GM Launches E85 Vehicles Campaign

[4gm]

suprised no one has posted this

Source: General Motors

[Jan 31, 2006]

SYNOPSIS: The campaign is designed to make consumers, energy producers and policy makers aware of the E85 capability already found on more than 1.5 million GM vehicles in the market.

WASHINGTON D.C. - General Motors today launched an unprecedented national advertising and marketing campaign to build awareness and market acceptance for ethanol/gasoline blended fuel (E85) vehicles as a major plank in its corporate marketing campaign at the Washington Auto Show.

The campaign, "Live Green Go Yellow," will break during the Olympics in February and continue throughout the year with print, web and broadcast media components. The campaign is designed to make consumers, energy producers and policy makers aware of the E85 capability already found on more than 1.5 million GM vehicles in the market, and to pave the way for more E85 vehicles that will launch this year. The ads will also encourage consumers to actively promote E85 in their communities.

more at link

What if GM were to make all of their "low tech" engines capable of running on E85 fuel? It might create market pressure, due to GM's sales volume, to increase the availability of E85 at gas stations. It would be excellent PR for GM and might lessen some of the stigma associated with what some perceive as GM's low-tech engines. Just a thought.

[Drew Dowdell]

Make them all capable... low tech or high tech. If I could run E85 through my CTS I would.

And ya know what... screw the subsidy. I much rather have a Kansas farmer get rich off me then Prince Ali-baba.

[Ghost Dog]

E85 has to become more widely available. Thats whats holding it back.

[regfootball]

as long as you know

and remember, farm subsides often go to congolms like ADM, not the 'struggling' (cough) farmer.

from townhall.com

"When you add up all the targeted government subsidies for ethanol, including federal price supports, a generous federal excise tax exemption worth more than 5 cents a gallon at the pump, various tax credits, and subsidized grain exports, the taxpayer tab amounts to more than $7 billion over the last 16 years. (And ethanol still costs more than regular gasoline.) These government giveaways are on top of the abominable $200 billion farm bill signed into law by President Bush, which will pay farmers some $4 billion a year to grow more corn for subsidized ethanol production. It's not the small family farmers that reap the rewards. It's the suits at ADM, whose every $1 of profits earned by ethanol operation is estimated to cost taxpayers $30. This corporate bilking of the public, and the Beltway collusion that enables it, ought to be criminal."

so even those your not giving your oil money to Prince Radjid or whatever, your more than likely paying twice as much in the end for your gas.

this is a good read too

John McCain

hey, I think Ethanol as another fuel choice is a great idea.

Just so everyone knows, right now, you're paying through THE ASS for it.

i likely could find 25,000 articles on this, but y'all have google and curiosity.

and I'm from MN, i should be pushing this stuff. Maybe, but they're already getting of my tax dollars for it.

Edited February 4, 2006 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

as long as you know

and remember, farm subsides often go to congolms like ADM, not the 'struggling' (cough) farmer.

from townhall.com

"When you add up all the targeted government subsidies for ethanol, including federal price supports, a generous federal excise tax exemption worth more than 5 cents a gallon at the pump, various tax credits, and subsidized grain exports, the taxpayer tab amounts to more than $7 billion over the last 16 years. (And ethanol still costs more than regular gasoline.) These government giveaways are on top of the abominable $200 billion farm bill signed into law by President Bush, which will pay farmers some $4 billion a year to grow more corn for subsidized ethanol production. It's not the small family farmers that reap the rewards. It's the suits at ADM, whose every $1 of profits earned by ethanol operation is estimated to cost taxpayers $30. This corporate bilking of the public, and the Beltway collusion that enables it, ought to be criminal."

so even those your not giving your oil money to Prince Radjid or whatever, your more than likely paying twice as much in the end for your gas.

this is a good read too

John McCain

hey, I think Ethanol as another fuel choice is a great idea.

Just so everyone knows, right now, you're paying through THE ASS for it.

i likely could find 25,000 articles on this, but y'all have google and curiosity.

and I'm from MN, i should be pushing this stuff.  Maybe, but they're already getting of my tax dollars for it.

Does the money stay in this country? Does the money no longer fund terrorist supporting countries? Does the money no longer fund countries that oppress human rights?

Sometimes paying extra is worth it.

[regfootball]

yeah, that's cool, as long as you know

farming corn requires 29% more FOSSIL fuel energy than the ethanol fuel that's produced.

study

I'm fine with ethanol, just remember, you burn more of it compared to gas.

