USPS will turn away (mostly) from flexfuel vehicles thanks to reduced fuel economy
Here's a story that might send angry chills through you: the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) flexfuel experiment is revealing some terrible results.
The Postal Service has been testing out a cleaner vehicle fleet for many years. It is today made up of over 30,000 vehicles like hybrids (pictured) and ones that run on CNG or biodiesel, among many other gasoline alternatives. The USPS is also trying other ways to save fuel, like better delivery routes. As Sustainable Business reports, though, the USPS' flexfuel vehicles not only saw a decreased fuel efficiency of 29 percent, but also ended up forcing the USPS to use 1.5m gallons more gasoline than before. Why? Because the USPS couldn't buy and use E85 everywhere it wanted to and so the flexfuel engines - which were larger than the ones they replaced - were thirsty and burned more fuel. The USPS has declared that it will now only use E85-capable vehicles in places where the biofuel is "competitively priced and conveniently available," a USPS study says (see page 17 of that PDF for easy-to-understand maps of what went wrong here).
[Source: USPS, Sustainable Business via EVWorld]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tim 8:40AM (6/02/2008)
I get 25% LESS gas mileage on E10 than I do on regular unleaded gas. I think this is due to the lower energy content of ethanol vs gasoline.
However, I would think that those little local mail trucks would be perfect EVs, the larger delivery trucks could be plug-in hybrids and medium range tractor-trailers could use H2 injection to increase mileage and clean the exhaust and hydraulics to recycle braking energy.
Reply
jpm100 8:46AM (6/02/2008)
Just to be clear, they took vehicles optimized for E85 and ran gasoline in them because E85 wasn't available. Basically they bought more E85 trucks than they could properly use.
What sounds like biofuel failure by the article is actually a bureaucratic foulup it seems.
Reply
fred schumacher 9:40AM (6/02/2008)
I don't see how it's possible to get 25% less gas mileage on E10. The energy content is only 3% lower than straight gas. That's nearly an order of magnitude difference. Perhaps the driving was done in winter in an E10 state like Minnesota. Then you would get 25% lower mileage, but it would be due to the cold weather not the ethanol.
Reply
sensitive_man 10:12AM (6/02/2008)
Their mind was in the right place, just bad choices for vehicles IMHO. I just wonder if they even considered elec. vehicles. Seriously, how often does as mail truck go faster than 35mpg and drive more then 40-50miles a day?
Reply
Mik_Cal 11:25AM (6/02/2008)
Sebastian,
Your editorializing in this piece that it is "terrible" shows that you are unaware of the significant limitations and negative side-effects of biofuel use. The use of electric vehicles for the USPS is practically a no-brainer as other commenters have noted. Biofuels may their uses when SUSTAINABLE biofuels and a biofueling system has been invented.
What unregulated use of biofuels can and could do to the soil, water supplies, and to the global food economy...that might be considered to be "terrible".
There is no excuse for writers on this blog to be so little informed. It ain't "yay biofuels!" anymore.
Reply
MattKelly 11:53AM (6/02/2008)
Sadly, this is an example of exactly why people like GM's CEO and chairman of the board Rick Wagoner feels that government needs to mandate the availability of E-85 pumps at area gas stations. I think the USPS also needs to get behind some sort of demand for these pumps as well. With their fleet, they could flex some muscle to insure the fuel's availability nationwide.
Reply
Mik_Cal 12:35PM (6/02/2008)
Again,
Matt Kelly, Why would you want to push ahead with biofuels in this application when this is literally perfect for an EV? You could use lead acid batteries for these vehicles as they don't require a long range. EV's internally are 3. to 3.5x more efficient than a internal combustion engine.
If the idea is to use renewable energy, you would need 200 acres of corn to produce the same energy as an acre of solar panels or wind turbines spread over 3 acres. We don't have that many acres of arable land in the US to produce the biofuels.
So "yay, biofuels!" is seriously out of date.
Reply
Peter 12:29PM (6/02/2008)
"government needs to mandate the availability of E-85 pumps at area gas stations."
Ahh, Hell NO!
This is not just a case of a lack of E85 pumps. If they found E85 more often the results would have been even worse. From the report:
"In addition, E85, though cleaner burning than gasoline, contains less energy. It takes 1.33 gallons of E85 to travel the same distance a a gallon of pure gasoline. Thus, fuel efficiency was reduced even farther."
