By Robert Werner, staff writer
ACT! for America recently sent out a “Special Action Alert” requesting support for a Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19] sponsored bill, H.R. 1687 - Open Fuel Standardization Act. The bill promises “to ensure that new vehicles enable fuel competition so as to reduce the strategic importance of oil to the United States.” According to ACT! for America, the bill is “one common sense approach to energy independence!” Reading the actual bill, however, may lead you to a different conclusion.
Washington, it seems, has determined that our energy problems are because the auto manufacturers simply aren’t giving us the right choices to make when we peruse their dealership lots. Rep. Shimkus, along with co-sponsors Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6], Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28], Rep. Eliot Engel [D, NY-17], Rep. Steve Israel [D, NY-2], Rep. David Loebsack [D, IA-2], and Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7] sprang into action and crafted a bill that only Cass Sunstein could appreciate. H.R. 1687 would mandate that 50% of all new cars and light duty trucks produced by 2014 be engineered to run on some type of alternative fuel.
By 2016, the percentage of new alternative fuel vehicles increases to 80%; finally topping out at 95% in 2017. Step aside, Free Market, Big Government coming through! If only “We The People” weren’t so obtuse. Unwilling to do the right thing; passing over Chevy Volts in favor of Ford F-Series Pickups and Honda Accords. Shame, shame.
Unburdened by frivolous things such as actual consumer demand, the Government will save us from our folly. We’ll plug millions of new electric cars into our aging and already underpowered electrical grid. It doesn’t get more green than electricity after all (never mind all of those pesky coal plants). Want to drive more than 40 miles, you say? Common sense in Washington dictates that we should burn food in our cars (Ethanol, Biodiesel). Don’t you worry one little bit… food prices couldn’t possibly be affected by the added demand on our corn fields. The world will love us for being so green.
Think you’ll outsmart them by maintaining your current gas guzzling beast? Plan on camping out at the dealership for a chance to buy a rare, new gasoline burning car? Imagine the gas stations of the future… now supplying us with natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, E85 (Ethanol), M85 (Methanol), and charging stations. How many pumps do you think will be left for you?
To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
To read more about the problems caused by HR 1687 use these links:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1687:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein
If you are not receiving coachisright.com directly, please signup using the RSS feature on the home page. It’s easy and always free.
In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both. What have you done today to deserve to live in America?
Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.
Related posts:
- “Cash for Clunkers”: a dangerous scheme that will help few people but destroy America’s charities
- A few thoughts on a dangerous world
- Connecticut’s Homosexuals open a final push to destroy the Catholic Church
- Aliens legal/illegal bring us dangerous diseases including drug resistant TB never seen here before
- Unpatriotic Democrats want to force open gays into our military and punish those who dissent
Loading ...
This policy would actually be used to break the monopoly that gasoline has over transportation – enabling free markets to decide which energy sources and modes of transportation with succeed in the future. And it does not ban the use, sale or distribution of gasoline vehicles, but it does increasingly require the phase out of cars that can run on gasoline only. We may plug in many new cars in the future – but not the immediate future, as the infrastructure is not ready for it. In the short term, solutions like E-85 and M-85 and nat gas will be the most likely market winners, and others will follow. Gasoline will be a major part of our transportation economy for the foreseeable future, don't you worry, and gas stations will only install new pumps when the market supports those types of investments (there are no pump requirements in this bill). This is a market driven decision that doesn't cost the government a single penny – and most of these vehicles cost only $100 more than a standard car, a price which the automakers already do not pass on to consumers when selling flex-fuel vehicles. Seems like a pretty common sense approach if you spend some time thinking about our options. Oil is a detriment to our national well-being, mostly in the form its financial burden and the undue influence it gives to petro-states over our own national security. We can take steps to make gasoline compete at the pump and this is one of them, because right now it is the only game in town.
