Gen 1 GM Volt Plug-In Hybrid (2011-2015)

[DrInnovation]

It's a bad Idea to have a high ethanol content fuel in a car like the volt

Or similar , ethanol doesn't do well sitting in a fuel system for 6 months

It’s a bad idea to use ethanol as a vehicle fuel, period.

You get higher energy efficiency, and far lower fuel costs, by simply burning the ethanol feed stock, to generate electricity.

The only reason we are considering it, is the liquid fuel fixation from a century of experience with ICEVs, and the very “persuasive” lobbying/bribery efforts, of the ethanol/petroleum industry.

I presume your statement is based on studies such as
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5930/1055.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Which shows what with the right models (and crops) biomass is 81% more efficient at producing electricity.

And while general biomass would be more efficient, that does not address the energy density issue needed for transportation.
If we want most-people to change, one has to give them a process that is not TOO disruptive and not too expensive. E85/flex-fuel EREV vehicles are a simple stepping stone -- most miles on EV and E85 when you need the range.

I'm already doing more than 70% of my miles on electricity (and if I had a Leaf I might get 75%), and I'm buying wind-power for the electricity (CO has 1241 MW of installed wind power, and its underutilized at night). But for the long-trips I need something with higher density and easy of use. So just measuring efficiency of energy is not enough, if it does not solve the customer's problem.
I need to be able to drive 250+ miles (and occasionally 500+ miles) for some trips. Maybe in 20 years we'll have enough QC infrastructure and low-cost long-range BEVs to make it viable, but in at least in the west, I don't see that happening in the next decade or so. The "liquid fuel fixation" you mention has been part of what allowed the US to grow and spread out. There are a few dense urban areas where public-transport works, but even on the coasts there are plenty of open-spaces were people need cars with range.



To TomT comment on oil-changes.. the oil in my (and most) Volts will likely be changed because of time, not miles. If you only put on 1000-2000 ICE miles a year (for longer trips), more agressive oil change schedule from E85 don't matter.


With the Volt, and many people's usage patterns I would not be worried about the "stale" issue, and those people that would be could just use premium gas. Given my long trips, I'm using about 9 gallons tank every two months, so E85 in a pressurized/sealed tank would be just fine. The limited choices for E85 may be in issue in some places, but in CO and neighboring states I have no problem finding it.

I was disheartened that for the added $200 in parts/costs, GM did not offer a flex-fuel volt.. I'd have paid more for that as an option to further reduce my carbon footprint.

 

[TomT]

Agreed! It is a terrible idea on so many fronts, at least for ethanol from conventional food stocks! It is far more political than it is scientific or environmental!

The only reason we are considering it, is the liquid fuel fixation from a century of experience with ICEVs, and the very “persuasive” lobbying/bribery efforts, of the ethanol/petroleum industry.

 

[edatoakrun]

It's a bad Idea to have a high ethanol content fuel in a car like the volt

Or similar , ethanol doesn't do well sitting in a fuel system for 6 months

It’s a bad idea to use ethanol as a vehicle fuel, period.

You get higher energy efficiency, and far lower fuel costs, by simply burning the ethanol feed stock, to generate electricity.

The only reason we are considering it, is the liquid fuel fixation from a century of experience with ICEVs, and the very “persuasive” lobbying/bribery efforts, of the ethanol/petroleum industry.

..And while general biomass would be more efficient, that does not address the energy density issue needed for transportation.
If we want most-people to change, one has to give them a process that is not TOO disruptive and not too expensive. E85/flex-fuel EREV vehicles are a simple stepping stone -- most miles on EV and E85 when you need the range.

I'm already doing more than 70% of my miles on electricity (and if I had a Leaf I might get 75%), and I'm buying wind-power for the electricity (CO has 1241 MW of installed wind power, and its underutilized at night). But for the long-trips I need something with higher density and easy of use. So just measuring efficiency of energy is not enough, if it does not solve the customer's problem...

If your problem is energy density, try gasoline, which is considerably higher than ethanol.

Better yet, try diesel, which has even greater energy density, and will improve the efficiency of your ICE, as well.

ICEV biofuels have been sold to the public, as providing environmental benefits, that do not withstand the simplest scrutiny.

Just what advantage do you see, in adulterating your Hybrid's (or whatever you prefer to call it) gasoline with ethanol?

 

[DrInnovation]

If your problem is energy density, try gasoline, which is considerably higher than ethanol.

Gas is what I'm using, but the density of Ethanol would be sufficient for my long trips.

Better yet, try diesel, which has even greater energy density, and will improve the efficiency of your ICE, as well.

I would if I could get an effective EREV or Diesel hybrid (and I'd make my own Biodiesel). If for had built the reflex that is what I would be driving.


