Coskata: GM's ethanol future

Vinod Khosla partners with Rick Wagoner and GM

GM hasn't announced any new hybrid vehicles today, although Rick Wagoner announced today that there would in the near future be a press release on the Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid.

Nonetheless, GM did make another very interesting announcement. GM is partnering with Vinod Khosla'sCoskata, a company that believes it is ready to take ethanol to the next level, cellulosic ethanol and leave grain based ethanol in the past.

Hybrid vehicles dissed by Energy Bill?

$100 million per year for hybrids and electrics?

At first glance one might think the proposed energy bill coming out of Congress includes some great incentives for advanced technologies, such as hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles and electric cars, but if compared to corn-based ethanol, the numbers are pathetically low. Finish.....

Flex-fuel credit all but guaranteed

Corn is a political force

The House and Senate are close to approving a CAFE bill calling for 35 mpg by 2020 and, even though ethanol causes more harm than good, ethanol credits will be extended.

"We're very close to a deal," U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Lansing, said in an interview Wednesday. "The bumper sticker aspects of the bill may not be significantly altered, but we are providing enough flexibility and practicality to make this achievable."

In other words, enough loopholes will exist that this legislation will, ultimately, accomplish little in terms of either foreign oil dependency or global warming. By 2020, there will be many more cars on the road and many more drivers which will significantly increase energy consumption.

CAFE is not the answer.

Lithium: The secret weapon of the auto industry?

Bob Lutz stands next to the Volt at its debut at NAIAS

"Lithium battery technology is being husbanded in Japan. It's like a secret weapon," GM's Bob Lutz recently told reporters at a meeting of the Western Automotive Journalists association. Thus, many Japanese companies would not bid on the battery contract for the Chevy Volt.

Mr. Lutz also criticized the U.S. government for not being as aggressive as the the Japanese government with advanced batteries. Of course, maybe the government could criticize GM and US automakers for not being as aggressive as Japanese automakers on hybrid cars.

In addition to slamming the government, Lutz also attacked CAFE, calling a gas tax a more sensible approach to reducing fuel consumption. Also, even though Lutz defended ethanol, he did admit that corn-based ethanol has some problems and he stated that cellulosic ethanol was needed.

WAKE UP Congress: Study shows hybrids better than E85

Time to move ethanol subsidies to hybrids and clean diesels?

Rising oil prices coupled with concerns about global climate change are driving debate about which fuels and engines should be used to power the 17 million new cars and trucks sold each year. Advanced diesel and hybrid technologies show very well in this study, in terms of benefits to the individual and society overall. E85 simply doesn’t provide the same benefits.

—John Graham, senior author and dean of the Pardee RAND Graduate School (more)

Just more confirmation of the crappy job that Congress is doing?

Study-after-study continues to question corn-based ethanol, yet Congress provides billions of dollars to subsidize corn-based ethanol. On the other, buyers of Toyota's hybrid vehicles - vehicles that can greatly benefit society - no longer qualify for tax credits?

When is the corny Congress going to start doing the right thing, instead of the earmarked, pork-barreled, lobbyist-influenced thing?

Rick Wagoner's biofuel credibility

Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz shake hands at the Volt debut

So, Rick Wagoner wants to push the focus of Congress from fuel economy to biofuels? He his a master of such distractions - he helped make Congress believe in fuel cell vehicles, rather than hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles for many years.

Kudos, Rick.

Nonetheless, many disagree with Rick's biofuel's assessment.

--> Finish: Rick Wagoner's biofuel credibility

Hybrids and Biofuels: Forget the Politicians?

Does it really matter which Party is in control?

If you ask me, competition works better than politicians. I'm not saying competition works perfectly, but it works better than a bunch of rich, special interest-funded partisan politicians.

Consequently, I've been very bothered that Congress has not extended Toyota's hybrid tax credits - something both Republicans and Democrats have ignored. Yet, in the last couple of years, both parties have talked considerably about energy dependence, especially foreign oil dependence and/or global warming. Yet, very little has been accomplished to alleviate these problems.

