Not many stations carry it. Right now the difference between E85 and Regular Unleaded gas is very low. In NY, about .20 per gallon. The mileage is not that good with E85.

For Fuel? Think of all those thirsty people yo... :)

Corn has a zero carbon footprint in that it simply cycles through the biosphere without increasing over time. But it is not as efficient as cellulosic or algal ethanol. Corn growers are NOT taking food out of the mouths of the poor. http://www.hanskaco.com/index.aspx?ascxid=fpQfStory&fpsid=32480&fpstid=1 Dramatically rising international corn price speculation has led to expensive tortillas. http://www.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=15077&r=0.9783136 http://www.ethanol.org/news/index.php?newsid=35 But who is profiting from these speculatory price rises? With all the noise the Media is making trying to blame U.S. farmers, maybe we should look at the owners of the media and their financial buddies. As usual, the real cause of financial strain can be traced to our 'overlords' in the financial district. They think they own us. And so long as we do nothing to disabuse them of the notion, they're RIGHT. Basically, it's one of several temporary fixes for our energy problem. But it's no permanent solution.

It's not the corn growers' fault. It's the middlemen. Read the articles.

Pros: --Its carbon footprint is smaller than that of fossil fuels. --It reduces, to some extant, US dependence on imported fuel --Processing corn into ethanol produces less toxic pollution than processing oil --Ethanol burns more cleanly than gasoline, so local smog (a separate issue from CO2 production) is reduced --Ethanol is less toxic than gasoline, so spills are less of an environmental problem. Cons: --Corn is a relatively poor source crop for ethanol. It requires large water and fertilizer inputs to grow. --The energy balance for corn is on the order of 1:1 (1 unit of energy input produces 1 unit of ethanol fuel) --The mass industrial monoculture corn farms in the US produce huge amounts of pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer waste that go into rivers and the Gulf of Mexico. --Ethanol fuel requires subsidies to be economically competitive with petroleum fuels, because the externalities of petroleum use are not included in its price (which is the bass-ackwards way to do this). --Creating (and subsidizing) ethanol from corn increases the power and influence of the Big Agra companies. --Because the price of petroleum collapsed, many ethanol producers went bankrupt. Those producers have been bought up by oil companies, further increasing their stranglehold on the US economy. --Because ethanol is less energy-dense than gasoline, it takes more of it to travel the same distance. --Cars have to be designed to run on ethanol blends. Not all cars are so designed. --Ethanol cannot be transported in petroleum product pipelines, because ethanol mixes with water (vodka anyone?...;-D..) while petrochemicals do not. . . .

Turning a food source into a fuel is pretty much a bad idea. It raises the cost of pretty much anything made from corn including the food for animals we eat which means cost of meat goes up as well. Food in your stomach or fuel in your car? Not really a hard choice if you ask me... Too many people going hungry the way it is.

mexicans cannot afford their tortillas

Pros - Ethanol is a clean burning fuel, is renewable & doesn't rely on foreign sources. Cons - Corn is edible & the edible parts have even been used to produce ethanol. There are better candidates for crops (such as hemp). Corn requires crop rotation (as it depletes the soil somewhat), a substantial amount of water, (almost always) pesticides & also produces less pounds per acre than other potential crops that could produce ethanol. After all, it's merely alcohol.