let’s say everybody is on flexfuel, this likely will not be efficient or sustainable. i base this on a simple principal: higher number of processing steps means lower efficiency due to inherent energy losses during processing. this is the same reason why i am not so sure about hydrogen fuels.

i’m also not so sure about gm’s intentions on this… gm has a track record of dumping small car models every few years. i’ll believe their seriousness when they have decade plus models like civic, corolla, or even focus.

Why are you insisting on hanging onto a dying product? You would be wise to just close your doors, throw your hands up and walk away.

If China were to rely on hydrocarbon fuels for energy, it makes much more sense for them to just continue building methane plants. China isn’t like Brazil; they don’t have a naturally-growing crop like sugarcane that can produce abundant biomass with little energy input. However, they have huge reservoirs of methane (from coal mines, landfills and methane hydrate ice) that require minimal energy to extract. By re-purposing methane as fuel, you’re both keeping a harmful greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere _and_ getting energy from a cleaner fuel than ethanol. On top of that, methane has about twice the energy density of ethanol. So it’s no surprise that China is already investing heavily in methane re-purposing programs and methane power plants.

So China does not need flex fuel vehicles and shouldn’t waste time on them.

After all there are 18 million Flexfuel vehicles worldwide.