ICEV biofuels have been sold to the public, as providing environmental benefits, that do not withstand the simplest scrutiny.

Just what advantage do you see, in adulterating your Hybrid's (or whatever you prefer to call it) gasoline with ethanol?[/quote]

One reason is reducing dependance on foreign oil. At 30% of my miles coming from oil, it could be all NA product, but at 85% it could easily be all US.
Second is environmental, and even if not ideal, its a reasonable start and funds continuing progress in that important dimension.

I'm curious why you say they don't withstand scrutiny. There has been lots of bad reporting on it and lots of biased reports. Just as there are many reports
saying there is no global warming and no climate change. So scrutiny means digging beyond the bad reports.


The more recent science on the topic shows better gains via both technology improvements in the space and better accounting of the process. Corn net energy is still far from the 1:8 the brazialians get with sugar cane, buts still a net positive gain. This article is the most recent I've read on it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00105.x/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But it and a few others helped change my mind on E85. With modern production processess and plant built after major investments in the mid/late 2000's plants are way more efficient.
These newer biorefineries have increased energy efficiency and reduced GHG emissions through the use of improved technologies, such as thermocompressors for condensing steam and increasing heat reuse; thermal oxidizers for combustion of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and waste heat recovery; and raw-starch hydrolysis, which reduces heat requirements during fermentation
Earlier studies rely on estimates of energy efficiencies in older ethanol plants that were built before the recent investment boom. But the recently built facilities now represent about 60% of total ethanol production and 75% by the end of 2009 (and I believe should be 85% by 2012), and so the average is very quickly being dominated by the new processess that are studied in the above report.
And the use of the co-product means there is still a lot of "feedstock" value in the new processess.

New ethanol plants have direct-effect GHG emissions were estimated to be equivalent to a 48% to 59% reduction compared to gasoline, and are at between 10:1 and 16:1 in produced ethanol vs consumed petroleum.

 

[evnow]

Looks like a good time to buy Volt. Very tempting price for anyone in the market.

Atlanticchevrolet.com....see new car specials...2012 Volt @ 319.00 per month with 1995.00 down....This is real!!!

 

[DaveEV]

Looks like a good time to buy Volt. Very tempting price for anyone in the market.

Atlanticchevrolet.com....see new car specials...2012 Volt @ 319.00 per month with 1995.00 down....This is real!!!

Wow, that is very cheap! How many miles? Would be very tempting to sell the Prius and get a Volt at that price, but I'd still want to wait for the AT-PZEV qualified model.

 

[Herm]

I think that the issue with E85 is not that it will go stale in the tank (since GM went thru a lot of trouble to seal the tank) but that it will be contaminated right out of the fuel pump.. there are also issues with engine calibrations that GM did not want to deal with in the rush to release the Volt back in 2010.

I visited my (rare) local E85 station while it was raining one day, yep the underground tank was being refilled at the same time.. granted a gallon or two of rainwater wont do anything but it still bothered the heck out of me, E85 is extremely hygroscopic. BTW, I mix 20% E85 with my regular gasoline.. been doing that for decades. It used to work better when regular gasoline was E0

 

[GRA]

If your problem is energy density, try gasoline, which is considerably higher than ethanol.

Gas is what I'm using, but the density of Ethanol would be sufficient for my long trips.

Better yet, try diesel, which has even greater energy density, and will improve the efficiency of your ICE, as well.

I would if I could get an effective EREV or Diesel hybrid (and I'd make my own Biodiesel). If for had built the reflex that is what I would be driving.


ICEV biofuels have been sold to the public, as providing environmental benefits, that do not withstand the simplest scrutiny.

Just what advantage do you see, in adulterating your Hybrid's (or whatever you prefer to call it) gasoline with ethanol?

One reason is reducing dependance on foreign oil. At 30% of my miles coming from oil, it could be all NA product, but at 85% it could easily be all US.
Second is environmental, and even if not ideal, its a reasonable start and funds continuing progress in that important dimension.

I'm curious why you say they don't withstand scrutiny. There has been lots of bad reporting on it and lots of biased reports. Just as there are many reports
saying there is no global warming and no climate change. So scrutiny means digging beyond the bad reports.


