Ford, GM and others will fight for E85, hydrogen or alcohol fuels cause it fits well into their existing bussiness model. BUT, whatever they do, with arrival of
PHEV people will figure out that if u can drive first 60km
on electricity then why just not throw out ICE engine from
the car and instead add batteries to increase its range to
lets say 120km and use generator in the small trailer for
occasional long trips. Suddenly all Fords expertize in ICE is going with the wind together with their existing lines for producing heavy cars (new EVs will need to be lighter as every 100 kg of gross weight will play a big role). So their best line of defence is gasoline that doesn't cost too much to make fundamental shift in peoples minds and is not cheap either to get a profit.
I view all this as a pretty weak position. With oil
reaching over 200$ things will get ugly in short order.

Hello. Paul from Sweden here. Ethanol is still letting carbondioxide out in our skyes. The invironment needs emmisson FREE vihecles very fast. They say ethanol is brought from procucts that would have produced the same amount of carbondioxide anyway, but the reality is that if ethanol is made a valuable product, it will be produced in such numbers that nobody can say that it would have been prduced anyway. And look at where it will and is already procuced! Our well needed woods all over the world that helps us all protect from the inviromental catastrof coming slowly...and faster every day ! Reguards, Paul Berg, Sweden.

I agree with Paul Berg, somewhat. We need our woods and rain forests to stay....woods and rain forests and not cleared to plant cultivated crops in places they should never be planted! I feel we will be challenged in producing crops for fuel, and crops for eating. We will not be able to meet both. In fact, we are challenged in meeting crops for eating right now. Throw in a natural disaster such as a major flood, drought, wildfire, or even a hailstorm (at the wrong time in a crops cycle) and this will throw everything into chaos.

Ethanol and biodiesel are only a short term supplement to what is existing until much better energy ideas are implemented. I am excited about what will come, and feel ethanol and biodiesel will only be a short footnote in the futures history books.

There's already excess production of food, the problems with starvation have more to do with access to food that's already been produced (and rotting) than just availability, BUT I agree that an intense focus on biofuels will make the situation worse, shifting much of the current production of food crops to fuel crops isn't going to help. Ethanol from what we currently waste may be a better stopgap as oil prices rise, but the future of transportation needs to be electric as the source of electricity can be diversified, unlike most liquid fuel schemes.

Isn't it true that the energy content amount of net biomass produced each year is a miniscule percentage of the energy required to fuel our vehicles? That doesn't mean we shouldn't use some ethanol, assuming we can do this without destroying our wildlands and pasturelands.

The thing that pisses me off about this GM push for ethanol is that it is a cynical attempt to avoid the real issue --- the piss poor fuel economy of the vehicles that they are pushing on the public. Regardless of whether or not ethanol has a net energy gain vs gasoline, it still does little to address our GHG problems when you're putting it in vehicles that get 12 mpg. When you consider that gas mileage goes down with ethanol, this reduces whatever net energy gain that exists.

This fits in with Bush's lame attempt to address our oil problem in the SOTU. Without any mention of conservation, he says we need alternative fuels as if that magically solves the problem.

Maybe it all doesn't matter, anyway. After all, we haven't really had winter here in Boulder, Colorado for years. Boulder used to be a cold place in winter.

Growing biofuels and food are not mutually exclusive. Production of ethanol from cellulose enables a wide variety of feedstocks to be utilized to make transportation fuel. Production of biodiesel simply requires a source of proper glycerides, which can come from algae or bacteria from processed sewage. Right now farmers are looking for a way to add value to their crops by using corn to make ethanol or extracting triglycerides from soy beans to make biodiesel. No one expects farm production of transportation fuel to be the "silver bullet" to our oil dependency. Its a important move in the right direction though. Now there are many flex-fuel vehicles on the road, and when the fuel becomes widely available, the country will be able to reduce its oil usage a little by using E85 or biodiesel. Whatever it takes to get the ball rolling towards a sustainable energy balance, a balance without a big question mark when it comes to cost and effect of oil use.

JN2, oops, thanks.

I am guessing Alex has never gotten into a car that has sat in the August Arizona sun for 5 hours..........

But he is partially right. I see single commuters driving 9mpg Excursions and Suburbans who also drive a mile to pick up a gallon of milk. Bikes, and just plain walking, will start to come into favor when fuel costs start to become painful enough. I for one, am moving into a newer house that is within walking distance from 4 grocery stores, and 5 restaurants, instead of having to drive 15 minutes. Thats one of my short term energy conservation enactments. Plus, when my current vehicles need replacement, I will look into something similar to a Honda Fit, or Toyota Yaris. Thats if Jeep doesnt build the Jeep Gladiator that they teased us with in 2004.