Obviously, the task is not simple. Still, it seems to me that the quickest way to make automakers deal with fuel efficiency is simple competition. Force them to act or risk losing customers.

Thus, the more success Toyota has selling hybrid vehicles, the more pressure there is.....Finish Hybrids and Biofuels: Forget the Politicians.

Poor fuel economy - It's the consumers, stupid?

Yesterday, the director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Margo Oge, told a crowd at SAE that automakers and energy companies needed to work together to achieve increased fuel economy and reduced emissions. Immediately, disagreement came from every direction, according to the DetroitNews. Is it hydrogen, is it ethanol, is it fuel cells, is it cleaner gasoline, is it hybrid cars?

While there was little consensus on any sort of answer to creating better fuel economy and reducing emissions, there was some consensus regarding consumers and their role in this conundrum. Typically, consumers want the cheapest fuel - regardless of emissions, regardless of foreign oil dependency - and consumers quickly tend to choose performance over fuel economy.

"The challenge we face is that a vast majority of our customers choose fuel based on cost and convenience even over concerns such as greenhouse gases," Shell Oil Vice President for Fuel Development Darran Messem said.

Steve Plotkin, transportation energy analyst at Argonne National Laboratory, added "Americans have chosen performance over efficiency for years," as he suggested that the government will have to mandate some standards.

I say forget mandates, let's do a gas tax. It makes consumers take action that will require a fuel economy-driven reaction from automakers. Ultimately, if consumers aren't part of the solution, then the problem will only get bigger.

Fuel efficiency: GM just can't compete?

Are flex-fuel lies killing GM?

GM's Bob Lutz is claiming that President Bush's plans to increase automobile fuel efficiency could raise the cost of automobiles by $5000.00, according to the DetroitNews. Rather than increase fuel efficiency, Lutz claims increased availability of ethanol is a better solution.

I'm so tired of hearing about GM's ethanol plans. First, GM is using cheap flex-fuel technology as a loophole to violate CAFE. As a result GM can't even meet the CAFE laws created 20 years ago, let alone more stringent rules. Consequently, GM is using legal loopholes to avoid paying massive fines, while increasing America's foreign oil dependency more than should be allowed by law. Second, corn-based ethanol is not a good solution to resolving America's energy problems. Third, GM is an automaker, not an energy company, so focus on automotive technology.

While Toyota achieves record months of sales significantly helped by hybrid cars, such as the Prius, GM has yet to sell one full hybrid vehicle. Why? Why can't GM realize that fuel efficiency is becoming ever more a critical aspect of automobile manufacturing survival - possibly and probably the key to the automotive future?

The good 'ole days of gas-guzzling land yachts are over. Deal with it.

Democrats suck: Why no Toyota hybrid tax credits? (Does America suck?)

Is leaving Iraq a solution or a distraction?

While Democrats keep beating the Leave Iraq drum, they continue to do little to resolve the problem that eventually pushed America into Iraq in the first place: oil. While there isn't anything that can be done to immediately end foreign oil dependency, there are small actions that create strong messages that could result in real action. Extending Toyota's tax credits is one such action.

Besides, Toyota deserves the extension. Hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles - these vehicles wouldn't even be on the world's radar if not for Toyota. Even today, the Big 3 - led by GM - can't get off the ethanol crazy train. Fortunately, even the mainstream media are finally starting to address the truth about flex-fuel vehicles and corn-based ethanol - its a scam (See BW).

--> Finish Democrats suck: Why no Toyota hybrid tax credits

U.S. automakers: Too focused on fuels rather than on fuel efficiency

Shouldn't automakers be more focused on fuel efficiency, rather than on alternative fuels?

I hate being critical of the biofuel movement, but it is simply a fact that corn-based ethanol is just not a very good bio-fuel. Moreover, there are plenty of questions still left unresolved regarding bio-fuels, especially until cellulosic ethanol is economically achieved.

For example, if we triple or quadruple ethanol consumption, how much will food prices increase? Also, considering that water is more and more labeled as the next oil, is it wise to use so much of this precious resource to fuel our vehicles via water-greedy corn? Furthermore, will global warming affect our ability to produce many bio-fuels? And that's just for starters.

