Bills introduced in Congress: $7500 PHEV credit, E85 pumps mandated, and more

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by Dukeboy01

Why is pointing out real world limitations to the world of biofuels considered making an excuse? Personally, I might support doing it, but only as part of a comprehensive plan that includes drill, drill, drill.....

......If we don't drill and just mandate E85 without adding any new oil, the price of a gallon of gas will remain close to $4 a gallon or go higher to pay for the infrastructure improvements demanded by the government. That's too high. It's killing our economy TODAY. I'm all for new technology and finding new sources of renewable energy, but all of that will take YEARS to develop. We need relief in our energy costs now if we want to have more capital tomorrow to develop the new technology.....

....This is a long term, by which I mean 25+ years, problem. We need to do it all (biofuels, nuclear, and drilling) today, accepting our current technological limitations but working steadily on overcoming them. The problem is that one side of the aisle in Congress doesn't seem to want to include the drill, drill, drill that we need today to pay for whatever alternative energy sources we might develop tomorrow.

78% of us could STOP buying oil to commute to and from work in a Chevy Volt type vehicle. 78% - ZERO oil. What kind of impact would that have on oil prices? Only 22% of the oil we buy comes from the most objectionable sources. We could easily reduce that much using PHEV's that are coming to the market in the next couple of years. THIS IS THE NEEDED FIRST STEP. As our oil consumption continues to go down (more PHEV's are used) and the technology improves incrementally (78% today 80% - 85% soon etc.) we will easily be able to supply all of our domestic oil needs using N. American Oil. (Of course, we could have done this years ago by simply contracting to buy 100% of our non-domestic oil from Canada for $60 a barrel - but that would have taken an energy policy). Drilling in environmentally safe ways should be on the table as should Bio-fuels and nuclear power. But oil wells realistically take a couple of years to permit, construct and start producing. Nuclear plants probably take about 15 years to deliver power. 78% of us could stop consuming oil in the next couple of years if we switched to PHEV's. This makes the most sense. Government subsidies also make sense. 82.5 million Volts at $40K each could have been purchased for what the government estimates the war will end up costing.

Maybe instead of asking Americans to go "shopping" after the 9-11 attacks - President Bush should have simply fired back with a plan that placed a PEHV in every ones driveway. Oh yea - I forgot, that would have taken an energy policy.

[Zbad1]

Originally Posted by Dukeboy01

Why is pointing out real world limitations to the world of biofuels considered making an excuse? Personally, I might support doing it, but only as part of a comprehensive plan that includes drill, drill, drill.

When it comes to our Congress critters mandating anything, the first question to ask is "How much does it cost?"

The second question to ask is "Who pays for it?"

Too often the answer to the first question is "Too much." That never slows down the government when "something" has to be done.

The answer to the second question is always "You do." The oil and gas companies will pass the cost of adding E85 pumps along to you, the consumer, by raising the price of their other products to cover it. If the government "pays" for it through either tax breaks for the companies or by directly funding it out of the Treasury in some manner you, the taxpayer, still pay for it.

In the long run it might need doing, but it ain't gonna be cheap for any of us. That's why I say I'll support it as long as we include drill, drill, drill. The extra oil brought to market by tapping our nation's reserves will help defray the extra cost at the pump that will be tacked on to the price of gas in order to fund E85 and other alternative fuels.

I'm no economist, but a crude picture of it might look like this. If we just did drill, drill, drill the price of gas at the pump might (operative word: MIGHT) drop eventually to under $2 a gallon. That's too low to support any desire to change our energy infrastructure and sooner or later we'd find ourselves in the same place we are today. It might take 10, 20, or 50 years but it would happen again.

If we don't drill and just mandate E85 without adding any new oil, the price of a gallon of gas will remain close to $4 a gallon or go higher to pay for the infrastructure improvements demanded by the government. That's too high. It's killing our economy TODAY. I'm all for new technology and finding new sources of renewable energy, but all of that will take YEARS to develop. We need relief in our energy costs now if we want to have more capital tomorrow to develop the new technology.

If we do both, the price of gas at the pump might level off below $3 a gallon. It's still higher than I personally might like, but it's livable. Some of the savings we would get with just drill, drill, drill are eaten up by funding E85 mandates, but we're all still getting a break compared to the price of energy today. Capital that is now going into our gas tanks is freed up for other uses, including the funding of research into bio-fuels and everything else.

This is a long term, by which I mean 25+ years, problem. We need to do it all (biofuels, nuclear, and drilling) today, accepting our current technological limitations but working steadily on overcoming them. The problem is that one side of the aisle in Congress doesn't seem to want to include the drill, drill, drill that we need today to pay for whatever alternative energy sources we might develop tomorrow.

Thank you for taking the time to think that through and type all of that up. You are spot on in your observations. I'm a HUGE fan of E85, alternative energies, bio fuels, electric, etc, but really fear for the little gas station owners who get wiped out trying to add the new tanks and pumps required by this mandate.

As much as I hate it, this world is full of compromise, and the person who can bend, compromise, give and take is the one who will actually get things done and make a real change. I hope congress is up to the challenge.

