They seem to be saying that by 2022 (14 years from now) there will be LOTS more FFVs and lots more E85 pumps across the U.S. If there are 140 million cars now and 5 million of them are FFVs and the rest can only use E10, then I do not think that the numbers add up.

You might need as many as 30 million or more FFVs on the road by 2022 all using E85 all the time to come close to using 36 billion gallons of ethanol per year. That would mean that more than 1 in 10 vehicles sold between now and 2022 is an FFV....they better start now if they hope to get that many on the road by then.

Bio-fuels will have to stop, when even the middle class won't be able to afford food. Its tragic the poor can't get by NOW. But hungry middle class people will force the gov't to see the errors of their ways. The UK & France are already examining their bio-fuel policies.

A new U.S. administration is needed. Too long has President Bush been in lockstep with his own shadow & not paying attention to his policies' effects on people.

This policy seems profoundly idiotic. You suppose politics had anything to do with it?

Don't pin everything on Bush. There's a lot of farm state Democrats (including Obama) who loved this mandate, too.

It's going to take wheat shortages and $10 loaves of bread to whap them upside the head to get them to realize that corn ethanol is very much the wrong way to go.

15 billion gallons of corn taken off the dinner table??? What is more important, people or the internal combustion engine? Ethanol, ethanol, ethanol, mostly taken from food products. Wheat just doubled in price, overnight. The price of corn, Mexico's biggest food staple, already has a strangle hold on the people. This is NOW, what about 15 years from NOW??? The goal should be to put all of the food back on the table, and ditch ethanol altogether. What planet are these guys living on? Certainly not this one. Their plans cannot, and will not be achieved. Believe, me the oil companies are betting on it!

Not mentioned are biofuels made from non food resources like, biodiesel algae, 33,000, carbon free, gallons to an acre. Not mentioned biofuels that don't affect agricultural land, and further clean up our planet, such as, agriculture, forest and plastic and human waste. Not mentioned is that corn only produces 18 gallons of ethanol per acre, and what each of those 18 gallons cost to produce and get to market. Think about it! 18 gallons of food ethanol vs. 33,000 gallons of non food, sustainable biofuel that loves to eat carbon for a living.

If your having trouble getting the picture, I recommend the following:

First Step: Take all of the paper that was produced in this idiotic plan and turn it in to biofuel.

Second Step: Replace yourselves with young educated people who would never, not for one instant, think of taking food off the table,of any kind, to produce even a cup of biofuel. And, or, take money from special interest groups and cow tow to polititions.

Third Step: Take some of that money that the oil lobbies have lined your pockets with and, go out and buy yourself an electric car.

You see, the future is an all electric everything. Biofuels produced from non food resources, will be used to generate electricity, and re-sequester carbon emissions back into producing more biofuel, to put power back into our electric grid, to power the nation along with our, wind, solar, geothermal, waves, and other great non polluting renewable technologies. Simple! What are you waiting for??? You are free to GO to Step One!

re Ford's numbers: 74 gallons of E85 is only 11.1 gallons of gas. But 62.9 gallons of ethanol!

There is no reason to assume that ethanol will still be the primary biofuel in the US 15 years from now. By then, biobutanol, biodiesel, BTL and biomethane could all win significant market share - as long as the market isn't explicitly rigged in favor of ethanol.

As Germany is discovering, increasing the biofuel fraction of E91 and E95 from E5 to E10 would force millions of legacy vehicle owners to switch to the more expensive E98 grade. Ergo, there is merit in defining high blend biofuel standards and forcing car manufacturers to certify that as of e.g. 2015, *none* of their models contain non-consumable components (seals, hoses, pumps etc.) that are incompatible with those standards. True FFV capability would not be strictly required, but government-mandated changes in fuel composition should require no more than reprogramming the ECU, draining the fuel system, replacing the fuel filter and an oil change.

On a side note: in terms of a holistic energy policy, it actually makes little sense to insist that all 36 billion gallons (equivalent) be used exclusively as on-road fuel. Any application that verifiably replaces crude oil with a sustainable biogenic feedstock should be eligible. Examples include non-road vehicles, electricity generation, space heating, bulk chemicals and specialty chemicals.

Here is a plan for how to achieve energy independence and save money as well in the long-term. First a little background.