Finish Fuels rather than fuel efficiency

Energy Security and Global Warming: What GM is doing

Is GM about more than just the Hummer?

When it comes the environment and global warming, GM is the favored whipping boy in the automotive sector, but is such a view of GM accurate? Just because GM isn't the leading developer of hybrid cars, does that mean they are not an environmental leader? According to GM's VP of Environment and Energy, Beth Lowery, that view is not correct and she is letting people know about it on the Fast Lane Blog.

Finish Energy Security and Global Warming

The 'Admiral' calls 20 percent U.S. gas reduction impossible

Eric Bolling, known as the Admiral on CNBC's Fast Money, was on Morning Call this morning talking about oil prices. Consequently, he was asked about the President's State of the Union Speech and whether a 20 percent reduction in U.S. gasoline production was possible. He adamantly exclaimed that it was not possible, that ethanol would ultimately have little effect on gasoline consumption, and that the U.S. would be lucky if it could maintain its current gasoline consumption - rather than increase it as the U.S. seems to do year after year. Scary.

While Bolling might be correct, and based on his success he's hard to argue against, I think the U.S. must try. More important, I think it is desperately vital that the U.S. and consumers realize that alternative fuels, other than possibly hydrogen, are not going to be the answer. Fuel efficient technology, namely hybrid vehicles that can evolve into plug-in hybrid vehicles are absolutely critical.

I think it's even more evidence we need a gas-tax to clean energy tax credit policy.

State of the Union and Energy Independence: Power to the People!

Power to the people, not the corporations!

Energy independence is supposed to be an important part of the President's State of the Union speech tonight. So, when it comes to energy independence, where should the government place its tax incentive focus? Should it be on alternative fuels such as ethanol, bio-diesel, clean diesel and hydrogen? Should it be on advanced technologies such as hybrid vehicles, lithium-ion batteries, and fuel cells?

I say forget fuel. Forget ethanol. Ethanol already receives an incredulous amount of tax subsidies and is in danger of turning into a pork-barrel legislator's dream.

I say focus on hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles and lithium-ion battery technology. Let's invest in the kinds of technologies that can practically wipe out the need for any liquid fuel in just the next decade.

Of course not everyone will agree on the approach. Consequently, I say try to give the power to the people, and let's make the people accountable for their choices.

Yesterday, I suggested a gas tax. Why not make gas more expensive while using the gas tax revenue to reward consumers whom buy more fuel efficient technologies? Also, make that tax 85% less for E85, for example - let consumers reap the benefit of buying a flex-fuel vehicle if it works for them. Why should automakers receive CAFE credits - a tax saving loophole - for selling E85 functionality that is never used by the majority of consumers? In addition, empower the flex-fuel user to save even far more with a flex-fuel hybrid vehicle.

I say give the power to the people! It's fair, it's competitive, it's responsible.

Automotive News World Congress: Need National Energy Policy

It seems the need for a National Energy Policy was a hot topic at the Automotive News World Congress according to the DetroitNews. Unfortunately, what that energy policy should be was far from unanimous. Of course GM lobbied for biofuels, plus some help with batteries. Chrysler lobbied for hydrogen. Ford, well, Ford's reported comments surprised me the most. Nancy Gioia, director of sustainable mobility technologies and hybrid vehicle programs at Ford told the DetroitNews, "hydrogen is one of the most promising long-term solutions -- one that she said will require a national commitment comparable to the one required to put a man on the moon.

At the same time, Gioia pointed out that hydrogen is not a panacea. She said it takes a great deal of energy to extract hydrogen -- energy that might be better utilized by other technologies like plug-in hybrids."

Forget the ethanol pipeline and choose flex-fuel plug-in hybrids

Where are the flex-fuel hybrid vehicles, such as this Saab flex-fuel hybrid? Even better, how about flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles? Wouldn't they be the perfect foreign oil dependency fighters? Yet, with plug-in hybrid vehicles - a technology just a couple of years away from mass-production reality -the far majority of Americans would almost never need to fill up with any liquid fuel for their daily commute. Yet, our electricity needs would increase significantly.

