Filed under: Biodiesel, Ethanol, GM
VIDEO: GM engineer trying to debunk some ethanol myths
One reality of biofuels (not to mention most things related to cars or technology) is that those of who read sites like this one are outliers. The majority of people out there (especially politicians) have at best a superficial knowledge of what alternative fuels are and whether they can use them in their vehicles. Over on the GMnext site they have posted a new video asking people on the street if they know what E85 is, where it comes from and whether its better for the environment. As most of us here know the answer to the last question is far from clear cut. On all the questions asked however, almost all the people questioned were shockingly ill or mis-informed. GM Engineer Melissa Schulz answers some of the questions trying to clear up misconceptions. Its not to in-depth but if any of your less enthusiastic friends need a quick primer, send them the link
[Source: GMnext]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Snowdog 8:42PM (8/01/2008)
The point of this GM propaganda on ABG is what?
Reply
ltclloyd 11:30PM (8/01/2008)
I have no problem, alternative fuels are a "green" topic.. I know people are ignorant, I have to explain over and over why and how I run my car (unconverted nissan sentra) on varying ethanol blends, what the difference is.. It's amazing some people honestly think it's a zero value "filler". Many keep spewing the old "it uses more fuel to make" line... but most of these are the same people that just complain about fuel prices and don't do anything about it. between my car running E-85 and My electric scooter for short trips, I've cut my petroleum usage from 36 to 3.6 gallons each month, and when I do take the car to the track, I actually SAVE money over paying for the 93 octane I used to use.
Reply
Mik_Cal 12:50AM (8/02/2008)
This is unfiltered PR. Why has this been posted on ABG?
Reply
Jimmy 1:34AM (8/02/2008)
This video is entirely appropriate content for ABG. A vendor highlighting that most of the public are uninformed about alternative fuel(s) and stating standard, well established facts about E85.
Reply
Mik_Cal 7:41PM (8/02/2008)
Um...I think not. The video contrasts the lack of the knowledge of the "man on the street" about ethanol and the supposed benefits of ethanol as communicated by GM, that has substantial investments in ethanol. Real journalism would question the factual basis of GM's claims to "know" ethanol and ethanols actual deficits as well as benefits. This is unfiltered PR.
Noz 2:06AM (8/02/2008)
Shame on some engineers...they'll do anything for a buck.
Hec..I'm an engineer and have always tried and HAVE successfully avoided ever working on military projects. I have given up jobs because of it.
If I can keep that standard, so should others. Some engineers are morally bankrupt.
Reply
Paul Sallmen 2:34AM (8/02/2008)
I'm going to have to dispute the "good for the environment" claim. There has been much controversy because ethanol comes mostly from corn and sugar cane. There have been claims that this has jacked up food prices as crops have been grown to fill the gas tank, rather than provide people with food! I read somewhere that the corn required to make enough to fill the gas tank of an E85 SUV could have been used to feed a poor African for a year! At least oil comes from under the ground. It cannot be eaten.
Furthermore, ethanol has less energy storage than gasoline. Every wonder why a VW diesel gets about 30-40% better fuel than it's gas equivalent? Think the diesel engine is way better designed? It's not. It's the fuel. Diesel fuel has about 30-40% more energy storage than gasoline. How about ethanol? It's about 30% LESS than gasoline. A 25 L/100 km (10 MPG) SUV behemoth will suck back 35 L/100 km (7 MPG) with ethanol, but "sip" 18 L/100 km (13 MPG) with diesel.
Granted there is research going into using non-food and waste crops for ethanol, but it takes energy to farm and prepare the land. Certainly, they mention waste tires. That does sound like a good idea if it is possible.
Though the direct tailpipe emissions for ethanol may be lower, I doubt the total emissions are. GM should stop the propaganda saying ethanol is "good for the environment" when the verdict is anything but clear.
