Yesterday, Bernd Pischetsrieder, chief executive of Volkswagen, attacked biofuels made from food crops as unsustainable, setting the German carmaker at odds with President Bush and U.S. auto makers. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14722804
Why does a German automotive CEO think this way while US manufactures love E85?
In a previous post Going green or grabbing green? A story of loopholes repeats itself 7/24/06, I touched on Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) requirements that distorts the truth about a vehicle's actual mileage capability -- if it's a vehicle made to run on both gasoline and a gasoline-ethanol blend known as E85 (85% ethanol/15%gasoline). Such flex-fuel vehicles are credited with much higher miles-per-gallon capability than they actually get. General Motors and Ford have been big advocates of flex-fuel vehicles.
Mr Pischetsrieder said some of the current biofuels were "totally pointless" and "like a wolf in sheep's clothing". He criticized tax benefits that were not linked to carbon dioxide, since some methods of refining biofuel actually led to higher carbon emissions than from petrol."The current situation is totally unsatisfactory, both from the environmental and economic standpoint," he said.
In the cover story of Consumer Reports October 2006 issue, The Ethanol Myth, the consumer advocate does its own fuel consumption testing for a flex-fuel Chevrolet Tahoe FFV (Flexible Fuel Vehicle).
According to the report::
--the fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27% to 10 mpg with E85 (ethanol added to the gasoline to make E85 is supposed to stretch the gasoline supply. Burning E85, the Tahoe burns more total fuel, eating up the difference).
--because E85 is primarily sold in the upper Midwest, most drivers don’t have access to the fuel.
--the FFV surge is being motivated by generous fuel-economy credits that automakers receive for every FFV they build, even if it never runs on E85. This allows them to pump out more gas-guzzling large SUVs, which is currently consuming large amounts of gasoline that the CAFE standards were designed to reduce.
The three domestic auto manufacturers will have built more than 6 mllion FFVs by the end of this year, for which they have been credited for poor fuel economy.
The Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency flexible fuel credit is causing more gas to be burned rather than less.
Below is a map showing fueling stations where millions of FFV vehicles already on the road can fuel up.
You've heard it alot, and you should hear it a few more times. It isn't just distribution that makes the CAFE standard reprieve on flex-fuel cars misguided. And you've probably heard this one before:
Ethanol uses just about as much energy to produce as it's gasoline-equivalent (and that's when we calculate in the feed value of corn gluten--see Shapouri or Pimentel). Period.
Yes, maybe we've got a little bit more coal than gas for the short run, but increasing the efficiency on cars is an imminently necessary goal of policy regardless of what fuel it runs on. The car we are looking for is a plug-in hybrid with ethanol fuel capacity.
A 10-mile-a-gallon fuel is an insult to stunted, developing countries, and environmental goals alike. There is nothing environmental about ethanol. Even if we had a renewable power supply.
Flex-fuel is great. We will need it when petroleum runs out. There's not enough sustainably grown corn in the US for us to run on ethanol, so let's get a 1-for-1 replacement out of our heads and call efficiency what efficiency is. Better MILES PER GALLON.
Go mike! Proclaim it from your wallet to the voting booth.