Ethanol: News and Discussion Thread
04-27-2006, 08:28 PM
#1
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Ethanol: News and Discussion Thread
Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts - - BusinessWeek Online - - Thursday April 27, 8:08 am ET - - By Ed Wallace - - Source: yahoo.com
During the comment period for the RFG (reformulated gas) program, supporters of ethanol had argued that the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards in the program -- 42 U. S. C. 7545 (k) (3) (B) (i) -- would preclude the use of ethanol in RFG because adding ethanol to gasoline increases its volatility and raises VOC emissions, especially in the summertime.
ADVERTISEMENT
Background
The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket #94-1502 (Heard by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and decided on April 28, 1995))
If there were ever a time when the truth in advertising standards should be put back into place, it's now -- during the current (third) attempt to convince the public that the massive use of corn-derived ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. Ultimately, the answer to just one question determines ethanol's actual usefulness as a gasoline extender: "If the government hadn't mandated this product, would it survive in a free market?" Doubtful -- but the misinformation superhighway has been rerouted to convince the public its energy salvation is at hand.
Act I, Scenes 1 and 2
The use of ethanol to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is nothing new. We also considered it during our nation's Project Independence in 1974, the year after the first Arab oil embargo. After the second energy crisis in 1979, an income tax credit of 40 cents per gallon of 190-proof ethanol produced was instituted as an incentive for refiners of ethanol to blend this product into gasoline.
Because this federal largesse now existed, within five years, 163 ethanol plants had been built -- but only 74 of them were still in operation. As gasoline availability opened up in the 1980s and gas prices went down, many ethanol plants simply went out of business.
Shortly thereafter, in yet another attempt to broaden the product's usage, Congress enacted a law that allowed car manufacturers to take excess mileage credits on any vehicle they built that was capable of burning an 85% blend of ethanol, better known as E85. General Motors (NYSE:GM - News) took advantage of the credits, building relatively large volumes of the Suburban as a certified E85 vehicle. Although in real life that generation of the Suburban got less than 15 mpg, the credits it earned GM against its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) ratings meant that on paper, the Suburban delivered more than 29 mpg.
Other manufacturers also built E85-capable vehicles -- one such car was the Ford (NYSE:F - News) Taurus. Congress may have intended simply to create a market for this particular fuel by having these vehicles available for sale. But what the excess mileage credits actually did was save Detroit millions each year in penalties it would have owed for not meeting the CAFE regulations' mileage standards.
Act II, Scenes 1 and 2
In the mid-'90s the Clean Air Act of 1990 kicked in, mandating that a reformulated gasoline be sold in the nation's smoggiest cities. So the Clinton Administration again tried to create an ethanol industry in America, by having the Environmental Protection Agency mandate that fully 30% of the oxygenates to be used in gasoline under that program come from a renewable source. But members of the American Petroleum Institute had already geared up for the production of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), their oxygenate of choice. The ensuing lawsuit was argued before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on February 16, 1995.
The EPA took the position that it had been given a mandate to find ways to conserve the nation's fossil-fuel reserves, so it needed a renewable fuel -- and ethanol neatly fit that bill. But there were problems with that argument, not least of which was the fact that the judges could find no charter or mandate from Congress that gave the EPA the statutory right to do anything about fossil fuel, reserves or otherwise.
Even more damaging, the EPA's own attorney admitted to the judges that because of its higher volatility, putting ethanol into the nation's fuel supply would likely increase smog where it was used. One of the judges, on hearing that the EPA was actively promoting a substance that could in fact diminish air quality, wondered aloud, "Is the EPA in outer space?"
The final decision favored the American Petroleum Institute. The judges agreed that the EPA was bound by law only to promote items that would improve air quality -- not to reverse the nation's advances in smog reduction. That decision was apparently forgotten with record speed. In the summer of 2000, ethanol as an additive was mandated for the upper Midwest, including the city of Chicago and parts of the state of Wisconsin.
Act II, Scenes 3 and 4
After Asian economies had collapsed in the late '90s, the price of oil had fallen to as low as $10 a barrel. Gasoline was selling in many parts of the U.S. for as little as 99 cents a gallon. But by 2000, the per-barrel price had risen to $32, and gas was averaging $1.55 a gallon nationally. As they are today, the nation's drivers were incensed by the rising prices of gasoline and oil. And then reformulated gasoline made with ethanol hit Chicago and points north. Gas prices there suddenly soared over $2.00, with a few stations selling their product for as much as $2.54 per gallon.
At some stations in southeast Wisconsin, where reformulated gasoline wasn't required and gas cost considerably less, pumps ran dry in the panic, as savvy consumers topped off their tanks. Citing the Lundberg Survey, the Associated Press on June 12, 2000, stated, "Dealers in the Midwest, where many cities use a reformulated gas blended with the corn derivative ethanol, are paying a premium at wholesale."
Just a few months later, Brazil -- which had worked toward energy independence since the mid-'70s oil crisis and had already mandated that the percentage of ethanol in its fuel be raised to 24% -- was forced to import ethanol refined by the Archer Daniels Midland Co. (NYSE:ADM - News) when the nation's sugar-cane crop suffered a devastating drought. Brazil understood that a year of poor crops was just as damaging to its national fuel supply as Iran taking its oil off-market would be to the rest of the world.
Then came the third act in this ethanol play -- and possibly the most misleading and disingenuous PR campaign ever.