Eric:
You are 100% right. With a flex fuel car mandate we cann free the U.S. from OPEC and cut off the funding of world wide terror. We can make Methanol from, coal, Natural Gas, Bio-mass, Corn residue, municipal waste, Everything organic. This would also provide a crop for 3rd world countries to export and use to increase their standard of living. Presently China has a large program to mfg Methanol fueled cars and is also mfg methanol on a large scale for auto and truck use. ford produced more than 8000 methanol fueled cars in the late 80's and 90's and ran these in California for over 10 years with no problems and was discontinued beacause of Big oil objections I hate to say it, but big oil and Saudi Arabia influence in Washington will doom this bill. If it would pass, the price of oil would fall imediately and our economy wpould immediately start on a fast improvement. We must stop funding OPEC, Sooner than Later. Flex fuel is the answer for now, possible fuel cell or batteries in the future, We know how to make methanol, flex fuel cars and trucks and the cost is only $100.00 per vehicle and this would be returned at the pump in 1 month
What is up with this guy's HR1687 rant? It makes no sense, there is no downside to this bill unless you have stock or interest in an oil company. Urge your representative to pass it.
The Solution to the economic crisis
Important Reading
Energy Victory by American aerospace engineer (rocket scientist), Robert Zubrin. If you Google “Robert Zubrin”, there are several youtube videos, etc. and info about his company, Pioneer Astronautics and his many projects for NASA.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/robert-zubr…
Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy by George A. Olah, Alain Goeppert and G.K. Surya Pra
http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/papers/fuel.html
Alcohol can be a Gas by David Blume
http://www.permaculture.com/
While electricity is likely the ultimate transportation fuel, until battery technology improves and charging stations are everywhere, liquid fuel remains the most practical. Shipping, trucking and war all depend on liquid fuel. Oil is “fuel you have to find”. Alcohol is “fuel you make”. The adoption of the “ethanol/methanol standard” would quickly create jobs and entrepreneurs on a massive scale. Both ethanol and methanol create more horsepower, are cleaner burning and can be made anywhere by anyone. Ethanol can be made from high sugar content crops. Methanol can be made from any organic substance including coal and natural gas and it can be synthesized through the hydrogenative recycling of CO2. Contrary to popular belief, with the economy of scale, they can both be manufactured cheaply.
There is very little demand for these “flex-fuels” because there are so few flex-fuel vehicles and there is very little demand for flex-fuel vehicles because there is very little access to the fuel. At this time there is only one filling station in Los Angeles that sells ethanol (E-85).
The Solution
The demand for flex-fuels and the demand for flex-fuel vehicles must be created simultaneously. In his book, Energy Victory, aerospace engineer, Robert Zubrin discusses how simple legislation could create this demand. He makes a strong argument for legislation such as “The Open Fuel Standard Acts” (S.3303, S.835, H.R. 1476 and H.R. 6559). As a Senator, President Obama sponsored a similar bill, S.133 – The American Fuels Act of 2007. Current Bill H.R.1687
Obviously, a law such as these will likely never be passed at the national level because it will always be opposed by the oil lobbies. The answer, is to pass a law at the STATE level. This must happen quickly and quietly and sold primarily on its economic benefits. If such legislation were to become law, it would:
1. Force gasoline to compete with alcohol fuels at around $1.50 per gallon from now on (Robert Zubrin).
2. Create new jobs and businesses including but not limited to:
• Growing low-cost, high-energy crops (Some of the best crops include switch grass and cattails).
• Large scale manufacturing of alcohol fuels
• Manufacturing of industrial stills
• Manufacturing parts to make new vehicles as flex-fuel vehicles at an additional cost of less than $100 per vehicle
• Converting existing vehicles to flex-fuel at a cost of around $500 per vehicle.
• Manufacturing parts for conversions
• Manufacturing kits for small-scale and home fuel production
The U.S. could recover financially with large-scale creation of new jobs and an greatly increased tax-base. America would no longer be dependant on foreign oil. $500B per year would stay in the US.
Conclusion
We need to create an energy summit meeting with George A. Olah, Alain Goeppert and G.K. Surya Pra, David Blume, Robert Zubrin, and ANY State Governor as quickly and quietly as possible.
