Auto Industry Fights Obama Admin's Effort to Force Corn Ethanol on U.S.

Auto Industry Fights Obama Admin's Effort to Force Corn Ethanol on U.S.
Daily Tech ^ | April 8, 2011 2:24 PM | Jason Mick (Blog)

Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2011 5:07:01 PM by Ernest_at_the_Beach
New legislation would force virtually all cars to run on ethanol









The Obama administration and Democrats in Congress are facing resistance from the auto industry about a controversial proposal that would force consumers to use more ethanol in a bid to reduce fossil fuels consumption.

I. What's in the Bill?

The new bill, The Biofuels Expansion Act of 2011, has a number of provisions, but among its most controversial are efforts to expand government spending on ethanol and force ethanol on consumers.

Sponsored by Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa); Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota); Amy Klobuchar (D/"Farmer-Labor Party"- Minnesota); and Al Franken (D/"Farmer-Labor Party"-Minnesota), the bill could massively benefit corn farmers in the Midwest, but may not be so rosy for the rest of the country.


Under its proposals, government spending on ethanol would leap from $50M USD in 2012 to $350M USD by 2016.  The government would also provide loan guarantees to construct new ethanol pipelines.

But most importantly, the bill would force 90 percent of automobiles sold by 2016 to capable of running on an E85 fuel blend -- fuel that is 85 percent ethanol, and 15 percent gas.

II.  The Good

There are some positives about the bill.  The bill could promote the growth of cellulosic ethanol research and production.
 Cellulosic ethanol has few downsides other than the cost.  It comes from waste, is completely renewable, has a net harvest-to-pump reduction in green house gases, nitrogen, and sulfur emissions.

And the bill could promote other non-corn biofuels such as algae, something the Navy has been actively dabbling in for several years.

In our past discussions with alternative biofuel companies like Coskata, most expressed that they didn't need subsidies to survive and eventually be profitable, but that subsidies could accelerate the process.

III. The Bad.....................