GM America has Second Thoughts on Ethanol

[csv8]

Holden's decision to invest in ethanol has been called into question by the company's parent in the US, with General Motors chief executive officer Dan Akerson claiming it will ''die'', despite the company's history with the renewable fuel.

Holden has spent millions of dollars converting its 3.0-litre V6 and 6.0-litre V8 engines to run on ethanol, as well as brokering a partnership with Caltex to introduce the fuel at service stations throughout the country.

It is also part of a consortium, supported by the Victorian government, that will build a plant to convert household waste into ethanol within the next three years.

Advertisement: Story continues below
But speaking to The Detroit News, Akerson said ethanol was ''going to die slowly'', as other alternative fuels earned greater consumer acceptance.

Holden spokeswoman Emily Perry says Akerson's comments will not affect the local operation's decision to push ahead with ethanol.

''Our commitment to ethanol hasn't changed,'' she says, adding Holden's partnership with Caltex and ethanol producer Coskata also remains unchanged.

The trio have formed a company, Flex Ethanol Australia, to establish the local production facility. Commercial testing of the waste-to-fuel technology has already been done in the US ahead of the start of production in Australia.

Ethanol is also out of favour with General Motors' European brand Opel. It is investing in compressed natural gas (CNG) across its model range instead of ethanol.

''We are serious about [CNG],'' Opel director of technology communications Andrew Marshall says. ''More serious than ethanol.''

Akerson wants General Motors to invest in CNG as well as other emerging technologies, including electric and hybrids.

But he dismisses hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles as too expensive and lacking infrastructure, despite the company's ongoing development of the technology. General Motors is now up to its fourth generation fuel cell but they remain prototypes.

''In the next 10 years, this company has to break the code on advanced propulsion and that's going to be a multifaceted solution,'' Akerson says.

In the short-term, he believes cars that use a small petrol engine to supplement an electric motor - such as the Chevrolet Volt, to go on sale in Australia next year wearing a Holden badge - will become widely accepted.

He says that technology will be ''old, old technology and old news'' within five years.

Perry says Holden is unlikely to consider CNG because of the availability and affordability of LPG in the local market.

''When we look at alternative fuels, we never rule anything out,'' she says.

''But our focus in Australia is ethanol and LPG.''

My Comment "sugar only goes in my coffee,not my car"

[prydey]

Originally Posted by csv8

Akerson said ethanol was ''going to die slowly'', as other alternative fuels earned greater consumer acceptance.

i reckon he's right. also, it would be good if they priced it sensibly as well. often its no cheaper than normal petrol, and you get less mileage out of it. sense, it does not make.

[2011G6E]

Being energy negative (less energy contained in the fuel than it takes to produce it), Ethanol, unless heavily subsidised by taxpayers as it is now, will never be more than a passing oddity.
I wonder how many people would actually buy E10 or E85 if the true cost was being passed on to the consumer? I've already started to notice many petrol stations where E10, formerly between at least 5 and up to 10 cents a liter less, is now only one or two cents less per liter than ordinary unleaded. I heard that the subsidy will be dropped at some time in the future. Should be interesting then...
All that is ignoring too the fact that vast numbers of older (and some not so old) vehicles simply cannot run on the stuff at all, even at a low E10 mixture.

Yes, the oft-quoted example of Brazil has most cars capable of running on E85 and even pure ethanol...but they are hardly a world beating car market selling huge numbers each year. Not to mention an ongoing glut of cheap sugar cane to make it from.

Not to mention you have to ignore the social consequences of pushing for more ethanol production. In Mexico and other poor nations, there are already food shortages because farm land is turned over to growing ethanol source crops like corn instead of using it for silly reasons like feeding thier starving populations...

I also agree with Prydey...no one has ever explained to me how deliberately making your car get worse fuel economy is "good for the environment"...

[SteveJH]

Ethanol does cost more to produce then Petrol. However i'm fairly sure its does not have an excise in Australia (unlike petrol) which makes it similar or cheaper in terms of price for the ethanol component.

The taxation/excise of Ethanol may have changed since I last looked at it though.

[jpd80]

A lot of people in this country are not aware of the reason why GM invested so heavily in Ethanol.
A few years back it was seen by the motor industry and governments as a way of promoting a renewable
fuel but the problem was and still is that without subsidies, the whole thing is still very noncommercial.

The incentive for GM and others was that Flex fuel E85 vehicles earn fuel economy credits under the CAFE system
and this was seen as a way of meeting stricter limits proposed on corporate fuel economy numbers.

