The ethanol mirage: What is GM talking about?
Oh–there's money involved, too. Federal fuel-economy regulations basically give automakers extra credit for building dual-fuel vehicles–whether drivers use a gasoline alternative or not. That effectively allows the automakers to build less-efficient vehicles than they'd otherwise have to, and to avoid fines they'd be likely to incur for failing to meet fleetwide fuel-economy targets. Economically, it's a no-brainer. To make a car on the production line ethanol-compatible, it costs only about $100 extra, to add a sensor that can detect what kind of fuel is in the tank and make a few other modifications. Drivers don't have to do anything different when running on ethanol, so there's no consumer confusion to worry about. Yet converting a bunch of regular automobiles into flex-fuel vehicles has probably saved GM $350 million in fines it would have had to pay for falling short of fuel-economy requirements, according to David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. That's not altruism or environmentalism. It's just business.
Ethanol does hold promise. "I give GM credit," Friedman told me. "The ability to operate on an alternative fuel gives more choice to consumers." He'd like to see GM promote flex-fuel vehicles more heavily where there are pumps–mainly in a handful of midwestern states–and browbeat Exxon Mobil and other energy companies into producing more ethanol and making it more widely available. And how about coming clean with consumers? Instead of boasting about selling a bunch of flex-fuel vehicles that will never taste ethanol, why not do something that actually increases the use of ethanol–and decreases the consumption of oil? Then, boast about that.
advertisement