Andrew
I can’t help but comment more. The price of non-discounted Methanol from Methanex, delivered to the gulf coast for the month of September 2011 is $1.38 per gallon. The equivalent of $2.30 when compared to gasoline because methanol contains about 60% of the energy of gasoline by volume.. The economy of scale will only bring the price down as entrepreneurs start manufacturing methanol from a myriad of organic compounds. Prohibition gave gasoline the unfair advantage to become the liquid fuel of standard. It’s time to balance the playing field so we can have a TRULY FREE MARKET. I’m generally conservative, but for some reason the “drill baby drill” crowd is blinded by rhetoric as they are refusing to educate themselves about the superiority of methanol as an automotive fuel. Indy race cars use methanol because it produces more horsepower and is safer than gasoline. I want to be the guy that picks up all the lawn and garden refuse in the country and bring it to my chain of methanol production/filling station/conversion facilities. Imagine manufacturing fuel at the point-of-sale. Imagine real competition between manufacturers of methanol. Some will produce it from coal, others from natural gas…still others from various biomass and even CO2…the price could go way down… especially because the fuel does not have to be transported from the other side of the world to a port in the US…then refined and trucked across the country… I echo Ed, Marty and Eric. This is not about green…It’s about economics…pure and simple…It’s about actual job creation and energy independence. $500 billion that would not go to foreign oil….Thats 10 million $50,000-per-year jobs HERE in the U.S. The only disruption would be the petroleum industry. There is no excuse to be against such a bill other than absolute ignorance or simply preferring petroleum. Read the books. Robert Zubrin is an actual rocket scientist. Much of his work has been about converting the Martian CO2 atmosphere into mathane fuel. AND..George A. Olah is a Nobel prize winner in chemistry. Come on Coach Collins and Robert Werner…do the real homework. Do you really think you could debate these guys? I really want to see it.
I disagree with the statement that Coach states " plan on camping out at the dealership for a chance to buy a rare new, gas burning car". This is 100% inaccrate and untrue.
The act requires that all flex fueled vehicles have the ability to run on any combination of Methanol, ethanol and or gasoline, either100% or any percentage mixture of each. The on board computer will compensate for the mixture. Thus whichever fuel is less expensive or preferred by the owner would work fine.
I think you should do your homework before making such statements which are totally inaccurate
The bill requires that all new cars that can use gasoline have their flex fuel capability (which is already possible on ALL the new gas cars from the last 5 years) turned on. All that is required is the polyethylene fuel seal installed, the fuel detector in the gas tank, and the fuel injection system software able to adapt. All of this already exists for every single model sold in the last five years, as they already sell in Brazil with these slight modifications. It will add nothing to the price of the new car. If you buy a new gasoline-using car, it should have the capability to use gas, ethanol, and methanol at any time, at will. Methanol, by the way, will make your car perform better. A flex-fuel mandate doesn't require the government to tell any gas stations what fuels to stock. It doesn't require the government subsidizing fuel or car models. It doesn't take away choice. It does not require food to be turned into ethanol, especially when methanol is far cheaper. If you have complaints about ethanol and corn subsidies, that is not flex fuel’s fault. In fact, most of us think those subsidies should be gotten rid of. You can use any fuel you want at any station you want. You can buy electric cars if you want. You can buy flex fuel hybrids or even flex fuel plug-in hybrids. It costs nothing. Stations that wish to compete will have to adapt to demand. Fuel companies that want to compete will have to adapt to demand. If OPEC wants to compete, they will have to adapt to demand. It creates choice. It gives the power to the consumers and takes it away from OPEC. If you disagree with that, either you don't understand the issue, you're a paid shill, or you're a moron.
To : Reticuli…..The nanny Federal-State strikes again…they control our access to fuels and the resources to develop them; they artificially control supply and demand.
We will be reduced to the choices government wants us to have. The market will have little, or no, say in this.
It ought to be the function of the free market to determine what Americans want as regards fuels, autos, and a whole slew of other things…..without the weight and force of government skewing ALL the determining factors.
Government has an agenda all its own, having nothing to do with what is "good", "beneficial", cost-effective to the populace, or even a legal, Constitutional exercise of government powers.
Most subsidies, across the board need to end, in hundreds of different arenas, not just this fuel business…but you can bet your sweet back-side OTHER subsidies will be put in place until and unless the prohibitive costs of these new flex-fuel vehicles are brought to a reasonable level. Most Americans will drive their older vehicles until the wheels fall of simply because they cannot afford to fork over the mega-bucks for multi-fuel transportation.
I also want incandescent light bulbs returned to me by the government…..There can be NO reason good enough to justify the over-control of Americans by this green-driven religion, and "hinky" Federalism to which we've been subjected.
I prefer to have options in my life choices….MY options….not those dictated to me by the Feds.