Comments on: Flex Fuel Fight

By: Imran Aijazuddin

Imran Aijazuddin — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:47:58 +0000

E85 will do us little good if our vehicles are incompatible. Fortunately, compatible automobiles known as flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are now widely available. GM promises that at least half of its vehicles will be FFVs by fiscal 2012. Ford Motor Co. is hopping on the bandwagon too. In 2009, it released many popular models as FFVs for the first time, including the entire E-Series, the Ford Expedition, and the Lincoln Navigator. Chrysler isn't far behind, either. The 2009 versions of the Chrysler Town & Country, Dodge Grand Caravan, and Jeep Grand Cherokee are all FFVs.

By: Evie W

Evie W — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:16:32 +0000

Fern, poignant thought. It doesn't solve anything to talk about where we would be. We're here now and we have to talk about what we can do. Mandating that all cars be compatible with E85 isn't pushing E85 on anyone, but it allows for every new car to use 15% of the gasoline it does now, which will go a long way in taking us off our foreign petrol crutch.

By: Danger Ranger

Danger Ranger — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:39:18 +0000

I don't know what the DoE thinks they're getting out of this switchover when the environmental gains of ethanol are dubious at best: "A study by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University found that E85 fuel would increase the risk of air pollution deaths relative to gasoline by 9% in Los Angeles, USA" (Wiki/ethanol_fuel).

By: Ben Olson

Ben Olson — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:30:51 +0000

Obama is from Illinois, the #2 corn producing state – there are no environmental benefits to using ethanol when you look at the entire picture… This is just another major lobbying group thats wedged enough politicians into its pocket to suck on the government teat.

By: Twitted by SocialYellBlog

Twitted by SocialYellBlog — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:51:43 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by SocialYellBlog [...]

By: Fern Langham

Fern Langham — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:20:15 +0000

If we had the $700 billion we spent in Iraq and put in new technologies we would be energy independent by now.

By: Otto

Otto — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:18:05 +0000

Maybe this seems like a great idea because Washington is trading auto lobbies for agriculture lobbies…. just a thought.

By: Raz Katzenberger

Raz Katzenberger — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:17:08 +0000

Oh, I see. Let's plant billions of ears of corn right now so we can power our cars with ethanol. If we can't find the space or time to make all these corn farms/factories, it doesn't matter if the price of corn will skyrocket, and hundreds of millions of people won't be able to afford food anymore because every God damn thing in supermarkets has corn syrup in it. This definitely couldn't start any food wars…

By: Adam Brooks

Adam Brooks — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:05:56 +0000

The point is that the special interests who stand to lose something will always pick out some seemingly apparent rule that we should never break [that we often do, because it's not a real rule] to point out why we shouldn't hurt their special interest. Here, it's that the government shouldn't pick winners in technology (at the expense of potential gains in other technologies); other times, it's that we should put tariffs on more cheaply made foreign goods to keep domestic businesses a fighting chance (at the expense of competition); and other times, we should get involved in aggressive disputes in other countries (because of our "interests"). None of these are absolute rules, and will always be seen in different lights given the short- and long-term circumstances. Here, we must pick a technology winner, for the mid-term if nothing else. We need energy independence, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by (at least) 20% in the next 11 years, and there's no way to do that unless we figure out a way to give several of the technologies available today a swift and powerful boost.