So, why is the ethanol industry seeking an ethanol pipeline (more)? Why not just convert ethanol into electricity? Wouldn't that be easier, even cheaper, than transporting ethanol throughout the U.S.?

Explosive growth in the incredibly highly subsidized corn-based ethanol industry only makes sense for those whom stand to reap billions in subsidized profit. Until cellulosic ethanol proves its cost-effectiveness, America should spend far more of its resources on advanced technologies, such as lithium-ion batteries, composite materials, and fuel cells - technologies that can essentially end the need for any liquid fuel for automotive transportation in the first place.

Climate change demands fuel efficiency, not ethanol

"The most direct impact of climate change will be on China's grain production," deputy director of the National Climate Center, Luo Yong told the Science Times newspaper.

What about America's grain production? Is America some how immune?

Global warming and climate change are almost assuredly going to result in massive natural disasters, droughts and severe weather swings that could destroy entire crops for years or even decades. What condition would the U.S. be in if our food and fuel crops were wiped out by a climate change disaster, even if just for one year? How can you fight global warming if you don't have any grain to convert to fuel? How many people would starve?

Isn't it time to accept the serious possibility that going green by going yellow might be impossible and even harmful?

Technology provides the possibility of producing automobiles, even SUVs, that are 75 percent more fuel efficient than today based on Today's technology - not on fuel cells nor the hydrogen economy.

Carbon-fiber plug-in hybrid vehicles would enable the far majority of Americans to use only electricity to power their vehicles almost ALL of the time. Still, in an emergency, such hybrids could still use ethanol, gasoline, diesel, hydrogen etc. if electricity was not available.

Isn't it time to set aside political pork and payoffs? Isn't it time to get serious?

Democrats ready to give more subsidies to biofuels

Already, ethanol is an incredibly subsidized product, as is the corn from which most ethanol is derived. Yet, the profit margins for ethanol producers are actually greater than oil profit margins. For many, this isn't a problem because of the belief than ethanol is more green than petroleum, or that ethanol helps reduce foreign oil dependency. Many Democrats in Congress also have the same belief and those Democrats are preparing to roll back tax subsidies for oil companies and use them for biofuels according to the Detroit News.

Still no word, however, on whether Congress is going to do anything to promote hybrid vehicles, including plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Hoping for a smart green revolution from Congress

There has been much buzz in the media regarding how the Democratic control of Congress is going to help the green revolution. While there is no doubt that Democrats will pass more 'green' legislation than the previous Republican Congress, there is still much cause for concern. For example, "The politics surrounding environmental issues have proved hard to predict, largely because the potential economic impact of stronger regulation tends to scramble partisan loyalties. Democrats from auto-making states, for example, have fought efforts to mandate stricter miles-per-gallon rules for vehicles." (more)

Currently, the top buzz words coming from the Democratic agenda have largely been focused on global warming and alternative fuels, especially ethanol.

Obviously, global warming is an important issue, but when there are studies that indicate that far more global warming pollution is caused by the livestock industry than all the emissions from all forms of transportation combined, one has to take pause. Of course we should make cleaner automobiles; however, why is the smaller problem the center of all the global warming attention?

Even worse, it seems the Democratic preferred answer to global warming is ethanol. First, corn-based ethanol is not very environmentally friendly. Yes, it might be more environmentally friendly than petroleum, but is it enough more? Without doubt, I say no. Second, ethanol is also seen as a way to protect American automobile jobs, but at what cost? I simply don't see how E85 Hummers, Expeditions and Nitros are really an answer to global warming, foreign oil dependency or American jobs - at least in the long term.

Over the last several decades, almost every single advance in fuel efficiency has only produced heavier and more powerful vehicles - resulting in greater foreign oil dependency and pollution. In order for America to truly fight global warming and foreign oil dependency, while protecting American jobs, very advanced technology will be required - as fast as possible.

The entire American automobile psyche must evolve.

