As much as we criticize ethanol around these parts, we all use it. E10 is a fact of life, thanks to ethanol’s anti-knock properties and lack of groundwater contamination lawsuits. So what if ethanol were used more intelligently as an additive, instead of being hawked as an alt-fuel? PickupTrucks.com has news that Ford’s second-generation EcoBoost turbocharged engines could go that very route. Although the first round of EcoBoost engines aren’t even on sale yet, the second generation is being developed under the codename “Bobcat.” These new engines are said to feature “ethanol boost technology,” not-so-coincidentally developed by Ethanol Boosting Systems of Cambridge, MA.  In essence, a variable ethanol direct-injection system allows turbocharged engines to operate at a higher compression ratio. This means more power and up to 15 percent better efficiency than a first-gen EcoBoost engine. Plus, you only have to top-up on ethanol every month or so. With talk of getting 500 hp and 700 lb-ft from a 5.0 turbo-V8, developers are positioning the Bobcat as big-pickup diesel competition. And Ford is already saying Bobcat engines will be a $1,100 option (give or take), which compares well to diesel’s $5k premium. But don’t start looking for the Bobcat option box any time soon. “The first Bobcat test engines may be built before the end of the year, but they have not received final approval for production,” according to PickupTrucks’ “industry sources.”

I debated posting this blog [via The Daily Breeze] in our E85 Boondoggle of the Day category. Who knows if BlueFire Ethanol's concentrated acid hydrolysis waste-to-ethanol technology will create commercially-viable E85 fuel near a garbage dump in Lancaster, CA? (Define "commercially viable.") The company certainly thinks so; BlueFire plans to build 20 cellulose-to-ethanol plants in the next eight years generating over $2b in revenues by 2013 with pre-tax income of over $1.2b. Good luck with that. (Really.) Ultimately, the fact that BlueFire sucked $40m bucks from the U.S. Department of Energy for a cellulosic waste processing plant in Corona tipped the balance. Debate that editorial choice if you must, remembering that I believe that anything ethanol-oriented that isn't corn-for-fuel is better than anything that is. Meanwhile, BlueFire's process uses flash fermentation, membrane distillation and chromatographic separation of the acid from the sugars. TTAC's Best and Brightest can read and analyze (please) BlueFire's boffinology here, as the company's website is non-functional. (Not the best of portents, but there you go.) TTAC is investigating taxpayer "contributions" to BlueFire's Lancaster site.

OK, so this isn't specifically about cars, but it could have ramifications for anyone who uses gasoline. Cars.com reports small-engine mechanics around the country are reporting an increase in damage in boat, lawnmower, chainsaw and other small engines. The culprit? They're saying it's the ethanol blended into gasoline. Apparantly it creates a gummy substance that "clogs valves and causes small metal parts to rust, destroying carburetors and other crucial components". The bad thing is, even if you drain the tank, this residue remains behind and does its damage. The same thing happens in our cars, but they're designed to handle "a certain amount of the residue that causes so much trouble in smaller motors." No one's done any studies to substantiate these allegations, but "a growing chorus of mechanics" say it's so. [Thanks to ppellico for the link]

There is no greater condemnation of an industry's lack of competitive spirit than seeing its executives hanging around political conventions. Their sudden interest in the future direction of America sends a single resounding message: we have failed on our merits and our misery demands company. And while Detroit snuggles up to Obama, courtesy of McCain's semi-stand against a D2.8 bailout, the E85 lobby gets to represent the failures of America's auto and energy businesses at the Republican convention in Minneapolis. Of course, it helps that Minnesota is a standard-bearer for ethanol, bringing countless millions in pork to the land of a thousand lakes. But the mere presence of E85-backers at the RNC convention isn't enough to hammer home the ugly, thoughtless greed of the corn-juice movement. Domesticfuel.com reports that the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest has purchased a number of pro-ethanol TV spots and billboards aimed specifically at the Donkey do. "Addicted to Oil?" asks a sign on the St. Paul skyway. The query that really begs an answer here is "what the hell is a respiratory health advocacy group doing schilling for agribusiness?" Meanwhile, yesterday's E85BOTD poster child POET has given the University of South Dakota a $3.9m grant to study cellulosic ethanol. First, why not just build another plant, considering POET's first cellulosic ethanol plant in Scotland cost $4m? Second, will this research grant simply provide academic fodder for the corn farming lobby's campaigns? And third, why didn't POET ask the government to fund this grant? Is ethanol finally learning to stand on its own? Don't count on it.

