More on Fuel Efficiency/Economy, Part 2

I live in the Los Angeles area. In an area with a population of over 14 million people, there is one (1) E85 pump.

Get serious.

The comments in Motorman's post responding to Paul's criticism of GM's lack of effort to improve mileage actually came from me. Can I get some credit here! Oh well, it's good to see people responding to some of these outlandish accusations. Why people who are blindly loyal to Toyota and Honda come here just to vent their hatred of GM is beyond me. In 2007 Toyota launched 3 SUVs that get 13mpg in the city and people come here to lecture GM about being irresponsible in regards to the environment. Maybe people whould fully review the product offerings of GM's competitors before posting.

On the E-85 topic... It is only a few hundred dollars more to make a new car E-85 capable, stainless steel fuel lines, etc. Is a low cost retrofitting of existing fuel pumps also possible? With the potential of producing E-85 from consumer waste (Old tires, etc.) in the near future at a cost effective price, E-85 becomes an excellent alternative...but not if consumers have to modify their habits. Is there data on this?

Dave, isn't it true that E85 and other bio-blends actually depress mpg, making it even more difficult to reach standards? Will you be offering anything domestically like the Trionic engine management system Saab has that senses E85 and retunes the vehicle, rewarding the purchaser or "green" fuel with a measurable hp increase? (25 hp, almost 14%)

Hopefully that will meet Paul’s (your response comment) needs. - Dave

Put a two-mode hybrid in it and we'll talk. Or bring over some of those great diesels they've got in Europe.

Motorman, the flip side of that is that if you have large vehicles that consume a lot of fuel, expensive technologies such as hybrids make more sense. That’s why we started introducing the two-mode hybrid on urban transit buses, and are now offering the two-mode RWD hybrid system on our Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon SUV’s and soon will add the Cadillac Escalade and full-size pickups. - Dave

That's technically true, but the people who care about fuel economy aren't the ones buying SUVs, and the people buying SUVs aren't going to pay $4000 -$6000 more for better fuel economy if they didn't care about it in the first place.

Meanwhile, the imports are bringing over hybrids with great (not good, not "Wow! 30mpg! That's so much!") fuel economy and cementing brand loyalty among peope who pride themselves on being environmentalists.

Perception counts for a lot in the auto market, and two-mode hybrids in gigantic SUVs that still only get 20mpg doesn't make people perceive GM as doing anything differently than before.

On another note, mechanical issues with my current car have forced me to start shopping for a replacement. Balancing fuel economy against my needs and budget, I found that the best car for me was a 2006 Scion xA. It's only rated at 38mpg, but I think my driving style and a couple mechanical improvements could push it to 40mpg.

So sheth should be happy: I bought my import.

If I recall correctly, the original intent of CAFE was to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Our elected officials decided to force vehicle manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles rather than taxing fuel purchased by the customer. Domestic vehicle manufactures struggled to meet the CAFE standards and at one point NHTSA even asked that the CAFE standards be terminated. Our elected official decided to keep the CAFE standards which did nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil, but does make it look like they are addressing this strategic issue. Vehicle customer loved the improved fuel economy and started driving more miles, consuming even more foreign oil than before. In the mean time, non-domestic vehicle manufactures who do not meet the CAFE standard pay the fine which is cheaper than adding the expensive technology, a competitive advantage over domestic manufactures that do not have that choice. This leaves the domestic manufacture playing the CAFE game by producing vehicles with alternative fuel technologies for CAFE credits, even if the fuel is not available (i.e. E85). Between our customer’s demand for large vehicles (larger vehicle consume more fuel than smaller vehicles) and the competitive disadvantage of CAFE, I believe GM is working very hard to balance all these factors for the short-term. More importantly, I believe GM is leading the way to a long-term solution by exploring and developing new technology (i.e. fuel cells) that will reduce dependence on foreign oil.

P.S. I just wish our elected official would focus more on the long-term solution than and not create a bigger competitive advantage for the non-domestic manufactures.

Most ppl have the wrong idea, that is, Jps cars are more fuel efficient, however, that is not true.
I have a Chev Cobalt, which has 2.2L engine and 30% heavier than corolla/civic and still runs 37+ MPG on HWY

Charlie –

I drove my truck to work today. Do you think you can tell from your office how I use my truck when I’m not at work? Do you think everyone must be like you and only engage in personal activities that do not require a larger vehicle? It never ceases to amaze me how insular and myopic people are when evaluating what is right for everyone else.

As for being “unimpressed” with E-85, how can you be “unimpressed” with the only proposal out there that can meaningfully reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil - right now? The amount of foreign oil that we could displace, without any change in consumer behavior, if E-85 were deployed to its potential is staggering – billions of barrels annually, right now. If you engage in any kind of business analysis in your job, you could not fail to see the logic and indeed the imperative of this approach. It’s the classic no-brainer.

But you rightly point out that having vehicles in large numbers that can use E-85 is only part of the equation. We need to step up production and distribution, neither of which is within the car manufacturers’ control or expertise. So why aren’t you pressuring your representatives to get off their duffs and start putting their regulatory muscle behind these initiatives? Why aren’t you raising your voice to the oil companies who have the refineries and the distribution networks, demanding that E-85 be available at every service station? My guess is that you are not really thinking about the problem and realistic solutions; you simply want to justify your purchase of foreign products and regard domestic automakers a convenient scapegoat. Well that story is starting to wear thin on all levels, quality, fuel mileage and any other benchmark you wish to mention.