The more recent science on the topic shows better gains via both technology improvements in the space and better accounting of the process. Corn net energy is still far from the 1:8 the brazialians get with sugar cane, buts still a net positive gain. This article is the most recent I've read on it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00105.x/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But it and a few others helped change my mind on E85. With modern production processess and plant built after major investments in the mid/late 2000's plants are way more efficient.
These newer biorefineries have increased energy efficiency and reduced GHG emissions through the use of improved technologies, such as thermocompressors for condensing steam and increasing heat reuse; thermal oxidizers for combustion of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and waste heat recovery; and raw-starch hydrolysis, which reduces heat requirements during fermentation
Earlier studies rely on estimates of energy efficiencies in older ethanol plants that were built before the recent investment boom. But the recently built facilities now represent about 60% of total ethanol production and 75% by the end of 2009 (and I believe should be 85% by 2012), and so the average is very quickly being dominated by the new processess that are studied in the above report.
And the use of the co-product means there is still a lot of "feedstock" value in the new processess.

New ethanol plants have direct-effect GHG emissions were estimated to be equivalent to a 48% to 59% reduction compared to gasoline, and are at between 10:1 and 16:1 in produced ethanol vs consumed petroleum.

The problems go far beyond the energy inefficiency of corn-based ethanol vs. say sugar-cane. There's also food-insecurity issues; until the stalks get to a certain height the ground is exposed causing high levels of soil erosion; the fact that corn requires lots of nitrogen fertilizer and it only takes up about 40% of the nitrogen so there's lots of agricultural runoff into lakes and streams, contributing to eutrophication; inefficiencies of transport; monoculturing rather than crop rotation; the inability of any crop-based biofuel to supply any significant amount of US or world fuel percentages (if _all_ US corn was turned into ethanol it would supply just a small fraction of transportation fuel needs, same goes for world sugar-cane production), and on and on. I'd recommend "Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate" by Vaclav Smil for the details.

 

[DrInnovation]

...
The problems go far beyond the energy inefficiency of corn-based ethanol vs. say sugar-cane. There's also food-insecurity issues; until the stalks get to a certain height the ground is exposed causing high levels of soil erosion; the fact that corn requires lots of nitrogen fertilizer and it only takes up about 40% of the nitrogen so there's lots of agricultural runoff into lakes and streams, contributing to eutrophication; inefficiencies of transport; monoculturing rather than crop rotation; the inability of any crop-based biofuel to supply any significant amount of US or world fuel percentages (if _all_ US corn was turned into ethanol it would supply just a small fraction of transportation fuel needs, same goes for world sugar-cane production), and on and on. I'd recommend "Energy Myth and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate" by Vaclav Smil for the details.

Smil's book is not based on good science. He selectively choose some facts to emphasize and skipping many others. The book is is mostly an conservative political agenda presented with very good writing skills and the air of science. (It was published by http://www.aei.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; rather than MIT press like his earlier books). One might as well consider scientology a science since they put science into their title.

In the "corn belt", they were growing corn long before ethanol, and likely would be growing corn it even if there was not ethanol. Maybe not as much as it was not as profitable. Its a primary feedstock for livestock (why we grew it) and for other food applications. The 2010 world bank study conclude that biofuels were not the source of rising food prices (correcting a 2008 study that did blame much of it on biofuels). None of your "food insecurities" are at all about ethanol production.

With respect to the inability of ethanol to provide a significant amount of transportation fuel, its already providing ~25% in brazil and 10% of US "gasoline", or about 13.5Billion gallons in 2010. Yes its not a majority but that is more gallon of gas saved in 2010, than all hybrid and electric vehicles saved in the history of the US automative. If you take the attitude that small things cannot help, might as well dismiss electric cars too, as Smil does.

I do agree the subsidies/tariffs in the ethanol space are probably bad and would rather have a more open market there.

 

[GRA]

...
The problems go far beyond the energy inefficiency of corn-based ethanol vs. say sugar-cane. There's also food-insecurity issues; until the stalks get to a certain height the ground is exposed causing high levels of soil erosion; the fact that corn requires lots of nitrogen fertilizer and it only takes up about 40% of the nitrogen so there's lots of agricultural runoff into lakes and streams, contributing to eutrophication; inefficiencies of transport; monoculturing rather than crop rotation; the inability of any crop-based biofuel to supply any significant amount of US or world fuel percentages (if _all_ US corn was turned into ethanol it would supply just a small fraction of transportation fuel needs, same goes for world sugar-cane production), and on and on. I'd recommend "Energy Myth and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate" by Vaclav Smil for the details.

Smil's book is not based on good science. He selectively choose some facts to emphasize and skipping many others. The book is is mostly an conservative political agenda presented with very good writing skills and the air of science. (It was published by http://www.aei.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; rather than MIT press like his earlier books). One might as well consider scientology a science since they put science into their title.

In the "corn belt", they were growing corn long before ethanol, and likely would be growing corn it even if there was not ethanol. Maybe not as much as it was not as profitable. Its a primary feedstock for livestock (why we grew it) and for other food applications. The 2010 world bank study conclude that biofuels were not the source of rising food prices (correcting a 2008 study that did blame much of it on biofuels). None of your "food insecurities" are at all about ethanol production.