Ethanol blending is a good idea but not the way its being proposed, something like E25 would be a far
better balance as the new fuel for vehicles and then allow governments to phase out non-blended fuel.
The lower blend of E25 would still offer substantial octane boost allowing higher compression or
higher boost which in turn allows more down sizing of engines without sacrificing performance.

[aussie muscle]

Brazil used ethanol to save their sugar industry, yet australian farmers haven't really embraced it.

isn't CNG just as limited as crude oil (shorterm supply)?

[CJR09]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

Brazil used ethanol to save their sugar industry, yet australian farmers haven't really embraced it.

isn't CNG just as limited as crude oil (shorterm supply)?

not sure how you could define short term - but some figures:

estimated total global reserves = 5000,000,000,000,000 cubic feet

America currently consumes = 25,000,000 cubic feet/annum

Not sure what the rest of the world uses but that would be enough to last the US 200,000,000 yrs

Obviously if it became more popular use goes up longevity falls


The problem with CNG is the way it is captured is extremely bad for environment ie - fracking

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Ethanol does cost more to produce then Petrol. However i'm fairly sure its does not have an excise in Australia (unlike petrol) which makes it similar or cheaper in terms of price for the ethanol component.

The taxation/excise of Ethanol may have changed since I last looked at it though.

Not yet. The government is proposing to introduce excise on all alternative fuels (Ethanol, biodiesel, LPG) via the Taxation of Alternative Fuels Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Here is some information on it

http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentit...ContentID=1944

I notice this 'consultation period' was kept very quiet, I didn't even know they had one.

[StrokedXT]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Being energy negative (less energy contained in the fuel than it takes to produce it), Ethanol, unless heavily subsidised by taxpayers as it is now, will never be more than a passing oddity.

now you do realise it takes more energy to deliver ulp to your car and drive you 1km then it does to get that same result with ethanol, I know this sort of up to date information doesnt suit the foil hat anti ethanol brigades argum ents but it is fact.

to get 1 million BTU's of energy to your tank it uses .75million BTU's for the ethanol or 1.23million for ulp, so which was the really energy negative one?

I wonder how many people would actually buy E10 or E85 if the true cost was being passed on to the consumer? I've already started to notice many petrol stations where E10, formerly between at least 5 and up to 10 cents a liter less, is now only one or two cents less per liter than ordinary unleaded. I heard that the subsidy will be dropped at some time in the future. Should be interesting then...

You think a company the size of caltex hasnt done the sums, by the time everythings up and running - not that far away the e10 blends are going to cost less to deliver than ulp.

All that is ignoring too the fact that vast numbers of older (and some not so old) vehicles simply cannot run on the stuff at all, even at a low E10 mixture.

and you dont seem to get no one is or will be forcing them any time soon to change to an ethanol blended fuel. they can continue to use a normal unleaded fuel for the forseeable future.

Yes, the oft-quoted example of Brazil has most cars capable of running on E85 and even pure ethanol...but they are hardly a world beating car market selling huge numbers each year. Not to mention an ongoing glut of cheap sugar cane to make it from.

Yeah 2.5 million cars a year is nothing, with over 85% being e85 compatible.

then we go from a glut of sugar to the starving people of mexico.

Not to mention you have to ignore the social consequences of pushing for more ethanol production. In Mexico and other poor nations, there are already food shortages because farm land is turned over to growing ethanol source crops like corn instead of using it for silly reasons like feeding thier starving populations...

do you realise how much corn is used for cattle feed, more than what goes to ethanol and you think those poor people you show all this concern for feast on steak every night. Then theres the fact that in Australia we are going to be creating almost 100% of our ethanol from waste produycts really puts your crap into perspective.

then the social consequences of oil production like wars, slave labor etc, etc.

I also agree with Prydey...no one has ever explained to me how deliberately making your car get worse fuel economy is "good for the environment"...

Of course yopu do its the lamest argument there is, but even you know deep down its not about the amount used its what comes out of the tailpipe and what it took to get there and as pointed out ethanol wins in that regard.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

Brazil used ethanol to save their sugar industry, yet australian farmers haven't really embraced it.

Might have a bit to do with the 10 year drought that just broke.

It is all well and good to crank a HUGE sugar industry supplying all of the ethanol cars and then in a few years go back into the water shortage for another decade......

P.S. Cane does not grow very well or yield a remotely viable CCS without LOTS of water....

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Not yet. The government is proposing to introduce excise on all alternative fuels (Ethanol, biodiesel, LPG) via the Taxation of Alternative Fuels Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Here is some information on it

http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentit...ContentID=1944

I notice this 'consultation period' was kept very quiet, I didn't even know they had one.

Yes, I automatically added "Yet" to the sentence "There's no excise on ethanol" as well...