It's always fun to see analysts justify their way to a predetermined conclusion, especially when the facts do not come close supporting it. At the usually on-point SeekingAlpha blog, Tim Plaehn tries his hand at another round of corn juice justification, this time with a new twist: cobs, baby. Claiming that high food prices create incentives for "efficiency and innovation" rather than say, cutting the cord, Plaehn lays out the roadmap for the ethanol industry's next big thing. Since everyone and their senile grandparents know that cellulosic, not feedstock-based, ethanol is the future, Plaehn appropriates what little future the biomass-based fuel has into the ethanol farm subsidy racket. He points to a company (POET) that uses cellulosic ethanol extraction to squeeze some extra juice from corn cobs, rather than non-feedstock biomass crops, arguing that the expensive technology will extract 27 percent more ethanol per acre of corn. If we're talking about investing in cellulosic extraction, it makes far more sense to base it off of such low-impact, high-efficiency crops as switchgrass. Except that this far more logical approach would mean the end of government ethanol subsidies to corn producers. So what other miracles does Plaehn forecast to allow ethanol to reduce dependence on foreign oil? More expensive technology of course, only this time we're talking blending pumps which could dial in the exact amount of ethanol consumers want in their gas. Choosing between E20, E30, E40, etc sounds great, but at what cost an all-new infrastructure? That's precisely beside the point for the ethanol lobby, who know that infrastructure-building is just another great way to get the government to subsidize their marginally-viable product. But this is exactly what you should expect from a heavily criticized, multi-billion-dollar pork project that claims to be chasing "efficiency and innovation" without ever truly exposing itself to market influences.

Government fleet purchases are a major factor in keeping the ethanol crazy-train rolling. Not to mention damning evidence of ethanol's inviability on the free market. But even local governments who hoped that cheap ethanol would reduce costs and support energy independence are beginning to realize that switching to corn juice just brings lower mileage and higher food prices. In fact, the Times Herald-Record reports that Orange County, NY actually did the math and found that the 25 percent reduction in efficiency with ethanol outweighed any benefits. And that's not even including the costs of installing a new pump and fuel tank. And keep in mind we're not talking about some business that is continuously hacking away at its bottom line. Governments are usually more than happy to spend a little extra on something like ethanol that will provide a "we're doing the right thing" PR buzz. Indeed, E85 has come as far as it has based largely on government fleet purchases made as political favors to the ethanol alliance. Now that local governments can no longer justify ethanol's shocking inefficiency, the party seems to be winding up. And not a moment too soon.

TTAC prides itself on scanning obscure sources of info to keep you inside the loop on some loopy, car-related stuff. And nothing is quite as bizarre as America's corn-based ethanol industry, depending as it does entirely on government subsidies, mandates and market manipulation. One of the best sources for info: industrialinfo.com. In an "interview" with an endlessly annoying, pig-ignorant, honey-toned professional broadcaster, the news org's Alternative Fuel Group Veep offers a blunt assessment of a bio-diesel and ethanol industry deep in the doldrums. "We're in a bust cycle," Jay Brunson says. "Over the first part of 2008, not a single corn-based ethanol plant has started construction, and the biodiesel industry has had only a handful of construction starts." And then Jay moves quickly on to non-corn ethanol sources. Does this mean U.S. farmers are, you know? Not if their legislators have anything to say about it. And by God, they do.

Readers who depend on this series to elevate their blood pressure will know that democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is not so tough on E85 or the causes of E85. In fact, he's downright giddy at the prospect of federal subsidies for corn juice, and getting the damn gas stations to sell it. And so we turn to The Socialist Worker for a run-down on Barack's "fly me to the moon"  (in an ADM private jet) relationship with the agribusiness interests who love them some E85. [We could have linked to The New York Times, but that was June, this is now.] Nicole Colson's rant is not new news, but it's a well-written summary and, dare I say it, accurate. "During his first year in office, Obama introduced a number of measures that benefited the agribusiness industry–such as the "Obama Amendment" that offered oil companies a 50 percent tax credit for building gas stations that offer E85 fuel. Obama also voted for the Bush administration's 2005 energy bill and opposed a proposal to lower tariffs on cheaper sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil and other countries." Would John "Just Say No to Subsidies For Now" McCain dare confront Barack on this issue? What are you, kidding?

I'm not sure we're looking at one of those tip of the iceberg deals, but this story from the AP [via the Chicago Tribune] raises the possibility. "State investigators claim a company spiked unleaded gasoline and 10-percent ethanol-blended fuel with cheaper E85 at stations in Sumner and Fairbank… In mid-June, the Weights and Measures Bureau of the state agriculture department found that Pronto Market stations were receiving shipments of E85 from a Jesup distributor, but had neither an E85 fuel tank nor a pump. An investigator checked out the stations and found the unleaded gas and 10-percent ethanol blend each had between 15 and 18 percent ethanol in field tests, said Ivan Hankins of the weights and measures bureau." Given the current ethanol glut, that's only going to get larger, is this a sign of things to come? Meanwhile, this is not the kind of publicity the corn-juice boosters will like to hear. Oh well. 

Those of you headed to the California State Fair this month can take the kiddies along for brainwashing "a new eco-friendly show" at the "Buick-Pontiac-GMC Rainforest Pavilion." What the division that produces some of GM's biggest and thirstiest vehicles has to do with the rainforest escapes me at the moment, but the "'green' fun" features a "Dr. Greenius Biofuel" as host and "will engage fair-goers with interactive fun while also educating about alternative fuels and how to be more eco-friendly in day-to-day life." The kiddos can participate in "hands-on demonstrations like learning to juggle, piecing together puzzles, and playing with an easy squeezy biofuel tool demonstrating the difference between petroleum and ethanol in a fun-filled way." And then once you're through in the Rain Forest, you can shuffle over to the "Chevy Alt Fuel Magical Biodome" to see "Harry Hybrid-dini" with "an act that incorporates alternative fuel words of wisdom." And of course, "Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac and GMC will present a variety of fuel-friendly vehicles to explore throughout the Fair." If you've managed to hold down your lunch so far, or really do believe that the children are our future, you can read the entire press release here.

