Bush praises flex-fuel vehicles

Yeah, and here's the most telling quote from the article:

"Bush has sought higher fuel efficiency standards for cars; Wagoner said they spent “very little time†talking about gas mileage standards beyond the president’s support for reforming the way standards are applied for passenger cars."

The US govt is spineless. Too bad the CA zero emission mandate failed, that would have given the industry a kick in the pants (I know, I'm preaching to the choir...)

 

Bush just believes that if he can't drink it, we might as well burn it up running down the highway.

~buttster

 

fits perfect with the ethanol development agreement dubya just signed. but there are still the environmental consequences with runoff of fertilizers and pesticides used to grow corn in the us and sugar in brazil--in the us in addition to polluting potable water sources in rural mid america, this would go straight down to the mississippi river delta. sorry new orleans. hope the whole "levee thing" works out.

btw, look at how confused he is in the pic. "cars can run off e-lectricity? yeehaw!"

 

“Making our cars and light trucks go farther on a gallon of gas is the single biggest step we can take toward saving American families money at the pump, ending our dangerous addiction to oil, and curbing global warming,†said Dan Becker, the Sierra Club’s director of the global warming and energy program.

I agree with Becker, too. I favor the two-pronged approach--make cars and trucks go farther on a gallon of gas AND make them flex-fuel capable. Or biodiesel. Let's just stop wasting--be it ethanol or oil or biodiesel or whatever.

The fact that gas mileage was not a topic of discussion is just utterly ridiculous.

 

Also consider that it takes a lot of oil to grow corn for ethanol. Not only for the vehicles and machinery but in fertilizer production. In the end, between the lower mileage and the oil necessary for growing we will end up using MORE oil by going through the indirect route of ethanol.

Its worse than that because Detroit seems bent on making huge SUVs flexfuel which are considered to have higher mileage whether they are filled with EtOh blends or gasoline. Thus meeting an artificially higher CAFE!

Here is the Marketplace piece:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2...M200703264.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Mar 26 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]412619[/snapback]</div>

I read something like that too. However, until I see actual numbers, I'm inclined to think it's as bogus as the notion that a Hummer will last three times as long as a Prius.

One of the most glaring omissions from the article I read was the lack of attention given to the amount of oil consumed in the processing and delivery of regular gasoline. I for one have never seen an oil well and refinery out back of my local station.

Another matter is the price. Last I knew, ethanol was pretty competitive with regular unleaded. If it's true that ethanol actually uses more oil rather than less, then the price should be higher as a simple matter of the cost of the oil...and that doesn't even factor in the cost of the other raw materials, such as the corn. I highly doubt the government subsidies can offset ethanol's costs to that kind of degree; such subsidies would have to be absolutely massive.

I can only hope the growth of ethanol fuel and its demand for corn/etc. will allow the market to eliminate the need for government subsidies for those farmers. Paying people to not farm always did seem odd to me. (Could you imagine today's Congress passing legislation that pays people to not take retail sales jobs in order to drive up the effective wages of retail employees?)

Something nice about ethanol is that it keeps more money in the U.S. market. Unless, of course, we suddenly switch gears and start importing corn/etc. instead of continuing to be the breadbasket of the world.

- Justifyd

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Justifyd @ Mar 26 2007, 07:39 PM) [snapback]412666[/snapback]</div>

Currently, the big issue is the lack of availability of E85 in many areas (like Cali) and the crazy loophole (incentive for automakers) of how flex fuel vehicles count against CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). See http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=338453.

See http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/overview.htm if you don't know what CAFE is.

Basically, this artificially inflates the CAFE #s for automakers that make flex fuel vehicles and allows them to produce LOWER gas mileage vehicles than if this incentive didn't exist. To make a real difference, E85 has to be readily available EVERYWHERE and be at a price that's it at least makes up the mileage hit you get when running off E85.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gonegreen @ Mar 26 2007, 04:24 PM) [snapback]412501[/snapback]</div>

What he's really thinking is: "What happens when you get to the end of the cord?"

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ari @ Mar 26 2007, 04:11 PM) [snapback]412493[/snapback]</div>

The CA mandate DID NOT fail. GM spent millions destryoying it (... it was murdered ... legally beat to death)... then charging those millions to their, "HEY, we spent a Billion making the EV1" jive claim.

 

How can anyone, anywhere believe a single word this Commander in Chief speaks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Justifyd @ Mar 26 2007, 09:39 PM) [snapback]412666[/snapback]</div>

Last I read, and I apologize for not having the source, but a gallon of ethanol would cost around 4-5$ without government subsidies to the industry. I have a few uncles and both grandparents that are corn/soybean farmers and they like how the price of corn is higher because of the ethanol demand, but they will tell you that there is no way that ethanol could supply even a quarter of the energy in the US without at least tripling the cost of pork and chicken. Also, they laugh at the idea of using corn staulks for ethanol, because without recycling them into the ground, the soil quality will suffer and more fertilizer would need to be used.

I haven't read anything scientifically that suggests that corn ethanol would ever work, it would require too much corn. Mixed prairie grasses would do a decent job at producing an ethanol source, but I still am not convinced that ethanol is where we should be throwing our research dollars; we already use too much land.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Mar 27 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]413002[/snapback]</div>

You just blew more than half of the grain fuel expense out the window. Don't forget to factor in cost of electricity for pumping water (which causes another shortage) to the grain fields, electricity of refinement into alcohol, etc. When you see guys like GWBUSH & Lutz of GM on the grain fuel bandwagon, you know that means you take it in the shorts should you believe the these two!