[davidlane]

Originally Posted by edsuski

... Maybe instead of asking Americans to go "shopping" after the 9-11 attacks - President Bush should have simply fired back with a plan that placed a PEHV in every ones driveway. Oh yea - I forgot, that would have taken an energy policy.

For those of us that are old enough to remember when we had much less of an "Energy Policy" and energy cost a lot less, the idea of more government experimentation with an "Energy Policy" is truly frighting. I know I'm going to pay more and get less. It's the guaranteed outcome of government intervention.

[Hunid Racks]

What difference a title on a thread makes.

[pontiacgt02]

Here's the really big problems with changing over to new fuel, which is better to use, which is easiest and cheapest to use and maintain? How much true enviromental impact does each create. No one knows enough about all these alternative fuels to answer any of these questions. Also how many choice do we need at the fuel station? I can see it now 5 different fuels for people to figure out which type to use. Some people can't figure out where their fuel door is on their car. Now one thing we could do now is get rid of 3 types of Unleaded. That right there would bring cost down.

Also electric vehicle are not pollution free, it takes a lot of energy to create those batteries and when do you think the electricity comes from? Now if we can work more on solar power and Nuclear then the future of electric vehicles will have a future otherwise gasoline will be used well into the future.

Most our reasons for not having alternative fuels is the enviromentalist, and people not sticking it to them. I can't believe how much control a small group has.

[miken123]

Even if "drill drill drill" meant prices dropping to around $2.00/gal (from what I've heard, it certainly will not), then that price drop would immediately coincide with a drop in research grants and funds to universities as well as government help to the domestic automotive industry (or what little it seems like we might be getting).

At the end of that day, research would end on alternative fuels and propulsion because the short-sighted general population would only hear what their pocket tells them ("We're in the clear!").


It seems like $4.00/gal is great for generating interest (and in turn FUNDING) for hybrids, batteries, alt. fuels, etc. I don't know if an E-85 pump in every station is a good idea or not (I haven't looked up info on it) but believe it or not - if you are a fan of getting off foreign oil dependence, getting off oil in general, or a fan of hybrids, or a fan of even just the Volt - the *****LAST**** thing you want is some great new source of oil that will help prices drop dramatically.

(Note, that I really don't see any facts to support the idea oil drilling here will really reduce the price of oil. We just don't have enough here to be worth while. And it would be even less worthwhile to drill here, only to prove that it has no effect on prices.)

[miken123]

Originally Posted by pontiacgt02

Most our reasons for not having alternative fuels is the enviromentalist, and people not sticking it to them. I can't believe how much control a small group has.

I'm no environmentalist but I really don't believe they have any control at all. It may seem that they do sometimes but ultimately control is where the money is in our society. Besides, if environmentalists had so much control I'm sure by now we'd see solar panels mandated on every roof and wind-powered generators in every yard. I'm not saying those options would or wouldn't make a difference, but if these environmentalists had so much power, that's probably what they would have done by now.

[PA Dweller]

Originally Posted by pontiacgt02

Here's the really big problems with changing over to new fuel, which is better to use, which is easiest and cheapest to use and maintain? How much true enviromental impact does each create. No one knows enough about all these alternative fuels to answer any of these questions. Also how many choice do we need at the fuel station? I can see it now 5 different fuels for people to figure out which type to use. Some people can't figure out where their fuel door is on their car. Now one thing we could do now is get rid of 3 types of Unleaded. That right there would bring cost down.

Also electric vehicle are not pollution free, it takes a lot of energy to create those batteries and when do you think the electricity comes from? Now if we can work more on solar power and Nuclear then the future of electric vehicles will have a future otherwise gasoline will be used well into the future.

Most our reasons for not having alternative fuels is the enviromentalist, and people not sticking it to them. I can't believe how much control a small group has.

Question, what happens to cars that need a higher grade of fuel. Would gas stations just start selling 94 for example? On the electric cars, yes power would be needed to charge them but it has been said many times here it's easier to control the emissions from a powerplants than from millions of cars.

[DU Biggs]

Originally Posted by joemac

Can we come up with any more excuses NOT to do something to change the landscape of what fuels our vehicles?!?!?!?!

elect McCain. That oughtta keep us pretty dependant on oil

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by davidlane

For those of us that are old enough to remember when we had much less of an "Energy Policy" and energy cost a lot less, the idea of more government experimentation with an "Energy Policy" is truly frighting. I know I'm going to pay more and get less. It's the guaranteed outcome of government intervention.

Only when we (the people) do not hold our representatives accountable. We need to direct our representatives to do the right thing. If we sit back and throw up our hands - the lobbyists causes will get all of the attention. We need to bring accountability back into politics.

We have virtually ZERO energy policy today. The last real attempt at an energy policy that I can remember was Carter's conservation policy. These problems are almost completely political.

Over two decades ago until roughly 2002 oil was around $30 a barrel. The Canadian oil sands resources needed approximately $33 per barrel to "break-even" and justify the investment needed to get oil from the sands. Had we had a forward looking energy policy - we could have simply agreed to pay $33-$35 a barrel for between 22% and 100% of our imported oil from Canada for the next 10 - 20 years, with the plan to be energy independent after that. Imagine sending $600 billion dollars to Canada for our oil rather than to the Russia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. How much of that money would have trickled back into the US economy? Think about that.