Bottom line to all our effort is this :
What are we ready to sacrifize to leave our planet a better place for children.
Terrorizm sais Bush, but how can U fight it if u can't look into the mind of every person in the world? Put
police officer to every person? Listen to all conversations ? Its all waste of resources.
I say look no further then their(terrorists) money source and that is oil. If America uses less oil - it fights terrorizm
more then army in the Middle East.
Countries that implement green energy sourses now will suffer more (in short term) as that in itself would release more oil to those who doesn't implement these mesures, which in turn make 'dirty' guys be more profitable as they don't have to invest into new
technology. BUT in the long run oil prices will still
go up and 'dirty' guys will be caught with old technolgies based on oil. From polititian stand point
it is not favourable to push green just because of that.
Solution: Implement CARBON TAXES on all goods within country and imports from all countries, so those countries that push green laws will force their corporations to produce their products green way, which
in turn be taxed less, putting their products in a better position and increasing margins of green producers.
Ethanol: Bring all biologists, phisisists and polititians together and evaluate this issue. I personally believe carmakers are happy to 'bless' us with their new 'discovery'. They want food producers to compete with energy Co. for soil to grow crops. I personally feel these is a temporary solution and should be treated as such.
I am not a tree hugger but, today I see electricity is the best path as it is a prooven technology, domestically produced(extremely important), efficient.
I mean why don't we get reed of 90% of our gas stations ,put EVs on roads? and place electric outlets at every parking lot ? Why not just pick up a city somewhere in USA and
make a pilot project of this kind if Bush sees oil dependance as a problem? Bush has money for killing his own citizens in Iraq and doesn't want to divercify into these kind of experiments just for the sake of putting eggs in different buskets? Gime a break. Too
many wrong corporations having too much money feeding
polititians that they brought to White House thats what it is. In this regard,
I CONSIDER SCRAPING EV1 PROJECT BY GM AS A CRIMINAL ACT AGAINST AMERICAN PUBLIC.
One of the reasons why I will not buy Ford or GM btw.
I know they market their products to red necks in the Texas who likes Nascar and Hot rod dragsters and never knew how many planets in a solar system. And as you have seen (from American Idol example above) there are lots of that kind in US. Ohh well I m not, and as time passes those very red necks will be forced to join my way of looking at things (though for that to happen they will get a bat on the head in the shape of high gas prices).

Bob. So I am assuming that we should eliminate the subsiday for ethanol and corn since you think the free market should sort this out.

Btw, I don't think we have time for the market to sort things out. We need Government action now in the form of carbon taxes or higher gas taxes to establish a framework for the market that will encourage these alternatives.

Alex, I find your comments entertaining and mostly right on. However, I would suggest you use a few paragraphs now and then for purposes of clarity.

Can you imagine what great strides we could make if we weren't pissing away most of our resources away on war?

There are 84bln BARRELS of oil consumed by mankind DAILY.
12-16bln GALLONS is hardly a solution. While your example with the wales is an interesting and toughtful example of how people can solve their LOCAL problems, the magnitude of oil that human kind consumes is simplly stuggering if
you think a bit more of that. While ethanol talk is OK with me, I just can't see its worth so much attention as overall irrelevant in solving an energy problem as the whole modern way of doing bussiness is based on CHEAP OIL,
and if you remove it from the chain then I believe hardly anyone understands the consiquensies of such a move. Bottom line is we need an APPOLO size project to
address this issue, but that means ADMITTING PROBLEM by
goverment which in turn will send Wall Street in a wild
swing. So for now approach is not to scare public and
act as 'bussiness as usuall'.
Now think of those who manage bln $ funds in this situation, where do they position their investments?
they have to think 20-30years ahead.
Question remains will it be a shock or graduall slide into recession. I tend to believe the second.
Regarding war in Iraq: I think White House in a reaction mode rather then action, which means they reached the point where they had to do it, cause if they didn't, then Iran and Iraq (and might be Venezuella)would start trading oil in EUROs, which would force many countries to dump their dollars simultaniously. I don't need to say what that would cause. Oil is and will be traded in dollars is the law
for which US is holding the most powerfull military.
JMHO.

Simply put, we should only be using oil in places its the ONLY option. Electricity should be generated ONLY by hydro, wind, solar and nuclear and NO FUEL, COAL or GAS should be burned of any kind to make electricty. In cars plug in hybrids could allow us to continue our current lifestyle in the USA because the amount of fuel would become so low it could be made with conventional oil and ethonol. Turn the Ford Escape into a plug in and you do have a neat vehicle. Something that could cut down fossil fuel use by 90%.

"So why not grow Algae from CO2 gas emissions produced at some electric plants? "

Hate to be a nay-sayer but there is no working business model when it comes to biodiesel from algae. From what I've seen the idea is entirely based on the oil content of algae, which means the actual cost to grow and extract oil from algae could be too expensive to be viable. If anyone figures out how to produce algae biodiesel at less than the cost of regular diesel then rest assured that energy companies will start building algae tanks by the millions. Oil cabal conspiracy theories are all bunk, companies like Exxon will gladly grow fuel in the U.S. if there is a profit to be made.