Act III: Cue the Fact-Checker
It started with Congress, which mandated that even more ethanol be used to extend the nation's fuel supply. From General Motors, an ad campaign called "Live Green, Go Yellow" gave America the impression that by purchasing GM vehicles capable of using E85 ethanol, we could help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
What GM left out of its ads was that the use of this fuel would likely increase the amount of smog during the summer months (as the EPA's own attorneys had admitted in 1995) -- and that using E85 in GM products would lower their fuel efficiency by as much as 25%. (USA Today recently reported that the Energy Dept. estimated the drop in mileage at 40%.)
But one final setup for the public has gone unnoticed. At the Web site, www.fueleconomy.gov, which confirms the 25% to 30% drop in mileage resulting from the use of this blended fuel, another feature lets users calculate and compare annual fuel costs using regular gasoline to costs using E85.
But the government site's automatic calculations are based on E85 selling for 37 cents per gallon less than regular gasoline, when the USA Today article reports that at many stations in the Midwest E85 is actually selling for 13 cents per gallon more than ordinary gas. Using the corrected prices for both gasoline and E85, the annual cost of fueling GM's Suburban goes from $2,709 to $3,763. Hence the suggestion that truth in advertising should come back into play. Possibly GM could rename this ad campaign "Shell Out Green, Turn Yellow."
Epilogue: Get this Wasteful Show Off the Road
The other negative aspect of this inefficient fuel is that numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste.
Furthermore, no one has even considered the severe disruption in the nation's fuel distribution that mandating a move into ethanol would cause. Over the past month, gas stations from Dallas to Philadelphia and parts of Massachusetts have had their tanks run dry due to a lack of ethanol to blend. The newswires have been filled with stories bemoaning the shortage of trucks, drivers, railcars, and barges to ship the product. Ethanol can't be blended at refineries and pumped through the nation's gasoline pipelines.
The recent price spikes for gasoline have forcibly reminded the people of Chicago and Wisconsin of what happened when ethanol was forced on them during the summer of 2000. Moreover, the promise of energy independence that Brazil has explored through ethanol is widely misunderstood. Recently a Brazilian official, commenting on our third and most recent attempted conversion to ethanol, said that when Brazil tried using agricultural crops for ethanol, it achieved only a 1:1.20 energy conversion rate, too low to be worth the effort.
Final Bow?
On the other hand, ethanol from sugar cane delivered 1:8 energy conversion, which met the national mandate. Unfortunately for us, sugar cane isn't a viable crop in the climate of our nation's heartland. But the part of Brazil's quest for energy independence that the media usually overlooks is that ethanol wasn't the only fuel source the country was working on: Its other, more important, thrust was to find more oil. To that end, last week Brazil's P50 offshore oil platform was turned on. Its anticipated daily output is high enough to make Brazil totally oil independent.
More smog, infinitely worse gas mileage, huge problems in distribution, and skyrocketing prices for gasoline. Maybe now that we're witnessing the third act in America's ethanol play, the upcoming epilogue will close this show forever. Even great advertising works only if the product does.
ADVERTISEMENT
Background
The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket #94-1502 (Heard by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and decided on April 28, 1995))
If there were ever a time when the truth in advertising standards should be put back into place, it's now -- during the current (third) attempt to convince the public that the massive use of corn-derived ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. Ultimately, the answer to just one question determines ethanol's actual usefulness as a gasoline extender: "If the government hadn't mandated this product, would it survive in a free market?" Doubtful -- but the misinformation superhighway has been rerouted to convince the public its energy salvation is at hand.
Act I, Scenes 1 and 2
The use of ethanol to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is nothing new. We also considered it during our nation's Project Independence in 1974, the year after the first Arab oil embargo. After the second energy crisis in 1979, an income tax credit of 40 cents per gallon of 190-proof ethanol produced was instituted as an incentive for refiners of ethanol to blend this product into gasoline.
Because this federal largesse now existed, within five years, 163 ethanol plants had been built -- but only 74 of them were still in operation. As gasoline availability opened up in the 1980s and gas prices went down, many ethanol plants simply went out of business.
Shortly thereafter, in yet another attempt to broaden the product's usage, Congress enacted a law that allowed car manufacturers to take excess mileage credits on any vehicle they built that was capable of burning an 85% blend of ethanol, better known as E85. General Motors (NYSE:GM - News) took advantage of the credits, building relatively large volumes of the Suburban as a certified E85 vehicle. Although in real life that generation of the Suburban got less than 15 mpg, the credits it earned GM against its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) ratings meant that on paper, the Suburban delivered more than 29 mpg.
Other manufacturers also built E85-capable vehicles -- one such car was the Ford (NYSE:F - News) Taurus. Congress may have intended simply to create a market for this particular fuel by having these vehicles available for sale. But what the excess mileage credits actually did was save Detroit millions each year in penalties it would have owed for not meeting the CAFE regulations' mileage standards.
Act II, Scenes 1 and 2
In the mid-'90s the Clean Air Act of 1990 kicked in, mandating that a reformulated gasoline be sold in the nation's smoggiest cities. So the Clinton Administration again tried to create an ethanol industry in America, by having the Environmental Protection Agency mandate that fully 30% of the oxygenates to be used in gasoline under that program come from a renewable source. But members of the American Petroleum Institute had already geared up for the production of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), their oxygenate of choice. The ensuing lawsuit was argued before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on February 16, 1995.