How cool would it be to be able to renegotiate our contract with Canada to pay some percentage less than current market value (say $80/barrel) while the rest of the market spiked to over $100. These problems are technically solvable - we simply need the political will to make them happed.

Case in point - the Chevy Volt. How long has Detroit pushed back on CAFE standards claiming they "could not meet them". Do you realize the Model T got 13 - 21 MPG. The same as today's fleet (with the possible exception of the past couple of years). All the while Detroit said "we can't do it". Now, after being pressured by small start up companies such as Tesla (proving that the battery technology did in fact exist) etc. GM is going to introduce a product that doesn’t just get "good" mileage but rather uses ZERO gas for 78% of us. These are less technical issues than they are political. We are the government - we need to understand that and live it.

[Z16monte]

Originally Posted by edsuski

Only when we (the people) do not hold our representatives accountable. We need to direct our representatives to do the right thing. If we sit back and throw up our hands - the lobbyists causes will get all of the attention. We need to bring accountability back into politics.






Do you realize the Model T got 13 - 21 MPG. The same as today's fleet (with the possible exception of the past couple of years). All the while Detroit said "we can't do it". Now, after being pressured by small start up companies such as Tesla (proving that the battery technology did in fact exist) etc. GM is going to introduce a product that doesn’t just get "good" mileage but rather uses ZERO gas for 78% of us. These are less technical issues than they are political. We are the government - we need to understand that and live it.

The model T couldn't meet emissions, or crash standards today, nor would a rattletrap with bad brakes unable to keep up freeway speeds be marketable today. That 13 21 mpg was at 40mph not 60. The manufacturerers probably could make a nice electric car at the price of the Tesla,but how many would they sell?
Ed

[PontiacBixler]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Lutz said price on Volt will start in the mid 30's.
That would make it a sub 30k car.
E85 pump at every station! Cooool...

Yeah....

I trust Lutz's price talk as much as I trust the local con man on the corner.
Lutz has burned enough people already with trumpeting a certain "low" price and then the following model year jacking the price up higher than a usual yearly price increase. I can think of 3 models right off the top of my head... Solstice, H3 and G8 GT.

Good luck finding that SUB $20k Solstice or those SUB $30k H3s and G8 GTs today....

[rcracedriver]

Originally Posted by edsuski

Case in point - the Chevy Volt. How long has Detroit pushed back on CAFE standards claiming they "could not meet them". Do you realize the Model T got 13 - 21 MPG. The same as today's fleet (with the possible exception of the past couple of years). All the while Detroit said "we can't do it". Now, after being pressured by small start up companies such as Tesla (proving that the battery technology did in fact exist) etc. GM is going to introduce a product that doesn’t just get "good" mileage but rather uses ZERO gas for 78% of us. These are less technical issues than they are political. We are the government - we need to understand that and live it.

I can't believe you bring out the model T to put CAFE on your soapbox. Do you know that the Wright flyer probably got better fuel milage than most airplanes in production today?

CAFE is the main reason we had so many people buying Trucks/SUV's in the first place. CAFE standards only mandated production of fuel efficient vehicles that most Americans didn't want to buy because fuel was so cheap (and in my opinion quite a bargain around $4), yet created no incentives for consumers to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. That is a failed policy.

[jomo]

Originally Posted by jason4225

I like the breaks for the auto companies and the rebate on the Volt, but I have a question about the E-85 pumps. Who is going to pay for it? Most gas stations have such a small profit margin that this would be very difficult to pay for the cost. Another question: Wouldn't the gas stations have to install a new tank just for the E-85? This would cause the cost to skyrocket. The percentage of E-85 vehicles on the roads is so small that it might not be too beneficial right now.

Sorry about being the Devil's advocate but I just wanted to point a few things out.

Actually, all they really have to do is replace one of the "high-octane" tanks with an E-85 tank. Instead of pumping "high-octane" gas into 87-octane to make mid-grade (93-octane), you pump E-85 in instead. Since all cars can handle up to 15% alcohol without mods, this enables you to have your cake and eat it too. In many places in the country, this is actually how they make mid-grade gas already. And as to the "small-percentage" of flex-fuel vehicles... GM and Ford have been selling flex-fuel vehicles for years (at least since the mid-90s). There are more flex-fuel cars out there than people actually realize. They may not be "labeled" as such, but they do exist.

[jomo]

Originally Posted by Dukeboy01

Why is pointing out real world limitations to the world of biofuels considered making an excuse? Personally, I might support doing it, but only as part of a comprehensive plan that includes drill, drill, drill.

Because a lot of people offering "common-sense" aren't offering anything of the sort and a lot of people pointing out "limitations" really don't aren't interested in helping solve the problem so much as they're interested in killing ideas that they don't like. I share the previous poster's frustration at the rabid anti-ethanol sentiment sometimes found on GMI. Is E-85 the only solution? Nope. It IS a part of the solution, though, and if it needs a helping hand, I say give it a helping hand. Brazil managed to switch through government mandate. Why can't we?