Domestic companies are trying to find real solutions. E-85 is one of the best for the short-term. Domestic companies are also trying to find real solutions for the kind of vehicles we in America like, want or need to drive, like the 2-mode Hybrid Tahoe. If you can’t recognize that, its not because the Domestics haven’t done their part, its because you simply have a closed mind on the subject.

I really wish you guys would get the Volt in production before my lease is up, but since that's in December I'll have to look elsewhere. Its amazing, the first electric cars were made about 170 years ago ! You'd think we'd be further along in electric car technology. If you don't get the Volt produced soon, I'll have to throw together my own with my old Opel GT, an electric motor, some deep cycle Optima batteries, and a motorcycle engine with a couple of alternators strapped to it :-)

I have mixed feelings about ethanol. While there is clearly a need to improve many aspects of it, such as infrastructure, choices of biomass options that exclude corn, and public perception, as well as what appears to be a speculative farmland bubble which could cripple prices, I also agree that a step in this direction is better than none at all.

But I have to agree to some extent with the comments made by Charlie about product marketing in regards to what people actually need. True- any company that produces a product that is highly desirable such as full size trucks and SUVs would be stupid to not market such models. I commend GM for tackling the problem of large vehicle fuel economy with some rather impressive models that actually get almost as good a fuel economy as my small Toyota Tacoma. But the Devil's advocate in me also begs to wonder if with the right marketing, public perception of want over need can be changed to more 'reasonable' cars and trucks, such as smaller trucks, and fuel efficient cars. Charlie made a good point which even you at GM already know: MOST large trucks sold today are mere people-haulers. Most haul nothing other than groceries and perhaps a 2x4 or two on weekends. I haul way more than that in my small four cylinder truck: firewood, rocks, steel, power equipment, and more. Technically, I "need" a large truck. But the one I have does the job and also gets close to 30MPG.

So the question is if people are so attached to large trucks and SUV's, then perhaps it is worth exploring why they enjoy them. Most assume that it must be the size. But I would wager that some has to do with styling and marketing. Honestly, most small and mid-sized trucks look... dippy. That is with the exception of the new Tacomas which have an aggressive appearance and a 'Manly' marketing campaign.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler have some of the most uninspiring small trucks out there. The Colorado looks outright dinky. On the other hand, your large trucks have a rather powerful, aggressive stance. Perhaps more should be done to improve the outwards appearance and social standing of your smaller models.

Lastly, I disagree with Charlie that GM has not been keeping up in regards to fuel economy. Every GM car I've rented got better fuel economy than any Japanese car I've ever owned, or ridden in. That includes cars with V6 engines.

Dave Lancaster said: "E85 is clearly not the only solution, but using a fuel based on biomass rather than fossil fuel is clearly a step in the right direction from a CO2 standpoint and it reduces our dependency on foreign oil."

Mr Lancaster,

What you say about E85 is true, except for one huge qualifier: E85 is now made almost exclusively with corn ethanol, and unfortunately, corn ethanol is neither a renewable nor sustainable biomass fuel.

America's corn farmers are utterly dependent on synthetic nitrogen fuel made from natural gas. And more and more of that nitrogen fertilizer is imported into the U.S. after being made overseas with foreign natural gas.

Being dependent on foreign natural gas is no better than being dependent on foreign oil.

Take away natural gas, and there would be no nitrogen fertilizer to grow corn; nor would the more than 100 corn-to-ethanol distilleries that depend on natural gas be able to turn that corn into ethanol.

Today's E85 made with corn ethanol is little more than recycled natural gas.

E85 won't be any kind of solution until we can make ethanol without corn.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

What is the big deal on hybrids. Truely they are useless. Hybrids for one are dangerous, that kind of voltage is crazy for anyone. Next, they are heavy. The prius is what, some 3800 pounds? What happened to old fashion thinking? Light weight and small engine equals excellent gas milage. Look back at the Geo Metro. 1.0 liter 3 banger (which by the way will find its way back in the volt, plus a hairdrier), it offered 40 plus mpg and when it was new, it wasnt too hard to knock down 50 mpg. It might not have been the fastest thing in the world, but then again, it wasnt built for that. But now, you cant get a lightweight car because soccer moms have taken over the world and if anything seems remotely unsafe, it has to be taken car of immediately. Air bags, crumple zones, yadda yadda yadda. If they were so worried about being safe, manafactures would install roll cages and require everyone to wear helmets and neck braces. Word to the wise, stop allowing the government to make unrealistic MPG, NOx, and now CO2 emission standards. We keep that up and soon you wont be able to get a car for less than $30,000. (forget that Indian car for 2500, I wouldn't trust it). If there is a true big stink about emissions, go back and make sure all the late 90's to early 2000's cars and truck still have working emissions.(They don't)

Ed, something that tends to get lost or glossed over in teh rush to E85 and biodiesel is that presently the source of the organic component of these fuels comes predominantly from foodstuffs. Diversion of corn and soybeans from food and feedstock to fuel will drive up the cost of feeding your family. Even the cost of a can of corn-syrup enhanced regular Coke will rise as the supply gets tight. We cannot over the long term simply convert acreage from food to fuel. And there is no more land being made. The answer must include using waste products and marginal or idle land. It must not include planting more in former rainforests as that defeats the intent of reducing greenhouse gases.

"Perception counts for a lot in the auto market, and two-mode hybrids in gigantic SUVs that still only get 20mpg doesn't make people perceive GM as doing anything differently than before."

According to you Paul, not the market in general. What you seem to have trouble understanding is that your views are not necessarily representative of the public. The March issues of the car mags have tests of the Tahoe/Yukon hybrid and they are impressed. Most V6 crossovers dont average 20mpg so the fact that the Tahoe does it and accelerates faster than the gas only model is impressive.

BTW, the Scion doesnt get 38mpg by 2008 EPA standards. You should have gotten a Prius.

"Meanwhile, the imports are bringing over hybrids with great (not good, not "Wow! 30mpg! That's so much!") fuel economy and cementing brand loyalty among peope who pride themselves on being environmentalists."

Not true. Honda only has one hybrid. Nissan only has one and its based on Toyota technology. Nissan wont have another hybrid until 2010. By that time GM will have about 10 on the market, if not more. Hyundai has announced no plans for a hybrid yet. By the end of 2008 GM will have more hybrids on the market than Toyota, even though none will get 45mpg. The point of this is to save money and fuel, not simply to achieve bragging rights. You can bash GM all day long (and you will) but 12 months from now we will be able to say GM has committed to hybrids more than any manufacturer other than Toyota. There are only 4 hybrids (pruis, civic, camry, altima) on the market today that average over 30mpg so your assertion that import Hybrids all have top notch mileage is incorrect. Gm just announced the Vue hybrid will have the best mileage of any V6 SUV on the market which means it will exceed that of the Highlander.

While 20mpg Tahoes and Silverados don't look great compared to a Pruis they do look great compred to a 13mpg Toyota truck.

Gary as a owner of natural gas wells i can tell you that there must be a lot of natural gas available as my income from the wells is 1/10 of what it was 20 years ago. The price i receive comes from supply and demand so there must be little demand or there is a lot of supply. I would like a natural gas power car since I have access to free natural gas BUT the gov't has not yet found a way to tax the natural gas used to power your car and till that happens natural gas powered car will be few if any.

Since people are posting that the E-85 project is raising the cost of corn I though this was interesting.

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (CNN) -- Hundreds of thousands of farmers clogged central Mexico City Thursday with their slow-moving tractors, protesting the entry of cheap imported corn from the United States and Canada.

The one real big benifit of e85 is, it makes race fuel real available to us old time hot rodders. After all e85 is 105 octane.

Every new technology has to start somewhere. With E85, at this time it may mostly be made with foodstuff (corn mostly), but as always, with demand comes innovation. I think that by mandating ethanol use, and getting the infrastructure in place, in a few years, ethanol will be made mostly out of cellulose and waste material.
At that time all the people that critized ethanol, may just decide that using garbage and waste product to power our cars (remember back to the future III) is a pretty good idea.

McLovin said: "At that time all the people that criticized ethanol, may just decide that using garbage and waste product to power our cars (remember back to the future III) is a pretty good idea."

McLovin,

There is a distinction:

===========

McLovin said: "...with demand comes innovation."

There is no natural, free-market demand for corn ethanol. What you see as "demand" is wholly artificial and a result of mandates, tax credits, loopholes put into laws because of the efforts of lobbyists and Corn Belt politicians, protective tariffs, and subsidies. (Never forget, one person's subsidy or loophole, is another person's tax.)

An artificially created demand is not actually a "demand."

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

I see that the new Ford Focus has just jumped to 35MPG. I guess if everyone wanted to drive one, the new CAFE regs wouldn't be a problem. My questions are:(1), why aren't all GM engines E85 compatible, and (2) why don't all engines feature direct injection.

McLovin - on target!
Gary Dikkers - can you spell Coskata?

Dave, I'm delightfully surprised; I didn't expect a response.

However, I'm still not sold on your - or anyone's - E-85 efforts. Infrastructure could be built for it by working it into the economy initially as an agricultural equipment fuel (possibly as E-100) when it is available from waste and non-food sources.

And it's burning in engines not optimized for it, as it would burn more efficiently at higher compressions than normal E-0 and E-10 fuels). Agricultural equipment could be optimized for it.

It *is* a lot like recycled natural gas.

Now, I might check out the Astra but does it come to the US with the same high-mpg powertrains that it gets in Europe?

Oooh, ouch... The EPA says 4/6 mpg less than the Corolla. Well, I guess I'll wait to see how it does in the real world. Perhaps it, like our youngest child, doesn't test well but performs great.

Now, you also wrote, "Motorman, the flip side of that is that if you have large vehicles that consume a lot of fuel, expensive technologies such as hybrids make more sense."

Why do you continue to promote the myth that hybrid tech is expensive? Toyota put it into a car - a nice car, albeit small - with a base price in the neighborhood of $22K. They have repeatedly claimed that they do not sell it at a loss and no one has been able to demonstrate that they are lying. Further improvements in cost have been announced. Toyota hybridized the $19K Camry and sell it - in near-XLE trim - for $25K, making the upcharge something like $4K. The Hybrid Highlander is similarly reasonably priced when compared to the base. The Escape Hybrid is not outrageous. Nissan's hybrid is a reasonable upcharge, $5K, and also includes a better trim level.

I look forward to seeing these advances in additional vehicles from GM - but smaller than a Tahoe and prefereably at less than a $10K differential.

Ed, you wrote:

"I drove my truck to work today. Do you think you can tell from your office how I use my truck when I’m not at work?"

Someone far more anal-retentive than I actually crawled around his office parking lot a year or two ago and found that the vast majority of trailer hitches on the big pickups were entirely unscratched.

I know an unscratched bed when I see it.

So, no, I don't know what YOU do with your truck on the weekends but I do have an inkling of what some do (or don't do) with their truck on weekends.

For the matter of that, I kjow multiple-pickup families. More than one? Whatever for?

And I know that, in spite of what must be a healthy fuel bill and a few extra pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere (some of these trucks have plates from a neighboring state), that most arrive with just one person on board.

A key to why this happens might be in your own note: "aggressive styling." Who needs a vehicle that looks "aggressive?" These things are all looking like Freightliners, for crying out loud. And I'm fairly certain people buying them LIKE that intimidating look and size. Which doesn't work on me, anyway, as I commuted in Boston in the past.

Motorman, you wrote about natural gas.... I can assure you the retail price of natural gas has risen (January '73 price was $.54, January '07 price of $5.02 and Dec '07 price of $6.37) I recommend you check and see if your wells are drying up.

If natural gas vehicles aren't catching on, it's because a) it's difficult to store enough compressed gas to get good cruising range, b) it's inconvenient to fill up and c) it's not particularly economical.

Sheth, you wrote:

"What you seem to have trouble understanding is that your views are not necessarily representative of the public. The March issues of the car mags have tests of the Tahoe/Yukon hybrid and they are impressed."

Impressing auto magazines is not terribly significant and has little relation to the perceptions of the buying public. The Aura was the NACOTY last year, wasn't it? How are sales? Something like 10% of the not-NACOTY Camry's sales?

The part of the public that cares about fuel economy isn't going to switch to a Tahoe to get the benefit of mileage that's nowhere near that of the Corolla they offer as a trade. I have my doubts that people who buy a Tahoe are going to pony up an extra $10K to get the hybrid powertrain when they could conserve a lot more fuel - and purchase price - by buying almost anything else.

Face it, Bob Lutz dismissed hybrids as a fad a few years back and the memory of that is going to linger. GM's small cars (the Aveo and the Cobalt) get lackluster fuel economy and people know it. People who care about fuel economy won't appreciate GM until GM has small car offerings that are both enjoyable cars to own and get fuel economy close to the class leaders.

Dave: Any chance that GM will add AFM to the 3500 V6?

An E-85 capable 3500 with AFM should be rated at 18/31 MPG with a 4-speed and 18/32 MPG with 6-speed in an Aura/G6/Malibu/Impala making them the highest MPG V6 Midsize cars on the market.

A BAS Hybrid Malibu with AFM 3500 4-speed would get 20/33 and a CAFÉ friendly 20/35 with 6-speed and using the lower cost 3500 allows GM to include AFM, E-85, BAS and 6-speed Automatic for about 25K in a Malibu 1LT.

Motorman said: "...as a owner of natural gas wells i can tell you that there must be a lot of natural gas available as my income from the wells is 1/10 of what it was 20 years ago."

Motorman,

If the income from your natural gas wells is only one-tenth of what it was 20 years ago something is wrong: Either your wells are about out of gas, or the person who buys your gas is taking advantage of you.

Look at this chart showing the trend of natural gas prices: Natural gas price trends

Adjusted for inflation, the price of natural gas now is about twice what it was 20 years ago, and you'll notice a steep price spike in the last four years.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

Eric said: "Gary Dikkers - can you spell Coskata?"

Eric,

Of course I can spell Coskata. In fact, if you look here The next generation of ethanol you will see that I gave GM a tip of the hat for their investment in Coskata.

I hope the Coskata process pans out. It does sound promising, but right now it is only at the small-scale experimental stage. Whether it will scale up to be workable and profitable at the production level is yet to be decided. I hope that it does.

But that doesn't mean McLovin is "on target." As I told him, and I repeat for your benefit, making ethanol from garbage and waste is good -- making ethanol from corn is not.

Read my lips: Corn ethanol is neither a true renewable nor sustainable bio-fuel.

At every step of production, growing corn and turning it into ethanol consumes unrenewable, irreplaceable fossil fuels. (If corn farmers and ethanol plants could not burn fossil fuels, there would be no corn ethanol.)

Read my lips: Without mandates, tax credits, subsidies, protective tariffs, and loopholes courtesy of Corn Belt politicians, there would be no free market demand for corn ethanol.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

A few questions. Why has the 3.5 been overlooked when it comes to fuel milage? Mom's got a 3.5 in her 06 impala and regulary gets 28-30 mpg, sometimes better. Its fairly responsive, e85 cabable (if she'd take it in), and its in a decent size car that is not a hybrid. Its seems weight to fuel milage needs to be looked at. Sure it can run on all electric (for a short time), but if you have to sacrifice 200 lbs, its not easy to recoup that. Im not sure 2 mpg is worth it (expecially to owners after 100,000 miles). Also, with the trucks, why is the 4.8 and the 4.3 even offered? The 5.3 gets better milage, so why offer less power, less fuel economy? Stop building those motors for the trucks and share the savings with the buyers. And finally, it is true land is not being made (unless you count volcanic activity in Hawaii), but I dont see a shortage of corn as a threat. Im not so sure its even a problem. Plus, its helping the farmers out. If we are so worried about not having the land needed to grow the corn, stop letting city slickers move out into the country and enough with the rual land developments.

I own a Chevrolet Tahoe. I bought it for three reasons - 1) Safety/durability - I drive 60 miles a day to work and back.
2) Passenger seating - I do a lot of things with my family and we pack the Tahoe full.
3) 4-wheel drive capability.
When E-85 is available in my area, I plan to buy a flex-fuel Tahoe.

On the topic of E85..... it's an equation I think we should not pursue too much. I understand our nation's coastline has abundance of oil and for the reason of not wanting to put risk in oil spills on our land, we have foreign oil mining in their land. We need to invest in better quality control and mine oil on our own coastline to really be independent of foreign oil! Our land is the land of plenty and we need to utilize it better.

Brady Turley, the curb weight of a base Prius is 2932 lbs, not anywhere near 3800 lbs.

@Gary Dikkers

It seems you don't like ethanol. Realistically, ethanol may not be the best alternative as it's produced right now. But even the fact that you mention Coskata means that there is new technology already flowing into ethanol production. Also there is apparently a better alternative that's called butanol being produced in Britain.
It has to start somewhere, Gary. We can't move from gasoline to pure electric to Hydrogen without major changes. Ethanol is a good stop gap until drivers are ready for extreme change. And sooner or later, even generating plants are going to need alternative fuels to charge our electric cars. It has to come from somewhere.

Please prove me wrong. I went to the US government's energy information website and crunched some numbers. I found that the best way to look at US oil consumption is to look at crude oil equivalent barrels. This means that every different liquid or natural gas product produced domestically or imported is mathematically converted to barrels of crude. After using the crude oil equivalent barrels I came up with a couple of interesting percentages.

1. 64% of our crude oil equivalent barrels are imported.

2. 45% of our consumed liquid hydrocarbons are gasoline.

What this means is that if we stopped burning gasoline in our cars and trucks the US would still need to import oil and other refined hydrocarbons.

what has happened there were so many natural gas wells drilled they do not need to take as much from our wells. natural gas was as high as $12 MCF in the past year but now is around $6 MCF. we own shallow wells,3500 feet deep and they can be drilled to 7000/8000 feet if the wells stop producing. the last one we cracked produced 1 million 300 thousand CFM so it is good for at least 50 years.

My how fast we forget our mileage improvements. My 02 Olds Intrigue with the 3.5L short-star gets almost 30 MPG highway, thanks to great aerodynamics, hideway wipers, etc. I also had a 1985 firebird that had low friction disc brakes (made the brake pedal push farther)but was definitely a mileage booster. Seems like today we make the car look like a flying brick / wedge (Hummer, CTS, all pickups) If we want to start saving fuel the first (and most economical) way is to reduce friction of all types aerodynamically or otherwise. Basically every moving part in the powertrain, and every exterior surface should be analyzed.

I think that investing more into Clean Diesel Technology has the potential for more savings than the dubios E85 strategy that GM is persuing.

E85 is a good marketing gimmik against the availability of Hybrids by one of their competitors.

I used to own a Golf IV Convertible TDI (110hp, good for 130mph) that I could average 60mpg when driving carefully 40+mpg in don't care mode. So there is technology our there that can save gas big time - today. Sure the good old US doesn't fare well to Diesels right now. However with ever increasing gas prices this will change. In Europe they as well have Bio-Diesel (make that the equivalent to E85 for Diesel).

Others (i.e. VW, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, etc) already preparing to enter this future Diesel market in the US (passengar cars - not trucks). It will be interesting to see how GM will flare with those when they ramp up the market and make those new improved GM vehicles look again like the ancient dinosours (= gas guzzlers).

Sure Clean Diesel doesn't come cheap. But MB is demonstrating that it can be done for about $1000 extra. Prices for the new VW TDI have not been set but expect a similar ($1000) extra in comparison to the 5 cylinder. The excuse of US only emission requirements is bogus as well. Europe tightens their standards just like the US so the same technology will be needed/added to European vehicles as well.

I would love to exchange my Nissan Frontier (the Colorado didn't cut it for me - cheap and small, no towing, ...) for a pickup with a clean Diesel that gets 25-30mpg on the Freeway. If it was a size bigger, fine I could live with that.

A final note on all those calculations regarding fuel price and how it affects the consumer. It's nice on paper to use the average. But there are so many cars that are driven only 3000 miles a year or even less. When Europe started to accept Diesel engines in mass it wasn't the average driver that caused it. It was driven by people driving more miles than average. They are probably about 50% of the market. If I were driving about 3000 miles a year I coulnd't care less if the vehicle used 15mpg or 25mpg. It doesn't make a big financial difference. However I belong to the group that drives far more than average - as such I DO CARE about mpg numbers a lot.

Reiner

McLovin said: "It seems you don't like ethanol. Realistically, ethanol may not be the best alternative as it's produced right now. But even the fact that you mention Coskata means that there is new technology already flowing into ethanol production."

I have nothing agaisnt ethanol per se. My problem is with the adverse side effects that come from our misguided and wrongheaded present reliance on corn-based ethanol.

Corn ethanol is nothing more than political pablum, meant to be a sop to the public, and a way to increase the commodity value of corn for agribusiness.

As I've said before, corn ethanol is neither a truly reneweable nor sustainable fuel. Growing corn and turning it into ethanol is utterly dependent on the consumption of irreplaceable fossil fuels.

Coskata may pan out and be a good thing (I hope so) but it will be at least two years yet until Coskata begins full-scale production -- and then that will be only one plant. (Two if we count Range Fuels in Georgia.)

Unfortunately, our misguided reliance on corn ethanol will continue for the foreseeable future.

Best wishes,

Gary Dikkers

gary, since we payed farmers for years NOT to grow corn what is wrong with paying them to GROW corn ???

I applaud GM for promoting E85 and Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFV). I don't think anyone who's spent a reasonable time researching this (and I've done the research) would agree that grain based ethanol is the answer. Cellulosic ethanol is here now and will supplant grain based ethanol in the next 5 years. What's more, it can be produced for less than a dollar a gallon, from a variety of feedstocks. But just for the sake of discussion, let's say it actually cost more and the at the pump price is the same as gasoline:

Here's a dirty little secret about our oil addiction: The "hidden" costs of a gallon of gasoline are never considered when comparing it with alternatives such as E85. For example, conservative estimates on the cost of escorting tankers out of the middle east and having naval presence in the strait of Hormuz put the annual cost at upwards of $100 Billion (Milton Copulus in testimony before congress put the cost closer to $150 billion). When these costs are added to the price of gas, the "actual" cost for a gallon of gas exceeds $10 per gallon. We are paying this through tax and human treasure, even if the pump price does not reflect it.

The problem with E85 availability is real and more needs to be done to address it. For the government's part, if they were to temporarily repeal the $.51 per gallon "blenders credit" on ethanol, it would go along way towards subsidizing the installation of E85 pumps in every major city. The best idea I've heard is to convert one of the mid grade pumps at each station to E85.

For GM's part, it needs to make a decision to really get serious about E85 and stop using it as a bargaining chip against future CAFE requirements. The current E85 conversion rate of "half the fleet by 2012" is puzzling to me considering that the marginal cost to convert a vehicle to E85 is less than $30. GM should not sell another gasoline only vehicle period.

Once we have substantial numbers of E85 capable vehicles on the road, the pump issue would go away without legislation or subsidy. But we can't wait for legislation. GM, Chrysler and Ford need to act now. Make ALL of your gasoline engines E85 capable and the market will follow.

Imagine if just half the stations in America offered E85. For the first time in the history of mass transit, gasoline would have to compete with alcohol fuels for the consumer's dollars.

If America acts, the world will follow and soon we will have an international standard that is truly capable of breaking our oil addiction. This is within reach today.

Technology will continue to improve our ability to produce cheaper ethanol with less reliance on fossil fuels will improve as well. The key in all of this is choice. We need to have the choice. And Flex fuel vehicles are the key in that equation. Make it happen GM, Ford and Chrysler will have to follow suit. Once that happens, Volkswagon, BMW, and Toyota and Asia will convert to compete. An international standard is within our grasp.

PetroZero said: "Cellulosic ethanol is here now and will supplant grain based ethanol in the next 5 years."

Petro,

Please be so kind as to tell me where there is an operable cellulosic plant producing ethanol profitably at a commercial-scale?

I know of several small-scale cellulosic plants producing ethanol in what might be called "proof of concept," and I know of several commerical-scale plants in the planning stage, but I think you saying "Cellulosic ethanol is here now..." is a bit hyperbolic.

PetroZero said: "I applaud GM for promoting E85 and Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFV)."

I don't share your applause. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but GM's only reason for building and selling Flex-fuel cars is to take advantage of the "E85 loophole" built into the way CAFE is calculated. Without that loophole, GM (and the other carmakers) would have to pay millions in CAFE penalties.

PetroZero said: Imagine if just half the stations in America offered E85. For the first time in the history of mass transit, gasoline would have to compete with alcohol fuels for the consumer's dollars."

First: There will never be enough ethanol produced so that 50% of the fuel stations in this country can offer E85. (If we converted ALL the corn we grow to ethanol, it would equal only 12% of annual motor fuel consumption.) If half the fuel stations in the country had E85 pumps, most of that infrastructure would sit empty for lack of product.

Second: I can easily prove to you that making and burning E85 consumes more energy than burning straight gasoline -- even when stipulating that making corn ethanol has a positive energy return on energy invetsed (EROEI). I've posted that proof on this blog twice before. If you are interested in seeing it, I'd be happy to post it again.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

Gary,
You keep going back to corn based ethanol. You keep skirting the fact that most of the people that support ethanol see the future of cellulosic ethanol. You seem to be the only one that can't get past the corn ethanol thing. You maybe right that is takes more energy to make corn based ethanol, that doesn't mean anything if/when we start making celluloic ethanol. Yes, you are right there are no production scale cellulosic ethanol plants online yet, but you keep saying that there never will be. Who knows, in a couple of years there may be several, and eventually hundreds. And if that happens, GM might as well be ready with FFV's. I know that if mass production of cellulosic E85 happens, and it's made cheaply, and if GM didn't make any FFV's you would be here complaining that GM didn't think far enough ahead when it came to E85. You seem to be the one stuck in the past. What would have happened if Henry Ford said back when he was developing the Modle T that "well we can't make any gasoline powered engines because there are no large scale refiners". He knew that if he made enough gasoline burning cars cheap enough, someone would figure out how to make gasoline easily and cheaply. The same will probably happen with cellulosic ethanol.
Are you sure you aren't that guy back in the 1860's that quit from the US patent office claiming there isn't anything left to invent?

And you say that GM's only reason for building FFV's is to take advantage of the "E85 loophole". That may or may not be true, but do you really think Toyota really made the Prius to be "green"?

Gary,

I'd be interested in that calculation (net negative utility of E-85). Or just point out where you posted it previously and I'll surf over there.

Regards,
Charlie

Tim said: "You keep going back to corn based ethanol."

That's true Tim, and that's because more than 95% of the ethanol we now use comes from corn. And as we all know -- at least as those who are open-minded should know -- corn ethanol is not actually a renewable fuel and that our growing reliance on corn ethanol through subsidies, mandates, and protective tariffs is having unintended (and severe) adverse side effects on our economy and environment.

Tim said: "Yes, you are right there are no production scale cellulosic ethanol plants online yet, but you keep saying that there never will be."

I don't believe I've ever said there will be no cellulosic ethanol. In fact, I am excited about the potential of cellulosic, although we are nowhere yet close to getting our ethanol from a commercially-viable cellulosic process. I'm also excited about the potential of unlimited energy from fusion energy. But unfortunately for us, cellulosic ethanol is a lot like fusion energy -- it's always out there, somewhere in the future. (Let's hope that Coskata and Range Fuels plans to convert waste resources to fuel pans out.)

Tim said: "You keep skirting the fact that most of the people that support ethanol see the future of cellulosic ethanol."

On the contrary, it's not me skirting it, two recent studies say that cellulosic probably doesn't have much of an immediate future:

Cellulosic ethanol: not likely to be viable

Cellulosic ethanol represents a beacon on the horizon -- the justification cited by wiseguys like Vinod Khosla for dropping billions per year in public cash to prop up corn ethanol production. But the beacon is looking more and more like a mirage, a ghost, a specter; the bridge we're hurtling down may well lead to a chasm. A quiet consensus seems to be forming among people you'd think would know the facts on the ground: cellulosic ethanol, touted as five years away from viability for decades now, may never be viable. Last fall, a researcher from the USDA -- an agency that has lavished ethanol with research cash since the '70s -- declared that while cellulosic has "some long-term promise" (some?), we shouldn't expect it to contribute significantly to fuel supplies before 2013.

Study: Cellulosic ethanol a long shot

According to the paper’s principle author Jim Murphy, the most significant finding was that cellulosic ethanol has little chance of becoming a major contributor to the biofuels market. “While there’s high hopes for cellulosic ethanol, it’s going to develop much more slowly than people think,” he said.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

"I'd be interested in that calculation (net negative utility of E-85)."

My pleasure Charlie, here it is:

Using the EPA figures for a flex-fuel 2007 4WD Chevy Tahoe I found the following:

Now imagine taking a hypothetical trip of 210 miles in that flex-fuel Tahoe:

Now ask yourself, "How much energy does burning 14 gallons of E85 consume? Would it be more, less, or the same as the energy in 10 gallons of gasoline?"

The energy consumed making 11.9 gallons of ethanol

The generally accepted value for the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of making corn* ethanol is now about 1.2 to 1. (That means a farmer and ethanol plant get back 1.2 units of energy in the form of ethanol for an investment of 1 unit of energy in the form of fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, and diesel fuel.)

To make that 11.9 gallons of ethanol someone had to invest energy equal to 9.9 gallons of fossil fuels. (11.9 = 9.9 x 1.2).

If a flex-fuel GM Tahoe burned 14 gallons of E85 on that hypothetical trip, it would have actually burned 2.1 gallons of gasoline plus the energy of the 9.9 gallons of fossil fuels needed to make 11.9 gallons of ethanol.

Summary

On that hypothetical trip of 210 miles, a flex-fuel Tahoe would have burned 14 gallons of E85. That is the energy equivalent of 12.0 gallons of fossil fuel. (2.1 gallons of gasoline, plus the energy of the 9.9 gallons of fossil fuels needed to make the ethanol.)

Compare that to the 10 gallons of fossil fuel the same Tahoe would have burned using only gasoline for the same trip of 210 miles.

There is more at: More thoughts on E85

Best,

Gary Dikkers

*I used the EROEI for corn ethanol since the vast majority of our fuel ethanol comes from corn -- and will for several more years.

