I read a recent article on E85, and it mentioned that there was an additional expense for engines that could burn both it and gas. Turns out the extra cost was about $250.00. This seems very small to me and could easily be eliminated through efficiencies of scale if it became standard. I'm not sure what gas stations would need to do to convert a tank over to E85, but if it's relatively low this seems like a very common sense move.

Eliminate sugar subsidies/price supports and incentivize cane farmers/refiners to produce alcohol and we'll have done ourselves a great favor.

Hopefully, mixes other than e85, such as e65 and e50 could be introduced for greater milage efficiency and provide consumers with a choice.

Huh? From the article:

E85's drawback is reduced fuel economy. For example, GM's 2006 Chevrolet Impala sedan is rated 21 mpg in town, 31 on the highway using gasoline, but only 16 and 23 mpg on E85.

That had better not be true: 16/21 and 23/31 are about 75%; that means they're getting fewer miles out of the 85/15 gasoline/ethanol mix than they would out of the 85% gasoline alone if they burned it!

But Mike Earl, the article states E85 is 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol. To drive 31 E85 miles you would only burn 20% of a gallon of gasoline ... less than a quart. That's the whole point of the program ... to send fewer dollars overseas and achieve cleaner air ... as a bonus.

Genecis:

Ah, somehow I read it as 85/15 the other way. That's a lot more reasonable.

The problem still remains - how are you going to generate enough Ethanol to make even a fraction of this possible?

AWW, Is doing nothing an option? Let's get started and see what develops. See our latest trade deficit numbers. Better yet, follow the money.