Don't buy your hybrid car yet

[msnln]

I think ethanol is a big ruse by Bush administration to get people to think something is being done about rising oil prices. First of all, most cars can only take 10-15% ethanol concentration with gasoline. As for E85, have you seen list of cars that can take E85? Of some 200-300 car models available in US, there are only dozen or so E85 cars out there and most are large trucks or SUVs. For these reasons, market for ethanol at this time is very limited.

I have been told cars on the road can be modified to accept larger concentration of Ethanol but ethanol is corrosive to rubber so I would not modify my cars to accomodate and then find out down the road that engine is falling apart due to crumbling rubber parts.

Most viable method, thus seems to be hybrid, esepcially plug in hybrid.

[pyotr]

cptacek wrote:

I was saying that the amount of farmland would not be increased by growing corn for ethanol. There is a set amount of farmland out there, and you can't make any more of it. The cities are squeezing out the farmers as it is, and so that is what the "golf courses and city sprawl" comment was about.

There is plenty of land to create into more farmlands (Enormous empty territories in the deep South, midWest, then there are the national parks and forests, the vast majority of Canadian lands for instance). You could always raze cities to create more farmlands and create underground cities to compensate for land shortage also; this could be considered of course if the world were to turn to ethanol-based fuels. By increasing use of ethanol-fuels, I don't see why urban/suburban sprawl would slow down; if anything it could accelerate with farming of new lands and the new towns/cities that could follow. I see no obvious connection between increased use of ethanol-fuels and the slow down of sprawl. In the end, I'm totally on board with the notion that ethanol is much better than petroleum - my point is that electric is even easier/less complicated/and cheaper in the long run. Lithium Batteries last decades and can ultimately be recycled so I wouldn't assume these are going into landfills either. The problem is there is no "Electric vehicle Lobby" in DC as there are farm lobbies and oil lobbies.

VJW wrote:

No it doesn’t. This was already explained in this thread “Hybrid vehicles isn't the answer....”, POST #18. In addition, since then I’ve discovered that the wholesale price of ethanol is $.90/GAL and the wholesale price of regular gasoline is more than $2.00/GAL.

According to the USDA you have to take into account the variable and capitol costs, of which starting new ethanol plants would add $3/gallon and expanding capacity on existing ones would be $1/gallon. The operating costs of the ethanol plants alone would be $0.90/gallon, so you're ending up with about $5/gallon right there at wholesale before any mark-ups. I suspect you got your data from the final cost to the consumer after subtracting out the tax-subsidized portion. No matter how you slice it up, the costs of ethanol-fuels is currently exorbitant. This may improve with technology and hopefully so, but this will take over a decade.

Regarding your impolitic rebuttal ("no it doesn't"), my answer to you is "yes it does." You can claim bias on either side of the issue, but the fact is the farm lobby in this country is about as powerful as the oil lobby - both are totally despicable money pits and ecological disasters. I hope you are familiar with the most hated anti-gasohol study to date, if not here is the abstract:

authors:
(1) David Pimentel, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 14853
(2) Tad W. Patzek, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California, 94720

Abstract: Energy outputs from ethanol produced using corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass were each less than the respective fossil energy inputs. The same was true for producing biodiesel using soybeans and sunflower, however, the energy cost for producing soybean biodiesel was only slightly negative compared with ethanol production. Findings in terms of energy outputs compared with the energy inputs were: • Ethanol production using corn grain required 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Ethanol production using switchgrass required 50% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Ethanol production using wood biomass required 57% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Biodiesel production using soybean required 27% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced (Note, the energy yield from soy oil per hectare is far lower than the ethanol yield from corn). • Biodiesel production using sunflower required 118% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. Accepted 30 January 2005

[Crystallas]

Originally Posted by msnln

I think ethanol is a big ruse by Bush administration to get people to think something is being done about rising oil prices.

PLEASE. Dont give Bush any credit for something that was happening with or without any of his concern.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by cptacek

I was saying that the amount of farmland would not be increased by growing corn for ethanol. There is a set amount of farmland out there, and you can't make any more of it.

But we’re currently paying farmers to NOT grow crops now.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by msnln

I think ethanol is a big ruse by Bush administration to get people to think something is being done about rising oil prices.

No, like Big Oil, the Bushies are not interested in ethanol. Every so-called “alternative energy” program they have advocated is 20 to 30 years away. It’s a fraud. The Bushies benefit from dig & burn.

