Senators Want to Switch Drugs Rather Than Kick the Habit: Flex Fuel Vehicle Legislation Introduced Into Congress
by Matthew McDermott, Brooklyn, NY on 07.28.08
photo by pete via flickr
It may be some editorial hyperbole to equate a mandate that would require more vehicles be capable of running on biofuels to switching your drug of choice from, say, heroin to vodka, but ultimately neither situation acknowledges the seriousness of the problem. The underlying addiction needs to be addressed, and that's just what a new piece of legislation does not do, at least not entirely.
The Open Fuel Standard Act of 2008 would require that 50% of new vehicles by 2012, and 80% of them by 2015, would be E85, M85 (85% methanol) or be warranted to run on biodiesel. The bill was co-sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Sam Brownback (R-KS).
National Security Motivates Flex Fuel Legislation
Normally I wouldn’t quote so extensively from the findings section of a piece of legislation, but it illustrates clearly the national security motivations of this bill.
(1) The status of oil as a strategic commodity, which derives from its domination of the transportation sector, presents a clear and present danger to the United States;(4) fuel competition and consumer choice would similarly serve to end oil's monopoly in the transportation sector and strip oil of its strategic status;
(5) the current closed fuel market has allowed a cartel of petroleum exporting countries to inflate fuel prices, effectively imposing a harmful tax on the economy of the United States of nearly $500,000,000,000 per year;
(6) much of the inflated petroleum revenues the oil cartel earns at the expense of the people of the United States are used for purposes antithetical to the interests of the United States and its allies;
(7) alcohol fuels, including ethanol and methanol, could potentially provide significant supplies of additional fuels that could be produced in the United States and in many other countries in the Western Hemisphere that are friendly to the United States;
(8) alcohol fuels can only play a major role in securing the energy independence of the United States if a substantial portion of vehicles in the United States are capable of operating on such fuels;
(9) it is not in the best interest of United States consumers or the United States Government to be constrained to depend solely upon petroleum resources for vehicle fuels if alcohol fuels are potentially available;(10) existing technology, in the form of flexible fuel vehicles, allows internal combustion engine cars and trucks to be produced at little or no additional cost, which are capable of operating on conventional gasoline, alcohol fuels, or any combination of such fuels, as availability or cost advantage dictates, providing a platform on which fuels can compete;
(11) the necessary distribution system for such alcohol fuels will not be developed in the United States until a substantial fraction of the vehicles in the United States are capable of operating on such fuels;(12) the establishment of such a vehicle fleet and distribution system would provide a large market that would mobilize private resources to substantially advance the technology and expand the production of alcohol fuels in the United States and abroad;
(13) the United States has an urgent national security interest to develop alcohol fuels technology, production, and distribution systems as rapidly as possible;
(14) new cars sold in the United States that are equipped with an internal combustion engine should allow for fuel competition by being flexible fuel vehicles, and new diesel cars should be capable of operating on biodiesel; and
(15) such an open fuel standard would help to protect the United States economy from high and volatile oil prices and from the threats caused by global instability, terrorism, and natural disaster.
Switching From One Drug to Another
I’m not so sure that the vision presented here, in terms of current increases in oil prices being connected to quasi-purposeful OPEC price inflation, is entirely accurate. Nor is it an entirely accurate assertion that enough domestic capacity exists, or could ever exist, to provide “significant supplies” of ethanol, methanol or biodiesel—at least not unless algae-based biodiesel facilities expand.
Also interesting is the reference to the “harmful tax” which foreign oil dependency imposes on the US economy—its interesting in that it implies no acknowledgement of the co-dependency of the situation. OPEC needs the non-oil-producing nations as much as we currently need them. Not that I expected that co-dependency to be stated directly, but what's written here is one step removed from saying, “I don’t know how that needle got in my vein. My drug dealer must’ve put it there and it feels so good that I kept doing it.”
Greater Structural Change Needed, Not Just a Switch of Fuels
Lest it seem like I’m entirely opposed to this legislation, I’m not. It can be viewed as an interim step towards greater structural change, but unfortunately I don’t think that’s the intent. I just have a gut feeling that the backers of this bill don’t fully appreciate the magnitude of the situation, and don’t seem to realize that a larger, structural change is in order— an all-electric vehicle fleet, more public transport throughout the nation, a localized civic infrastructure—for the type of energy and national security they hope for to be realized.
via :: Biofuels Digest and :: Business Green
Biofuels, Energy Security, Renewable Energy
10 Steps to Renewable Energy Future: A TreeHugger Review
“A Generational Challenge to Repower America”: Al Gore’s Energy & Climate ‘Moon Shot’ Speech
Renewable Fuel Standard Waiver Requested by Texas Governor
Biofuels Have Pushed Thirty Million People Into Poverty: Oxfam
First Commercial Algae-to-Biofuels Facility Goes Online
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- 4,000 Electric Vehicles To Be Leased by US Army
- Algae Biofuel Facility to be Built in Durango, Colorado by Solix Biofuels
- $5 Billion in Corn Ethanol Subsidies Should Be Eliminated, Food Before Fuel Urges
- US Farmer’s Incomes Now Tied More to Ethanol Than Food, Economist Says
It is sad that they anyone would consider shilling for ethanol with a global food crisis. It is far worse when it is the people of your own country that won't get the food. Who would benefit?
I applaud them for creating such a quick timetable for transitioning. 80% flex-fuel vehicles by 2015? Why didn't they put that same timetable on the fuel economy bill and demand a minimum of 40 MPG by 2015 for ALL cars?
Heaven forbid they raise mileage standards. Well, in any case, fuel of any kind will be way too expensive by then.
Hopefully they won't stipulate it's corn-based ethanol, since that's less efficient than sugar cane or sugar beets, for example. And raising corn in the current monoculture setup in Iowa, et al, requires large amounts of fertilizer, which requires large amounts of energy to make.
The article is a good overall assessment of the issues.
This is the thing about bio-fuels that has always worried me. It's always seemed that in the minds of many it's not a matter of scaling back energy use, but just keeping all of the energy we "need" to keep the train a-goin'. But of course since the first world energy use is so high to begin with, we're bound to run into problems of cost and availability with bio-fuels, as well.
This certainly would be a bad last step in our infrastructure shift. Biofuels are a foolish investment for our primary transportation fuel when electric cars are rapidly becoming so viable. Biofuels are certainly better than petrol, but they are not zero emission, and cultivating them often leads to deforestation, depletion of topsoil and the overuse of agricultural chemicals (See: The Great Biofuel Hoax of 2008).
Maybe it's my massive distrust for Joe Lieberman, but the introduction of this bill to me suggests that maintaining a tangible commodity like gasoline / biofuel is the real goal here. To me, shifting to electric vehicles is the best solution we currently have to break the oil addiction. But if people start generating their own electricity via solar or wind or whatever, then suddenly all these companies producing fuel commodities no longer have the strangle hold they currently do. Their goal is obviously to maintain that hold, and it's much easier to do that when you have a production pipeline that you can introduce bottlenecks to. These supply-siders love that.
I don't think the general public is aware that ethanol has good and bad points. Good = raises the octane of the fuel in the tank. Bad = only has approximately 70% of the energy of gasoline. By my simple calculation, E85 would add up to just short of 75% of the energy content of regular gasoline.
Is E85 25% cheaper than dinosaur power? Is it affordable to use food crops to replace dinosaur power when you have to make so much more? I'm waiting for an EV.
Let the out of touch with reality bunch in Detroit and Washington pat each other on the back as their fortunes continue to shrink. This would even be humorous if so much in our economy didn't need a strong manufacturing segment.