Click here for the full press release

In a recent interview with the Weekly Standard, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley weighed-in on the food-for-fuel debate. "If part of our problem is that the Chinese are going to eat meat and you've got to have corn and soybeans to feed the Chinese their meat, then why isn't it just as legitimate for the Chinese to go back and eat rice as it is for us to change our policy on corn to ethanol?" Despite the growing consensus (so to speak) that ethanol is not an environmentally-friendly fuel, drives up food prices and contributes to world starvation, Grassley isn't willing to surrender the $4.5b of federal ethanol subsidies and the farm lobby support that goes with it. The Weekly Standard condemns Grassley's position. "As this 'let them eat rice' soundbite made clear, the debate over the food versus fuel issue is about as undignified as a full out real food fight at a summer camp cafeteria."  

The federal ethanol mandate is the Mother of All Ethanol Boondoggles. The latest federal energy bill dictates that some 9b gallons of ethanol must be blended into gasoline from Sept. 1 to Aug. 31, 2009– whether consumers like it or not. How can the feds "force" the market to swallow all that corn-juice? The Renewable Fuels Standard sets the bar for all 50 states' gas blends; backed-up by the usual threat (loss of federal highway funds). According to The Detroit News, Texas governor Rick Perry has asked the EPA to cut that shit out [paraphrasing]. Perry wants the feds to "temporarily " reduce ethanol requirements to bring down the corn prices bedeviling his rancher friends. Oh, and people who eat. In a phone call with the Gov, EPA Administrator Stephan Johnson laughed, Joker-like at the idea [paraphrasing]. Perry was pissed [for real]. "I am greatly disappointed with the EPA's inability to look past the good intentions of this policy to see the significant harm it is doing to farmers, ranchers and American households," Perry said. "For the EPA to assert that this federal mandate is not affecting food prices not only goes against common sense, but every American's grocery bill." The Texas-sized battle against boondoggery begins.

Back in the day, T. Boone Pickens questioned why his then-boss, presidential nominee Bob Dole supported ethanol. Dole's answer was telling. "Let me explain something to you about politics," the Kansas Republican replied. "There are 21 farm states, and that's 42 senators. Don't waste any more of our time or your time telling us it's a bad idea, because they're going to do it." And when politics trumps policy, you get stories like this one from The Oil Drum (TOD). With gas consumption likely to decline thanks to high prices, TOD wanted to know if federal ethanol mandates would sink with the market. The Department of Energy told them ethanol mandates are still set to increase, from 9b gallons this year to 12b gallons in 2011. Which raises a problem: what to do with it all. By DOE estimates, there won't be enough gasoline to "absorb" that much ethanol in standard E10 blends in 2011. There's also not enough E85 pumping stations (or "infrastructure") for the corn juice. In other words, the feds are mandating more ethanol than we can use so that Midwest senators will be pliant for other senators' pork projects. We've sure got this energy thing licked, huh?

Survey takers Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research recently quizzed 800 registered voters about corn juice. They discovered the majority either favored or strongly favored "continuing to increase the use of ethanol, a renewable source of energy, in our nation's fuel supply." Hold on there, what's with the little caveat about "a renewable source of energy?" What would the results have been if they'd left that little gem out? Did the fact the The Renewable Fuels Association paid for this research have anything to do with the wording? Of course not. Anyway, "By a 71 to 17 percent margin, voters believe the rising cost of oil and gas is the primary reason food prices have been going up, rather than blaming the rising use of corn-based ethanol." Key word: "primary." The question asks what respondent blame "the most" for rising food prices. Eight percent blamed ethanol above increased demand in China and India and severe weather. And here's the kicker:  21 percent of those surveyed said they were less likely to support a candidate for president who supports ethanol, "a renewable source of energy." Go figure. 

Bioethanol is so last year. Biomass Magazine (yes, there really is such a publication) reports the latest research in biofuels is directed at producing "green hydrocarbon fuels.' While biodiesel is becoming relatively commonplace, it's based on oils derived from plants and animal fats. Green hydrocarbon fuels are second-generation biofuels made from the same biomass materials used for bioethanol, with several advantages. Since they're chemically identical to the petroleum-based fuels, they carry the same amount of energy. Unlike ethanol, no vehicular modifications are required, AND they can use the current fuel delivery infrastructure. The down side: the process to produce the fuels is much more complex than either petroleum or ethanol production, requiring the conversion of the biomass to bio-oil before the refining process can begin. Researchers are working to simplify the solution, but it'll still be a few years before there'll be a bountiful supply of biogas– at least the kind that isn't produced by a diet of burritos and beer.