As for E85, have you seen list of cars that can take E85? Of some 200-300 car models available in US, there are only dozen or so E85 cars out there and most are large trucks or SUVs.

There are at least two dozen, with more coming along every day:

FFVs

There are already more than 5 million flex-fuel vehicles currently on the road today, and between GM and FORD, they will be adding an additional 600,000 just during 2006.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by pyotr

According to the USDA you have to take into account the variable and capitol costs, of which starting new ethanol plants would add $3/gallon and expanding capacity on existing ones would be $1/gallon. The operating costs of the ethanol plants alone would be $0.90/gallon, so you're ending up with about $5/gallon right there at wholesale before any mark-ups.

No. The CURRENT wholesale price of ethanol is $.90/GAL. That means if you owned a gas station, you could buy gasoline for over $2.00/GAL and ethanol for $.90/GAL. Today.

Regarding your impolitic rebuttal ("no it doesn't")

But that wasn’t my “rebuttal”. I provided a link to another thread, which had the links to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy, which have stipulated that for every one unit of energy used to produce ethanol and its accompanying co-products, 1.67 units of energy results. Whereas, for every unit of energy expended in gasoline production, only 0.79 units of energy results in the form of gasoline.

I hope you are familiar with the most hated anti-gasohol study to date, if not here is the abstract:

Quite. If you check, It’s been widely debunked. But it hasn’t stopped Big Oil from still peddling that meme.

#

[pyotr]

VJ wrote:

provided a link to another thread, which had the links to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy, which have stipulated that for every one unit of energy used to produce ethanol and its accompanying co-products, 1.67 units of energy results.

Your links are to 5+ year-old and 7+ year-old studies and references which don't apply anymore. Since then people like the good professors at Cornell and California have published newer data (last year). The people trying to "debunk" their studies are people with monetary incentives to do so like the corn/farm lobby and manufacturers of ethanol plants. I hereby debunk the debunkers.

Your wholesale price of ethanol ($0.90) is wrong as I've already explained clearly. Give me another bid or show us the evidence (show me the money).

[msnln]

VJW, if you read the link you gave closely, most models precede with "Selected" and I only count three models that are fully compatible with E85. I don't buy that there are 5 million flexfuel vehicles on the road but even if that number is correct, that only represent about 2.5% of cars in the US (204 million cars in the US). The promises of ethanol reminds me of 1999-2000 when dotcoms were going to be the solution to all businesses.

[msnln]

Toyota seems to be banking on the hybrid technology but are also coming up with flexfuel vehicle for Brazil next year that will run on 100% ethanol.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061300213.html

[Crystallas]

Originally Posted by msnln

Toyota seems to be banking on the hybrid technology but are also coming up with flexfuel vehicle for Brazil next year that will run on 100% ethanol.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061300213.html

Thats the national standard in Brazil. Otherwise they are SOL.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by pyotr

Your links are to 5+ year-old and 7+ year-old studies and references which don't apply anymore.

But they’ve been born out in reality in the private sector.

I hereby debunk the debunkers.

But you haven’t.

Your wholesale price of ethanol ($0.90) is wrong as I've already explained clearly.

A)It’s not MY “wholesale price of ethanol”

B) It’s not “wrong”, as that’s the quoted price.

C) Your so-called explanation is nonsense.

Give me another bid or show us the evidence

Sure.

From a report in the ‘Farm Bureau News’ of about a year ago, when the wholesale price of ethanol was even slightly cheaper:

“By any standard, ethanol is a bargain. Yet, you have to wonder why ethanol is so hard to find at the pump in some regions, especially when wholesale ethanol prices are $1.20 per gallon, compared to $1.70 for wholesale gasoline. When the federal ethanol tax credit of 52 cents is factored in, wholesale ethanol prices drop to about 70 cents per gallon. That’s nearly $1 less than the wholesale price of gasoline.”

FBN

The ball is in your court.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by msnln

VJW, if you read the link you gave closely, most models precede with "Selected"

That merely refers to the model having a particular engine.

and I only count three models that are fully compatible with E85.

I count two dozen.

I don't buy that there are 5 million flexfuel vehicles on the road...

Then how many are there ?

but even if that number is correct, that only represent about 2.5% of cars in the US (204 million cars in the US).

You’re not comprehending the big picture. We only import 25% of our oil from the Middle-East. So shifting even 5% of our vehicles over to an alternative fuel would have an impact, and 10% or more would have a large impact.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Crystallas

Thats the national standard in Brazil. Otherwise they are SOL.