In Brazil ethanol has been historically cheaper than gasoline but gasoline was still the only fuel that you could get everywhere. For that reason most people in Brazil were still buying gasoline-only-cars some years ago. When the first flex fuel cars entered the Brazilian auto market I believe about in year 2000 that changed consumer behavior overnight. Suddenly you could gain the double benefit of being able to fuel everywhere and being able to buy cheaper E85 or other ethanol blended gas where that were available. It only took about three to four years from the first introduction of flex fuel capable gasoline vehicles to obtain almost 100% market penetration for all new gasoline vehicles sold. The rest of the world could watch and learn from the Brazilian experience.

What we need to do go to get nearly 100% flex fuel in 3 to 5 years on all new cars sold in the US is to make bio ethanol importantly cheaper than fossil gasoline. The US can do that by increasing the current subsidy of only $0.5 per gallon of ethanol to $2 per gallon. Why $2 a gallon? Because US taxpayers indirectly are subsidizing fossil gasoline with $2 per gallon. Of those 144 billion gallons a year currently consumed in the US the 100 billion is made from imported crude oil and currently the US Army spends about $200 billion a year to protect that import through its war efforts in the Middle East. This is exactly $2 per gallon of imported gasoline.

The point is that with a $2 direct subsidy on ethanol the E85 will be about $1.5 at the pump compared to $3 for pure gasoline. This is a very good reason for buying a flex fuel next time or alternatively pay at most $1000 to convert your existing non-flex fuel car into a flex fuel capable car. Furthermore, this subsidy would ensure that there would be good economic reasons to rapidly expand the current ethanol production. There is enough cellulosic biomass in the US right now to produce about 50 billion gallons of ethanol per year. The only thing that prevents the industry from doing it is that the capital cost with the current cellulosic ethanol processes is still too high to make it profitable when the subsidy is only $0.5. That will change overnight with $2 per gallon. Furthermore, the process technology for cellulosic ethanol is right now very immature and can in a decade or two be improved >a lot<. The capital cost could be reduced to a fraction of the current cost but it will take time (an 80% improvement is highly likely). The point is that the subsidy can be reduced as the ethanol industry succeeds in producing cellulosic ethanol at lower costs. By 2028 you can probable get completely rid of the subsidy and you could do all 100 billion gallon of otherwise imported fossil gasoline this way (100 billion gallons will require that a large part of US agriculture is doing cellulosic biomass production as well. However, the emergence of EVs and PHEVs will not make it necessary to produce all 100 billions to get rid of imported crude oil).

The benefit of this is that we could save money in the long run. Also there would be no more reasons to trade the lives of US soldiers for energy security and there would be no foreign countries that could blackmail the US on its stance on democratic rights such as free speech. The same thing applies for many other democratic countries. However, the US has an advantage in having so much land available for biomass production. Canada could also become a major exporter of cellulosic ethanol because they also have more than enough land available to supply their own biofuel.

*******
PS. Regarding the economics of biomass to liquids. One ton of biomass can be made for $50 delivered and can be converted to about 100 gallons of liquid fuel such as ethanol. The expensive step is capital cost. Alternatively, one ton of crude oil costs 100*6.25 = $625 (using $100 per barrel)! One ton of crude oil can be converted to about 250 gallons of liquid fuels such as gasoline. What makes gasoline expensive is the cost of crude oil not the cost of capital. Time is improving the business case for biomass to liquid fuel because the capital cost of BTL is dropping. The opposite is the case for crude oil to liquid fuels were the price of crude oil increases and so does refinery cost because the quality of crude oil is dropping as only the old oil fields are left (the average global crude oil is getting heavier).

****
@ litesong

For $55 USD you can get about 10 bushels which is more food than you can possible eat for a hole year. Millions are dying every month globally from overweight and obese only a few thousands die of hunger and it is not because they cannot afford the food it is because they cannot get the food because of some war going on where they live. Saying that the average American will starve to death because corn goes from $22 for a whole year’s consumption of corn to $55 is utterly ignorant.

how about we skip the whole FFV and ethanol distribution problem and just make biobutanol instead?

it mixes with petrol, acts like petrol, and can be used in all cars as a direct replacement for petrol. most people wouldn't even notice that anything had changed.

of course, this does nothing to address to food crop competition issues if we just start making biobutanol out of corn instead of ethanol.

RUN YOUR CAR ON WATER

HYDROGEN FUEL WILL RUN BOTH GASOLINE AND DEISEL ENGINES. WATER DECOMPRESSES INTO HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN.