Personally, I think the future is electric. Electric motors are extremely efficient and research has shown that even electricity from dirty sources like coal have been shown to be far more efficient. The electric car's Achilles' heel has always been the battery, but huge strides have been made. There are manufacturers around the world working on this, so it'll be hard to stop. I imagine the Exxon's of the world will lobby and bribe governments hard to try to stop the electrics. They successfully did it in California. They will do it again. They will lose billions if electrics become mainstream. Their goal is to keep people addicted to the gas pump. This is why they like hydrogen or ethanol, but HATE electric. Electric is the only one that takes them out of the equation. And for those who put a solar panel on their roof, they take the power company out of the equation too.
GM is right about the Volt. They messed up with the EV1, so this is their chance for redemption. But they need to make sure it is perfect. This is where the Japanese will slaughter them if it is not. At $15 Billion loss, GM will be owned by Toyota in 5 years if they don't smarten up. That would not be good. We need more not fewer car companies to boost quality. Toyota quality would go down if it took over GM.
Reply
Bill 3:07PM (8/02/2008)
The diesel engine cycle is significantly more efficient than any conventional spark engine (Otto or Atkinson) cycle.
Diesel fuel only has about 15% more energy than gasoline.
dude 3:05PM (8/04/2008)
I dont know if youve seen this Paul but you need watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jew3ah24Zj4
Sean 8:36AM (8/02/2008)
About the food thing...are we forgetting sweetener subsidies? Much of the corn grown in the US is used not for wholesome food or feeding the poor, (never mind that corn is not very nutritious anyway) but making corn syrup which is added in ridiculous amounts to many of the foods we buy (in the store and at restaurants.) That said, if prices for corn sweeteners increase enough, perhaps manufacturers would stop using so much of the stuff in food, possibly leading to healthier food and people that eat it. (Take a look at "healthy" sandwich breads next time you're in the store. Look at the amount of sugars in one slice of most of them! Then visualize a gram of sugar: a 1 cubic centimeter sugar cube.)
What do you think?
Reply
tankd0g 10:07AM (8/02/2008)
I think the high food prices, like high gas prices, are short term pain for long term gain. Not a popular sentiment in America, I know, but just wait it out and someone will come up with a large scale bio-diesel or ethanol production method that actually makes economic sense.
ltclloyd 8:38AM (8/02/2008)
Paul, I appreciate your enthusiasm, however I can see you've never directly experimented with E85, I highly recommend doing it, it's pretty amazing.
You are right, Stoichiometric Air Fuel Ratio (complete combustion) of pure gasoline is in fact 25% greater, so In theory I have to pump 25% more fuel into the cylinders all else being equal.. however, in reality the difference is only 10% real world mileage. there is more complete combustion, and cylinder cooling effect that allow the engine to make slightly more power therefore use less fuel to travel the same distance
(27 vs 30mpg 60mpg cruse locked on flat Florida highways)
While I'm not an environMENTAL person I am behind E85 mostly due to the economic benefits. we are producing more corn then EVER, and actually even with this years floods there is more food corn being sold on the open market then ever before. (we won't even bring up all the high value distillers grain that is an ethanol byproduct) This is a direct result of the higher price.. that and there is a trend now to moving cattle back to open ranging then force feeding them corn.
so even the Food Vs. Fuel Argument does not apply in the modern open market..
I like electric too... and natural gas, and biodiesel.. I think we need a combination of all our technologies to reduce Petroleum dependency. For my Car which I Take to the track once a month, ethanol was my only option. since Good diesels and electrics are not ready for Racing duty just yet.
I can be honest. E85 works great. and when compared to the 93 octane I normally have to run to keep my 11.5:1 compression engine from knocking. I save $.80 a gallon!!!
Reply
tankd0g 10:00AM (8/02/2008)
Do you actually have a flexfuel car or are you just putting E85 in your gas turbo? We don't have ethanol available here at the pumps but if we did be back playing with turbos again, something I gave up when premium hit $1.45/L.
smo1704 7:28PM (8/02/2008)
Ethanol is a good stop-gap solution, but it has several long-term problems. Because of the highly mechanized nature of western farming techniques, more energy (in the form of gasoline or diesel) goes into growing the corn than can be extracted from the ethanol produced. Ethanol from sugar cane has a better yield, but I'm not sure it's at the break even point.