With respect to the inability of ethanol to provide a significant amount of transportation fuel, its already providing ~25% in brazil and 10% of US "gasoline", or about 13.5Billion gallons in 2010. Yes its not a majority but that is more gallon of gas saved in 2010, than all hybrid and electric vehicles saved in the history of the US automative. If you take the attitude that small things cannot help, might as well dismiss electric cars too, as Smil does.

I do agree the subsidies/tariffs in the ethanol space are probably bad and would rather have a more open market there.

We'll have to disagree on Smil. I've been reading many of his books recently (including Energy Transitions and the one above), and while I disagree with some of his more pessimistic conclusions I can't fault the general tenor. As to electric cars, Smil doesn't dismiss them at all, he points out that transitioning to them on a large scale will take a long time because of the huge shift in infrastructure required. That was a problem in the early 1900s, and it's just as much a problem now when our electrical use and population is so much higher.

The same thing with PV and wind; barring inexpensive storage we're still going to need fossil-fueled or nuclear plants to carry the base-load, and will have to spend an enormous amount on transmission infrastructure to get utility scale AE systems from where they produce to where the loads are. EVs may help, as at least it gives us some place to store the off-peak AE electricity, even if it doesn't significantly reduce our use of fossil-fuels. But he's all in favor of AE replacing fossil-fuels to the extent possible while maintaining grid-reliability, and he says shifting the ethanol subsidy to wind or PV would be a more effective use of the money. I haven't seen any data on corn-ethanol to convince me otherwise.

 

[AndyH]

Smil's book is not based on good science. He selectively choose some facts to emphasize and skipping many others.

Considering the thread and the view of some of our more recent arrivals, maybe discussing cherry-picking facts might not be the best road to walk just now...

The book is is mostly an conservative political agenda presented with very good writing skills and the air of science. (It was published by http://www.aei.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; rather than MIT press like his earlier books). One might as well consider scientology a science since they put science into their title.

While I share your view of the AEI, maybe there's still useful info in the book even if published by this organization. Judge an author by their publisher?...I'll have to think about that a bit...

In the "corn belt", they were growing corn long before ethanol, and likely would be growing corn it even if there was not ethanol.

But it was 'food' corn, not FrankenCorn suitable only for industrial post-processing.

Maybe not as much as it was not as profitable. Its a primary feedstock for livestock (why we grew it) and for other food applications.

Too bad the livestock that are being fed corn wouldn't grow to a mature age on this foreign food without hormones and antibiotics. ..

The 2010 world bank study conclude that biofuels were not the source of rising food prices (correcting a 2008 study that did blame much of it on biofuels). None of your "food insecurities" are at all about ethanol production.

Interesting. Put down something that came out of the AEI, yet put stock in something put out by the World Bank? The USDA seems to think that US ethanol production will directly impact - negatively - on corn exports. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm

The most recent USDA Baseline Projections suggest that much of the additional corn needed for ethanol production will be diverted from exports.

With respect to the inability of ethanol to provide a significant amount of transportation fuel, its already providing ~25% in brazil

1. The USA is not Brazil
2. The USA does not grow much sugar cane
3. The US manufacturers don't produce vehicles with the higher compression engines necessary to get the best performance from ethanol, and don't field 'real' multi-fuel electronics for cars in this country.

and 10% of US "gasoline", or about 13.5Billion gallons in 2010. Yes its not a majority but that is more gallon of gas saved in 2010, than all hybrid and electric vehicles saved in the history of the US automative. If you take the attitude that small things cannot help, might as well dismiss electric cars too, as Smil does.

Small things can help - but we cannot expect much from them until we can field enough small things to produce 'death to oil' by a thousand paper cuts. In the mean time, to twist the Hippocratic oath a bit, maybe it's better to select tools that produce the 1% gain without causing 5% 'collateral damage' in the process...One step forward, two steps back, and all that...

Ethanol in this country is more about lining agrobusiness bank accounts than weaning us off oil.

I do agree the subsidies/tariffs in the ethanol space are probably bad and would rather have a more open market there.

What open market?

We're essentially at peak-nitrogen *** peak corn now. Climate change is already negatively impacting corn production, and that's before we factor-in floods and tornadoes. As we get warmer - with a nice boost from folks that cannot let go of their ICE - the C4 plants like corn will no longer be sustainable in the US and we'll have to transition to C3 crops like soybeans. We cannot grow our ethanol supply without cellulosic sources - and the tech isn't there yet. We might as well put all our money on those vaporware small nuke reactors and cold fusion.

edit... *** And soon, peak phosphorus: http://www.soilassociation.org/futurefarming/policyresearch/resourcedepletion

For example, our new report reveals that supplies of phosphate rock are running out faster than previously thought and that declining supplies and higher prices of phosphate are a new threat to global food security. ‘A rock and a hard place: Peak phosphorus and the threat to our food security’ highlights the urgent need for farming to become less reliant on phosphate rock-based fertiliser.

