New Ethanol Bill Faces Automaker Resistance

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

How things change in a few years! Just a few short orbits of the sun ago, automakers like GM were some of the biggest boosters of ethanol subsidies. Now, the Detroit News reports

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers – the trade association representing General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Group LLC, Toyota Motor Corp. and eight others – opposes a bill sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, that would require 90 percent of all vehicles to run on E85 – a blend of 85 percent ethanol – by the 2016 model year.

Shane Karr, vice president for government affairs, said the mandate “would cost consumers more than $2 billion per year” for flex fuel vehicles if automakers passed on the full cost “even though consumers will have little or no access to alternative fuels. Therefore, such a mandate is essentially a tax with little consumer benefit.”

In the face of this new opposition, the Renewable Fuels Association has even taken to employing the rhetoric of market economics to justify market-manipulating ethanol subsidies. And it doesn’t seem to be convincing anyone. If anything, Harkin’s bill may just hasten the death of existing subsidies, which are under pressure as both Democrats and Republicans seek to trim the federal budget.


Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
10 of 32 comments
  • TrailerTrash TrailerTrash on Apr 08, 2011

    As I heard someone say last night.... when we start burning our FOOD for fuel, it's the beginning of the end. The world has 2 valuable resouces, fresh water and food. Both are in decline since humans cannot stop their growth rate. Now we are beginning to burn one of these for our cars. Extrordinary. Really.

  • Philadlj Philadlj on Apr 08, 2011

    Whenever I see one of those FlexFuel badges - or an ad for ethanol during a NASCAR race, for that matter - I either sigh or do a facepalm. Raising corn at the unnatural industrial scale we need to feed ourselves is unsustainable enough as it is. American corn-based ethanol is waste of corn, a waste of energy, a waste of money, and a waste of time. Whatever needs to be done - politically or practically - to get rid of it as an fuel option in America - cheaper hybrid/EV tech, eliminating subsidies, more drilling for oil and natural gas - I'm all for it. Corn Ethanol needs to go away...yesterday.

    • M 1 M 1 on Apr 08, 2011

      Not all of us are (D) voters drinking the kool-aid. I bought a FlexFuel Suburban because checking that box gives me lots and lots of much higher-quality stainless steel parts. But I have no intention of running that crap. Enjoy your facepalm.

  • Fred diesel Fred diesel on Apr 08, 2011

    Corn ethanol is the Rube Goldberg bipartisan HOAX of a "biofuel" that just keeps on getting. There is actually a glut of gasoline in this country and the world market...only speculators can tell us why thats not reflected in prices. Consequently, ethanol will always have a price obstacle...and as light-duty fuel efficiency gets better, that obstacle gets higher. Corn is kinda of a crappy product anyway. Its got big crop rotation needs and the water, erosion, fertilizer and diesel is not exactly sustainable agriculture. Ethanol is not able to be piped and requires dedicated tankers that are always empty on the backhaul. The shame is the real biofuel, biodiesel, gets the short end of the stick in any renewable fuel discussion.

    • See 1 previous
    • Couper Couper on Apr 08, 2011

      asapuntz - some of us oil burners [diesel] do NOT care to pay more for a fuel that requires less processing. for our engines we can cut corn/veg oil with kero or home oil at a buck or two cheaper per gallon and continue to run with less internal damage(s). gasoline ignition/combustion is a whole different science. yes, fuel flexability is a very admirable goal - economically and environmentally; considering the final cost(s) to the end user [we automotive dependents].

  • Asapuntz Asapuntz on Apr 11, 2011

    > some of us oil burners [diesel] do NOT care to pay more for a fuel that requires less processing I'm talking about paying more for the engine to give fuel flexibility. Diesel engines cost more than "basic" gasoline models, but give you more flexibility when it comes to fuel selection. Flex fuel gas engines probably have less of a price premium - after all, they're just dealing with corrosion issues, not higher pressures/temperatures - while providing improved fuel options. Ethanol can be derived from a variety of sources, not just corn. So, while not as flexible as diesel, flex fuel engines provide options for the future, if we want to reduce dependence on crude. In the meanwhile, it's also insurance against a tank of "bad gas". Also, I believe biodiesel has some of the same issues as ethanol blends - lower energy density and corrosion due to increased water content. To use it in higher % blends, the engines need some minor improvements.

    • See 2 previous
    • Rpn453 Rpn453 on Apr 12, 2011

      Since it is questionable that it will ever happen, let's wait until we can produce ethanol in a sustainable economic way before requiring that I spend any amount of money on a compatible engine.

Next