The EPA took the position that it had been given a mandate to find ways to conserve the nation's fossil-fuel reserves, so it needed a renewable fuel -- and ethanol neatly fit that bill. But there were problems with that argument, not least of which was the fact that the judges could find no charter or mandate from Congress that gave the EPA the statutory right to do anything about fossil fuel, reserves or otherwise.
Even more damaging, the EPA's own attorney admitted to the judges that because of its higher volatility, putting ethanol into the nation's fuel supply would likely increase smog where it was used. One of the judges, on hearing that the EPA was actively promoting a substance that could in fact diminish air quality, wondered aloud, "Is the EPA in outer space?"
The final decision favored the American Petroleum Institute. The judges agreed that the EPA was bound by law only to promote items that would improve air quality -- not to reverse the nation's advances in smog reduction. That decision was apparently forgotten with record speed. In the summer of 2000, ethanol as an additive was mandated for the upper Midwest, including the city of Chicago and parts of the state of Wisconsin.
Act II, Scenes 3 and 4
After Asian economies had collapsed in the late '90s, the price of oil had fallen to as low as $10 a barrel. Gasoline was selling in many parts of the U.S. for as little as 99 cents a gallon. But by 2000, the per-barrel price had risen to $32, and gas was averaging $1.55 a gallon nationally. As they are today, the nation's drivers were incensed by the rising prices of gasoline and oil. And then reformulated gasoline made with ethanol hit Chicago and points north. Gas prices there suddenly soared over $2.00, with a few stations selling their product for as much as $2.54 per gallon.
At some stations in southeast Wisconsin, where reformulated gasoline wasn't required and gas cost considerably less, pumps ran dry in the panic, as savvy consumers topped off their tanks. Citing the Lundberg Survey, the Associated Press on June 12, 2000, stated, "Dealers in the Midwest, where many cities use a reformulated gas blended with the corn derivative ethanol, are paying a premium at wholesale."
Just a few months later, Brazil -- which had worked toward energy independence since the mid-'70s oil crisis and had already mandated that the percentage of ethanol in its fuel be raised to 24% -- was forced to import ethanol refined by the Archer Daniels Midland Co. (NYSE:ADM - News) when the nation's sugar-cane crop suffered a devastating drought. Brazil understood that a year of poor crops was just as damaging to its national fuel supply as Iran taking its oil off-market would be to the rest of the world.
Then came the third act in this ethanol play -- and possibly the most misleading and disingenuous PR campaign ever.
Act III: Cue the Fact-Checker
It started with Congress, which mandated that even more ethanol be used to extend the nation's fuel supply. From General Motors, an ad campaign called "Live Green, Go Yellow" gave America the impression that by purchasing GM vehicles capable of using E85 ethanol, we could help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
What GM left out of its ads was that the use of this fuel would likely increase the amount of smog during the summer months (as the EPA's own attorneys had admitted in 1995) -- and that using E85 in GM products would lower their fuel efficiency by as much as 25%. (USA Today recently reported that the Energy Dept. estimated the drop in mileage at 40%.)
But one final setup for the public has gone unnoticed. At the Web site, www.fueleconomy.gov, which confirms the 25% to 30% drop in mileage resulting from the use of this blended fuel, another feature lets users calculate and compare annual fuel costs using regular gasoline to costs using E85.
But the government site's automatic calculations are based on E85 selling for 37 cents per gallon less than regular gasoline, when the USA Today article reports that at many stations in the Midwest E85 is actually selling for 13 cents per gallon more than ordinary gas. Using the corrected prices for both gasoline and E85, the annual cost of fueling GM's Suburban goes from $2,709 to $3,763. Hence the suggestion that truth in advertising should come back into play. Possibly GM could rename this ad campaign "Shell Out Green, Turn Yellow."
Epilogue: Get this Wasteful Show Off the Road
The other negative aspect of this inefficient fuel is that numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste.
Furthermore, no one has even considered the severe disruption in the nation's fuel distribution that mandating a move into ethanol would cause. Over the past month, gas stations from Dallas to Philadelphia and parts of Massachusetts have had their tanks run dry due to a lack of ethanol to blend. The newswires have been filled with stories bemoaning the shortage of trucks, drivers, railcars, and barges to ship the product. Ethanol can't be blended at refineries and pumped through the nation's gasoline pipelines.
The recent price spikes for gasoline have forcibly reminded the people of Chicago and Wisconsin of what happened when ethanol was forced on them during the summer of 2000. Moreover, the promise of energy independence that Brazil has explored through ethanol is widely misunderstood. Recently a Brazilian official, commenting on our third and most recent attempted conversion to ethanol, said that when Brazil tried using agricultural crops for ethanol, it achieved only a 1:1.20 energy conversion rate, too low to be worth the effort.
Final Bow?
On the other hand, ethanol from sugar cane delivered 1:8 energy conversion, which met the national mandate. Unfortunately for us, sugar cane isn't a viable crop in the climate of our nation's heartland. But the part of Brazil's quest for energy independence that the media usually overlooks is that ethanol wasn't the only fuel source the country was working on: Its other, more important, thrust was to find more oil. To that end, last week Brazil's P50 offshore oil platform was turned on. Its anticipated daily output is high enough to make Brazil totally oil independent.