Isn't Iowa the first primary of the election year? I can't remember.

honestly, ethanol is a nice option as a part of many fuel options. Just don't get your hopes up for it being a savior is all I'm saying, and realize its more expensive to you as a taxpayer than it seems on the surface. For as much as its existed as a legitimate alternate fuels source (justifiably so), it also exists as much as a pork barrel item as well.

as an aside, if you're ever interested in learning more about farm subsidies (not related to this topic) go to

http://www.ewg.org/farm/

Edited February 4, 2006 by regfootball

[jry]

Make them all capable... low tech or high tech.  If I could run E85 through my CTS I would.

And ya know what... screw the subsidy. I much rather have a Kansas farmer get rich off me then Prince Ali-baba.

AMEN!!!

and in the meantime BURN 10% until the E 85 shows up.

but the article doesn't say which of the 1.5 mil are flex fuel.

Edited February 4, 2006 by jry

[Drew Dowdell]

yeah, that's cool, as long as you know

farming corn requires 29% more FOSSIL fuel energy than the ethanol fuel that's produced.

study

I'm fine with ethanol, just remember, you burn more of it compared to gas.

Isn't Iowa the first primary of the election year?  I can't remember.

honestly, ethanol is a nice option as a part of many fuel options.  Just don't get your hopes up for it being a savior is all I'm saying, and realize its more expensive to you as a taxpayer than it seems on the surface.  For as much as its existed as a legitimate alternate fuels source (justifiably so), it also exists as much as a pork barrel item as well.

as an aside, if you're ever interested in learning more about farm subsidies (not related to this topic) go to

http://www.ewg.org/farm/

I've read that study before and it's flawed. It assumes that the ONLY thing that would happen would be switching the use of the corn from food to ethenol/biodiesel. Then counts petrolium costs of producing the corn against the fuel output of the corn. What it fails to account for is the USE of the ethenol/biodiesel after it's produced. Wouldn't people actually USE it? The farmers would/could use the E85 in their farm equipement, the truckers could use biodiesel in their trucks.

[razoredge]

We have had a similar case with the "pellet stoves" and "corn" stoves. They need to run a factory using all sorts of electric and fuels to make these little pellets out of wood. In the mean time we had more potential fuel wood laying around rotting because the money was not worth the back breaking work to get it to customers. Then we lost customers to the pellet stoves, then once they had them they raised the price of pellets, then some of the people found they could not get the BTU needed that the wood stove they threw out could..........

Our corn farmers burn huge tanks of LP every drying season to get the stuff to the proper moisture content. This is a larger issue than the diesel fuel used to work the fields. Corn goes in and harvests quick.

Im sure there are some less costly ways for much of the drying processes like intensified passive solar

I see I must do some study on this "corn whiskey"

[PurdueGuy]

The farmers would/could use the E85 in their farm equipement, the truckers could use biodiesel in their trucks.

Actually, it's been found (according to my farmer father-in-law) that high levels of eth. in the fuel causes seal failures in all but the most recent farm equipment. Want to study waste: consider replacing all the farm equipment across the country... it's not like cars that people already replace every 5 years, farmers run their equipment FOREVER! (how much energy/materials savings would there be if everyone repaired their cars instead of so many people whining & buying something new whenever the first malfunction occurred...)

[regfootball]

I've read that study before and it's flawed. It assumes that the ONLY thing that would happen would be switching the use of the corn from food to ethenol/biodiesel. Then counts petrolium costs of producing the corn against the fuel output of the corn. What it fails to account for is the USE of the ethenol/biodiesel after it's produced. Wouldn't people actually USE it? The farmers would/could use the E85 in their farm equipement, the truckers could use biodiesel in their trucks.

yeah but then they would be using even more, wouldn't they, because you need more ethanol than gas to get the same work. it would go from 129% to like 155% consumed vs. produced or something.........

[regfootball]

Actually, it's been found (according to my farmer father-in-law) that high levels of eth. in the fuel causes seal failures in all but the most recent farm equipment.  Want to study waste: consider replacing all the farm equipment across the country... it's not like cars that people already replace every 5 years, farmers run their equipment FOREVER!    (how much energy/materials savings would there be if everyone repaired their cars instead of so many people whining & buying something new whenever the first malfunction occurred...)

well yeah, there's that too. I sure hope all the e85 cars and such are built for this.

[Newbiewar]

Make them all capable... low tech or high tech.  If I could run E85 through my CTS I would.

