GMC Acadia Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Will Acadia get the flex fuel option in the future?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
Good question. I dunno.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
As long as there is only one engine option available I would doubt it. I think the push to use ethanol may be less in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
I've not heard of the government mandating E85 (which is 85% ethanol, 15% "regular" gas). I can believe that they might be putting rules in place for 10% ethanol as apparently that runs in all modern engines fine (albeit w/ slight worse MPG). But I can't imagine them mandating E85 anytime soon as that would require some major modifications to the millions of cars already on the road.

If you have a source, I'd definitely be interested in reading more about it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,875 Posts
I saw an intersting tidbit on the news the other day. Was talking about a place where ethanol was being produced was having to build 2 new power stations to keep up with the needed electricity to produce the ethanol.
The most ironic part about this whole thing is that the 2 new power stations are going to be coal burning.

??? ???:confused: :confused: :confused: :banghead:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Yep, that is correct. I've read lots of articles talking about the fact that it consumes as much (or likely more) energy to produce the ethanol than it actually produces. I've read that if it weren't for the government subsidies, there is no way that making ethanol is a viable alternative fuel.

I'm not sure what the facts are, but I'm very skeptical that ethanol is really a viable alternative or supplemental solution.

I guess the good thing to about the scenario you describe is that the coal is likely domestically sources as well as the corn, so it is an alternative solution to foreign energy solutions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Here is some additional information about ethanol not being as good as previously advertised!
Article on Yahoo dated Feb 7, 2008, says in part:

WASHINGTON - The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.

The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.

"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.


Full Yahoo article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_sc/ethanol_global_warming

Also see for a similar story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18784732&ft=1&f=1007
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Kloogee said:
I've not heard of the government mandating E85 (which is 85% ethanol, 15% "regular" gas). I can believe that they might be putting rules in place for 10% ethanol as apparently that runs in all modern engines fine (albeit w/ slight worse MPG). But I can't imagine them mandating E85 anytime soon as that would require some major modifications to the millions of cars already on the road.

If you have a source, I'd definitely be interested in reading more about it.
the original bill was the Energy Policy Act of 2005...tons of articles on it..
snoguy said: "I think the push to use ethanol may be less in the future."
I am not referring to the gov't mandating e85 in every vehicle....but the overall output levels of ethanol.
this is gov't subsidy at its worst...but if you live in the midwest, you'd probably be all for this...
Corn based ethanol is less efficient, and it cannot be transported by pipeline...
be afraid, folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
Not to mention what this is doing to the cost of other natural resources that used to be grown in this country - anyone with farm land is switching to crops that they can sell to ethanol plants rather than to the food suppliers, now we are going to be importing more of the crops that used to be grown on this land (wheat, etc...) and paying more for them. I do not blame the farmers, they want to make the most money from their land as they can, but I do not think this is the fuel of the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
I don't think they are upping E85 output to lower greenhouse gases. I think they are doing it to lower dependence on foreign oil. IMO most new technologies have trade offs, Compact florescent are being pushed on consumers, but it is never mentioned that they have toxic mercury in them, which may not seem like a big deal until everyone is using them and throwing them in landfills instead of recycling them. Same goes for E85 it may burn cleaner but uses a ton of energy to produce, which causes greenhouse gases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
zlwheeler said:
Kloogee said:
I've not heard of the government mandating E85 (which is 85% ethanol, 15% "regular" gas). I can believe that they might be putting rules in place for 10% ethanol as apparently that runs in all modern engines fine (albeit w/ slight worse MPG). But I can't imagine them mandating E85 anytime soon as that would require some major modifications to the millions of cars already on the road.

If you have a source, I'd definitely be interested in reading more about it.
the original bill was the Energy Policy Act of 2005...tons of articles on it..
snoguy said: "I think the push to use ethanol may be less in the future."
I am not referring to the gov't mandating e85 in every vehicle....but the overall output levels of ethanol.
this is gov't subsidy at its worst...but if you live in the midwest, you'd probably be all for this...
Corn based ethanol is less efficient, and it cannot be transported by pipeline...
be afraid, folks.
I live in the Midwest--and am completely opposed to ethanol. Not only does it use more energy than it gives, but what about water? Depending on which study you read it takes anywhere from 7-15 gallons of water to make a gallon of ethanol. Makes ya thirsty just thinking about it.

About the only "interesting" form of biofuel, in my opinion, is from algae and kelp farming, if done in a sustainable manner. It grows fast, and uses the sun as it's energy/growth source (versus nitrogen-based fertilizer). It may be an enhancement to biodiesel at some point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
I work at an ethanol plant and your facts are a little off, we use around 3 gallons of water per gallon ethanol. Most evaperates into the atmosphere, A 18 hole golf course uses just as much. As for biodiesel they are completely relying on the government subsidies, note most who dont get them any more are shut down. We only recieved a subsidy check the first 3 years of operation, after that your on your own. We have been doing fine profit wise.

check out our web site http://www.poetenergy.com/

neat link on water usage http://www.poetenergy.com/learn/waterusage.asp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
I hope ethanol stops soon. It gets two thirds the fuel milage. So you get past that fact, then comes the fact it takes about 512 pounds of grain to produce on tank of ethanol. That is what the average person consumes in a year! Burning our food, are you retarded?. So you get over that hump and you see how dairy will rise, beef (good beef) will rise, corn will rise...come on. I think sugar cane is a better idea also, but the algae harvesting sounds interesting. I am from the midwest, and I have farmer friends, and I dont want to see them go hungry, but this was a dumb idea. Also, go to an auto show and see how much they are pushing ethanol...they are not! Big government is stupid, we the people need to do something about it, not the gov't. I have recently discovered that going to work early actually saves fuel. Less traffic and less traffic red lights! I am up two miles per gallon. More plant jobs are good, I just wish America came up with a better idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Not preaching, but just some facts that I have found.


On average, the cost of food inputs represents only 19 cents of each dollar spent on food. The rest goes toward marketing, labor, packaging and transportation. Corn represents only 16 percent of the 19 percent, or about three percent of the consumer’s cost of food. Thus, a 14-ounce box of corn flakes costs $2.79 and with corn at $3.50 per bushel, that box contains about 3.9 cents of corn (USDA).

According to the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University, the retail price for gasoline in the US would be $0.29-0.40 higher. It is possible that without ethanol, food prices in the US would be even higher due to the impact that fuel costs have on every step in the supply chain (CARD).

Ethanol production uses only the starch from the corn kernel, leaving the protein and nutrients for animal feed. There is no shortage of starch in the world. Every 56-pound bushel of corn used in a dry-mill ethanol process yields 18 pounds of distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), representing about 32 percent of the nutrient value. DDGS will displace more than 1 billion bushels of corn for feed in 2008-09 (NCGA).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Very nice. Still doesn't change the fact that we will be burning our food at less efficiency. Fuel would be higher if it wasn't cut with ehanol, if we have to burn it, just use 10 percent like we have been and come up with something better. Great research, do you have a link?
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top