More smog, infinitely worse gas mileage, huge problems in distribution, and skyrocketing prices for gasoline. Maybe now that we're witnessing the third act in America's ethanol play, the upcoming epilogue will close this show forever. Even great advertising works only if the product does.
04-27-2006, 08:33 PM
#3
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
If this article is not sponsored by the gas companies or similar interests and is true, I am very pesimistic on ethanol, which a huge blow to my optimism about energy independence during the next 20 years for our country. This really blows! We have got to get to work to find other ways to power cars.
04-27-2006, 08:42 PM
#4
Race Director
I still can't believe people are not educated about this and bunk this idiocy - ethanol from corn is a net energy waster - never mind the higher cost or worse pollution and handling difficulties.
ADM must be loving this - how come they aren't being hauled up to congress to justify their price gouging?
ADM must be loving this - how come they aren't being hauled up to congress to justify their price gouging?
04-27-2006, 08:58 PM
#5
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if it wasn't true, I think technology along the lines of fuel cells is the real answer, not ethanol. Sure it would take the dependency off foreign supply, but prices would still be fluctuating based on factors like crop production etc, pollutants would still be produced etc just like gas. Just be another headache in the works, something people could manipulate for the highest level of cash rewards.
04-27-2006, 10:54 PM
#6
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gavriil
If this article is not sponsored by the gas companies or similar interests and is true, I am very pesimistic on ethanol, which a huge blow to my optimism about energy independence during the next 20 years for our country. This really blows! We have got to get to work to find other ways to power cars.
04-27-2006, 10:59 PM
#7
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by Maximized
Ethanol isn't the answer. I do like that the Bush Admin is raising CAFE requirements. It will cause manufacturers to implement the available technology to increase economy. The technology is out there, but implemeneting it means decrease profit margins for auto manufactures.
Trending Topics
04-27-2006, 11:09 PM
#8
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SpeedyV6
Why raise the CAFE standards. If I want to drive a car that gets only 10 mpg and am willing to pay what it costs to fuel my car why should the government get in the way?
04-28-2006, 12:03 AM
#9
The sizzle in the Steak
Fuel Cells are the answer, not ethanol, not hybrids.
04-28-2006, 06:51 AM
#11
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Python2121
someone should be proactive.
sorry, pal...not in this country. Proactive decisions and policies are made based more on politics than anything else nowadays, so most cause more headaches and lack effectiveness.
sorry for being cynical.
04-28-2006, 08:51 AM
#12
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Age: 43
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the problems with ethanol are not present with soy biodiesel. Unlike ethanol, bio-diesel requires less energy to create than it releases when combusted. Also, there is no substantial fuel efficiency penalty. Emissions are clean too (no sulfur). And the best part is that you can run biodiesel in most regular diesel engines with little or no modification.
I met a guy that has run biodiesel in his golf TDI for like 3 years, averaged 45 MPG, and paid less than the price of pump diesel due to tax incentives.
The downsides are all related to the increased solvency of biodiesel compared to dino diesel, and gelling at low temperatures. These problems are relatively insignificant compared to the problems with ethanol, and are easily overcome.
Biodiesel is here, and actually commercially viable for producers and distributers (if only due to tax incentives right now). If honda brought over the diesel Euro Accord (TSX), we could have a car that got 60+ MPG while meeting SULEV standards running biodiesel, without the hazards of batteries that hybrid systems entail. IMHO, biodiesel is the solution to 'hold us over' until fuel cells are ready for primetime; hybrids are only a nice test bed for new technologies that will be needed for viable fuel cell cars.
I met a guy that has run biodiesel in his golf TDI for like 3 years, averaged 45 MPG, and paid less than the price of pump diesel due to tax incentives.
The downsides are all related to the increased solvency of biodiesel compared to dino diesel, and gelling at low temperatures. These problems are relatively insignificant compared to the problems with ethanol, and are easily overcome.
Biodiesel is here, and actually commercially viable for producers and distributers (if only due to tax incentives right now). If honda brought over the diesel Euro Accord (TSX), we could have a car that got 60+ MPG while meeting SULEV standards running biodiesel, without the hazards of batteries that hybrid systems entail. IMHO, biodiesel is the solution to 'hold us over' until fuel cells are ready for primetime; hybrids are only a nice test bed for new technologies that will be needed for viable fuel cell cars.
04-28-2006, 09:16 AM
#13
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by SpeedyV6
Why raise the CAFE standards. If I want to drive a car that gets only 10 mpg and am willing to pay what it costs to fuel my car why should the government get in the way?
04-28-2006, 09:17 AM
#14
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Maximized
Simple, to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. If you can afford the vehicle that gets 10 mpg, you can also afford the guzzler tax. Again, we have the technology to increase fuel economy of internal combustion engines right now.
04-28-2006, 09:18 AM
#15
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Moog-Type-S
Fuel Cells are the answer, not ethanol, not hybrids.
How are fuel cells the answer when we cant make them even move a freaking car right now? Are fuel cells the answer today and for the next 5 years? I think the answer is absolutely no.
04-28-2006, 10:22 AM
#17
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no other answer to an immediate reduction of gas prices than conservation.
Any talk of alternative fuel sources (even bad ones such as ethanol) or renewable energy is years away and will have no relief whatsoever today.
The retardedness that our Congress is displaying would be appalling if hadn't been a trend for a while now.
It's simple. Gas prices too high? Stop using it. Got to make that commute? Get something fuel efficient. But you want to roll in your big truck? Then you pay.