Petrol is not energy negative. It never has been. It's a massively energy rich fuel, and would never be able to be produced if it didn't contain as much energy as it does. It's often been said that you couldn't fuel all the machinery that produces and transports ethanol because you'd never catch up. It has to be added to unleaded to make it vaguely economic.
People look at the coal industry out here and say "You use massive electrically powered draglines to dig down to the coal, you use diesel powered diggers to get it out, diesel trucks to move it, simply enormous electrically operated machinery, plants, and loaders to get it into the trains 10,000 tonnes at a time, and then diesel powered trains to take it many hundreds of kilometers to the ports, where diesel powered ships move it around the world...how can it be profitable?"
The reason is the exact same one as for oil extraction for petrol...it is so energy rich that it's extremely profitable to do, even with that massive input of energy used to produce it.

Ethanol sounds very simple to produce..."just plant some crops and grow it". Well...yes. Sort of. Then you need fuel powered machinery to dig the fields, plant the crops, irrigate the crops, harvest the crops, ship it to a factory, electricity to run the factory to process the ethanol, pumps for the pipelines, and fuel powered trucks to transport the stuff to the end supplier.
This uses far more energy than the eventual fuel contains.

If and when a catalyst of some sort is found to produce it from waste products into ethanol, and do this in commercial quantities, it will always lose out when the sums are tallied up.

It's not a conspiracy theory by "big oil"...it's simple economic sums, and countering it by glibly saying "But we have to for the planet!", or "But it's easy, just do it and mix it with fuel", ignores the big picture of economic reality.

Not to mention what will inevitably happen once the government realises it can make a buck out of when people are being forced to use it after normal unleaded is phased out. Look at what happened to LP Gas...it used to be about a third the cost of petrol or less, then they realised that more and more people were using it, so they upped the excise, and now, as I saw today at a servo, it's about 82 cents a liter compared to unleaded at $1.44 a liter in the same servo. Unless you have a dedicated well-set up LP gas engine, it's almost becoming uneconomic to convert a car to dual-fuel.

[StrokedXT]

You always seem to forget oil needs to be refined into petrol in your calculations. The biggest oil refiner in aus own figures say your assumptions are wrong as to energy use of ethanol vx ulp, I really look forward to the day when up to date facts and figures are used in the ethanol debate.

[gtfpv]

if UNCLE SAM says ethanol will die . then where will the next war be ? SOUNDS LIKE PLENTY OF OIL WILL SOON BE CLAIMED OUT THERE SOON .

[ebxr8240]

Farmer's are being ripped off big time ...
Plenty of cane farmers etc are closing down each year..
The average age of a farmer is 58...
Seems major companies like Woolworth's & Coles have tied them up to keep
there buying power good..Mcdonalds is much the same with potato farmers in Tassie..
many out there could grow enough grain, beef, sugar beat or cane etc but they have been tied down to the lowest price mainly due to two grocery companies owning 90% of the industry..
Unless things change.. we will be buying MOST our food overseas...
This has sfa to do with ethanol production...
The C6 in U.S which is the same engine in Commodore can run on ethanol ..
Yet Holden claim they converted it ??
Hmm ?? Smells of another gov rip off ...
CNG was used in N.Z back in the 80/90's it is not as efficient as LPG.
The tank has to be large due to being compressed GAS..
Take the L out of LPG .. It's the same..
Yes one is from the ground I mean as a gas..
On a small engine .. Good luck ....

[excopau]

Problem with ethanol is there is no mandate, so fuel companys dont wanna hear about it as 10% ethanol means 10% less fuel they make money on. The cane farmers are trying to get a new mill that does ethanol off the ground, but too many locals put there head in the sand when they hear new ideas. I believe ethanol is not dead, due to when you look at other technologies, what energy we use to make solar panels and batteries for prius and recycle them. The most green car around is one already made, when you look at energy used to dig up iron ore, make into steel and then make the car we are wasting alot of carbon when we could make cars we drive now more efficent with other technologies. You gotta look at the start to finish not just the section you want to promote your product as green. America keeps making more and more ethanol and its renewable and mandated over there so I think GM is missing the boat compared to others in America.

[CJR09]

no second thoughts on electric though...


http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...u-s-automaker/

[excopau]

Where there electricity come from?? Coal? Nuclear, they are so clean lol, move problem from car to electricty plant, so they have achieved nothing in helping.

[StrokedXT]

Originally Posted by excopau

Where there electricity come from?? Coal? Nuclear, they are so clean lol, move problem from car to electricty plant, so they have achieved nothing in helping.

Nuclear is pretty clean, unless you get earthquakes and tidal waves.