 

[Herm]

What open market?
*** usual rant snipped for mental hygiene reasons****
We might as well put all our money on those vaporware small nuke reactors and cold fusion.

Leave the small nukes out of it, I think they would solve a lot of problems, but we can make fun of cold fusion

By open market he probably means opening up the "corn ethanol requirement" to other alcohols or other sources of non-biologic ethanol.

Imagine if every car in the US was a Volt, running on E85.. how much oil would we have to import?.. its very possible we might not even have to increase production of corn ethanol at all.

 

[DrInnovation]

Maybe not as much as it was not as profitable. Its a primary feedstock for livestock (why we grew it) and for other food applications.

Too bad the livestock that are being fed corn wouldn't grow to a mature age on this foreign food without hormones and antibiotics. ..

Sorry, farms have been using hormones and antibiotics for way longer than ethanol has been big business.

"Mature animals" are useful for mostly for breeding, as they stop growing quickly.

And the majority of corn has always been for animal feed and industrial processing, not "food grade" corn.

The 2010 world bank study conclude that biofuels were not the source of rising food prices (correcting a 2008 study that did blame much of it on biofuels). None of your "food insecurities" are at all about ethanol production.

Interesting. Put down something that came out of the AEI, yet put stock in something put out by the World Bank? The USDA seems to think that US ethanol production will directly impact - negatively - on corn exports. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm

The most recent USDA Baseline Projections suggest that much of the additional corn needed for ethanol production will be diverted from exports.

Not putting the book down just because it was in AEI, but on content (but the publishe switch was not lost on me).
(Actually there is some good stuff in the book, and it is well written, so maybe I was a bit agressive. )

But you might want to update your usda reading.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR102/ERR102.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2005 the ethonol business was inefficient and not doing a great job with co-product for feed. It has improved a good bit since then.
The distiller grain from the co-product is now very good feed. And don't need horomones to digest it. Here is its the: Nutrient profiles of selected feedstuffs

Ethanol in this country is more about lining agrobusiness bank accounts than weaning us off oil.

I do agree the subsidies/tariffs in the ethanol space are probably bad and would rather have a more open market there.

What open market?

Agree with the general sentiment and already said we should stop or greatly limit the subsidies for agribusiness. Even without the subsidies I believe ethanol could be viable.

We're essentially at peak-nitrogen and peak corn now. Climate change is already negatively impacting corn production, and that's before we factor-in floods and tornadoes. As we get warmer - with a nice boost from folks that cannot let go of their ICE - the C4 plants like corn will no longer be sustainable in the US and we'll have to transition to C3 crops like soybeans. We cannot grow our ethanol supply without cellulosic sources - and the tech isn't there yet. We might as well put all our money on those vaporware small nuke reactors and cold fusion.

Peak-nitrogen.. you make me laugh, (breathing my 70% nitrogen air) Let's see some good science on that.

And you seem to misunderstand the C3/C4 issues with CO2. With increasing CO2 may mean that C3 plants will show an increase photosynthesis and will grow better as CO2 levels rise. C4 plant like corn, do a better job of fixing carbon and C4's plants photo-respiration does not depend as much on CO2. The C4 plants will not benefit as much but are not expected to be hurt either. The temperature changes will allow C4 crops to grow farther north but will not limit their southern boundaries. (Rain levels may have an impact, but the difference in impact of drought between C4 and C3 will not be that significant). But there is a good body of work (e.g., http://web.ku.edu/~jwardlab/pdf's/510.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false suggest that C4 plants may do better with increase CO2 and be better resilient to drought as CO2 increases.

I'd agree we need to be doing more research on sawgrass and other cellulose based ethanol production. Not saying E85 should come from corn, just that Ethanol has a real place in reducing our oil dependency.

 

[edatoakrun]

The US program of utilizing biofuels for ICEVs would be comical, if not for the multitude of tragedies this policy is causing.

Foremost, among the many disastrous consequences, IMO:

...From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive hunger for crop-based fuels is insatiable. The Earth Policy Institute has noted that even if the entire U.S. grain crop were converted to ethanol (leaving no domestic crop to make bread, rice, pasta, or feed the animals from which we get meat, milk, and eggs), it would satisfy at most 18 percent of U.S. automotive fuel needs.

