They are right to make flex-fuel engines.
They are wrong to tout ethanol as the fuel to burn in them.
They should burn Methanol, a product that can be made economically from our vast coal reserves. We are correct to turn to the flex-fuel engines.
There is no doubt in my mind that the cost equation for petroleum should include the cost of fighting wars against Islam. Every dollar we are spending in Iraq would not be necessary if these folks weren’t enriched by oil money with which they can engage in their idiotic, religious jihad against the world.
Every single dime we spend on defense and diplomacy regarding Islam should be added to the cost of oil.
That makes ethanol fare better by comparison, but the real answer is Methanol.
Actually, there’s a better alternative than either ethanol or methanol: butanol.
Butanol has:
1. A higher energy density (ie, more BTU per gallon) than either ethanol or methanol. Methanol has a lower heat content per unit volume than ethanol, so going to methanol is moving in the wrong direction there.
2. The ability to be transported by existing petroleum product pipelines.
3. A better blending ability with gasoline or diesel fuels.
4. Lower octane than ethanol, so we lose something there.
5. The ability to be made from the same feedstock & fermentation plants as ethanol.
Some more research needs to be done on yeasts for butanol production to allow the microbes to survive higher levels of butanol in the mash to reduce the energy requirements in fermentation processing.
Unfortunately in the late ‘80s when the gubment was selecting which course to take-ethanol or methanol ADM threw a ton of money at congress to steer us toward ethanol-and it worked. ADM won, and the American people lost.