Any talk of alternative fuel sources (even bad ones such as ethanol) or renewable energy is years away and will have no relief whatsoever today.
The retardedness that our Congress is displaying would be appalling if hadn't been a trend for a while now.
It's simple. Gas prices too high? Stop using it. Got to make that commute? Get something fuel efficient. But you want to roll in your big truck? Then you pay.
04-28-2006, 11:15 AM
#18
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gavriil
What is that tech exactly?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech_engine_more.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech_...sion.shtml#amt
All of those technologies lead to nearly a 46% increase in fuel economy. I am sure that in the real world it wouldn't be that high, but 25-30% is feasible. That means that the 21 avg. mpg vehicle used in that study could acheive roughly 26-27 mpg avg. Also, most SUVs/Trucks don't have 6 speed Autos. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the 07 Escalade and Explorer. Until recently most used 4 speed autos with a high rear end ratio. A 6 speed auto lets you have good low end performance and 2 low overdrive gears. That's why the 400hp C6 gets great gas mileage. In 6th on the highway it's chugging along under 2K rpms. Better yet, how about developing a mass market DSG. It's a manual based transmission which suffers less drivetrain loss. Another selling point for DSGs: More power to the wheels.
Also, consider that the above technologies INCREASE performance. So we can have our cake and eat it too. Manufacturers right now will not increase these technologies fast enough without gov't intervention. That's why increasing CAFE standards is long overdue.
04-28-2006, 11:16 AM
#19
Race Director
Originally Posted by TSX Hokie
Biodiesel is here, and actually commercially viable for producers and distributers (if only due to tax incentives right now). If honda brought over the diesel Euro Accord (TSX), we could have a car that got 60+ MPG while meeting SULEV standards running biodiesel, without the hazards of batteries that hybrid systems entail. IMHO, biodiesel is the solution to 'hold us over' until fuel cells are ready for primetime; hybrids are only a nice test bed for new technologies that will be needed for viable fuel cell cars.
Much better answer than ethanol.
04-28-2006, 11:23 AM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by gavriil
How are fuel cells the answer when we cant make them even move a freaking car right now? Are fuel cells the answer today and for the next 5 years? I think the answer is absolutely no.
The "problem" with fuel cells apart from the technical obstacles is getting the infrastructure set up. Wasn't Arnold S. supposed to set up Hydrogen refueling stations with the idea that if the government set up the infrastrucutre, the car manufacturers would build the vehicles.
I'm also liking TSX Hokie's idea with the biodiesel. Sounds like a doable alternative, especially if you can run it on existing diesels with little or not modification.
04-28-2006, 11:34 AM
#21
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vishnus11
Ever heard of the Honda FCX...
The "problem" with fuel cells apart from the technical obstacles is getting the infrastructure set up. Wasn't Arnold S. supposed to set up Hydrogen refueling stations with the idea that if the government set up the infrastrucutre, the car manufacturers would build the vehicles.
I'm also liking TSX Hokie's idea with the biodiesel. Sounds like a doable alternative, especially if you can run it on existing diesels with little or not modification.
The "problem" with fuel cells apart from the technical obstacles is getting the infrastructure set up. Wasn't Arnold S. supposed to set up Hydrogen refueling stations with the idea that if the government set up the infrastrucutre, the car manufacturers would build the vehicles.
I'm also liking TSX Hokie's idea with the biodiesel. Sounds like a doable alternative, especially if you can run it on existing diesels with little or not modification.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/sc...hydrogen.cars/
04-28-2006, 12:01 PM
#22
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by Maximized
BMW already produced a production ready Hydrogen car:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/sc...hydrogen.cars/
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/sc...hydrogen.cars/
Gavril was saying (or at least implying) that fuel cell powered vehicle's don't exist....but they do.
04-28-2006, 12:12 PM
#23
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vishnus11
and....?
Gavril was saying (or at least implying) that fuel cell powered vehicle's don't exist....but they do.
Gavril was saying (or at least implying) that fuel cell powered vehicle's don't exist....but they do.
04-28-2006, 12:15 PM
#24
The sizzle in the Steak
Originally Posted by gavriil
How are fuel cells the answer when we cant make them even move a freaking car right now? Are fuel cells the answer today and for the next 5 years? I think the answer is absolutely no.
Honda to Begin Producing Next Generation FCX Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle
Production Car Will Closely Resemble the FCX Concept Vehicle making its North American Debut at the North American International Auto Show
DETROIT, U.S.A., January 8, 2006 – Signaling a rapid advancement in its fuel cell vehicle technology, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., announced that it will begin production in Japan of its next generation FCX hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicle (FCV) in three to four years. The FCX Concept vehicle, unveiled just four months ago and now on display at the North American International Auto Show, boasts a fuel cell system that delivers more power in less space, in a unique, low-floor fuel cell platform. The premium fuel cell sedan offers the ultimate in clean-running performance, and represents Honda's vision of future mobility in which vehicles are less dependent on fossil fuels and produce no significant emissions. Honda's FCX Concept defines a new stage in the evolution of fuel cell vehicle technology. The FCX Concept is designed with a low center of gravity and a full-sized cabin, offering the kind of driving pleasure and roomy interior previously unimaginable in a fuel cell vehicle. The FCX Concept is designed with a short front end to make the most of its unique low-floor platform, creating a comfortably large cabin. A tapered cabin profile and accentuated fender flare create an attractively dynamic look. The FCX Concept is an FCX that delivers style and excitement.
