Consumers may be willing to take the additional hit on fuel cost for the offsetting benefits of a biofuel (non-petroleum fuel, reduced greenhouse gas impact).

There is no *may* here -- consumers are willing to take an additional hit. The proof is in the hybrid drivers -- in general, they aren't the most cost-efficient way to get high mpg. The question is, will enough consumers be willing to take the hit to make a significant impact on the market.

Remember too that if it looks like ethanol sales will take off, more refineries will be built, resulting in more supply, helping to reduce prices.

The best strategy is to consume less, period. If lower fuel mileage is taken into account, then the well to wheel numbers for ghg emissions need to be adjusted. We also need to keep in mind that ethanol is subsidized, so the real total cost differential is even greater than above.

Why those GM doesn't recalll its experience with EV2? Solectria sunruise is another example. They (GM) want to solve energy dependance problem and don't change there core business - (ICE cars). If they let out people to see
benefits of driving EVs there will be many new companies
who will enter auto business and squize them out as making an EV is much simpler process in terms of nbr of parts and their superior quility.
There problem is that each day more people are aware of HOW they (GM and others)want America to be free of islamic oil. I for one don't want to buy this supposedly "american" car. That what is there problem.
People feel being cheated and will not buy there cars.
Word of mouth is spreading and GM better watch out.
Again, too sad that its Wagner and his surrounding officers who is responsible for this failure and ordinary ppl will loose jobs, while execs in the worst case will bail out in golden shute.

Alex. I had a little problem following your comment but if the gist is that EV is the way to go, I agree. According to a study done by the State of California, EV has the lowest GHG emissions even if you use coal. That is to say, it beats out even Ethanol as far as net emissions.

Of course, one has to sacrifice performance, but that's part of the problem we have in America, isn't it. As long as performce is king, we won't be able to make much of a dent in the oil or GHG problem.

So now the goal is not only to reduce dependence on oil, but also to save money? And we want it all in the short term? What about the life expectancy of the batteries in EVs - I guess it's not expensive to replace those? Ethanol is a decent, renewable fuel which is available and implemented *right now* and costs roughly the same as non-renewable gasoline. Ethanol is an excelent candidate for a transitional alternative fuel until other, more efficient fuls are developed - or until the Ethanol industry is better developed so costs can go down & manufacturers start geting better efficiency out of Ethanol engines. I remember a time in the not-so-distant past when I would've been overjoyed to find a gasoline-powered automobile which could get a consistent 19 MPG...

I grew up on a farm and I have a bachelor's degree in chemistry.

The farmer in me says: Growing corn uses a lot of energy. (Fuel for the tractors)

The chemist in me says: The highest concentration of ethanol that can be made naturally is about 12-13%. The distillation process to take 12-13% ethanol to high purity fuel-grade ethanol requires a high input of energy. (Think of the high cost of Everclear. Everclear is high purity ethanol.)

Making fuel-grade ethanol requires more energy that the ethanol can put out. This is never going to be a sustainable process. MORE ENERGY IS USED IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING FUEL-GRADE ETHANOL THAN THE FUEL WILL EVER HAVE. People might use ethanol to fuel their vehicles and it might make them feel like they're doing something good for the environment and the dependence of foreign oil, but the production of ethanol as a fuel is an energetically wasteful process. I have no idea how this idea is getting so much attention as an alternative to foreign oil.

The only sources of energy that are truely "green" that are known today are those that harness natural occurances: solar power, wind power, water power, etc.

There are more than a few states that do not even have E-85 fuel stations. The real problem with alternative fuels is the lack of infrastructure to support them. Consumer demand is there; it's the infrastructure that is lagging.

While considering my own options for AFVs I noticed that some states include incentives for them as well - like sales tax free. But for me, in NY, the only E-85 pumps are for governement and not open to the public.
This address http://e85vehicles.com/e85-stations.htm shows how many states lack pumps.

GMs efforts are laudable but meaningless unless some form of incentive is made to fuel station operators to install the pumps; and it's a tricky deal because they won't want to until they percieve 'consumer demand' which can't exist until the infrastructure is in place, which won't happen till there is consumer demand...

Ethanol is a biofuel substitute for gasoline. Biodiesel is a biofuel substitute for diesel.

Why do we have to go all the way to 85% ethanol? Currently 10% is being added to Unleaded and there is certainly less mileage and efficiency loss at that rate--it fact it raises the octane of gasoline.
Why not make it a 50/50 blend?

if we use corn oil does that mean that we can get gass at the stores ans still use th oil for our food?

Here's a bit of information to all you tree huggers out there who think that ethanol will be the answer to all the evils of the petroleum industry: I have worked in both an ethanol plant and in an oil refinery - there is very little difference in the environmental impacts of these two processes. The one big difference, however, is that an ethanol plant makes the air in miles and miles of the surrounding area stink like a corn liquor still, which is what an ethanol plant acutally is. Sure, you don't get the potential for transportation accidents associtated with the oil industry, so I guess that as long as the stink and the hazards aren't in your own backyard, then ethanol is a good alternative fuel for you. If you hypocrites are really that concerned with environmental pollution and "ozone depletion", stop using your cars and walk.

Subject: E85, E95 and Ethanol Production & Use
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/gm_live_green_g.html

I've enjoyed your E85 post immensely. There are a number of ethanol plant is the US which manufacture ethanol with “legacy” technology & processes. However, the level of efficiency used today in new plant is vastly more efficient. Our firm is building one of these new plants today. We are “NOT” using fossil fuel to power our plant. Instead, we’re using biomass for our thermal feedstock. Biomass thermal feedstock has a dramatic impact on all aspects of our plant; and this energy balance ratio (0.74:1) that’s been discussed could be null. As our feedstock is renewable, does that number matter? And if so, as a plant developer, what is the optimum energy delta?

There may be 200 ethanol plants in operation by 2008 (or more). There will be a mix of technologies and processes in play; with more on the way. We will be using a full range of feedstock’s that “do” make sense within 10-15 years; even if corn doesn’t today.

Try to think of the ethanol industry the way the oil & gas industry evolved from 1895 to 2006. The ethanol industry is at about 1910 the 1915 by comparison. We will find our way – the same way we found our path to the moon. Remember folks – this is America. When we set our best minds to it we can’t be stopped – so hang in there and give the industry the support it needs to mature. With corn, hull-less barley, oats, wheat and later, biomass feedstock’s for ethanol production (and thermal feedstock’s) we can shift from 100% oil-based fuels to 100% domestically produced fuels. But we do need your support to do that……

I short comment about E85 cars: the Saab 9-2 is a bi-fuel vehicle. With gasoline its low-pressure turbo engine produces and 140-150 Hp. However, with E85, the same car produces 185 – 190 Hp. This is due to the higher octane rating of ethanol; over gasoline; AND, the Saab’s EMS (engine management system) adjusting the turbo pressure (higher) for ethanol. Hence, the lower BTU rating of ethanol v/s gasoline is offset by the EMS increasing power out-put. The question is: “is Ford & GM using this technology in their cars & trucks?”

In closing, this is an industry the will not be out-sources to China or some other country. This industry will create jobs, industry and support for local farm products.

Regards,
The1energy
CEO for a current ethanol plant in the US