When the growing demand for corn for ethanol helped to push world grain prices to record highs between late 2006 and 2008, people in low-income grain-importing countries were hit the hardest. The unprecedented spike in food prices drove up the number of hungry people in the world to over 1 billion for the first time in 2009. Though the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression has recently brought food prices down from their peak, they still remain well above their long-term average levels...

http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2010/highlights6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[DrInnovation]

Nice AP article about GM CEO Dan Akerson.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stori...onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Various things about the Volt including

By this summer we will (be in) what I call the second generation, where we will achieve certain scale and we should see an appreciable drop in the cost of the production of the Volt. So, 2011 was kind of a year to get things aligned and make sure that the car was what we hoped it would be. We certainly see that in our showrooms and our sales and Consumer Reports' acceptance.

Will be interesting to see if they drop the 2013 price or just reap some profit (I expect mixture of both). Of course few people want to broadcast that the price will be dropping, as then people may wait.

Another good statement

Q: If you could wave a magic wand, what two things would you change at GM right now?

A: I want a miracle solution on Volt in the next week. That's not going to happen. On a more serious note, it all starts and it ends with product. I want sustainable, differentiable product. The generation (of vehicles) that you see for the consuming public today is not just competitive, it's very competitive. We're holding our own. We're taking share. We're profiting.

and lots of interesting discussion about GM culture change.

 

[DrInnovation]

The US program of utilizing biofuels for ICEVs would be comical, if not for the multitude of tragedies this policy is causing.

Foremost, among the many disastrous consequences, IMO:

...From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive hunger for crop-based fuels is insatiable. The Earth Policy Institute has noted that even if the entire U.S. grain crop were converted to ethanol (leaving no domestic crop to make bread, rice, pasta, or feed the animals from which we get meat, milk, and eggs), it would satisfy at most 18 percent of U.S. automotive fuel needs.

When the growing demand for corn for ethanol helped to push world grain prices to record highs between late 2006 and 2008, people in low-income grain-importing countries were hit the hardest. The unprecedented spike in food prices drove up the number of hungry people in the world to over 1 billion for the first time in 2009. Though the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression has recently brought food prices down from their peak, they still remain well above their long-term average levels...

http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2010/highlights6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fortunately, the EPI's assertions about the cause of the record prices are not supported by the recent findings. The initial claims by various groups, including the world bank, as to the root cause of the food price raise was incorrect. The price rise was based more on derivative speculation (i.e. speculators) than the actual redirection of corn into ethanol. Note that wheat and rice prices also increased by 100+ percent in that time period.

Biofuels only accounted for small fraction of the rise in the cost of food, e.g. the Congressional budget office concluded http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-Ethanol.pdf

CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008,
the rise in the price of corn resulting from expanded production of ethanol contributed between 0.5 and 0.8 percentage points of the 5.1 percent increase in food prices
measured by the consumer price index (CPI).

And in "Placing the 2006/08 commodity price boom into perspective",
http://tinyurl.com/88zcca4
concludes (reversing their 2008 report that started a big part of the fuel-food debate)

The paper also argues that the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called "financialization of commodities") may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike.

They also show that the "energy" costs are important. In fact, about 33 cents of every food dollar are spent on energy-intensive factors – transportation, packaging, and food processing. That’s why food price increases tend to follow energy price increases. The authors also conclude “that a stronger link between energy and non-energy commodity prices is likely to have been the dominant influence on developments in commodity, and especially food, markets. Demand by developing countries is unlikely to have put additional pressure on the prices of food commodities, although it may have created such pressure indirectly through energy prices.”


The authors point out that “worldwide, biofuels account for only about 1.5 percent of the area under grains/oilseeds.” Because of this, biofuels would not have as much of an impact on global demand and commodity price booms.

The report also came to some interesting conclusions about the role of energy prices and speculation in commodity prices.

Finally you might want to use more recent data on hunger. No one really knows how many people are malnourished. The statistic most frequently cited is that of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which measures 'undernutrition'. The FAO did not publish an estimate in its most recent publication, 'The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011' as it is undertaking a major revision of how it estimates food insecurity But the data in your plot comes from FAO and in the 2010, they showed that number when back down to 2008 levels -- its not biofuels its the economic conditions that drive it. Here is the 2010 updated WORLD HUNGER TIME SERIES

It may seem intuitive to say the using it for fuel will take it away from food, but the reality is its a minor issue. Farmers increased production, when it is profitable and when corn was at $7 a bussel, they did not produce much and could not export much profitably without subsidies. Using it for biofuels gives US producers an increased margin and sufficient reason to produce more. I'll also note that 1/3 of the corn used in ethanol returns local as distillers grain feed-stock for animals, so much of it is still used for animal feed after producing ethanol -- the animals get almost all the protein from the grain, while the ethanol uses up the sugars. We used to use more soybeans as animal feed, because of its higher protein content. Distillers grain provides the similar protein levels at lower cost) Our bigger problem is the speculators (drove prices way up early this year with the Russian and Ukrainian export ban) and, long term, the distortions caused by price subsidies.