PUT A CONTAINER OF WATER UNDER THE HOOD, STICK ELECTRODES INTO THE WATER FOR ELECTROLISIS, RUN ONE LEAD TO THR IGNITION THE OTHER TO A GROUND. THAT WILL PRODUCE HYDROGEN. RUN THE HYDROGEN THRU A TUBE TO THE MOTOR. IT'S THAT SIMPLE TO RUN A CAR ON WATER

LEO WELLS

Leo: I assume you have heard of this but do not operate your vehicle with water. If you have a car that will operate as you say,operating on water only. I can guarantee you a several million dollar profit from the sale of your invention. I'm afraid you have been dupped.

Henrik:

Massive corn based ethanol production will (and is already) putting pressure on many more produces than corn. Wheat at about $12 a bushel will have major repercussions on world food price and availability. All meat products will double in price quickly enough. Milk + chesse price will follow etc.

As farmers switch from fruit + vegetable production to ethanol feedstocks, the effect will be on most edible food.

It is a simple question of supply & demand. One of the few countries that can afford to mass produce ethanol is Brazil with its huge sugar cane and vast good production land surpluses. Secondly, sugar cane is a much better feedstock than corn.

Cellulosic ethanol or butanol may be a more sustainable approach but it would be more appropriate to switch to non-liquid fuel cars and trucks. PHEVs and BEVs may make the difference.

Harvey D:

What makes you think Brazil has "vast good production land surpluses"? Or do you not care about how much rain forest they need to cut down to make this happen?

[q->t to email]

Henrik's absolute blindness to the starved of the world does not surprise me. So many with full bellies have their eyes completely closed to the wasted bodies of the world. That my name is attached to his blind words saying the starved of the world exist in small numbers appalls me.

His contention that children & people starve only because there is war in their vicinity shows his three dimensional blindness. Many are the reasons for starvation.

Putting words in my mouth that I did not say, will NOT decrease the wasted starving around the world.

Strong bio-fuel policies that will feed hungry engines in direct opposition to hungry people ARE devastating the poor. Such policies are so inclusive, the middle class is NOT to be thought immune!

It is stated by many relief agencies that small U.S. policy changes whiplash the poor around the world. U.S. bio-fuel policies whiplash the poor...to death.

litesong:

Henrik is right though. Look up any authoritative source on famines, and you'll see they're either caused by politics or by an economic spiral of hoarding and price increases. When transportation is available, the famine goes away. There is plenty of food to go around. The Malthusian hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited, and redirecting as much as 40% of the US corn crop to ethanol (for 15B gallons/year) won't change that.

China's new appetite for meat is driving up prices much more than ethanol, and you can see that in the price increases which came years before US ethanol policy shifts.

[q->t to email]

Now we have 2 blind guides.

Sure it is politics & economics that starve people & keep food from circulating to the needful. Sure it is poverty, not lack of food, that causes starving. Pointing out the obvious doesn't give you the high ground to support political economic bio-fuel policies that further raise food prices.

The obvious error you set forth can be seen in people, not starving, but chronically underfed which don't stir world concern. The chronically underfed are that way because of high food prices, in short, poverty. When the drought strikes people begin to starve.

Whether the world responds to 'transport' food to 'stop' famines isn't the question here. The question is will the same political-economic conditions that set up famines by chronically underfeeding the poor be allowed to continue. In most cases those P-E conditions do continue to exist. Political support of bio-fuel policies, not only continue the roots of starvation themes, but immensely add leverage to starvation politics.

The bottom line is: There is absolutely no reason to make any kind of biofuel from food products and, no reason to use agricultural land for the same, period!!! Quit trying to justify! There is absolutely no justification, period!!!

There are a myriad of better alternatives, that will supply the worlds energy need, bring prosperity to all, end the wars and, clean up the air.

Produce all the worlds energy from non food source biofuels, algae, waste from agriculture, forests, animals and humans. Add to that, wind, solar, geothermal and new technologies. All converted directly to electricity directed into the grid, directed to all electric transportation, homes and industry. No fossil fuels, coal and nuclear plants and, NO BIOFUEL FROM FOOD PRODUCTS! A clean prosperous future for everyone with technology that is here today and, will improve tomorrow. Easy! Simple!! Let's do it!!!

It is noble to have the food/fuel debate in favor of food. However, modern society needs to find its way and this is not done over night with good intentions alone.

We will get to a fair and just system of providing energy and food. No one wants to harm anyone, it is just a tough problem that needs to be worked through over time.

Change doesn't happen overnight??? "No one wants to harm anyone?" Biofuel entered, some of our vocabularies, practically yesterday. Today, wheat just doubled its price. Because a huge amount of corn is taken off the table has caused corn prices to go through the roof. Maybe you can pay the price, but there are many more than you that cannot. This is right now. "No harm to anyone?" In fifteen years, what?

