Wrong. Establishing that fact seems simple enough, right? Take the price of E85 at the pump, figure in (out?) the loss of fuel efficiency (roughly 25 percent), forget about the taxpayer-supported .50 per gallon "blender's credit," recalculate the cost and compare it to the price of regular gas. If that's too much of a bother, go to the American Automobile Association's fuelgaugereport.com. Yesterday, an average gallon of regular cost $4.10. A BTU-adjusted gallon of corn juice cost $4.37. So, why is The Earth Times proclaiming "Gas Prices Got You Down? Don't Get Mad … Get Ethanol!" Because they're running The International Institute for Ecological Agriculture's press release verbatim. Oh, did I mention the "Institute" is a front for pro-E85 author (and Hawaiian shirt devotee) David Blume? Anyway, Blume writes "According to David Arkin of Arkin Tilt Architects… 'Ethanol can be part of one's path to a carbon neutral lifestyle. It costs less than gasoline, is readily available, and — when grown and produced properly — can help combat climate change through both its clean emissions and the potential to sequester carbon.'" And according to the man himself, "If everyone used 30% ethanol in their unmodified cars we would be able to cease buying any oil from the Middle East, ending our dependence, our crushing military expenditures there, and our National Guard could be brought home from Iraq. Converting completely to US made ethanol would make our economy literally bombproof to the explosive price increases we can expect oil to sustain as it runs out." Now how much would you pay? 

While we wait for automaker bankruptcy filings, we have a little schadenfreude from a different (but equally deserving) sector to keep you going. Reuters reports that spiraling foodstock costs are tearing a giant hole in profit margins for domestic ethanol suppliers, causing a spate of bankruptcy filings. Corn (the main ingredient for domestically-produced ethanol) was already hitting record prices before the recent deluge in the Midwest. Post-flooding price spikes have wrought havoc on the whole ethanol business plan. Alex Moglia of Moglia Advisors, a biofuel consultancy group, tells Reuters that 12 biodiesel and ethanol plants have declared bankruptcy in recent months, with more to follow. The plants that are still open are typically producing at about half capacity, says Moglia. Ironically, a major problem for domestic ethanol producers is the transportation of their fuel. The majority of ethanol refineries are in the Midwest, which has a massive oversupply of corn juice. High fuel costs are preventing America's alternative fuel from reaching larger markets on either coast at competitive prices. Ultimately, the big boys of ethanol– your ADMs, and VersaSuns– will survive the hard times for ethanol producers, thanks to agribusiness diversification. It's the little guys that are being forced out of business, as reality begins to hit home for America's "magic fuel." Even so, their elected officials are probably lobbying for bailouts as we speak. 

This story isn't earth shattering, but I want to see if Autoblog can resist dogging us. Beer, ethanol, politicians, FlexFuel vehicles, har-har. From our perspective, the fact that Coors brewery will supply the Colorado democratic hoe-down's 450 vehicles with ethanol creates cognititive dissonance on a couple of levels. For one thing, the Coors family are (were?) known for being right of Attila the Hun. The company's been accused of being anti-labor, pro-terrorist, racist, anti-gay, anti-women, pro-Nazi sympathizers and anti-environment. Why would the DNC would want to cozy-up with Coors? It puts the party's support for ethanol in peril. Which brings us to point number two: why would the democrats NOT choose an ethanol supplier from the corn belt? You know, corn ethanol instead of wheat, barley and hops ethanol? Not only does beer-based ethanol open them up to all sorts of infantile headlines (AB?), it also misses a key opportunity to pander to Barack's pals in Big Corn. Sure, they'd have to truck it in, which would make the supply hideously carbon positive, but we're the only ones keeping track of that action. Speaking to 9News, Andrew Ballard, the director of transportation for the DNC, has a simple answer to all this. "Hey, I'm always up for free gas, especially with prices being what they are today." 

Consumer Reports have a brand-spankety new survey out, and it says that Americans can tell that gas is expensive. Oh yeah, and that they might do something about it. Survey says that four-dollar gas™ has 79 percent of us car-shopping Yanks wanting a "car with better fuel economy," and 74 percent driving less to keep costs down. Even though the respondent-identified $4.32 per gallon "tipping point when drivers would further drastically curtail driving" is only upon those of us on the left coast, a full 80 percent of prospective buyers are considering a "diesel, flex-fuel, or hybrid vehicle." Too bad those numbers aren't broken down between those three very different options. So America has taken notice of pricey gas, but the real question is who do Americans blame? And the answers are as unimaginative as you might expect, with the federal government (77 percent), oil companies (75 percent), foreign oil producers (70 percent), and Middle East conflict (68 percent), taking the rap for pain at the pump. When asked what the feds should do to fix the mess, 90 percent say "increase support for alternative energy development", 84 percent say "negotiate lower prices with oil-exporting nations", 83 percent say "encourage conservation through tax incentives for alternative transportation", while 81 percent want to "allow more drilling in the U.S. and offshore." Interestingly, "Putin-style nationalization of oil firms" and "wholesale invasion of the middle east" weren't polled, suggesting there might not be convenient solutions to scapegoats number two, three and four. 

Forty or fifty years ago, every manufacturer built concept cars with alternative– and sometimes pretty outlandish– power plants (small nuclear reactor, anyone?). The gas turbine was a popular choice. GM, Ford and Chrysler were all deeply involved in gas turbine research, stretching back to the late '40s and early '50s. In 1963, Chrysler built a fleet of 50 distinctively-styled turbine-powered cars and gave them to consumers to generate real-world feedback. Turbine engines were the wave of the future– a technologically-advanced powerplant that could run on anything combustible that would flow through a pipe, from kerosene to perfume. Chrysler's test program racked-up over 1.1m miles. They continued turbine engine research until the mid 70s, when they actually planned to put a turbine into production. Then, suddenly, nothing. Chrysler's financial problems led to government loan guarantees that included stipulations that they abandon plans to produce turbines (too risky). GM and Ford had long-since been distracted by other shiny objects like rotary engines and winning LeMans. So turbine engine research halted. With all the emphasis now on alternative fuels, perhaps it's time to revive an engine that can run on hydrogen, biofuels, petroleum distillates or even coal dust. Combined with modern engine-control technology, it could be worth a second look. Or not.

A widely touted goal of the environmental movement: increasing American's percentage of renewable energy use to 25 percent by 2025. According to a report by the RAND corporation, meeting the so-called "25 by 25" goal without significant consumer cost will require "major technological developments." Green Car Congress reports that 9.5 percent of electricity and 1.6 percent of motor vehicle fuel currently comes from renewable energy sources. The RAND report identifies biomass and wind energy as the two greatest opportunities for meeting the 25 by 25 goal. But it also points out that both require significant improvement to make a low-cost impact on renewable energy usage. For motor vehicles in particular, biomass-based (non-foodstock) "second-gen" biofuels must become significantly cheaper and more prevalent. Reducing renewable fuel goals to 10 or 15 percent by 2025 would also disproportionately reduce consumer expenses. Then again, the higher the cost to consumers, the more competitive renewable fuels become. The preceeding was brought to you by the Energy Future Coalition of UAW Boss Ron Gettelfinger's "Marshall Plan" fame. Over to you, taxpayers. 

Bloomberg reports that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is proposing new rules to increase government interven… err… oversight in energy markets. He wants to "require the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate trading in energy futures contracts and direct the commission to investigate ways to lessen speculation, such as increasing margin requirements." As oil takes an extended sojourn in the neighborhood of $135/barrel, Obama joins the growing chorus blaming high oil prices on greedy speculators. While Sen. Obama rails against the "Enron loophole"– allowing energy speculators to speculate without Uncle Sam riding herd– he's also busy promoting ethanol. And ethanol is promoting him. According to the New York Times, one of Obama's advisors, Tom Daschle (yes, that one), identifies himself as a man who spends "a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy." (That's a lobbyist, to you and me.) Obama's also traveled on a corporate jet owned by "Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation's largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state;" not-so-coincidentally the nation's second-largest corn producing state. In fairness to Senator Obama… no, that's all I got. 

"Across government, the vast majority of E85 purchases made with government-issued credit cards don’t register as E85," FederalTimes.com reports. "One recent study suggests as much as two-thirds of E85 purchases are incorrectly recorded; another puts the figure at 82 percent." In other words, no one knows how much U.S. tax money is being spent on corn juice. In other other words, the feds are spending hundreds of millions of dollars propping-up the ethanol industry without a clue whether it's a waste of money or not (hint: it is). Yes, it's a major SNAFU. "To adjust for discrepancies in alternative fuel reporting, GSA [General Services Administration] in fiscal 2006 began reporting all fuel purchases for E85 vehicles governmentwide as E85 transactions when the cars went to stations that sell E85. But according to the November study… 45 percent of fuel purchases for E85 vehicles actually are gasoline rather than E85, meaning that GSA may be overestimating the amount of E85 purchased. "Our reports to Congress on alt fuels are suspect," says Marc McConahy of Vista Consultants, who studied the problem for two years for the Energy Department. "and I’m being kind when I say ‘suspect.'" 

Industriainfo.com reports on the largest-ever ethanol industry hoe-down in Nashville. Reading between the lines, the corn-fuel folks are feeling the heat from their critics. Lucky for us, the Renewable Fuels Association blamed Big Oil for the anti-ethanol backlash. "The oil companies are behind it all, Prez Bob Dinnean pronounced. "With the passing of the 36 billion-gallon renewable fuels standard, the oil barons saw one-third of their market share slipping away and concocted an enormous campaign against renewables. They sit on editorial boards of every major newspaper." What's more Big Oil "bought themselves some studies" and conspired with major food companies to create a giant smokescreen. "They need to stop us now," battling Bob told the assembled throngs. "But they won't." To that end, the 2008 Fuel Ethanol Workshop & Expo will discuss plant development, new enzyme technology, water utilization and conservation, and the utilization of non-fossil fuel to power ethanol plants. Hmmm, what that all about?

We've heard a lot about U.S. corn-based ethanol production lately, what with E85 boosters saying it ain't got nothin' to do with rising food prices. In search of some reliable stats on this issue, TTAC's opened its wallet and bought some hard facts to fuel the debate. Industrialinfo.com [sub or PPV] reveals that "the United States now has 156 operational ethanol plants capable of producing a whopping 8.8 billion gallons of the renewable fuel. With an average of 2.6 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn, that translates to more than 3.4 billion bushels of corn going toward fuel production. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released numbers that estimate the 2008 corn crop would be about 11.7 billion bushels, meaning that about 24% of the crop will go straight toward ethanol production." I'm not sure who did their math, but when I divide 8.8b gallons by 2.6 gallons/bushel, I get almost 3.4b bushels, which equates to about 29% of the crop. Either way, that's a lot of Fritos. And just in case you want to know whose Senators are behind the .51 per gallon federal subsidies for the corn go-juice, check out this handy little chart. Question: does America actually consume all this ethanol? Hell no. Ethanol Producer Magazine reckons we burned 414k barrels of E85 per day in '07. Round that up to 500k for increased E85 use, and that's 182,500,000 barrels, or 7.6b gallons, per year. I make that 1.2b gallons worth of E85 overproduction, so far. Somebody add some subsidies, quick!

That's the headline on the press release sent by EPIC, the Ethanol Promotion and Information Council. Apparently, "Motorists are frustrated and angry about high gas prices. Everyone is feeling the pinch at the pump, which really underscores our need for biofuels," claims Toni Nuernberg, EPIC's exec director. "As gas prices continue to skyrocket, we must continue the push for the only current transportation energy option we have today-biofuels." Yes, well, by their own admission, EPIC's Royal "we" represents little more than the ethanol industry and wishful thinking. In a not-so-epic EPIC survey on gas prices, only 11 percent of 1004 online (opt in) respondents said they were "taking action to use and support [emphasis added] non-oil based energy." Some 47 percent they'd "like to" and a whopping 43 percent "no, I have not considered this." Anyway, I called Robert White, EPIC's Deputy Director, to ask how soaring gas prices worked in his members' favor. I was surprised to discover EPIC disagrees with the AAA; E85 is cheaper than regular gas! But wait, there's more…

"If Brazil can do it, we can do it; it's as simple as that." Needless to say, Fox News' demagogue-in-chief Bill O'Reilly made this asinine assertion on energy independence while berating a couple of news blonds with his usual steam-roller-like tact, anti-intellectual insights and megalomaniacal aplomb. Ignoring differences in climate (Brazil's ethanol production is based on sugar cane), speaking over pictures of a Chevy FlexFuel Tahoe, Bill O told his acolytes (repeatedly) that we "have to get away from this oil-based economy." Why Brazil's just itching to rescue us from the oil thugs with cheap imported ethanol. But evil Congress is placing restrictive tariffs on our liquid salvation on behalf of… Big Oil. Sooooo close Mr. Bill (correct answer: the farm lobby). One of the news blonds almost dared challenge O'Reilly on the ethanol front– more energy in than out, dependence on oil to create it, deforestation, boondoggles, etc.– but didn't. Hey Bill. If you want a real fight on this issue, drop us a line. 

"Some people may buy E85 because it burns cleaner than gasoline, while others may want to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil," American Automobile Association (AAA) spokesman Eric Escudero told The Denver Post. "But to succeed, the fuel needs to offer drivers an economic incentive, something it has failed to do even after the surge in gasoline prices." Yes there is that.The trip-A is now monitoring and listing E85 prices nationwide. And here's the really sucky part (if you're an ethanol producer): they're adjusting E85 prices to take into account its relative lack of energy efficiency. "After adjusting for its lower energy content, E85 cost an average of $4.32 a gallon in the U.S. on Friday versus $3.96 for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline." Oh dear. In fact, E85's rep is now so bad that the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association is playing pig pile on ethanol. "E85 is not the silver bullet, it is the red herring," claims Prez Charles Drevna. No really. "U.S. taxpayers subsidize ethanol to the tune of 51 cents a gallon, and the fuel provides significantly lower mileage. If that E85 is not 25 percent to 33 percent less than… regular gasoline, you are getting snookered." Snookered? I think there's a better word for it.

"Agriculture Secretary Edward T. Schafer is preparing to walk into a buzzsaw of criticism over American biofuels policy when he meets with world leaders to discuss the global food crisis next week." Ouch! Clearly, The New York Times is through pulling is punches on America's corn-fed bio-fuel bonanza. The majority of their article "Food Report Criticizes Biofuel Policies" is dedicated to a report criticizing biofuel policies (strangely enough), But before the knife is twisted ("The Agriculture Department’s own longtime chief economist, Keith Collins, who retired in January, said that ethanol was the 'foot on the accelerator' of corn demand), Secretary Schafer wants his constituents (corn growers) to know he's got their back. By his department's reckoning, biofuel production accounts for "only" two to three percent of the increase in global food prices, while reducing crude oil consumption by a million (a million!) barrels a day."We think that policy-wise in the United States of America — and certainly in the rest of the world — as we see the price of oil and petroleum escalate dramatically beyond anyone’s imagination, that one of the ways to deal with that is to produce biofuels which are renewables, better for the environment and help lower that cost." So E85 reduces gas use (although it increases gas use) and helps the environment (although it hurts the environment). Let the price supports begin! Oh wait…

The Alabama Press-Register's headline: "State invests in ethanol, but results mixed." Invests? Mixed? You guessed it. "State agencies have doubled purchases this year of E85, an ethanol-gasoline mixture, citing its production from domestic sources and ever higher costs of conventional gasoline." In practice, "the state Department of Transportation paid more per gallon for E85 than it did for gasoline in five of the 10 months between May 2007 and March of 2008." So how much is this boondoggle costing Yellowhammer State taxpayers? "In March, E85 cost the department $2.64 a gallon, while gasoline cost $2.46. Despite the higher price, state records show DOT bought an additional 4,224 gallons of the mixture that month, an increase of nearly 40 percent." Even without the 40 percent increase, that's a $10k E85 surcharge for five months' corn juice. The executive director of the Alabama Clean Fuels Coalition blames… gas prices. "In order to get any product anywhere in this country, it takes a truck or engines," said Mark Bentley. "And currently, those engines are fueled by petrodiesel, which is currently tied to price of gasoline." Mr. Bentley called for Alabama-based E85 plants. So far, only one company has so proposed.