In conclusion, the recent study shows that biofuels are not a major cause of world hunger. The reason I cited the 2010 world bank report (though others such as CBO reach the same conclusion) is that they WB raised early alarms (2006-2008). Who better to provide the conclusion they were wrong. In reversing course, this World Bank report reaffirms the marginal role biofuels play in world commodity and food prices,

 

[GRA]

The 2010 world bank study conclude that biofuels were not the source of rising food prices (correcting a 2008 study that did blame much of it on biofuels). None of your "food insecurities" are at all about ethanol production.

Interesting. Put down something that came out of the AEI, yet put stock in something put out by the World Bank? The USDA seems to think that US ethanol production will directly impact - negatively - on corn exports. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm

The most recent USDA Baseline Projections suggest that much of the additional corn needed for ethanol production will be diverted from exports.

Not putting the book down just because it was in AEI, but on content (but the publishe switch was not lost on me).
(Actually there is some good stuff in the book, and it is well written, so maybe I was a bit agressive. )

<snip>
I hope I've kept the attributions straight while stripping much extraneous matter. And I'm glad to see that you're now leaning more my way on Smil. BTW, while AEI published "Energy Myths and Realities", Smil is a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change as well as the need to shift to renewables, neither of which seems likely to me to be AEI positions. And his book "Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects", also published in 2010 (by Praeger) contains much the same info as the other book, albeit expanded into a wider view in both time and space. Having worked in the AE field, I find both of them to provide a very necessary corrective to what is far too often assumed to be an easy, quick, cheap transition using the alternative energy/fuel fad of the moment. Smil's deconstruction of the Gore and Pickens' plans being cases in point.

Guy

 

[AndyH]

Peak-nitrogen.. you make me laugh, (breathing my 70% nitrogen air) Let's see some good science on that.

Plants cannot use nitrogen from the air (N2) - it must be 'fixed' into an ionic form that plants can use - like NH4+ (ammonium) or NO3- (nitrate). Ammonia is directly tied to petroleum, and we're running out of nitrate deposits to mine and transport. Not that it matters much, as farmers use more and more nitrogen in an attempt to increase yields that have been leveling and dropping - but the plants cannot take all the nitrogen that's delivered, much of it leaches or otherwise ends up in the water->oceans->eutrophication. The other petrochemicals used in industrial farming have killed the beneficial organisms in the soil that would fix nitrogen directly from the atmosphere.

And you seem to misunderstand the C3/C4 issues with CO2. With increasing CO2 may mean that C3 plants will show an increase photosynthesis and will grow better as CO2 levels rise. C4 plant like corn, do a better job of fixing carbon and C4's plants photo-respiration does not depend as much on CO2. The C4 plants will not benefit as much but are not expected to be hurt either. The temperature changes will allow C4 crops to grow farther north but will not limit their southern boundaries. (Rain levels may have an impact, but the difference in impact of drought between C4 and C3 will not be that significant). But there is a good body of work (e.g., http://web.ku.edu/~jwardlab/pdf's/510.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false suggest that C4 plants may do better with increase CO2 and be better resilient to drought as CO2 increases.

Thanks for the paper. It's interesting but does not/cannot model a complete ecosystem.

- Increasing CO2 "may" mean C3 plants will grow better... Or not. The problem here is that climate change isn't bringing ONLY higher concentrations of CO2 - it's also leading to hotter and dryer weather in the central US. Plant growth isn't tied to atmospheric CO2 but CO2 levels in the leaf. And plants in hot/dry areas don't 'breath' as often in order to keep from dehydrating - and that results in a reduction in CO2 available in the leaf. That is an area where C4 plants have an advantage as they can inhale CO2 during the night and store it for processing when the sun rises. Here's the problem though. Plants that grow faster are storing carbon in the 'vegetable' matter - stalks and stems - but not in the 'fruit' - the seeds that we eat/process. More CO2 means more biomass but lower seed yields. That's provided the plants get enough water to grow, and provided that the temperature doesn't rise enough to close the window on reproduction. Corn reproduction fails above 95°F.