Take a look at this article, from Europe, that keeps all of the fuel on the table:

http://biopact.com/2008/02/surging-interest-fischer-tropsch-fuels.html

Its great to see more people aggreeing with me that gowing food for our fuel tanks, instead of our bellies, is wrong.

Also a couple of Henrik's assessments are wrong. He states "The rest of the world could watch and learn from the Brazilian experience" is almost funny, if it wasnt so serious. Previously someone mentioned the demise of Brazilian rain forests, creating temporary sugar cane fields. But Henrik does not expound on what happens to these sugar cane fields at harvest. THEY ARE BURNED to clear off the leaves, and drive the rodents and snakes out. What are the rest of the world learning when they watch this??? We here in Texas are occasionlly affected by haze and generally bad air conditions created by Mexican agriclutural practices where farmers there burn their fields.

Another of Henriks assessments is wrong. He is advocating increasing government subsidies on ethanol. Bad idea! His argument is that the government is subsidizing fossil gasoline. Well two wrongs do not make a right. Dont expect a subsidy just because the other side is getting one. Stand on your own feet. We should have been doing that a long time ago. Let the market forces work, how painful they are.

But he is right in saying that celluslosic ethanol is "immature". Ethanol is a short term solution, and should be funded accordingly. BEV and FCEV are our future. Ethanol is just a bandaid until that cure has developed.

Again fuel for food is a bad idea any way you look at it.

@ Mark and Solarnano,

as SJC has eruditely observed, we have a fleet of 140 million vehicles (with an average age of ~7 years) that need to run on something for another 5-15 years. If we replaced 8% of our petrol use, by widely distributing E10, that might just offset the growth in the number of drivers over the same time period.

Corn will not be the ultimate fuel input for the simple reason that something else will be much more profitable.

Thank you, I like the word erudite...

I think we will find away through the maze of options. It will take time, but people just like their cars too much to give them up all together. This is a powerful motivator to find a good way to have cars and a clean sustainable world as well.

# solarnano,

I notice that you do not include any non-polluting renewables like hydro in your discussion of what we should do. Why is that?

I forgot Hydro damns up rivers and prevent certain migratory fish species from spawning in significant numbers. But the solution is ignored, like fish ladders.

But there are not many rivers yet undamnned.

I do note that "waste from agriculture" will no longer be available to replenish the soil. Why are you denying the worms and soil bacteria the right to eat?
Never thought of that did you?

Or that "algae" need food to live on, and you are diverting someone or somethings food supply, for your own selfish fuels sources, by feeding your fuel algae.
Never thought of that did you?

You do manage to include a rather uncommon source wind, but the warts on that are only now beginning to appear. It kills birds, and is "unsightly" to phony greens when visible from their mansions. The cost of maintenance is prohibitive when your power plant sits on a pole 20 stories in the air, too. So the wind farms are littered with dead wind-turbines; too costly to bother to fix. And its intermittent, too.

Solar really hasn't been tried to date, on a large scale, so you don't seem to even know that it is very inefficient (or it would be in use by now). Its impact on the environment is at least two orders of magnitude worse than adding marginal amounts of a minor trace gas to the atmosphere for a few more decades.

Solar's possibilities for anthropomorphic global warming are simply astounding. Or hasn't anybody actually bothered to tell you what happens when you alter the Albedo substantially, on a large scale? Solar's inefficiency requires enormous quantities of acreage to produce not very much power.

It may be renewable, but if you believe we can't bear the warming of a hundred years from trace CO2, than certainly, we can't bear ten years of fossil replacement with large scale "solar". Even then, that would be, in a mere decade, considerably worse. Hardly enough time to even get really started. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view. And its intermittent, too.

Modern technological civilization depends of Energy. Without it, we can only regress to a lower technological level and all that entails.

The only sources that do not have dramatic wide spread effects are thermonuclear, nuclear, tidal, hydro, or geothermal in origin. And you didn't select any of them, except to eliminate some.

Of course we can do without, but I suggest you hold a lottery to determine which one out of every hundred humans, gets to avoid participating in the "Great Die Off".

Otherwise the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will do it in a very messy way. The Socialist "nomenklatura" have already selected, and it doe s NOT include them. They excel in equally sharing the misery for others, though.

HOW MANY COMBUSTION MOTORS ARE IN THE U.S.A.
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP.