The Dunn County News reports that ethanol boosters have re-energized their alliance with the American Lung Association. "From food to fuel, corn serves many purposes these days," scribe Bruce Dybvik writes. "When processed as ethanol and added to our gasoline, it seems to benefit our breathing, too. According to Bob Moffitt, communications director of the American Lung Association, 'Every flex-fuel vehicle that uses E85 instead of gasoline for a year saves four tons of air pollutants from going into the air, including a lot of greenhouse gasses. Here in Wisconsin, one of the leading sources of air pollution is tail pipe emissions.'" The reduced greenhouse gas claim is the most obvious obfuscation, as E85 gets less mpg than normal gas. But the idea that E85 is "cleaner" than garden-variety (or not) unleaded needs some serious debunking. In 2007, Environmental Science & Technology [via Scientific American] offered one such an analysis by Stanford University's Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering. "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Mark Jacobson's study stated. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles." 

AutoblogGreen reports that Brazil is launching a "diplomatic offensive" to promote its sugarcane ethanol exports to the EU, culminating at this November's World Biofuel Summit in São Paulo. Underlying the push: a Brazilian ethanol glut that American corn farmers have sworn their lives to keep on the other side of the border (and yes, we do have a border). Speaking to the Europeans, Brazil's Director of Energy tried to contrast Brazilian sugar-based ethanol and American corn-based ethanol. André Caranha Correa arguies that his countries product does not impact foodstocks. Of course, Brazilian ethanol does present a number of less-than-feel-good challenges, from widespread ecological impacts to the near-slave labor conditions of workers in the sugar industry. But hey, what else are charm offensives for? 

Desperate times lead to desperate measures, and Chrysler is about as desperate as they come. Or is that deceptive? First, the facts as we know then: ChryCo's just announced a new sales incentive program in "response to direct customer feedback citing the prospect of rising gas prices as a top concern." So now, anyone buying a "new and unused" Chrysler product in the U.S. can enroll in the "Let's Refuel America" promotion. They'll receive a gas card that lowers their price for gas to $2.99/gallon for three years. Participating customers will receive a card (with a PIN number) for deployment "at an eligible gas station." The card's good for regular gas, E85 or diesel fuel. After fueling is complete, the customer's personal credit card is billed at the rate of $2.99/gallon. The promotion runs until June 2, 2008. There's more fine print, but here's the big kahuna: Chrysler buyers get the card in lieu of "other incentives." Do the math, compare gas cash saved over three years vs. money not saved by discount, and, as the bard once said, "things are not always what they seem; milk can masquerade as cream." Anyone want to make any guesses on how much this deal will end-up costing Chryslerberus? Oh, and don't forget depreciation. Once ChryCo files for C11 the cards will be worthless. Of course, at that point, trade-in values won't be anything to write home about either…

Running your car on E85 reduces your mpgs up to 26 percent. Common sense tells you the price of E85 must be lower by the equivalent percentage to cost the same as normal gas. It must be lower again to save you money. It behooves the entire ethanol industry– from corn field to pump– to make sure E85 consumers know this fact; once bitten, twice shy. Meanwhile, any media outlet that doesn't mention E85's relative lack of efficiency when covering the retail end of the biz is acting irresponsibly. But a story specifically touting E85 as cheaper than gas without highlighting the fuel economy penalty is entirely reprehensible. To wit, 11alive.com's "Fuel For Under $3 In Metro Atlanta." "'I couldn't believe it,' said [Mike] Hamilton. 'I couldn't believe it they were selling fuel that cheap.' He's one of the lucky ones. Hamilton drives a vehicle that runs on E85 fuel. At the Safa Express BP station on Highway 20 in Lawrenceville, E85 is selling for $2.99 a gallon. Hamilton estimates he saved over $20 with one fill-up." Still, E85 is "not for everyone," as "the majority of cars on the road today won't run on E85." And then, this "Some drivers have complained their gas mileage is down with E85. Not Mike Hamilton. In fact, he's looking for a way to convert his other vehicles so they'll run on the ethanol blend, now that he can find it." He likes it! Mikey likes it! I'm in!

Last year, the Canadian government initiated an "aggressive push" to produce fuel from crops. The 2007 federal budget included a C$2.2b support package for biofuels. According to a report in the Globe and Mail, "political consensus in favor of biofuels is suddenly breaking down." Member of Parliament (MP) Keith Martin thinks it's time to step back and "put a moratorium on it now so people can actually wrap their heads around the facts; the current biofuel strategy is deeply misguided." The president of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association claims "the issues that come up have nothing to do with food supply."  Gord Quaiattin says concerned Canadian should blame rising oil prices for food costs. "Everybody's screaming about 'food for fuel'; it's too bad we can't have a rational debate in this country," sighs MP David McGuinty. Still, it may be too late to shut the door: the government has poured billions into a biofuel facilities fund. Fourteen plants are running already and six more being built- so this horse may have already left the barn.

Are you a Cornhusker State resident working in the ethanol industry– and who doesn't?– but don't know how to get your piece of the taxpayer pie? Well come on down to Nebraska's E85 Direct Marketing Workshops! Domestic Fuel reports/shills that "The aim of the workshops is to promote direct marketing relationships between ethanol producers and fuel retailers and reduce costs for all parties involved. Ethanol plants, petroleum equipment suppliers, petroleum marketers and auto dealers are encouraged to attend these free workshops. Presentations will address E85 handling and storage, regulations and safety procedures, applying for the ethanol blender tax credit, and direct marketing of E85 from ethanol plant to retailer." The workshops are sponsored– sorry, "presented" by The Nebraska Ethanol Board, the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition and the Clean Fuels Development Coalition. Just in case you can't see through that smokescreen, Domestic Fuel spells it out. "The project is funded in part by a grant from the Nebraska Department of Economic Development administered by the Nebraska Rural Development Commission." 

E85 is, indisputably, a less efficient energy source than normal gas. (In other words, you get less miles per tank with E85 than non-E85 fuel.) According to a study based on EPA data by the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics at Ohio State University, the "E85 penalty" varies according to vehicles and vehicle types, and city or highway driving. "The mean fuel economy of E85 in city driving is 73.42% that of gasoline, with a range of 66.89% to 81.33%. In highway driving, the mean fuel economy is 73.4% that of gasoline, with a range of 67.61% to 81.53%." OK, so the American Automobile Association tracks fuel prices for both blends. "Over the course of time that AAA has been tracking adjusted E85 prices, they’ve never fallen below the daily price of regular gasoline," The Wall Street Journal reports. "Since early October, adjusted E85’s price spread over regular gasoline has varied widely, between 4% and 12%, suggesting there’s at least some potential for improvement. However, Trilby Lundberg, publisher of the Lundberg Survey newsletter… says it’s 'extremely unlikely' that the adjusted E85 price can ever fully close the gap with retail gasoline." I dunno. E85 is already heavily subsidized from the field to the pump; what's the bet that [more of] your tax dollars "help" close that gap?

Is Indiana's $20k per station taxpayer E85 conversion payout proving popular with pump jockeys? “The phone has been ringing off the hook," reports Cary Aubrey, program manager for Bioenergy Development at Indiana State Department of Agriculture. Considering that E85 conversion costs ten times that amount, and doesn't exactly do the honey fly thing with consumers, what's with the telephonic deluge? Our friends at Ethanol Producer magazine reveal that the subsidy is going to… government agencies. “It used to be stated that only public fueling sites could take effect of this opportunity,” Aubrey said. “Now it’s been opened also to what we consider local units, which would be towns, cities, counties, or township fleets.”  But wait, that's not all (as if you thought it was)! "Consumers" at these sites receive an 18-cent sales tax deduction on every gallon of E85 sold. As they have done since July 2007. Do these flex-fuelers know the shell game going on? Do they Hell. “I think the soccer moms have figured out ’hey, I’m driving a flex-fuel vehicle,'" Aubrey obfuscates. "'I can go over here and fuel and its 50-60-70 cents cheaper.’” Not to mention E85's decreased mileage. Literally.

Speaking at the Beijing auto show, GM CEO Rick Wagoner went on the E85 offensive. The automaker's Beancounter-in-Chief ripped into a recent United Nations (UN) report claiming that ethanol production is warming the globe and reducing vital food supplies (a.k.a. a "crime against humanity"). Wagoner described the UN report as "shockingly misinformed." Yep, an army of scientists from all over the world has nothing on Rick Wagoner. Yes yes; the UN has a bureaucracy to rival GM's and its own political axe to grind. But more importantly, this kind of commentary from Wagoner [via the Financial Times] highlights GM's breathtaking arrogance and a failure to realize the development money they've spent on ethanol so far is a sunk cost. Wagoner tried to deflect attention the morality of raising cane in former rainforests and making corn juice out of food crops. "Oil prices are a far bigger driver of higher food prices than ethanol." Ain't moral relativism grand?

The President of the World Bank [via NPR] says demand for ethanol and other biofuels is a "significant contributor" to soaring food prices around the world. Robert Zoellick says droughts, financial speculators and increased demand for food have created "a perfect storm" of climbing food prices. In the U.S., the price of corn has more than doubled due, in part, to the demand for alt fuels such as ethanol. The World Bank figures food prices will stay high, or go higher, over the next couple of years. "Biofuels is no doubt a significant contributor," says Zoellick. "It is clearly the case that programs in Europe and the U.S. that have increased biofuel production have contributed to the added demand for food." As we reported last week, some 20 percent of last year's U.S. corn crop went to ethanol production; it's likely to reach 30 percent next year. Boondoggles can be lethal.

Audi may be right on target with their plans to import diesels . A study by J.D Power (via the Detroit News ) shows diesels and gas-electric hybrids will have 17 percent of the U.S. market by 2015. Surprisingly, Power thinks diesels will outsell hybrids because of the higher cost of admission to the hybrid club; they predict by 2015 hybrids will increase to seven percent of the market (from the current 2.2 percent) while diesel vehicles will make up ten percent. Sales of four-cylinder gas engines are also expected to rise sharply as the automakers scramble to meet the new 35mpg CAFE standard. They don't think hydrogen fuel cells and pure electric cars will have much impact as they won't be available in any significant numbers during the years covered by the study. But what about E85? The proportion of vehicles available that can run on corn squeezin's will nearly double but few of them will be using it because it still won't be available in most places. That won't matter to the manufacturers, though, if the new CAFE standards have the ethanol loophole the current one does.

Corn prices hit an all-time high price of $6.025 per bushel yesterday, then settled to a not-much-better $6. Ethanol producers are feeling the hurt, as the corn they use now costs more than they're currently getting for the ethanol they make from it. Earlier this week, Michael Jackson (no, not that one– the president of Syntec Biofuel) explained: "For years, corn was cheap and fermentation processes for ethanol production came to completely dominate the biofuel industry in North America. Now, with corn prices well over $5 a bushel, corn ethanol economics have gone out the window." That isn't slowing the ethanol producers though. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that about 20 percent of last year's corn crop went to ethanol production and predicts that'll go up to 30 percent for the next crop year. With 147 plants in production and another 61 planned, the situation will only get worse. In the meantime, corn growers are reaping record profits while consumers can expect higher prices for anything that's corn-based. Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it?