That’s why it worked. The government MANDATED that every gas station have at least one ethanol pump, and MANDATED that every auto manufacturer offer flex-fuel vehicles in their car lines, or they could not sell vehicles in the country. Then the market driven consumers chose the cheaper alternative, leading to more than 70% of the vehicles being sold in Brazil being Flex-fuel, and the nation being free from imported oil by the end of this year.

“Voluntary” does not work with multi-national corporations.

#

[pyotr]

But they’ve been born out in reality in the private sector.

Show us one example where it's been "born" out in the private sector V.

But you haven’t.

But I have

A)It’s not MY “wholesale price of ethanol”. B) It’s not “wrong”, as that’s the quoted price. C) Your so-called explanation is nonsense.

A) it is your wholesale price - you've not provided any links or evidence that it's anybody else's researched or derived number - you pulled it out of your butt.
B) It is therefore "wrong" see A above
C)Your so-called explanation is therefore "nonsense."

From a report in the ‘Farm Bureau News’ of about a year ago, when the wholesale price of ethanol was even slightly cheaper:

- see my discussion above referring to biased opinions. Do you not see the connection between farmers and the corn/ethanol lobby? If I send you links to the oil industry's opinions on the ethanol fuels - do you think you'll take it seriously? Why do you then think anyone would take the "Farm Bureau News" opinions seriously in this debate?
I recommend you go the library and look up the article about ethanol-fuels in the Economist from last month. That's a liberal British mag with no financial ties to either side, thus a more than balanced view on the matter.

The ball is in your court.

{pyotr swoops in for a statue-of-liberty left-handed slam dunk}

[VJW]

Originally Posted by pyotr

But I have

Apparently only in your mind.

it is your wholesale price

No, it's THE "wholesale price".

you've not provided any links or evidence that it's anybody else's researched or derived number - you pulled it out of your butt.

I provided you with TWO links. I merely chose the first few from a simple Google search.

see my discussion above referring to biased opinions. Do you not see the connection between farmers and the corn/ethanol lobby?

What does that have to do with the wholesale price of ethanol ?

How about a quote from a RightWing front group ? Would that be more comfortable for you ?

"At present the wholesale price of ethanol is 30 to 40 cents per gallon cheaper than wholesale regular unleaded gasoline. When the federal ethanol tax credit is factored in, ethanol becomes nearly $1 per gallon cheaper than the wholesale price of regular unleaded gasoline."

National Center for Policy Analysis

{pyotr swoops in for a statue-of-liberty left-handed slam dunk}

Sorry, but the Ref just flagged you for traveling.

#

[pyotr]

Apparently only in your mind.

"your" meaning the gathered masses watching V's flailing argumentativeness.

No, it's THE "wholesale price".

1) the price of commodities like corn and ethanol and petroleum fluctuates daily, so what's the point of your childish insistence on a random single wholesale number from 7 years ago?
2) the wholesale price of petroleum from 7 years ago is less than $1.00, so doesn't that blow the living $h!t out of your argument?
3) consumers don't pay wholesale price anyway so why is this point the lynchpin for the ethanol argument?

I merely chose the first few from a simple Google search.

I'm glad you're putting forth such an effort

"At present the wholesale price of ethanol is 30 to 40 cents per gallon cheaper than wholesale regular unleaded gasoline. When the federal ethanol tax credit is factored in, ethanol becomes nearly $1 per gallon cheaper than the wholesale price of regular unleaded gasoline."

- you forgot to mention that this is just a viewpoint written on that website BY A FARMER (BUSTED!). Also from your own link!: "The economic impact of ethanol subsidies is negative. One report by the U.S. Agriculture department determined that every $1 spent subsidizing ethanol costs consumers more than $4." You're digging your own grave V!

Sorry, but the Ref just flagged you for traveling.

{ref recalls his errant whistle. Meanwhile, pyotr steals the ball and swoops in again this time for a tomahawk slam through the net - the ball skids violently off VW's face.}

[VJW]

Believe in whatever alternative reality you like.

I had spoken with the manager of a regional fuel distribution depot, who quoted me the price of $.90/GAL for wholesale ethanol and more than $2.00/GAL for wholesale gasoline, which have both been substantiated in the markets.

Your ignorance is too tiring for me.

#

[pyotr]

Sometimes truth can be tiring to the feebleminded - please take a nap. I'll wake you when another exciting topic pops up.

[Crystallas]

Too bad Ego powered cars dont exit yet, some posters here would make for a great LeMans driver.