Of course, ethanol can help, particularly if it is used to top off a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle that only needs a few gallons of liquid fuel every month - if ever. Yet, I have heard very little coming out of the Democratic camp regarding hybrid cars and real world legislation.

If America takes the slow road to advanced hybrid technology, Toyota won't. Hyundai probably won't either. And if you make it profitable for American automakers to make E85 guzzlers, then you can expect to wait far longer for American automakers to focus on flex-fuel plug-in hybrids.

Ultimately, American automakers and American consumers have to change dramatically, and that change will require significant help from the government. Hopefully, Congress will focus on the the future, not just today's political pork and paybacks.

Auto Alliance Change in Leadership: Good or Bad?

Dave McCurdy, a conservative Democrat, will take over the leadership position of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Now that Democrats are taking over Congress, one might expect huge changes in fuel efficiency and global warming pollution. But should we?

"The Auto Alliance made a fine choice in hiring Dave McCurdy as its president," U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, said in a statement. "His integrity is unquestioned, his political instincts are sound, and his exceptional judgment will serve the Alliance remarkably well." (more)

McCurdy, a conservative Democrat, and Dingell, a protectionist Democrat unwilling to risk any union jobs in the auto industry in the name of fuel efficiency, will probably be a perfect match. They will make a lot of noise, but not accomplish much, at least regarding fuel efficiency. They will, however, make those invested in ethanol very rich.

Is global warming the MAIN reason to oppose ethanol

O.K., global warming isn't the main reason to oppose ethanol, however, global warming is the main reason to oppose ethanol as the solution to both foreign oil dependency and global warming gases. How can we put all our eggs in the alternative fuels basket when the same scientists warning the world about global warming also claim that today's global warming is going to lead to extreme weather, such as mini-ice ages, extreme droughts, massive hurricanes, flooding, etc, etc.? All of these conditions could wipe out the entire grain belt of the U.S. - our energy supply (not to mention our food supply) - for a year, for a decade, for a millennium.

While there is nothing wrong with pursuing alternative fuels, they cannot be pursued at the expense of efficiency.

Today, hybrid cars offer the greatest tool for efficiency. In addition, hybrids can utilize any alternative fuel developed. Most important, however, creating lighter vehicles with plug-in hybrid technology could easily increase fuel efficiency by more than 50%, even as much as 75% if carbon fibers, instead of steel, were used to build automobiles.

In the short term, alternative fuels are a distraction - an excuse - enabling automakers to continue to build more and more inefficient vehicles. 'Yes, it's a 12 mpg Hummer, but it uses flex-fuel' is neither the answer to energy dependence nor to global warming.

Global Warming and Foreign Oil Dependency: Do you really need any more reasons to go hybrid?

Around ninety percent of Europeans believe that humans are causing global warming.

Do you agree?

If you do, then you realize how important it is that humans start taking much more responsibility for their contribution to global warming. One of the biggest impacts humans can have on global warming, especially in the U.S., is to reduce their automobile fuel consumption.

On the other hand, perhaps you are not yet ready to buy into global warming?

O.K., well what about foreign oil dependency? How do you feel about funding terrorism against the U.S.? How do you feel about putting an important aspect of the American economy into the hands of leaders of countries where the majority of their populations see America as an evil empire?

Regardless of whether you are concerned more about foreign oil dependency, or about global warming, isn't it time for a revolution against oil consumption?

While many are now clamoring for E85 and other forms of ethanol to address this problem, I think E85 is nothing short of a boondoggle, unless flex-fuel vehicles become significantly more fuel efficient.

Flex-fuel hybrids, for example, are an excellent idea.

On the other hand, flex-fuel Hummers aren't such a great idea. If we all drive flex-fuel Hummers or similarly sized gas-guzzlers, then we'll need all the ethanol we can make just to catch up with our increased fuel consumption.

Ethanol can be helpful, but it won't offer help much without significant gains in fuel efficiency.

Current hybrid cars offer nice gains in fuel efficiency today, but the real advantage of hybrids is their potential. In just another generation of technology - available in just a few years - average hybrid vehicles might achieve 100 mpg.