Unfortunately plants produce usable biomass with startling inefficiency (photosynthesis itself is quite efficient, but the energy collected is used for more than just generating biomass). Only .1% of the energy falling upon a field of corn is ever converted to biomass, and then some of this is lost in the conversion from plant matter to ethanol. The resulting fuel is then run through an engine which is only 15-20% efficient under ideal circumstances (total system efficiency). In the end only 20J out of every 100,000J is ever put to use. This is under perfectly ideal circumstances, ignoring biomass->ethanol conversion losses, energy used for transportation of fuel, and assuming a 20% efficient vehicle. It would take roughly 25% of the world's TOTAL biomass production (including natural, not just man-made, sources of production) to satisfy current fuel consumption needs (assuming no energy is used to grow or collect that biomass). Most countries don't have enough arable land to get even half their transportation fuel from ethanol (Europe found that to get 5.25% of their transportation fuel from ethanol would require 15% of their arable land).
By contrast solar panels at even 10% efficiency could power over 380 times as many battery electric vehicles of equivalent power for the same area (particularly if they were installed on the roofs of buildings or over parking lots, where they could charge vehicles parked nearby directly via DC). Solar panels and solar thermal stations also don't require arable land. They can make use of whatever open space happens to be available (it is even possible to "paint" them onto windows), and work especially well in deserts, where crops could not be grown anyway.
New advances in solar panel technologies ("spray on" solar panels, such as those made by Nanosolar) could allow solar panels to be produced at $1 per watt (approximately on par with electricity from coal). Solar thermal technologies are also approaching this point, and have even higher conversion efficiencies (up to 40%).
Improved batteries, such as lithium titanate, lithium sulfur, and silicon-nanowire based lithium batteries could allow for high capacities (up to 10 times the energy density of current lithium batteries) and/or high charge rates (full charge in 5-10 minutes provided a suitable power source), making battery electric vehicles more practical. Price will still be high for many years to come (and very VERY high for the next few years, as few of the necessary parts being produced in large volumes), but this might eventually be offset by the low cost of energy and maintenance (this is strongly dependent on the technologies used in the vehicle). For example, some battery chemistries, such as lithium titanate, are projected to last 20 years or 10,000 complete charge/discharge cycles (for a car with a 100 mile range this would be roughly equivalent to a service life of 1 million miles), and the motors and controllers themselves can last almost indefinitely (only the bearings in an AC induction motor will ever wear out, provided the driveshaft is made of steel or titanium, and the metal components are protected from rust). During this time the only maintenance needed would be windshield wiper replacement, and tire rotation and replacement. Pure electric vehicles do not require lubrication, specialized cooling, a transmission, air or fluid filters, or even brakes (if the motors are sufficiently powerful).
Jimmy 9:09AM (8/02/2008)
Responses to Paul:
"There has been much controversy because ethanol comes mostly from corn and sugar cane. There have been claims that this has jacked up food prices as crops have been grown to fill the gas tank, rather than provide people with food!"
Food prices have increased for a number of reasons, including higher petroleum costs, investor speculation, declining US Dollar value and to some extent biofuels. Prices for foods completely unrelated to biofuels have also increased as have general commodities like lead and copper.
Also, recall that corn ethanol production yield distillers grain as animal feed. The corn used for ethanol is not entirely removed from the food supply.
"Every wonder why a VW diesel gets about 30-40% better fuel than it's gas equivalent? Think the diesel engine is way better designed? It's not. It's the fuel."
This is where you are completely mis-informed. The diesel cycle is more efficient than the Otto cycle at turning chemical energy into mechanical energy. OTR truck engines are around 40% at turning BTUs into horsepower. Large marine diesels achieve 50% efficiency! Spark ignition engines are less than half as efficient.
"How about ethanol? It's about 30% LESS than gasoline. "
Again, any serious study of efficiency looks at units of energy and not gallons. Putting E85 into an inefficient pushrod truck engine gives the same BTU/mile as gasoline. Where ethanol has an advantage is in combustion. As it has a much higher octane rating it can be used in high compression engines which would result in *better* efficiency than a regular unleaded engine can achieve.