Honda FCX Concept
Using an innovative approach, the new, high-efficiency, compact V Flow fuel cell platform makes possible the lowest-floor platform in an FCV ever. Oxygen and hydrogen flow from the top to the bottom of the fuel cell stack (vertical gas flow) and the fuel cells are arranged vertically in the center tunnel (vertebral layout) for new, high-efficiency fuel cell packaging (volume efficiency).
Compact enough to fit neatly into the center tunnel but robust enough to put out 100kW of power, Honda's V Flow fuel cell stack offers space efficiency and high-energy output. The key to fuel cell performance is water management; Honda's new system takes full advantage of gravity to efficiently discharge water formed during electricity generation. This improves performance in sub-zero temperatures, further solving the problem of cold-weather startup that has been a key obstacle to the commercialization of FCV's. Now, with the V Flow fuel cell stack Honda has achieved ultra-low-temperature start-up performance on par with that of a gasoline engine. The FCX Concept drive train features three energy-efficient motors- one 80kW in the front and a 25kW space-efficient motor in each rear wheel, leaving ample room for a spacious cabin.
One barrier to FCV commercialization has been the need for high-capacity yet lightweight and compact hydrogen storage. Honda has now developed a new approach to expanding storage capacity, a newly developed hydrogen absorption material in the tank doubles capacity to 5 kg of hydrogen at 5000 PSI, extending cruising range to 350 miles, equivalent to that of a gasoline-engine car.
Approaching the vehicle, the driver is recognized by vehicle sensors and intelligent cameras unlocking the doors. The driving unit also automatically sets the steering wheel, accelerator pedal, and instrument panel to the optimal position for the driver. The instrument panel tilts up and down 45 degrees in response to vehicle speed to give either a sense of security or a relaxed feel. A system installed in the instrument panel senses the driver's line of sight shifting toward menu icons, and operates switches accordingly, allowing the driver hands-free operation of audio, AC and other systems.
As part of its effort to ensure the viability of a hydrogen-based society, Honda is developing the Home Energy Station, a comprehensive system designed to meet residential energy needs by supplying electricity and heat in addition to hydrogen fuel for vehicles. Generating hydrogen from natural gas supplied for residential use, the Home Energy Station system also offers consumers the convenience of refueling hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles at home. The system is equipped with fuel cells that generate and supply electricity to the home, and is configured to recover the heat produced during power generation for domestic water heating. In addition to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by some 40 percent, the Home Energy Station system is expected to lower the total running cost of household electricity, gas and vehicle fuel by 50 percent.
Production Car Will Closely Resemble the FCX Concept Vehicle making its North American Debut at the North American International Auto Show
DETROIT, U.S.A., January 8, 2006 – Signaling a rapid advancement in its fuel cell vehicle technology, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., announced that it will begin production in Japan of its next generation FCX hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicle (FCV) in three to four years. The FCX Concept vehicle, unveiled just four months ago and now on display at the North American International Auto Show, boasts a fuel cell system that delivers more power in less space, in a unique, low-floor fuel cell platform. The premium fuel cell sedan offers the ultimate in clean-running performance, and represents Honda's vision of future mobility in which vehicles are less dependent on fossil fuels and produce no significant emissions. Honda's FCX Concept defines a new stage in the evolution of fuel cell vehicle technology. The FCX Concept is designed with a low center of gravity and a full-sized cabin, offering the kind of driving pleasure and roomy interior previously unimaginable in a fuel cell vehicle. The FCX Concept is designed with a short front end to make the most of its unique low-floor platform, creating a comfortably large cabin. A tapered cabin profile and accentuated fender flare create an attractively dynamic look. The FCX Concept is an FCX that delivers style and excitement.
Honda FCX Concept
Using an innovative approach, the new, high-efficiency, compact V Flow fuel cell platform makes possible the lowest-floor platform in an FCV ever. Oxygen and hydrogen flow from the top to the bottom of the fuel cell stack (vertical gas flow) and the fuel cells are arranged vertically in the center tunnel (vertebral layout) for new, high-efficiency fuel cell packaging (volume efficiency).
Compact enough to fit neatly into the center tunnel but robust enough to put out 100kW of power, Honda's V Flow fuel cell stack offers space efficiency and high-energy output. The key to fuel cell performance is water management; Honda's new system takes full advantage of gravity to efficiently discharge water formed during electricity generation. This improves performance in sub-zero temperatures, further solving the problem of cold-weather startup that has been a key obstacle to the commercialization of FCV's. Now, with the V Flow fuel cell stack Honda has achieved ultra-low-temperature start-up performance on par with that of a gasoline engine. The FCX Concept drive train features three energy-efficient motors- one 80kW in the front and a 25kW space-efficient motor in each rear wheel, leaving ample room for a spacious cabin.
One barrier to FCV commercialization has been the need for high-capacity yet lightweight and compact hydrogen storage. Honda has now developed a new approach to expanding storage capacity, a newly developed hydrogen absorption material in the tank doubles capacity to 5 kg of hydrogen at 5000 PSI, extending cruising range to 350 miles, equivalent to that of a gasoline-engine car.