In the Southern half of the U.S. solar powered garages could power - theoretically - all of the fuel needs of these hybrids.

In the Midwest, home grown ethanol could be a good fuel for hybrids, but also for power plants that plug-in hybrids could plug into for clean electric fuel.

Perhaps in other areas, natural gas, hydrogen or even wind power makes me sense. Regardless, hybrids are able to utilize any of these fuels.

Flexible, adaptable and powerful hybrid technology offers a revolutionary tool to fight global warming and foreign oil dependency.

Invest in the future, make your next vehicle a hybrid vehicle.

Detroit must "think anew"

Last week I questioned an editorial by the Detroit News regarding fuel economy because of its complacency, and it's inability to foresee and realize that change must be realized by American automakers. Today, however, Daniel Howes of the Detroit News is singing my tune, telling politicians to give up the blame game while also telling Michigan and the Big 3 that it's time to change.

"The only questions are how and how quickly. Not, why us? Nor who's to blame for tampering with what U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow likes to call "our way of life" -- as if Detroit's automakers, their unions and others are immune to the laws of supply and demand. They aren't, no matter how freely some politicians may be willing to manipulate reality to suggest otherwise."

"Apologies to Sen. Stabenow, but "our way of life" is strangling Michigan because it was never designed to adapt to a changing world, much less accept that the economy and competition would change."

Evolution is often driven by small constant changes. Toyota, for example, is driven by small constant changes focused on increasing efficiency. This process, or Kaizen, led Toyota to hybrid cars - a new platform to increase efficiency. Inevitably the efficiency potential of hybrids has barely been tapped. Moreover, hybrids are adaptable to flex-fuel, hydrogen, gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, or even electricity, and they can lead to advanced batteries and fuel cell development.

Ultimately, hybrids exude change and flexibility. Today's hybrids are gasoline-electric, but tomorrow's might be flex-fuel plug-in hybrids and not long after that they might by hydrogen hybrids, or plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles. Hybrid technology is changing rapidly, adapting to the future.

Today, Democrats and the Big 3 appear very close to becoming fixated upon ethanol, a fuel which requires little change for the Big 3. Ultimately, ethanol won't really make the Big 3 any more adaptable, and it just might lead to another decade of complacency. Alternative fuels can help America, but not enough. Only significantly more fuel efficient automobiles can lead to real change.

Detroit must "think anew", and ethanol just isn't new enough.

Big 3 CEOs and President conclude meeting

The meeting between the President and the CEO's of the Big Three has ended. I watched a short post-meeting interview the Big 3 CEO's gave, which focused on three issues: ethanol, trade policy and healthcare. Overall currency issues dominated the question and answer session, followed by healthcare; however, GM's Rick Wagoner opened the interview with the statement that the Big 3 were ready to offer 50% of their vehicles as flex-fuel vehicles by 2012. It seemed obvious that Wagoner was trying to hammer home the point that the Big was doing their part (Of course you have to believe that E85 alone is a game changer for the industry) to counter the President's previous 'build relevant vehicles' statement.

All three CEO's said the meeting went extremely well. While Wagoner admitted that the President didn't agree with every point made by the Big 3, Ford's CEO Alan Mulally added that he was very impressed with President's knowledge of the issues and the quality of the dialogue while also noting that he felt the Bush administration was a "very supportive administration" - almost countering the pre-meeting politicking by Michigan Democrats.

Although Wagoner hogged the mic., I was very impressed with Mulally's optimism when he did speak. Mulally concluded the interview by answering a question that the auto industry did not expect a government bailout, and that the industry needed to do a lot more to build more fuel efficient vehicles that consumers want.

Democrats appear ready to focus on alternative fuels as answer to foreign oil dependency

As I stated earlier today, when it comes to foreign oil dependency, don't expect any real change from Democrats. Rep. John Dingell, whom will become chairmen of House Energy and Commerce Committee in January, has been a strong proponent against increased CAFE standards and he appears to see E85 and alternative fuels as the main solution to foreign oil dependency. (more)

Hopefully, Democrats will extend a few crumbs towards hybrid cars and plug-in hybrid cars, but that might offend the UAW too much, so don't expect any new tax credits for hybrids.

