Currently if all of the cultivable land in the US was dedicated to ethanol it would only replace about 25~30%of current gasoline usage. Biofuel independence is still a long way off and needs more research and development. Electric and compressed driven vehicles look to be a better option. And there is another possibility on the horizon.

In addition, I would like to mention that our 2003 Dodge Grand Caravan is an FFV, as are all 3.3L V6 models of that year. This means that it is flexible fuel vehicle that can run on E85 Ethanol. I hope to see E85 in our area soon.

This new energy technology has been proven by NASA but the DOE refuses to fund or conduct further research. It is called Cavitation Ignition Bubble Combustion (CIBC) or burning a small air bubble less than the size of a “BB.”

This new innovative energy technology is cheap, plentiful, convenient, highly efficient, environmentally friendly (emits no greenhouse gases), doesn’t require the use of any foreign oil, is compatible with our present infrastructure, and most importantly, is universal in usage and application as oil has been in the past. It appears to be far more superior to the alternative Band-Aid energy solutions presently being promoted and funded by the US DOE such as fuel cells, gasohol, hybrids, ethanol, methanol, bio-diesel, and definitely biomass such as wood chips, stalks and switch grass. This technology can use any type of oil extracted and/or produced including fossil. seed, grain, vegetable and a host of others, all in an unrefined state as the oil only acts as a carrier of this small air bubble. The technological process simply combust (Burn) this small air bubble that is entrained in the oil. The process does not burn the oil (Fluid) itself.

Perhaps Washington would do something if many people called their Congressman and asked the reason why this technology is not being pursued. It is possible with this technology to drive across country for less than $10.00 and emit no greenhouse gases.

All the negatives about ethanol are pure chemical and scientific fact.

The corrosive properties, reduced mileage and horsepower, are not concocted by opponents; merely experienced by users.

The main drawback lies in the agricultural and economic feasibility of ethanol production.

The U.S. cannot produce enough corn to maintain an adequate food AND fuel source. No conspiracy here folks; just simple economics.

Whether it’s an alternative to ethanol or something used in addition to it, biodiesel simply has to be given consideration. The mileage an engine gets on it is just marginally lower than regular diesel fuel. And let’s remember that the processed deep fryer oil that it uses would simply be thrown out otherwise.

There is a show on Discovery Channel called “Dirty Work” and in one installment, you see how one man processes the fryer oil in his garage (albeit one with a high ceiling) for a diesel pick-up he’s owned since the early 1980s.

If you can, catch it.

Let’s be clear — hydrogen for cars, despite what Dubya says, is not the answer.

Corrosion is addressed by plating or coating fuel tanks, pumps, carburators or injectors and using special plastic and rubber fuel lines.

Cold starting is usually achieved by staring with gasoline and then switching to ethanol.

Mixtures of gasoline and ethanol will proportionally suffer from above problems.

I have indeed personal experience on ethanol. My car is a Passat 87 (Dasher) originally designed to run on ethanol. It has 110,000 miles and runs fine. I start it with temps. as low as 45 F on gasoline. (It has a small 2 liter plastic gasoline tank). Corrosion problems are mainly a not too well applied nickel coating in the carburettor, which is peeling off slowly. Ethanol fuel tank coating is fine.

Currently I buy ethanol fuel (93% ethanol + 7% water) for 60 to 65 cents a liter

Despite popular beliefs, bio-diesel releases less harmful toxins than gasoline. If you didn’t know, bio-diesel is made from used cooking oil. I pick it up for free from waste treatment companies. Restaurants pay to have the oil disposed of. In theory I could make money and fuel at the same time. I do not see why this hasn’t caught on. I get 4 mpg greater than before. The only downside is that the truck smells like french fries going down the road, but then again diesel fumes aren’t any better.

If present economics are the only factor we should stick with petroleum. It is presently the cheapest resource. The real issue is if one gets a new motor-fuel like Ethanol online will economies of scale and improved methods of production eventually make it cheaper than petroleum?

The world is full of oil. But much of it is in remote areas with rough terrain (such as Nevada, Alaska, etc.) not serviced by present infrastructure. The cost to produce from these areas will be higher than foreign oil.

Also- Ethanol can be made by Pan-American farmers. It is renewable. It can be transported over land by train. An ethanol tanker spill would evaporate on land, dissipate at sea. Much of South American land can grow corn at low cost.