Approaching the vehicle, the driver is recognized by vehicle sensors and intelligent cameras unlocking the doors. The driving unit also automatically sets the steering wheel, accelerator pedal, and instrument panel to the optimal position for the driver. The instrument panel tilts up and down 45 degrees in response to vehicle speed to give either a sense of security or a relaxed feel. A system installed in the instrument panel senses the driver's line of sight shifting toward menu icons, and operates switches accordingly, allowing the driver hands-free operation of audio, AC and other systems.
As part of its effort to ensure the viability of a hydrogen-based society, Honda is developing the Home Energy Station, a comprehensive system designed to meet residential energy needs by supplying electricity and heat in addition to hydrogen fuel for vehicles. Generating hydrogen from natural gas supplied for residential use, the Home Energy Station system also offers consumers the convenience of refueling hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles at home. The system is equipped with fuel cells that generate and supply electricity to the home, and is configured to recover the heat produced during power generation for domestic water heating. In addition to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by some 40 percent, the Home Energy Station system is expected to lower the total running cost of household electricity, gas and vehicle fuel by 50 percent.
04-28-2006, 12:15 PM
#25
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Maximized
The infastructure will take many years to build and the technology is costly.
so until all the misinformed and/or uneducated anti-nuclear people put down their picket signs, FOSSIL FUELS REWL!
04-28-2006, 12:30 PM
#26
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
and dont' forget where and how this hydrogen is ultimately produced...BY FOSSIL FUELS!
so until all the misinformed and/or uneducated anti-nuclear people put down their picket signs, FOSSIL FUELS REWL!
so until all the misinformed and/or uneducated anti-nuclear people put down their picket signs, FOSSIL FUELS REWL!
04-28-2006, 12:43 PM
#27
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Maximized
You can produce hydrogen using a bunch of differfent sources. Nuclear is one of them. I don't understand why the public is so defty afraid of Nuclear power. It's very safe, but gets a bad rap because of ignorance.
IGNORANCE REWLS!
04-28-2006, 12:48 PM
#28
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
It's easier to believe what you see and hear on a made-for-TV movie about a runaway train carrying nuclear waste than it is to actually do any kind of factual reading or research into nuclear power.
IGNORANCE REWLS!
IGNORANCE REWLS!
04-28-2006, 01:05 PM
#29
Senior Moderator
1Problem with hydrogen is the amount of energy it takes to produce is far more than the amount of energy you get. 2We are a long way away from cheap and feasable fuel cell cars that are mass produced. 3Ethanol sucks. 4 No real way to curb priced with teh growing demand over seas for oil going up a such a large rate. Conservation (better mileage cars) and drilling our own (being less dependant on foreign oil) is what its going to take.
04-28-2006, 03:10 PM
#30
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by Maximized
Chernobyl really was the turning point. Human error was to mostly to blame in that case.
But, 
with you and Mr. Deeno: the general public's inherent fear of nuclear power r i d i c u l o u s.
04-28-2006, 03:27 PM
#31
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Maximized
You can produce hydrogen using a bunch of differfent sources. Nuclear is one of them. I don't understand why the public is so defty afraid of Nuclear power. It's very safe, but gets a bad rap because of ignorance.
This Old House had a show last week on the homes of the future with entries from various colleges that showcased clean energies. One team had a electrolyser, which is based off water - renewable resource. A charge is applied to the water to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen using a solar panel. The Hydrogen can then enter the fuel cell to create the energy needed, and then rebonds with oxygen from the air leaving a waste product of heat and water which is recirculated back into the bucket. The energy was stored in rechargable batteries that fed the household needs. Think its practical to say this could be applied to cars. There are other renewable methods availble as simple as using algae.
As far as our gov. research on Hydrogen fuel cells, the majority of research money seems to go towards getting hydrogen from fossil fuels or other non renewable sources. The only positive I can see from this is that having cars that can run on hydrogen would eventually allow for the uses of renewable resources without much change to the car.
04-28-2006, 03:40 PM
#32
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by heyitsme
A charge is applied to the water to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen using a solar panel.
and how is this electrical "charge" created?
Solar power as you mentioned is a good source, but is it "enough"?
I saw an article in forbes about a new kind of solar power, where instead of converting the solar energy directly to power, a bunch of mirrors direct the light towards a common point to heat up a liquid in order to spin a turbine. Supposedly this is much more efficient than straight solar panels.
Last edited by mrdeeno; 04-28-2006 at 03:44 PM.
04-28-2006, 05:30 PM
#34
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
and how is this electrical "charge" created?
Solar power as you mentioned is a good source, but is it "enough"?
I saw an article in forbes about a new kind of solar power, where instead of converting the solar energy directly to power, a bunch of mirrors direct the light towards a common point to heat up a liquid in order to spin a turbine. Supposedly this is much more efficient than straight solar panels.
Solar power as you mentioned is a good source, but is it "enough"?
I saw an article in forbes about a new kind of solar power, where instead of converting the solar energy directly to power, a bunch of mirrors direct the light towards a common point to heat up a liquid in order to spin a turbine. Supposedly this is much more efficient than straight solar panels.
Last edited by heyitsme; 04-28-2006 at 05:32 PM.
04-28-2006, 09:26 PM
#35
The hair says it all
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Age: 37
Posts: 7,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say we just use hydrogen and use nuclear to power it.
Instead of keeping the waste around, we shoot it someplace...and not just into nowhere, someplace thats already fucked...like Jupiter. The problem with fossil fuels is that the waste just goes....everywhere. At least with nuclear the waste is completely under our control.
