Originally posted by: vaylon
As for GM'S e85 plan, it will be about as popular as the ev1. Just a big waste of money.
I am always suspicious of the american big three when they start to taught something.
Besides ethanol cost more to produce than they sell it for. And it has almost no beneficial impacts as compared to gas or diesel.
More green propaganda and marketing than anything.
And they still didn't give me my shirt.
Ethanol: Myths and Realities: Ten questions -- and answers -- about the fuel that's supposed to save the economy
Since it costs no more to produce a flexfuel vehicle than a standard one, I say go for it. Let the market (consumer) sort out whether or not it's competitive with gas from a cost/ value perspective . They sell it alongside gas in Brazil. People buy according to whichever is a better value at the time.
Like anything else new, the technology (and efficiency) of ethanol will improve the more it's used.
Two other points:
1) (cut from the linked article above)
"
Doesn't producing ethanol on a large scale use a great deal of energy?
Yes. Some ethanol skeptics have even argued that the process involved in growing grain and then transforming it into ethanol requires more energy from fossil fuels than ethanol generates. In other words, they say the whole movement is a farce.
There's no absolute consensus in the scientific community, but that argument is losing strength. Michael Wang, a scientist at the Energy Dept.-funded Argonne National Laboratory for Transportation Research, says "The energy used for each unit of ethanol produced has been reduced by about half [since 1980]." Now, Wang says, the delivery of 1 million British thermal units [BTUs] of ethanol uses 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels. [That does not include the solar energy -- the sun shining -- used in growing corn.] By contrast, he finds that the delivery of 1 million BTUs of gasoline requires 1.23 million BTU of fossil fuels. "
-----------------------------------------
2) We damm well better start doing something NOW to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol sure seems like a good place to start. Although it likely won't be the whole solution (like it has proved to be in Brazil), the technology is already in place w.r.t. both production and use (again, flexfuel vehicles cost no more than regular ones).
Imho independence from foreign oil should be one of the biggest priorities for the US at this point. Better we invest if resolving the problem now (when gas & oil prices are an inconvenience) than face a crises later on (a lack of sufficient
availability of oil could threaten our oil based economy).
I think US energy independence deserves a national initiative similar to JFKs moon landing initiative in the 1960s. Something like total independence of foreign oil within 8-10 years (looking at all options, not just ethanol). It might cost us short term, but I'll wager it will cost us a lot more down the road if we don't initiate some serious action now.
ps sorry u didn't get your shirt. I think I'm something like 1 for 7 or 8 w.r.t. free t-shirt offers.