This is the big change America voted for? Excuse me for not being overly excited. When push comes to shove, politicians are just politicians and Democrats aren't really much better than Republicans.

It all comes down to the people. Politicians don't lead revolutions, people do, and voting for Democrats is no revolution.

Some interesting quotes

"In recent years, attempts to increase fuel economy standards have been met with broad bipartisan opposition and we're hopeful that that opposition continues," said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

"Energy policy and fuel economy standards for the past 20 years have been a bipartisan failure," said David Friedman, research director for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program. "The next year will tell us a lot about how serious people are."

Stop the Madness: Hybrid Vehicles Not E85!!!!!!!

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. 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.

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.

Foreign oil dependency makes America stronger!

Do you think foreign oil dependency makes America stronger? In today's world, isn't that a stupid question?

Yet, it seems many Americans either believe that cheap foreign oil is good for America or that it poses little threat to America's National Security. Otherwise, how can the continued purchasing of gas-guzzlers be justified? How can the lack of hybrid vehicles from 2 out of 3 of Detroit's automakers be explained?

I often criticize GM for its lack of leadership in fighting foreign oil dependency. Does my criticism stem from my perpetual hate of anything GM? Absolutely not. It stems from the immense power GM has to take a leadership role in fighting oil dependency coupled with GM's refusal to do so.

Ultimately, I would gladly buy a GM hybrid vehicle - as long as it was a full hybrid vehicle. Unfortunately, GM just doesn't have any full hybrid vehicles available yet.

Why?

Well, just a few years ago important GM executives, such as Bob Lutz, publicly ridiculed hybrid vehicles and those automakers investing in them, which is particularly offensive since billions of taxpayer dollars were given to Detroit to develop similar vehicles back in the 90s.

Sure, GM has been claiming the future will be fuel cell vehicles, but they've been saying this for decades and they might be saying it a few more decades before it is a reality. Still, everything that can be done to fight oil dependency today, needs to be done today.

Quite simply, today, the hybrid vehicle is the best course of action in the war on oil dependency. The hybrid powertrain by itself is already efficient and will become even far more efficient. More important, however, the hybrid powertrain enables the integration of clean diesel, flex-fuel, electricity, hydrogen and fuel cells into the same powertrain.

Today's technology, such as a clean diesel hybrid, could produce vehicles that are 50 percent more efficient than today's vehicles. What are we waiting for? Too expensive? No way! There are enough subsidies already being wasted on big oil and other pork barrel legislation to provide the tax incentives needed for consumers to make clean diesel hybrids cost effective.

But, clean diesel hybrids are just one slice of the potential hybrid pie. In areas where ethanol makes sense, flex-fuel hybrids could be built. Add plug-in technology to both diesel hybrids and flex-fuel hybrids and you might only have to fill up on trips greater than 40 miles.

Imagine only filling your vehicle up a couple of times per year.

In the Southwest, such plug-in hybrids could make solar power far more cost-effective, enabling homeowners the ability to power their homes and their automobiles. Imagine never paying an electricity bill nor to fuel your automobiles. How's that for fighting global warming?

Of course these vehicles could also eventually develop into hydrogen powered hybrid vehicles, or fuel cell hybrid vehicles, but foreign oil dependency could be ended without either of these innovations. We don't have to wait for the holy grail, fuel cells. We just have to start demanding action right now.

To be fair, it's not as if GM is evil and Toyota is a saint. Neither automaker is doing enough. Nonetheless, considering the trends of the last few decades, such as previous oil embargoes, Katrina, global warming, and 9/11 isn't it finally time to say enough is enough?

And I say, it's especially time for GM, the most important automaker in America and one of the most important American companies, not to just act, but to take the lead. GM has the kind of loyal following to buy these war-effort vehicles and the political power to force the government to assist with subsidies and tax incentives for these war-effort vehicles.

