieMurphy]

Think I read that they can now take cellulose ethanol from just about anything that grows. If I remember the article right, the speculation was that it would be switchgrass and not corn that would fuel our cars if we made a move to ethanol because switchgrass can be grown almost anywhere and harvested multiple times per year giving a much greater energy yield per acre.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

My wifes best friend recently purchased the Toyota Hybrid (the Prius?)

she is the head nurse at a hospital, and her husband is an industrial engineer. Nobody tricked them into buying the car, they understood the long term cost vs the money they would save on fuel

and they had to take what they could get from the dealer when they could get it, at the list price, because the car had a 3 month back order.

Let's say you drive 15 000 km per year, and you have a choice between a 45 MPG Prius and a 30 MPG Corolla sedan or wagon (similarly-sized cars). At $0.95/L, you save $372.42 per year*. Now, if you keep the car for seven years, that's $2 606.96. Does the Prius cost more than that much above and beyond a Corolla? And that doesn't even take into account the interest you could earn on that money, if it were in hand and invested over that timeframe. And it doesn't count the cost of service for a Prius (which has many expensive components due to its low volume) versus that of a Corolla (which is ubiquitous).

Of course, there are some comparisons that can be made, that do save money—between buying something like a Dodge Magnum and a Toyota Prius, for example. These are comparably-priced cars. Or if you really do drive 45 000 km per year, the Prius can save some money.

The trouble is, people see "hybrid", and think that they're automatically doing something fantastic by buying it. It has to be right for the use that you put it to; current hybrids are not a solution for everybody, so long as cost is a factor.

*U.S. gallons, Canadian dollars, and gas is currently around $0.78/L.

[KenWittlief]

last time I worked out the math it was cheaper to buy a base model Saturn Ion (5 speed) that got 38 to 42mpg than to buy a hybrid electric car (several thousand dollars more) that got 55 to 65mpg, if you planned to drive the car 120k miles

this has been all over the news this summer. It only takes a few minutes to run the calculations if you know the specs and prices of two cars, and the price of gas. Hybrid electric cars do cost you more than a base model economy car to own and drive.

People know that, and there is still a back log of orders for hybrid electric cars- which is what I was trying to point out - people are buying them for other reasons than to save money.

I know of at least one hyrbid owner whos son is a Marine in Iraq. Maybe its their way to take a step towards breaking the strangle hold the middle east has on our transportation system.

If I could buy a one passenger electric car that could hit 45mph, with a 30 mile range, for $7 or $8k, I would, for the sole purpose of driving to work, 15 miles each way. I could design a car myself in a few days that would meet my requirements, but it would be very expensive for me to build one in my garage.

The problem is the economy of scale. For a new car company, or a new car line to be viable you have to build hundreds of thousands, or millions of cars a year, to compete against the gas models that are presently available. That requires a huge startup investment (probably $1B or more).

So far no one has stepped up to the plate to do it.

[MattB703]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

.....
If I could buy a one passenger electric car that could hit 45mph, with a 30 mile range, for $7 or $8k, I would, for the sole purpose of driving to work, 15 miles each way. .....

A Honda Spree? (I know it is not electric, but it probably uses less energy than the electric company would use to power your electric car)

[Conor Ryan]

My opinion on alternate fuel cars:

• Have you seen Who Killed the Electric Car? ?
• Why aren't there any fully electric cars produced by the Big Automakers?
  • Yes there is a market for electric cars
• Why isn't there a car that runs on thought?

[JaneYoung]

Why isn't there a car that runs on thought?

just to name a few:
- going in circles
- hitting a blank wall
- losing my train of thought, keyword - train -

other than that I think my mind could power/drive a car very well.

[Schnabel]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

well, yeah, but you are talking about 16% of billions and billions of dollars per year that are presently going to other countries, that could stay here.

and I believe the pollution from burning ethanol is near zero.

Yeah, but then we would have to import all of our corn to eat, then we would end up getting more of a cost per can of corn at your local grocery store.

"Hey mom, can we get some corn?"
"No, it is too expensive"
"But it's on sale for $4.50 a can."