Still seems bizarre. I wasn't sure but on the face of it the whole situation does look like it's 'rigged' to suit certain outcomes.
I know about the grants for the manufacturing facilities, I didn't know there was an 'offset' payment going to the ethanol producers though. I wonder what 'creative' way the government is using to recover that money back from taxpayers? I also wonder if other parts of the world (esp. the USA) are getting as wound-up about ethanol fuels as is happening here?
What would be really interesting is the gauge the effect in Europe, because in Europe diesel vehicles are a lot more common and there would be a lot less rural land with a climate suitable for growing crops to produce ethanol for vehicle fuel production. Here in Australia and in the US there is loads of space (currently) to commercially farm crops for ethanol production, though what will happen when ethanol fuels really do become more mainstream is what'll be interesting to watch also.
I was aware the chemical nature of ethanol meant that there would be poorer fuel economy measured purely on a litre per 100 km basis compared to conventional hydrocarbon fuels.
I suppose the vehicle manufacturers will try to develop ways to improve the energy 'extraction' from engines designed specifically to run on fuels like E85 so that any price offsets are offset further by fuel economy savings. Not sure if Saab itself has been doing much in this regard since GM tends to put the lid on anything controversial (as do Ford - witness the 'before their time' electric vehicles that each company tries to deny ever existed) that will upset other industries that GM depends on for the indirect revenue sources into the automotive manufacturing industry as a whole.
Yep noticed this first-hand, and I think people are being duped because the pricing of E10 is a little cheaper than the same octane-rated conventional petrol so they believe they're getting better value.
Craig.