Editor's Note -- This article was written in 2006, yet the ethanol scandal continues to prove what a waste of money it is year after year. What a shame.
Last
year ethanol producers
received subsidies and tax
incentives worth more than $5
billion dollars, and those
subsidies will probably be
much higher next year. Yet,
even with those subsidies
ethanol isn't cost effective
unless gas prices are close to
$3.00 per gallon.
So, is ethanol worth the
price?
Supporters of ethanol claim
that all this investment in
ethanol for automobiles will
eventually lead to better ways
of producing ethanol, such as
cellulosic ethanol.
I say it will simply lead to
more flex-fuel Hummers and
little decrease in foreign oil
dependency. I say E85 is a
feel-good way of accomplishing
nothing, something both
Democrats and Republicans love
- talk, talk, talk, but do
nothing.
Without raising the fuel
efficiency of America's
automobiles - significantly - America's demand for energy
will continue to grow
exponentially and it will
outpace any reduction in
foreign oil dependency
produced by ethanol.
More important, even GM is now
realizing the that the future
of automobiles is probably
electric (more).
If this is true, then E85
simply becomes a distraction,
even a boondoggle to those
ends, at least for American
automakers and the American
economy.
Today, hybrid cars can
increase fuel efficiency by 20
to 30 percent, which is a good
start. Add advanced gasoline
engines or clean diesel
engines and fuel efficiency
could be doubled - that's with
just TODAY's technology.
But the real advantage of
hybrids will be lithium
batteries, and the ability to
utilize electric power. Within
5 years it is quite possible
that you could buy a $30,000
hybrid vehicle that might
never have to be filled with
fuel if you drive less than 40
miles per day, all it would
need is a small electric
charge at night.
Within 10 years a small fuel
cell stack could be added to
these plug-in hybrids and the
majority of drivers might
never need any other fuel than
just a little occasional
electricity. More important,
all of this could happen much
quicker if more incentives
were provided for hybrid
technology and lithium-ion
technology.
Why not give those ethanol
subsidies to consumers to
purchase these vehicles?
Ultimately, a change in
consumer behavior is the
quickest path to foreign oil
dependence and a cleaner
environment.
Yet, ethanol is the favored
buzzword, the favored
recipient of tax incentives
and government subsidies.
In the past Honda has already
claimed it believes electric
cars are integral to the
future, and Toyota's hybrid
efforts make them a player in
electric cars as well. Even GM
says the future is electric.
Consequently, it is imperative
that American automakers lead
the way into this automotive
revolution, rather than
sticking to flex-fuel Hummers
and Mustangs.
America's focus should be that
in 10 years every American
vehicle produced is either
fuel-free or that fuel is
simply a backup. The
technology will be there
within 10 years. The Japanese
will be there. Will America?
Still, I'm all for ethanol,
cellulosic ethanol, as a fuel
to produce electricity, just
not as an automobile fuel.
Ultimately, transporting
ethanol simply makes no sense
in a liquid form, but in an
electric form it makes great
sense.
Consequently, E85 could become
a distraction, even a
boondoggle if it takes the
clean energy and foreign oil
dependency spotlight, and
early talk from many Democrats
seems headed in that direction
(more).
The future is now. If we don't
dare to dream, we just might
wake up to a nightmare. New
automotive technology, not
alternative fuels, should be
the priority for America, and
the majority of our tax
incentives and subsidies
should be given to consumers
to buy this new technology.


Ethanol is a renewable fuel that is being produced now and can be used now with existing infrastructure. We don't have to wait for an electric car or even a PHEV and the 15 years to recycle out all the combustion engines and exchange electric hookups for gas stations. The key is that it is miscible with gasoline - which means that it can be gradually introduced into the buying behavior of the population. Furthermore, unlike electricity which is being produced predominantly with the combustion of fossil fuels, ethanol can store its energy for temporal as well as geographic transport.
But the most exciting thing for me is that ethanol and hydrogen can be made from fermenting syngas made from gasifying waste biomass of all forms - agricultural, forestry, and urban. That means can use the bioconversion of ethanol as a panacea for waste and combustion problems that plague the earth. Added plus... it can cogenerate electricity without combustion. That, in a nutshell, is what my BioConversion Blog is all about.
I advocate phasing in PHEVs that can run on E85. The miles/gallon (of gasoline) would be about 500 miles with the bulk coming from the combustion of ethanol. For that to happen, we need to develop cellulosic ethanol production techniques while perfecting PHEV technology.
What is the fixation with E85? There isn't enough ethanol being produced to get E10 in significant quantities, much less E85. Please, please, please advocate for a roadmap that doesn't have "And Then A Key Technology That Doesn't Exist Right Now Is Developed Here" as one of the middle steps.
Mike
Scott -
I'm 100% for bioconversion but mainly as a source for producing electricity, not automobile fuel - although that electricity could power PHEVs.
I'm not against E85, I just believe fuel efficiency has to be the priority, and PHEVs are the best path to that end, especially for American auto companies. The technology to produce 100 mpg plug-in hybrid vehicles essentially exists today, and American automakers need to seize this opportunity immediately.
That just won't happen without real leadership from Congress, and I'm very worried Congress is going to be content with just E85 in the short term.