Crop responses in a changing climate reflect the interplay among three factors: rising temperatures, changing water resources, and increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. Warming generally causes plants that are below their optimum temperatures to grow faster, with obvious benefits. For some plants, such as cereal crops, however, faster growth means there is less time for the grain itself to grow and mature, reducing yields. 193

The grain-filling period (the time when the seed grows and matures) of wheat and other small grains shortens dramatically with rising temperatures. Analysis of crop responses suggest even moderate increases in temperature will decrease yields of corn, wheat, sorghum, bean, rice, cotton, and peanut crops. 193

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2009, page 72
193: The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States, Synthesis and Assessment product 4.3, USDA, pp. 21-74

Which type of plant would stand to gain more from increasing CO2 levels? Recall that in C3 plants, the binding of O2 rather than CO2 by rubisco leads to photorespiration, lowering the efficiency of photosynthesis. C4 plants overcome this problem by concentrating CO2 in the bundle-sheath cells at the cost of ATP. Rising CO2 levels should benefit C3 plants by lowering the amount of photorespiration that occurs. At the same time, rising temperatures have the opposite effect, increasing photorespiration. (Other factors such as water availability may also come into play.)

Biology, Ninth Edition, Campbell, pp. 200-201

More than half of all the synthetic nitrogen made today is applied to corn, whose hybrid strains can make better use of it than any other plant. Growing corn, which from a biological perspective, had always been a process of capturing sunlight to turn it into food, has in no small measure become a process of converting fossil fuels into food. This shift explains the color of the land: the reason Greene County is no longer green for half the year is because the farmer who can buy synthetic fertility no longer needs cover crops to capture a whole year's worth of sunlight; he as plugged himself into a new source of energy. When you add together the natural gas in the fertilizer to the fossil fuels it takes to make the pesticides, drive the tractors, and harvest, dry, and transport the corn, you find that every bushel of industrial corn requires the equivalent of between a quarter and a third of a gallon to grow it - or around fifty gallons of oil per acre of corn. (Some estimates are much higher.) Put another way, it takes more than calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer the Naylor farm produces more than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested.

The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan, pp. 45-46

To add insult to injury, most of the crops have been genetically modified to be resistant to herbacides. But weeds grow more quickly in an elevated CO2 atmosphere - and in that same environment the commonly-used herbacides lose much of their effectiveness. Plant diseases and insect pests also benefit from warming - and southern farmers today lose 64% of their soybeans to weeds while northern farmers lose 22%. Longer growing seasons allow multiple generations of harmful insects each season - greatly increasing their numbers. Plants grown in higher CO2 conditions are less nutritious, so insects must eat more to meet their protein requirements, causing greater destruction to crops.
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2009, pp. 75-76
193: The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States, Synthesis and Assessment product 4.3, USDA, pp. 21-74

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/0406food_and_climate.shtml

Despite some claims that increased CO2 levels might actually stimulate crop growth, Roberts said such effects are uncertain and recent research suggests these effects could be much less beneficial than previously believed...He discussed data from Indiana weather records dating back more than 100 years showing that the number of degree days (a temperature measure) per year above 86 degrees directly correlated to crop yield. This correlation was prominent in the records from the 1930s Dust Bowl. If the number of very hot days per year were to increase substantially, Roberts said, crop yields of key staples such as corn, soybeans, and cotton would likely decline more than 20% in the years 2020-2049. Roberts said these numbers reflect a scenario in which there is relatively slow growth in the total amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. The crop yields could fall even more—as much as 80% for the period of 2070-2099—if CO2 emissions continue on a “business as usual” path, he said.

edit..spelling/typos

 

[Smidge204]

I'm just gonna drop this here - citation here if you want to read the whole paper.

=Smidge=

 

[DrInnovation]

2012Volt Ranked #1 in Upscale Midsize Cars

Best Upscale Midsize Cars Rankings | U.S. News Best Cars (Overall score 8.9)
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/Upscale-Midsize-Cars/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 2012 Chevrolet Volt ranks 1 out of 21 Upscale Midsize Cars. This ranking is based on our analysis of 28 published reviews and test drives of the Chevrolet Volt, and our analysis of reliability and safety data.

Reviewers agree that the 2012 Chevrolet Volt is one of the best hybrid cars on the market, thanks to its impressive fuel economy.
...

(The volt moved up from #2 position in 2011.)


Also ran across this, article last week.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1071183_iihs-sticks-by-volt-safety-rating-no-pack-issues-after-crash-tests" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Together these may help reduce some of the silly hysteria and negative articles, though the FUD does seem organized and relentless.


The USNews review does mention the Leaf as something to cross-shop when it comes out.

The 2012 Nissan Leaf ranks 4 out of 10 Upscale Small Cars. (Overall score 8.3)
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Nissan_Leaf/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 2012 Nissan Leaf is kind to the environment, but a lot of shoppers may find its limited range and cramped interior hard to live with.