My good buddy MJ over at Dyslexic Research forwarded me an article on how President Bush signed a bill to increase fuel efficiency standards to 35 MPG by the year 2020. Also lumped into the bill was a required ramp-up of the use of ethanol at refineries from about 6 billion gallons a year this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022 and additional mandates that by then at least 21 billion gallons are to come from feedstocks other than corn.

I like the fact that we’re raising fuel efficiency standards, finally. However I don’t think we’re exactly pushing technology with 35 MPG. Why don’t we shoot for something a little higher? Why not 40 MPG, or even better, 45 MPG?

We’re 12 years away from the new legislation being put into place, I’d like to think that the big three could ramp up R&D to meet a higher standard than 35 MPG in 12 years.

I like the push for ethanol, even though I think it’s still a farce. If we can figure out a way to produce ethanol with a net energy gain, I’m all for it. I also think it’s smart to require an increasingly larger percentage of ethanol be produced from something other than corn.

All in all, I like the concept, but I have to wonder how serious this move really is. Is the President signing this to appease Democrats and empower Republicans in an election year, or does he really think this is good for the United States, all politics aside.

Alternative Energy, Energy, Politics ethanol farce, fuel efficiency, fuel standards, MPG, President Bush

I’ve always been skeptical of the true value of running a vehicle on ethanol. I feel that the next great propulsive fuel must have a net energy content greater than gasoline. Scientifically, this means that the energy content of a given amount of future fuel must be greater than gasoline. Currently, I believe the prime candidate for this is hydrogen.

But I digress. Back to the ethanol farce.

I came across a Consumer Reports revelation from 2006 presenting the results of their gasoline vs. ethanol tests. They ran a battery of tests on a new (2007) flex-fuel Chevy Tahoe, which can run on E85 or gasoline, and found that the SUV’s mileage dropped from 14 mpg to 10 mpg on E85. They went on further to say that the results of this test could be applied to any flex-fuel vehicle, because naturally, ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline.

Ethanol has 75,670 BTUs per gallon instead of 115,400 for gasoline, which means that you would have to burn more fuel to generate the same amount of energy.

Additionally, if you adjust for the lower fuel economy, it’s also more expensive to fuel up with E85 than with gasoline. The price of E85 was about $2.91 per gallon in August of 2006, so if you adjust for the ~28% decrease in fuel economy, you’re actually paying upwards of $3.90 for a gallon of E85. Compare that to the national average of gasoline, and you can see that the economic attractiveness is not all that great.

But ethanol will lower our dependence on foreign oil… won’t it?

Not so fast.

The government credits vehicles that can run on E85 with about two-thirds more fuel economy than they actually get using gasoline, even though they may never run on E85. For example, the two-wheel drive version of the Tahoe used in the study would normally be rated at 21 mpg. But because it can run on E85, it earns a 35 mpg credit, even though the Consumer Reports shows it achieves 30% LESS fuel economy on E85!

The net effect is that consumers are being lured into buying bigger, flex-fuel vehicles like the Tahoe based on the fuel economy sticker on the window, which is highly misleading.

Couple that with the fact that the majority of the country can’t buy E85, and you’re back to burning straight gasoline…

Sounds like you’re a typical anti-alternative energy guy!

Not really. I’d love to be able to stick it to the foreign oil producers like Chavez and Ahmadinejad. To all up and go cold turkey on oil imports would tickle me to death.

However, I think our science in the United States is being driven more by politics than it is by scientific facts. We’ve bought into the ethanol farce in the name of foreign oil and global warming (another scientific farce driven by politics). Now that we’re burning corn in cars, our politicians can gloat that they’re making “great efforts” to curb our dependence on foreign oil and simmer our influence on global warming.

The average misinformed American consumer buys their plight hook, line and sinker.

Alternative Energy, Economics, Energy, Oil & Gas, Politics automotive fuel economy, E85, ethanol farce, fuel economy, gasoline