GM's view of ethanol as an interim step to displace petroleum
Following the announcement of the Challenge-X winners at the General Motors headquarters in Detroit, several bloggers including your humble correspondent sat down to dinner with Dr. Gary Smyth and Nick Zielinski the chief engineer on the Chevy Volt. We had a wide ranging discussion with Nick and Gary which I will post soon, but one particular issue might be of interest in light of the story the other day about it taking up to two decades to turn over half the vehicle fleet in the United States to alternative drive systems.People have given GM and other carmakers flack for putting so much emphasis on E85 and flex-fuel capability. But there is a method to the apparent madness. No one really sees ethanol as the dominant replacement for petroleum over the long term. Carmakers are well aware that with a total vehicle fleet of close to 240,000,000 units in the US and sales of around 17,000,000 even if every vehicle sold today were using alternative propulsion systems it will take a long time before a significant proportion of the existing fleet is replaced.
Continue reading after the jump
By selling flex-fuel vehicles today even if most people aren't using the biofuel, the capability is there. Most of these vehicles will still be on the road 5-10 years from now when ethanol is expected to be more readily available. By that time cellulosic ethanol should also be available. All those vehicles will still have many years of life left in them and will likely be using at least some ethanol. During that time frame, electrically driven vehicles will also be coming on stream but it will be some time before they make up any significant chunk of the total fleet.
By building the flex-fuel vehicles now and starting to fill the pipeline with them, GM (and no doubt other carmakers) are trying to lead the way with an interim solution. And ethanol is definitely seen as an interim step. GM is projecting that between now and 2030 demand for energy world wide will rise by about seventy percent. With the flex-fuel vehicles that are on the road and coming in the next few years they will at least be able to make a significant dent in the demand for gasoline. In this way even the 5-, 10-, and 15-year old vehicles that are on the road in 2015-20 will be able to be part of the solution.
I still think that the way corn ethanol is being subsidized by the government today is largely a boondogle but as cellulosic ethanol displaces it, we will have a good stepping stone to the future.
By building the flex-fuel vehicles now and starting to fill the pipeline with them, GM (and no doubt other carmakers) are trying to lead the way with an interim solution. And ethanol is definitely seen as an interim step. GM is projecting that between now and 2030 demand for energy world wide will rise by about seventy percent. With the flex-fuel vehicles that are on the road and coming in the next few years they will at least be able to make a significant dent in the demand for gasoline. In this way even the 5-, 10-, and 15-year old vehicles that are on the road in 2015-20 will be able to be part of the solution.
I still think that the way corn ethanol is being subsidized by the government today is largely a boondogle but as cellulosic ethanol displaces it, we will have a good stepping stone to the future.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jcwinnie 9:34PM (6/09/2007)
"GM's view of ethanol as an interim step to displace petroleum," repeated half-chokingly, half gasping.
"Hoo-hah. Stop, Sam, yer killin' me."
Reply
art vatsky 11:18PM (6/09/2007)
Sam, it is worse than that. GM and the others sold the feds on giving them credits for the sale of an E-85 vehicle, not the use of E-85 fuel. That allowed them to sell more SUVs and still remain under the CAFE limits. Maybe GM has wizened up but who can be sure?
Reply
George Krpan 12:41AM (6/10/2007)
How is the demand for energy measured?
Does that mean that we'll be using 70 percent more energy in 2030?
It can't mean that because it just won't be available.
Reply
Manu Sharma 5:45AM (6/10/2007)
RE: "interim" step
A bad idea followed for a brief period is still a bad idea.
Reply
Sam Abuelsamid 9:09AM (6/10/2007)
Manu, I agree wholeheartedly that current corn ethanol is not a good idea. But however much we may want to switch over to alternative propulsion systems, the size of the fleet is such that it just isn't going to happen overnight. That is a fact that no amount of wishful thinking is going to change. Running at least some of the vehicles on cellulosic ethanol for some time will help slow the growth rate of petroleum demand.
Make no mistake, the rate of economic growth in places like China and India is such that energy demand will grow enormously over the next two decades.
Reply
Tony Belding 9:46AM (6/10/2007)
I hate to be in a position of defending ethanol. . . but there is a bit of logic in GM's argument.
I think it has been shown pretty well that ethanol -- even cellulosic ethanol -- isn't going to simply replace gasoline, that can't work. Yet, it can play a role. I can imagine a future with BEVs and biofuel-PHEVs where cellulosic ethanol (or maybe algal biodiesel) plays a significant role, and I can see the current ethanol build-up as a stepping stone to get us there.
That doesn't excuse all the ethanol hype, the ethanol subsidies, the ethanol investment bubble. . . but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh?
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 10:10AM (6/10/2007)
- didn't we just have an article here, that to take advantage of ethanol you need to switch to direct-injection engines? Will GM be doing that?
- And if you're going to grow fuel, shouldn't you be growing Bio-diesel? Don't you get far more bang( mpg ) for the buck with bio-diesel?
- And wouldn't it be far easier to meet future mpg requirements with a bio-diesel fleet? ( But, of course, that would break the ExxonMobile imposed limit on SUV mpg of 30. )
Reply
MikeW 6:01PM (6/10/2007)
bio-butanol.
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 7:21PM (6/10/2007)
This article states that in a Corn vs. Soybeans means Soybeans( Bio-diesel ) wins.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/business/13ethanol.html?ex=1310443200&en=18b40dd3557837a3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Reply
GreyFlcn 10:37PM (6/10/2007)
re: --Tony Belding--
Two words:
"Oppourtunity Costs"
You shouldn't spend billions of dollars a year to gain slightly more than no-benefit.
That money can be better spent elsewhere.
_
The hopes of biofuels getting us off Saudi oil are virtually impossible even in the best case scenarios.
It can't even outpace the sheer growth in US demand, coupled with the falloff of US domestic oil production.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a4cd7272-151a-11dc-b48a-000b5df10621.html
We just don't have enough land, even for cellulosic ethanol.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
So it really comes down to "What is the best way to spend US tax dollars to reduce CO2 emmisions"
For cars, the best way to do that is energy efficiency.
Either redesigning the vehicles, or more predominantly redesigning the power trains.
Obviously the first step would be hybrids and diesels.
But the second step would be Plugin Hybrids
Third step Series Plugin Hybrids
Fourth step Full Performance Battery Electric Vehicles
_
Although, perhaps the BEST way to spend US tax dollars. Stop deforrestation caused by things like logging, beef cattle, ethanol and biodiesel.
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://greyfalcon.net/soy
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2
http://greyfalcon.net/soy3
http://greyfalcon.net/soy4
80% of Brazil's CO2 emmisions come from Deforrestation.
And Indonesia's deforrestation puts up so much CO2 it puts them right behind China in emmisions. (Even though they are a tiny undeveloped country)
_
Hell, even the vain hope that Ethanol is supposed to help farmers. Thats not true either.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/farmers
http://www.greyfalcon.net/farmers2
Reply
Dave 7:45AM (6/11/2007)
Ethanol and biodiesel should be used sparingly at most.
Give us solar, wind, and nukes. Powering Volts, hopefully.
And only if you need to exceed the range should ethanol or biodiesel be considered, hydrogen being a better choice.
The real problem, once hydrogen fuel cell and/or lithium ion batter technology is mature, will be heating our houses.
Reply
Dave 7:49AM (6/11/2007)
mikeinBuilding7-
FWIW-
The Pontiac Solstice GXP already uses direct injection. And next years CTS 3.6 will have direct injection.
No doubt GM plans to expand the use of direct injection. Its a relatively cheap way of increasing efficiency while also gaining HP.
Reply