If I could get one point across to the American people it would be:

We don't have enough ethanol for E85 on a nationwide basis, and there is no reasonable plan to get us there. We are far better off working on two other short term goals: more efficient ethanol production, and E10 everywhere.

These two articles explain why in more detail:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1629

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/rapier/2006/0623.html

This poll mirrors what I have seen. One of the local Austin Texas news channels had a story about a new E85 pump going in, and stated how it (in the news story) would be selling E85 (gasohol?) at 15-20 cents cheaper than regular gas. But the story did not say anything about E85 being 20-30% less fuel efficient than regular, or did not touch on how difficult it would be to produce enough ethanol for E85 nationally. The news story led us to believe E85 was an exact replacement for gasoline, with no drawbacks, at 15-20 cents cheaper. This just proves to me how strong the farm ethanol lobbyists are, and as to what facts get relayed.

E10 would be a better goal to shoot for, or if we are to follow this biofuel route, butanol would be a better solution in my opinion.

I tend to agree that E10 everywhere is far better than E85 in some places, especially since E10 everywhere can be tweaked upward easily enough.

As far as the Feds paying for E85 pumps to be installed, why not just do this:

1. Pick some states for ethanol, based on location of creation and location of current fleet of flexfuel cars. Indiana, Illinois, et al.
2. Require that x% of all new fueling stations install E85 pumps in the states outlined in (1). How to enforce? Require that the x% apply to every brand. If x = 50, that means that for every 2 Exxon/Mobil stations built or significantly remodelled/altered in the entire region defined in (1), one had better have E85 pumps.
3. Over time, increase the size of the area in (1) and the value x in (2). Don't make it arbitrary -- make the plan clear years in advance, and allow gasoline brands to "get ahead" by counting new E85 pumps in areas not yet in (1).

This costs the Federal Gov't $0.00. By rolling out the region in (1) wisely they can grab the low hanging fruit and put a constant carrot in front of consumers. It would put all the (risk averse) major gas companies on equal footing regarding E85 for all of them in equal proportions. It would also help potential E85 distillers have a much better sense as to the direction of the marketplace, reducing risk and encouraging more E85 distillation.

When you walk you are using up Natural Gas. Most of the fertilizer used in making food is made from natural gas.

"My ride gets infinite miles per gallon: I walk."

You will probably inadvertently improve your health as a side effect. This could force you to buy smaller clothes, lower your health bills, and increase your life. Are you sure you are ready for all of that?

Where is there a "Wintermane" in the above thread? Did I miss something?

And to Icelander, have you ever walked 18 miles, one way, to work in Southwest Texas in late July, wearing a black three piece business suit, carrying a 10 pound briefcase, or to its equivalent? Or for that matter, walk 50 miles to work in Central Alaska in mid January, or to its equivalent?

The reference to walking is un-needed here as everyone knows the obvious, but there are practical concerns to be met by using a "vehicle".

Back on subject, the majority of the consuming public (unlike the regular contributors to this site) are unaware of the drawbacks to E85, and will be in for a rude awakening when they do become aware of it. The farm lobbyists, and GM to a degree, are to blame for promising a little and not telling the whole story.

Mark A -

sorry, my mistake. The post I was responding to was by "An Engineer".

Mark- I walked the Bataan Death March military heavy while carrying 1.5 gallons of gatorade (which does not count for your weight total so the weight is added on top of the minimum required for military heavy). Easily comparable to 18 miles one way in any part of Texas (in fact I used to run 5-7 miles every other day in the summer heat of El Paso at ~3500ft elevation)...but really, if you didn't CHOOSE to live 18 miles away from where you work this wouldn't be a problem. I see very little reason for the majority of the population to live more than 5 miles from their place of work. (notice I said majority...not every single person disregarding every special instance, just the simple majority).

Producing fuel from waste is possible and sensible but still very expensive.
Expensive is a relative term. Crude oil is getting expensive. Corn ethanol, absent all those generous subsidies, would be very expensive. As we run out of landfill space, waste->fuel gets cheaper from the supply side. Add to that improvements in technology, and it is only going one way...

Maintaining product quality within a narrow tolerance band at a high level is hard enough with crude oil, just imagine how much harder it must be with household weaste.
Depends on the technolgy. With gasification-Fisher/Tropsch you first produce syngas which has to be cleaned anyway. After that you actually produce synthetic hydrocarbons that are much cleaner than fossil fuels: no sulfur or aromatics.

More prosaically, waste can simply be burnt in special facilites to generate electricity.
Electricity is cheap and abundant. Liquid fuels are expensive and scarce. Hence it is more profitable and usueful to convert waste into liquid fuels.

Current import duty on ethanol (Brazil, Venezuela):100%
Current import duty on crude oil: 0%
Number of 4 cylinder flex fuel vehicles
available in the U.S. :0

I do plenty of walking even though I like to drive and am a die-hard motorhead. I like cars and dream of having a Pontiac Firebird to fix up and restore. Yet...I still like to walk.

Anyway, I've been saying in previous posts that the CAFE standars should be raised. Why not have every passenger car or SUV getting 30-50 mpg instead of a few?

Instead of nitpicking, why don't we just acknowledge that Patrick is doing a good thing and making the roads more roomy for those who like/need to drive.

In my working years, I made it a practice (back to 1975) to never live more than five miles from work. I paid extra for the privilege but for me it was worthwhile. It expands your options, including walking and bicyling. When I bicyled to work that I needed exercise anyway; this way I killed two birds with one stone. The extra time required was minimal if I subtracted the time I would have been exercising anyway.

I don't know if the majority can live 5 miles or less from work, but I do know that a lot of my cohorts were very explicit about why they lived far from work. They wanted a very large house in the suburbs. So, this was a choice, not a basic need or a situation where a poor person had no other alternatives. These were not poor people, nor are most of Americans poor people.

Of course, house prices have gotten even more outrageous in most places in the last several years. So maybe things have changed.

I also had a boss who said he liked his long commute because it gave him time to think. It seemed to me I could just as easily do my thinking at home with the extra time I had.

The thing about ethanol is that they plan to also start making it from other sources. Sych as switchgrass a source that requires NO pesticles no water no fertilizers.. just mow it.

Maybe they might even manage to use kudzu...

It will at least help.

Eventualy they expect the engine to go bye bye and a fuel cell to take its place... ethanol works very well for that as a source of h2.

Oh and the reason a fuel cell will take over is it shouldnt take long before a fuel cell is cheaper then a transmission and an engine and radiator and all that stuff... and alot more efficeint too.