Gary, here are the facts:

1). You have to be blind or simply have your head buried in the sand not to admit that cellulosic ethanol is inevitable. Your argument is hollow. Range Fuels in Soperton Georgia is set to go online this year at commercial scale to supply cellulosic ethanol from pine tree scrap (wood chips). Coskata will have production in as little as two years. The trajectory is imminent. These plants are modular, repeatable and scalable (Google Vinod Khosla to follow the money).

2). You completely sidestepped the argument that the hidden cost of gasoline greatly exceeds its pump price and even makes corn based ethanol look like a no brainer by comparison.

3. Your statement "There will never be enough ethanol produced so that 50% of the fuel stations in this country can offer E85" is just dead wrong. You assume we will never produce anything but corn based ethanol. Switchgrass, Miscanthus, Municipal Waste, Even cow dung, are all candidate feedstocks for the production of cellulosic ethanol. Google: Coskata, Range Fuels and LS9 for some examples.

4. On the EROEI argument, it has been proven that ethanol Produces 10 times as much Fuel per Petroleum Used as Gasoline. With cellulosic ethanol it increases to a factor of 23 (A.E. Farrell et-al, Science, Vol 311 pp. 506-507, Jan. 27, 2006
)

Gary, In your Tahoe E85 vs Gasoline comparison you've once again slyly distorted the facts and there's a great big flaw in your logic.

In your calculations you completely forgot to take into account the fossil fuels burned to generate the 10 gallons of gas!!! You act as if the energy to produce a gallon of gasoline is negligible. It isn't. Add to that the hidden cost to ensure its safe delivery to the pump (Tanker escorts, battleships patrolling Straits of Hormuz, wars over oil, etc, increased military presence in the Gulf and mideast to name just a few) and the comparitive costs don't even come close to ethanol's impact. When's the last time you saw armed guards around a corn field?

Where to begin?

Petro said: 'You have to be blind or simply have your head buried in the sand not to admit that cellulosic ethanol is inevitable."

Petro,

I've never said cellulosic wasn't inevitable -- or even that cellulosic won't be good if it works. What I said was that you were being hyperbolic when you said, "Cellulosic is here now."

You just admitted Range Fuels won't go on line until later this year, and that it might take Coskata as long as a couple of years. Even you must agree that is hardly "now."

The fact is that for the foreseeable future (at least the next ten years), our primary source of fuel ethanol will be corn with all the baggage and adverse side effects that brings with it.

PetroZero said: "On the EROEI argument, it has been proven that ethanol Produces 10 times as much Fuel per Petroleum Used as Gasoline."

That is completely wrong. If you think that, you are confusing energy return on energy invested (EROEI) and a process efficiency ratio. The Argonne National Lab made that mistake in their notorious study, and unfortunately, people such as you have been repeating it ever since.

In the early days of the oil business when pools of oil were at shallow depths and it came out under its own pressure, the EROEI for gasoline from oil was as high as 100 to 1.

Today, when oil companies have to search harder to find it; drill to deeper depths; pump it out of the ground; and transport it long distances; its EROEI has gone lower, but still is in the range of 5 to 1 or 10 to 1. (The exact EROEI depends mostly on from how deep the oil comes and how difficult it is to refine.)

But at even a low value of 5 to 1, the EROEI of motor fuel from oil is still far better than that of corn ethanol.

It is true that when you put 100 barrels of oil into a refinery, you will get out about 80-85 gallons of fuel. But that is a process efficiency ratio, not its EROEI.

Best,

Gary Dikkers

PetroZero said: "On the EROEI argument, it has been proven that ethanol Produces 10 times as much Fuel per Petroleum Used as Gasoline. With cellulosic ethanol it increases to a factor of 23."

Petro,

Put on your thinking hat.

If the EROEI of either corn or cellulosic ethanol was as high as you contend, why would any corn farmer or ethanol plant ever buy expensive fossil fuels?

If ethanol actually had anywhere near the fantastic EROEI you suggest, a corn farmer or ethanol plant would have to be unusually foolish not to use some of the ethanol they make as their source of energy for making more ethanol -- severing forever their dependence on expensive, nonrenewable fossil fuels.

Yet, they continue to buy and burn fossil fuels. Exactly why would they do that if they can make ethanol at ratios of 10X and 23X as you believe?

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

PetroZero said: "...you've once again slyly distorted the facts and there's a great big flaw in your logic. In your calculations you completely forgot to take into account the fossil fuels burned to generate the 10 gallons of gas!!!"

Petro,

Neither is the case -- there is no distortion (sly or otherwise)and no flaw in logic.

The Tahoe in my example would use 10 gallons of fossil fuels to go 320 miles when burning gasoline, or the equivalent of 12 gallons of fossil fuels when burning E85.

Whatever adjustment coefficient is needed to account for the energy consumed making a fossil fuel applies equally to both since making E85 from corn ethanol* requires the consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels.

Example (For grins let's say the adjustment coefficient is 1.7):

1.7 x 10 gallons of fossil fuels = 17
1.7 x 12 gallons of fossil fuels = 20.4

17 is still less than 20.4 (The advantage remains with gasoline.)

Best,

Gary

---------------------------------------
* This will no doubt change once we stop using corn to make fuel ethanol, but that day isn't even close. Right now there are 134 commercial fuel-ethanol plants operating in the USA. Guess how many of those ethanol plants use corn for their feedstock?