"Granted there is research going into using non-food and waste crops for ethanol, but it takes energy to farm and prepare the land."
Yes, and the scientific studies which investigate this include these factors. Their conclusion is that cellulosic ethanol is a very promising energy source.
"Certainly, they mention waste tires. That does sound like a good idea if it is possible."
That would be the Coskata process, which I personally think is the most promising technology in the energy sector! Find out more here: http://www.coskata.com/AboutFAQ.asp
Reply
Mrs. Crabtree 9:32AM (8/02/2008)
"Its not to in-depth but if any of your"...write much? Or I guess for you, right much?
Reply
tankd0g 10:07AM (8/02/2008)
People love to say GM doesn't get any help from the government on green initiatives while the Japanese companies (allegedly) get lots of help from theirs, but this whole corn ethanol thing seems as if it was conceived and executed solely for GM's benefit at the taxpayers expense. No other automaker is so heavily invested in it and yet they aren't the ones handing out the farm subsidies to grow the fuel.
Reply
Snowdog 3:59PM (8/02/2008)
North American E85 is a boondoggle of epic proportion and GM is the poster child for E85. GMs supports it for one reason only. The massive Cafe loophole they get out of it. They make a few changes to the car and certify it for E85 usage, then bingo a Tahoe is counted as getting 60MPG for Cafe purposes.
Now it doesn't matter that there is no sane reason for that loophole, or that most people aren't actually stupid enough to run their cars on Ethanol (and get 30% less mileage) if they could find it. GM gets the credit for it. This is THE ONLY reason GM pushes E85.
Food for fuel is obscene. The world bank report is estimating that up to 75% of food price rises are from current biofuel push.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080704/biofuels_report_080704?s_name=&no_ads=
"* Bio fuels caused a 75 per cent jump in food prices.
According to World Bank estimates, 100 million people worldwide have slipped below the poverty line as the result of skyrocketing food prices. "
Here is another way to express how obscene North American E85 is:
"fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year."
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7216688&story_id=10252015
Subsidies have to stop being fed into this obscene system at both ends. No more cafe loopholes, no more fuel kickbacks. I will never buy any GM with this E85 BS. Not that this is much of a sacrifice.
ABG seems to be going down the toilet. Posting more and more anti-environment industry PR garbage in an attempt stir up controversy or something. There is no insight or analysis.
Reply
Sam Abuelsamid 8:21AM (8/03/2008)
Where do you people come up with some of this stuff? If GM was getting credited with 60 mpg for ffv Tahoes, do you really think they would be whining about a 35 mph CAFE standard? If you actually go and read the regulations, you will find that car makers get a credit ranging from 0.9 to a MAXIMUM of 1.2 mpg for flex fuel vehicles! Therefore a vehicle rated at 20 mpg would be counted for at most 21.2 mpg as an FFV under CAFE.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/cafe/alternativefuels/analysis.htm
Snowdog 11:46AM (8/03/2008)
Sam, that is not the formula. It is the CAP for FLEETWIDE gains they can obtain flex fuel credits. The actual formula is here:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/ACTchap321-331.html#Document2zzSDUNumber33
The important sentence here is:
"A gallon of a liquid alternative fuel used to operate a dedicated automobile is deemed to contain . 15 gallon of fuel."
But E85 vehicles are considered dual fuel so they average against the regular gas mileage as well or would be even more obscene.
So say a truck gets 18mpg on gas and 15mpg on ethanol it is deemed to be:
18mpg + 15mpg/.15(=100mpg) = 118mpg/2 = 59mpg.
Now GM can count all these 59mpg trucks up until they boost their fleet to the 1.2mpg. Do you know how much 1.2MPG fleetwide CAFE boost is worth to GM??
GM pushes hard to get more E85 stations out there, because the fleetwide cap is based on low actual usage, GM would obviously like to see this raised.
So to recap what E85 brings:
The obscenity of the "60MPG" trucks loophole.
The obscenity of food price increases that are driving 100 million people into poverty.
The obscenity of burning a years worth of food at each E85 fill up.
GM is the poster child for this obscene mess and ABG posts their propaganda and defends it.
I give ABG a zero on credibility.