No current answer, just history class.
The methonal @ 100% was the initial goal (even though 85 is as close as we got commercially). If not for all cars, a portion of them. It was pushed as renewable and cleaner burning so ecofriendly on both ends. Problem is it is causing massive starvation in 3rd world countries where the crops grown for it at peak production are jot for for human consumption. But the mighty $ pushes out food crops inplace of fuel for profit. So while well intentioned, it is killing better than an ak through malnutrition.
Since that came up and the people behind most of the push for it are the save the world groups, they have since changed their minds. Now we are stuck with the transition laws on the books, and a modified economy adapted for it that was major investment to make happen. Now that the American farmer is set in motion on it, the gubmint inducment to walk away from it is not just saying lets plant tomatoes instead.
The benifits of the alcohol in the fuel is being surpassed by the technology to control combustion more accurately, so now the newer cars dont benifit as much as the older ones emissions wise. Keep in mind the emissions gain was a net gain. Back in 2001 I had to do a speach at the college and university here and northern nv, as well as az. whle working for the oil/fuel company. In 2001 the average mpg loss was 11%. But the emissions from the cars (1990-2000 range) was slightly over 20% cleaner. So the emissions offset was achieved even though the consumption rate was higher. Fuel production cost was 5% cheaper and it was ASSumed the cost to the consumer would follow (HAHA yeah, cuz that happens all the time).
So in the end the plan was the US consumer would eat 5% more in fuel bill while reducing emissions and causing the world to alter vehicle production to make the entire world burn cleaner fuel. In turn more US produced fuel would push the economy in further upward trend and ease any loss of economic impact through localized volume economic gains, meaning noe the farmer will make more money and spend it wt his local stores, where they spend it in the area, etc.
Win / win just like the 7 habits book taught us all. Except the $ we laid out to aid those strickin down in foriegn countries outweighed the economic gains by factors instead of fractions.
Now they just leave it alone afraid of any more meddling can just muddy the water at the advice of those with for thought enough to argue against it before they started. Currently the big thing is lighter weight vehicles and let technology advance as fsr as it can, while subsidizing electric vehicles instead.
I was not allowed to, and was instructed to steer the conversations away from the impact on the poor and starving. Especially because the media was there and was set up to promote more ethonal usage and the abandonment of diesel fuels while the pawns...er...students learned hoe to save the earth. I was not supposed to promote diesel use on more fuel efficient systems (imagine electronic injected idi efficiency under massive volume boost and 30:1 compression with wmi maybe). Yet somehow at every talk, there were a couple of amazingly informed students that made the footage unusable with their interuptive questions on the subjects. When it was discovered that one of them was a distant relative of mine there were some inquisitive theories that came about.
I just hope all those random students that spoke up have enough influence for improvements in the future that is benificial to the air we breathe and the economic food chain we eat from while not laying an economic burden on the average joe. Some of the students that spoke up are the same that pushed so hard for tesla to set foot where they did by getting the locals to rally.