E85 is a complete and total boondoggle. It should come as no surprise anymore. This is nothing but a testament to the power of lobbyists pushing this ridiculous corn "fuel".
Reply
darius 1:41PM (6/02/2008)
EVs would be great, sadly in my area in suburbs of Chicago they decided to use large GM SUVs for all the local mail deliver. I guess the upper management is on the retarded side...
Reply
MattKelly 2:54PM (6/02/2008)
Peter-I know that E85 gets less mpg than gasoline, however, where available, it is equally less expensive and the reduced carbon emissions is part of the net benefit of ethanol/E85.
Mik Cal-the infrastructure needed to be created for solar/wind is much further away than a biofuels infrastructure and I dare say, there will be much the same problems on its deployment and will cost billions of dollars, which mind you, I am all for once the cost comes down and government entities mandate it. No where in my post did I suggest corn ethanol here--but to address your point, this corn is already being grown in a non-food based varietal which every kernel can be used to derive ethanol from, in addition to distillers grain, a low-cost animal feed--again, which is already being grown. Also, America produces over 270 million metric tons of corn annually and we're on our way to a record corn harvest in 2008, second only to the harvest of 1949, at 14.5 billion bushels with demand at only 12.7 billion bushels. So there is plenty of corn for ethanol without adding any additional acreage. Of course, cellulosic ethanol is a better alternative to corn or grain based ethanol. Even better is the process by which Coskata is using that maximizes micro-organisms to break down carbon, such as tires, diapers, waste wood etc, to produce ethanol. GM is taking a supportive position of this technology, also recently announcing a partnership with Mascoma using a similar process.
Reply
Peter 4:17PM (6/02/2008)
GM supports this E85 boondoggle because it is a CAFE loophole. The "Net benefit" of E85 is debatable, when you factor in all the energy inputs that go into producing it.
End the Billion dollar subsidies and CAFE loopholes and Ethanol as fuel would disappear. It is nothing but a lobby driven grab of taxpayer money.
Reply
MattKelly 6:17PM (6/02/2008)
Peter-Nat'l Argonne Labs did an analysis of the end to end benefits of ethanol and found that corn, or grain based ethanol has a net energy gain of 1.34, or, you get about one-third more energy from it than was used to produce it. Plus, when the Coskata process goes fully online, it will fundamentally change the way we recycle--no more landfills full of tires, diapers, etc., etc.
Reply
Snowdog 7:18PM (6/02/2008)
Matt, you sound like someone on the receiving end of the corn lobby money, or a GM employee.
Some studies do say you get 1.3 times more energy out than in. Which is hardly a great number. Some other studies also say net energy out is less than input.
Even if it does produce some small amount of energy, it is at the expense of food crop lands. Someone else also crunched the numbers and a single fill up for an SUV with E85 used up the equivalent agricultural resources as producing enough food to feed someone for a year.
We have food crunch happening now. People starving and food riots and some people want to dump the equivalent of a years worth of food into their gas tanks on each fill. That is just about the most obscene thing I have heard.
It is hard for me to imagine anyone defending this who is not getting paid for their opinion.
Reply
jpm100 9:18PM (6/02/2008)
I like that accusation that anyone promoting ethanol is on the take from the corn lobby. Its about as easy an accusation to make as everyone against ethanol is on the take from the oil industry.
The one difference is there's more money in oil than ethanol by magnitudes. So if everyone is on the take, guess who has the biggest resources to buy the most advocates?
Snowdog, corn really doesn't have interest in Coskata's process except to maybe a place sell its stalks and leaves instead of plowing them under.
So your oil bought and paid for retort to Matt doesn't really make sense.
Reply
Dave 11:09PM (6/02/2008)
Best case - the USPS should be running its vehicles on domestically produced natural gas.
And we should stop wasting natural gas on electricity production when nukes and renewables are available.
E85 is a boondoggle.
And EVs don't have the range for rural delivery. They probably don't even have the range for most urban delivery.
Reply
Mik_Cal 11:21PM (6/02/2008)
Matt,
The infrastructure for renewables is just a matter of ramping up factories that produce wind turbines and solar cells. We have lousy policies here in the US in support of these. If we had feed in tariffs like they have in Europe, the factories would be built and running around the clock. There are no significant technical breakthroughs required.
Furthermore, no amount of infrastructure is going to make all the water you need or the arable soil that you will need to grow all those crops. Photosynthesis a process that perhaps is a couple billion years old, is not going to start doubling or tripling in efficiency anytime soon. Solar panels and wind turbines on the other hand, will continue to get more efficient.