Instead of using that billion dollar GM marketing budget to market gas-guzzlers, market the fight against the war on foreign oil dependency and global warming. It's our GM hybrid vehicle, it's our national security.

I don't think there is a company that could do more for America than GM if GM began to look at foreign oil dependency and global warming as a war, a war that GM was leading the battle against at ALL costs - even bankruptcy. That is simply a battle that GM would not and could not lose today.

Bob Lutz has admitted that GM could have taken a FRACTION of their YEARLY marketing budget to develop a hybrid to rival the Toyota Prius. Yet, they willfully continue to chose to spend that money marketing gas-guzzling - even AFTER 9/11. Stop!

Before 9/11 most Americans had their heads buried in the sand regarding the consequences of America's addiction to oil. Sometimes when something is so good, it's just better not to ask questions. After 9/11, however, there is no excuse not to act. Now America needs GM to do the right thing more than ever.

If 9/11, Katrina, Iraq and all the threats about global warming are not enough to get America to realize it is time to change, what will it take? Would the deaths of 10,000 or 100,000 citizens be enough? Do we need a third world war, or the loss of a major city, such as New York? Would that finally be enough?

Then again foreign oil dependency has nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq or global warming, right? Foreign oil dependency makes America stronger!

Over $5 billion in 2006 to subsidize ethanol as hybrid tax credits run out

"A recent study conducted by the Swiss-based group called Global Subsidies Initiative revealed the total cost of the tax breaks and subsidies that go into U.S. production of ethanol to be in the whopping range of $5.1 to $6.8 billion for 2006." (more)

While I'd rather use my tax dollars to subsidize American industries, such as ethanol producers, rather than foreign oil companies, I'd rather subsidize hybrid cars and other clean vehicle technologies more than ethanol. Give GM and Ford $5 billion per year to perfect hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles, fuel cell hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles.

If lighter materials and smarter automobile designs were coupled with next generation batteries, fuel cells and hybrid technology, the U.S. could easily end foreign oil dependency. Sure it would be expensive, but not too expensive if we simply made better use of current tax subsidies - Not by adding new ones.

Another reason alternative fuels are not enough? Go hybrid!

"Our whole farming system really contributes a lot to global warming, and it could be made to be much more sustainable," claims Francis Thicke, an organic dairy farmer from Fairfield, Iowa, who has a Ph.D. in soil fertility.

Thick also believes subsidies for farmers to grow corn and soybeans should end because of their global warming contribution. (more)

On the other hand, synergistic technologies, such as lithium batteries, fuel cells, and hybrid vehicles will soon create autos that might need very little fuel, regardless of whether it is oil, ethanol or hydrogen. By the end of the decade, new hybrid technology combined with next generation lithium batteries might easily achieve more than 70 mpg. Plug-in technology could be added to these hybrid vehicles and most urban drivers might rarely, if ever, need any fuel other than a little electricity. Additionally, adding small fuel cells might make such hybrids even more efficient, requiring even less fuel or electricity.

Sure it would be nice to fill these next generation hybrids with ethanol instead of gasoline, but the focus should be on as little fuel as possible. In fact, whether ethanol is every viable in America shouldn't even be a primary concern for Detroit's automakers. Making the most efficient vehicles possible, should be their only concern.

Go hybrid, Detroit, go hybrid.

Re: Direct Injection Ethanol Boosting

Yesterday, I briefly touched on a story about MIT's direct injection ethanol boosting system. I didn't cover the topic in any depth because I was annoyed by the anti-hybrid spin the article took. Anyway, if you want to check out an interesting discussion about direct injection ethanol boosting, check out Green Car Congress.

Flex-fuel? So what unless it's a flex-fuel hybrid vehicle?

"Injecting small quantities of ethanol into car engines at moments of peak demand -- such as accelerating sharply or climbing a steep hill -- could improve the fuel economy of gasoline engines by 20 percent to 30 percent, a scientist said on Wednesday." (more)

Such technology would probably cost about $1000.00 per vehicle and could be mass produced by 2011. The technology would also enable vehicles to use smaller engines.

Consequently, some are calling the technology a hybrid challenger. Why?

(Full Story)