Instead of keeping the waste around, we shoot it someplace...and not just into nowhere, someplace thats already fucked...like Jupiter. The problem with fossil fuels is that the waste just goes....everywhere. At least with nuclear the waste is completely under our control.
Last edited by Python2121; 04-28-2006 at 09:29 PM.
04-28-2006, 09:46 PM
#36
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Maximized
Here:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech_engine_more.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech_...sion.shtml#amt
All of those technologies lead to nearly a 46% increase in fuel economy. I am sure that in the real world it wouldn't be that high, but 25-30% is feasible. That means that the 21 avg. mpg vehicle used in that study could acheive roughly 26-27 mpg avg. Also, most SUVs/Trucks don't have 6 speed Autos. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the 07 Escalade and Explorer. Until recently most used 4 speed autos with a high rear end ratio. A 6 speed auto lets you have good low end performance and 2 low overdrive gears. That's why the 400hp C6 gets great gas mileage. In 6th on the highway it's chugging along under 2K rpms. Better yet, how about developing a mass market DSG. It's a manual based transmission which suffers less drivetrain loss. Another selling point for DSGs: More power to the wheels.
Also, consider that the above technologies INCREASE performance. So we can have our cake and eat it too. Manufacturers right now will not increase these technologies fast enough without gov't intervention. That's why increasing CAFE standards is long overdue.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech_engine_more.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech_...sion.shtml#amt
All of those technologies lead to nearly a 46% increase in fuel economy. I am sure that in the real world it wouldn't be that high, but 25-30% is feasible. That means that the 21 avg. mpg vehicle used in that study could acheive roughly 26-27 mpg avg. Also, most SUVs/Trucks don't have 6 speed Autos. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the 07 Escalade and Explorer. Until recently most used 4 speed autos with a high rear end ratio. A 6 speed auto lets you have good low end performance and 2 low overdrive gears. That's why the 400hp C6 gets great gas mileage. In 6th on the highway it's chugging along under 2K rpms. Better yet, how about developing a mass market DSG. It's a manual based transmission which suffers less drivetrain loss. Another selling point for DSGs: More power to the wheels.
Also, consider that the above technologies INCREASE performance. So we can have our cake and eat it too. Manufacturers right now will not increase these technologies fast enough without gov't intervention. That's why increasing CAFE standards is long overdue.
04-28-2006, 09:47 PM
#37
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by vishnus11
Ever heard of the Honda FCX...
The "problem" with fuel cells apart from the technical obstacles is getting the infrastructure set up. Wasn't Arnold S. supposed to set up Hydrogen refueling stations with the idea that if the government set up the infrastrucutre, the car manufacturers would build the vehicles.
I'm also liking TSX Hokie's idea with the biodiesel. Sounds like a doable alternative, especially if you can run it on existing diesels with little or not modification.
The "problem" with fuel cells apart from the technical obstacles is getting the infrastructure set up. Wasn't Arnold S. supposed to set up Hydrogen refueling stations with the idea that if the government set up the infrastrucutre, the car manufacturers would build the vehicles.
I'm also liking TSX Hokie's idea with the biodiesel. Sounds like a doable alternative, especially if you can run it on existing diesels with little or not modification.
04-28-2006, 09:53 PM
#38
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by vishnus11
and....?
Gavril was saying (or at least implying) that fuel cell powered vehicle's don't exist....but they do.
Gavril was saying (or at least implying) that fuel cell powered vehicle's don't exist....but they do.
I am looking at the FCX and I see a hydrogen/fuel-cell hybrid which still makes 80HP and has a range of 170 miles. That's nowhere near market ready.
Market ready is get me 300HP at 50mpg and a range of 350 miles at today's prices. Now we're talking and ready to buy. Even in such a case you have to wait for the market to absorb the cars in several years. Even if the tech was ready now, it'd take 7 years before we saw something happen to the oil consumption demand.
04-28-2006, 09:57 PM
#39
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Moog-Type-S
Honda begs to differ with you.
Ah this is the new FCX, I was reading abou the previous one. But still, the number still dont look good enough.
04-28-2006, 11:25 PM
#40
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by heyitsme
The solar panel was just what they used, sure for a car, batteries could be used to get the cycle started and then the fuel cells could then be used to power the cycle after that point etc.
I'm not arguing about the use of fuel cells which is totally legit...it's that the fuel cells need electricity to be "charged". And this electricity needs to come from somewhere.
I don't consider hydrogen fuel cells really a "fuel". Fossil fuels are burned and release energy which is used to drive a car, so it is an actual "fuel".
Hydrogen cells, OTOH, are just a storage method for energy that was produced somewhere else. In most cases, this energy started as fossil fuels that were burned to produce electricity, which was used to charge the fuel cells. So basically, the energy started life off from fossil fuels and through several stages, the energy is eventually stored as hydrogen.
The energy being stored by hydrogen fuel cells can come from other cleaner sources, such as solar or wind power, but more R&D needs to be done to create more efficient and reliable solar/wind power before it can be used on a mass scale to energize hydrogen fuel cells.
I think nuclear power would be the most viable short-term source of power to charge hydrogen fuel cells, but then there are political implications involved with nuclear power. Every problem and obstacle to advancement seems to boil down to politics for some reason.
POLITIKS REWL!