As I understand it, it is pretty easy to make a flex-fuel vehicle.  Just make sure the hoses and gaskets do not decompose when exposed to E85, and then reprogram the computer so that it will support the proper ignition sequence.  I'd guess that costs well under $100 per vehicle.

I'm sure that is one reason GM chose it as their answer this year.  It's quick, and they'd been doing it on a limited basis.

It gets more complicated when you try to figure how the subsidies work out at current ethanol production levels, and how they would change with expanded production.  I see 51 cents per gallon thrown around as the current ethanol subsidy.  Does the 35 cents go on top of that?  Or does it go to a different constituency .. I mean industry?

And then there is the whole corn question.  Corn is subsidized, and it is kind of a fuzzy proposition about how much you would have to expand corn production to produce serious amounts of ethanol fuel.

My gut feel is that ethanol will play a role, but that it will be costly enough that we have a choice: little ethanol cars ... or big SUVs, big subsidies, and of course big acreage world-wide.

Going from infitesimal to minute maybe?  That could be an apt description of the amount of oil replaced with this bill.  Over 6 years and 9 years for ethanol and biodiesel respectively.

Is that better than the present energy policy?  It will have almost zero effect on foreign policy or fuel prices and no effect at all on global climate change, except maybe to accelerate it because of extra acreage in fuel crops destroying more biomass carbon sink.

The 100s of billions in subsidies given out to agribizz interests will divert capital from real solutions to the problems of global climate disaster, endless oil wars, and the resulting economic decline of the US.

That in turn is handing US superpower status over to emerging manufacturing corporate feudal kleptocracies like China and oil rich corporate feudal kleptocracies  like Russia.

This is another campaign "contribution" (bribery disguised as free speech in the form of the right of corporations to "petition" THEIR government)raised by wasting taxpayer dollars on corporate welfare subsidies.

The usual ratio is around 1000 bucks borrowed from the future (the debt at the new 9 trillion national debt limit equals 25k per citizen) for every dollar invested in political bribery by the industry getting the corporate welfare.

"Invest" a buck through a rat like jack(abram)off, get 1000 back in the form of a Halliburton style contract (with america, newty and the K-streeters make good on their "contract with america").

If we all had guaranteed returns of a thousand for one like these corpoRATs, lost retirment pensions, soaring energy and food costs, and soaring health care costs would be no problem, but instead we the people are the ones paying the thousand dollars out in the form of borrowing on the national debt from nations like China.

Nice move boys, proud of yourselves?  I bet they will grin from ear to ear as they tout this scam.  And it's a "green" scam as well!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Did anyone see the CNN special ("We Were Warned") yesterday?

It was interesting in that it painted an introduction to oil crisis, building on the easily visualized emergencies of hurricanes and terrorism, and then went to Brazil to visit the cane fields and ethanol plants.

The host noted with relish that, there he was, driving through cane fields in a GM car(!), running on ethanol.  Is this our future?

We cut back to America and GM.  And no lie, the showcased car was the Avalanche SUV.  That's the very car (probably 15 mpg on gas and 10 mpg on ethanol) that I have been trashing as a symbol for the "wrong direction" pushed by the American ethanol lobby.  The GM guy (CEO?) even made a quick comment trashing hybrids, to imply all we need is corn, and not fuel efficiency.

I think the show added up to a plus ... but it might have left too many viewers with the idea that, while Brazilians drive those funny little ethanol cars ... we all get Avalanches (hurray)!

FWIW, the show looks like it is on a few more times this evening.  It is on regular CNN, called CNN Presents, subtitle "We Were Warned."

Barak is the latest liberal darling, and I think he's getting a bit of a free ride from greens on his constant ethanol boosterism. The junior senator from Illinois is joining hands here with his senior colleague from Indiana--a farm-state industrial ag water carrier of the old school--to promote an expensive and destructive diversion from doing the real work of promoting conservation.

I wish there was half as much attention given to developing mass transit as to playing with hybrid cars, and ethanol cars and hydrogen cars....

Cars support suburban sprawl, require many other resources than just whatever fuel they use and are inefficient in as that most of them contain one person much of the time.

I think it shows one of the sad failures of American environmentalism that so much energy is spent trying to paint the tumor a nice color.

As to the China bashing, what in the heck is a kleptocracy???  Any place can be criticized, but name calling reflects prejudice rather than concern.  We could all use a little more concern...

Patrick

Good point, Patrick. Seems like greens have essentially ceded mass transit as too unpopular with the general public and, well, learned to love the car. I think it's a mistake. With gas prices rising and global-warming fears on the rise, seems like the time is ripe to push for public investment in mass transit.

   I am a city guy, and one who generally hates the suburbs (umm, hates the sins, but not the sinners???).  However I found myself (due to a bad heart, no not that kind! (grin)) living in the suburbs for about two years at one point.

   And for various reasons related to the bad heart (she used the car), I had to take the local bus (when I couldn't walk or bike).  I had always had a prejudice against suburban bus systems believing them to be mostly non-existent, or slow and expensive at best.

   To my amazement, this was not true.  There was actually a fairly decent bus system, and it wasn't so expensive, nor crowded, and the schedule wasn't as bad as I feared.

   I guess this is in the nature of a plea to all of you who post on Grist and say that you can't live without your car because in your locale there are no alternatives.  Consider looking harder and trying them out, at least occassionally.  Also consider letting your local politicians know that money should be spent on them as well as on important things like golf courses and other amenities.. (okay, that was an unintentional slip back into sarcasm... maybe too early in the morning here).

Patrick