Even if we use conventional power, EVs are greener and more practical for postal vehicles than a vast majority of biofuel processes that are possible in temperate climates.
Cellulosic ethanol is still a maybe and using all that corn for biofuels is just continuing to raise already high food prices.
Your myopia in this regard does suggest that you have a vested interest in some ethanol related business...though you may simply be very narrow minded and just a little bit ignorant of the basics of economics and the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Reply
Snowdog 11:28PM (6/02/2008)
Looking at his other posts, GM apologist it is.
E85 makes no sense presently, there are a multitude of interesting stories of alternatives claiming to be the next big thing.
You can look at what exists or fantasize amongst the possible alternatives. If you are going to fantasize, then things like this:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/29/sapphire-turns-microorganisms-sunlight-and-co-sub-2-sub-into/
With the equivalent energy of Gas, and no crop lands going to waste sound like another decent alternative.
But hey since it works in unmodified cars, no CAFE loophole for GM, so no support.
Right now the things that actually make sense are efficiency. Small cars, and efficient hybrids like the Prius. Long term electrics make the most sense where applicable.
Reply
gotsmart 11:28AM (6/03/2008)
It's my understanding that the core benefit of E85 is reduced emissions, not reduced consumption. It's a very clean-burning fuel, but it definitely has less energy content than gasoline.
And with grain crops now seeing worldwide food shortages, it seems like the time for E85 is not now. Food crops should not be diverted to fuel production. When cellulosic ethanol becomes more mainstream and can be produced from agricultural byproducts, rather than virgin grains, then we should look into making it a staple in the fuel supply.
Reply
Peter 12:20PM (6/03/2008)
Acutally e85 is not cleaner burning or lower emission, that is another corn lobby myth:
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2007/41/i11/abs/es062085v.html
"it was found that E85 (85% ethanol fuel, 15% gasoline) may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9% in Los Angeles and 4% in the United States as a whole relative to 100% gasoline. Ozone increases in Los Angeles and the northeast were partially offset by decreases in the southeast. E85 also increased peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) in the U.S. but was estimated to cause little change in cancer risk. Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline."
Reply
MattKelly 2:18PM (6/03/2008)
E85 is not produced soley by corn. Again, see my earlier post. No where did I say it must be done by corn. I simply responded to a remark by Mik Cal. Also, I have never said ethanol is the ONLY solution, yet it must be PART of the solution. Solar, wind, ethanol, battery, hydro, hydrogen, biodiesel, efficency, conservation, even nuclear ALL must be PART of the solution. But to say that ethanol is soley responsible for increased food prices is simply not looking at the facts--the worldwide runup in food prices is a result of oil prices increasing, and the fact that billions more Chinese, Indians, Africans, Brazilians and Latin American’s are coming to the dinner table than before. Many parts of the developing world are experiencing high economic growth. In Dec 2007, the Int’l Food Policy Research Inst. showed 22 of the 34 most food-insecure countries saw annual growth rates of 5-16% between 2004-06, equating high income growth in low income countries with an increase in food consumption.
Consider this: 60 years ago the price of corn averaged $1.24 per bushel. Today, corn futures are about $6.13 per bushel, an increase of 394%.
Now compare that to oil.
60 yrs ago, the price of oil averaged $2.54 per barrel. It recently hit $119 per barrel. That’s an increase of over 4,376%. Fuel costs impact food prices due to production, packaging and transportation. Simple.
Also, and again, there is enough corn to produce food AND fuel with NO increase in acreage usage, as evidenced by my earlier comment, please re-read it.
Also, nearly nine out of 10 acres of corn require no water other than natural rainfall for irrigation–in 2006, 87% of America’s corn cropland was non-irrigated. As my relatives are farmers, I can tell you those that till the land for income are using new techniques and technology to minimize impact on soil, water and air. Also, in 2006, the US Geological Survey reported the nations streams and groundwater contained pesticides far below federal and state guidelines for protecting water.
But let us again, put the corn to ethanol debate aside...the opportunity for ethanol as a fuel supplement is enormous when you especially consider the Coskata and Mascoma technologies to convert waste items to fuel. Again, PART of the solution. And I also agree with Dave's comment about natural gas. I listened with great interest during the Alt fuels & Vehicles Expo to Boone Pickens who had a great idea--to take our liquid gas away from producing electricity, transfer it to transportation, and replace it with wind. Genius!
Reply