And ya know what... screw the subsidy. I much rather have a Kansas farmer get rich off me then Prince Ali-baba.

although Aladin was a good movie...

i think it was prince ali-babwa

but yea, leave the money in the usa, and we'll be better off...

did you know in the 40's ford designed a car that was based mostly on hemp and ran on hemp oil... a year later hemp was illegal to grow in america... it had a hemp compound that was like 6 times stronger then steel and lighter too...

they said it would only take 6% of USA farm lands to power every car on the road with hemp oil, if we could grow it... but the government doesnt want to remove oil dependance... the early oil companys have such a grab of the politians nuts that we are incapable of changing... (not that I'm some kind of hippy i just think its fascinating that arguably one of the worlds best [or diverse] plants is outlawed in the worlds most agracultural country)

on a E85 note... GM will be launching most of its campaign through the 07 avalanche in the next year or so...

Also, I believe out Californian Governer has signed a deal with chevron and some pacific ethonal supplier to get california in the runnings for E85...

Edited February 4, 2006 by Newbiewar

[jrockb4]

Brazil recently announce that through the use of ethanol they were in a position to all but eliminate the use of imported crude. They use sugar cane for the ethanol there. Here are a couple of articles. GM is a leader in this area. Get out of the oil company pockets and make an investment as see what can happen!!!!!

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntl52722.htm

http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/mag/soybea...booming_brazil/

[razoredge]

There is also some hybridized Hemp clone the could be used for paper fiber.

[thegriffon]

well yeah, there's that too.  I sure hope all the e85 cars and such are built for this.

That's a big part of what makes them E85 capable.

[thegriffon]

The Berkeley study reads more like a tirade against industrial agriculture than a scientific study. On the one hand growing corn is environmentally damaging in and of itself, and it is immoral to be using it to make fuel when you could be giving it away to feed the world's hungry (never mind that farmers are paid not to grow crops because there isa continual surplus, nor that a lack of corn is does not contribute t starvation in Africa, but a lack of other food stuffs—green vegetables and meat). There are also significant costs involved in not using the corn being produced—the marginal cost of converting it into ethanol then becomes much lower. Also quite obviously if corn production cannot supply enough ethanol then other sources must be used. Other candidates are sugar beets and sugar cane. I doubt anyone would complain if the world's vast excess is sugar production was turned into fuel, sugar beets can be grown widely in colder climates and don't require the same level of efining to make ethanol. Efficiencies can also be increased by using waste biomass (stalks and husks) to power processing, as the sugarcane industry has done for years.

[cmattson]

Quoting townhall.com doesn't give me anything credible. Not that you can't find a nugget of truth here or there - it's just that it's very political and very biased. Even if Ethynol is energy-neutral, how about the idea that it creates demand for a local-product? And your tax dollars stay here? And our energy-needs aren't being met by some foreign nation? All of that makes much more sense to me. To each their own..

[razoredge]

how about the idea that it creates demand for a local-product?  And your tax dollars stay here?  And our energy-needs aren't being met by some foreign nation?  All of that makes much more sense to me.  To each their own..

I agree

now how do we keep the corruption of the ivy leage UNION from turning it into a capitolistic nightmare.

[regfootball]

i do also agree with the above theory of, why should we grow corn for fuel when corn should be grown as food.

i have big issues with our subisdized farm policy, although i guess i am not sure how it would work otherwise. the area where i was from, 80% of the neighboring population was sucking off the farm subsidy t---t and the thing is, they never felt it was enough, that it should be more more more and never one ounce of recognition of anything other than 'entitlement'.

As an industry, farming needs to shed some of the attitude. Not many businesses could operate however the heck they want and ignore learning to how to professionally manage a business. They can, because they always know there will be a subsidy, 'safety net' to fall back on. And if the net is not big enough, just threaten to vote your seantors out of office and the problem will get solved. watch those dollars flow in.

off my pulpit now. i just think ethanol is fine as one alternative fuel but it should never become more than a niche fuel. If it were to become a staple of where we get our fuel from it will create more problems in the future then we have now buying crude from over the globe.

Edited February 5, 2006 by regfootball

[scharmer05]

I would love it if they got E85 in all of their vehicles...we have E85 in stations all over up here and I would love to be using it. I know a lot of guys with newer suburbans have E85 cap. and what they do is put in about half E85 and half regular when they fill up...and your mpg stays about the same...so i think it would be a great deal

[capriceman]

My caprice can have 15% ethonal yeah. i wonder if that would even save me money?

Thats cool though