Text 1823, 118 rader
Skriven 2006-06-05 11:55:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2269.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <l7l88254qm6dp58vjoh7m9r4f29eme39d6@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <6%Seg.36072$4L1.34538@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:10:37 +0000 (UTC), Rob Perkins
<rperkins@usa.net> wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> 
>> Unfortunately, it seems that E85 is only available at a few gas
>> stations in the Midwest. So most of those flex fuel cars don't use E85
>> because the oil companies won't make it available.
>
>Someone explained that to me once. It appears that there are laws in 
>place which require oil companies to supply E85, as soon as a critical 
>mass of flex fuel vehicles are on the road to burn it. So what you're 
>seeing is the beginning of governmental requirements upon the oil 
>companies to supply it, combined with auto manufacturer requirements to 
>supply them in certain areas.

Very interesting -- I didn't know that.

>That's why my minivan can take E85; it was manufactured for the market 
>in Indianapolis.
>
>Now that Ethanol is the required oxygenation agent (rather than MTBE), 
>we might see this transition take place faster.
>
>I think it might go the way of the introduction of unleaded gasolines; 
>first a requirement to make cars which can flex fuel (leaded or not), 
>followed by a requirement that all new ones take only unleaded, followed 
>by a market phaseout of leaded gas (today in all areas except aviation 
>gas, I think. Blame the FAA for that one.)

That's the scenario I favor. No need for new taxes, no need to limit
vehicle size.

It seems that two thirds of old cars are no longer registered after 10
years and that the average age of a vehicle is 13 years, so we could
make a reasonably fast transition without scrapping old vehicles.

Also, as I understand it, even unmodified conventional cars can run
off E30, so we could eventually offer E30, E85, and E100 at the pumps.
But the longevity of the average car suggests that we'd need to have
firmer regulations in place, so that all new vehicles were E100 and we
had a tentative government timeline for the transition. This would
have the advantage of encouraging farmers, venture capitalists, and
energy companies to invest in the infrastructure needed to produce
cellulosic ethanol.

>Similarly, we'll require flex fuel cars from manufacturers, and then 
>after the patents expire on Toyota's marvelous technology, require flex 
>fuel hybrid vehicles later on, or make it so relatively appealing to 
>people to get the flex fuel hybrid that the fuel market adjusts itself 
>to what's out there.

It seems to me that plug-in hybrid technology is almost a necessity
given that as things now stand we can only produce enough cellulosic
ethanol for about half the current fleet. (Diesels are also efficient,
but I'd be concerned about how much biodiesel we can make -- it's made
out of different materials than cellulosic ethanol, e.g., soybeans,
but until they can get something like that cool algae in the desert
technology to work supply will be limited and I imagine it will be
needed for trucks, locomotives, and the like.) 

If we enacted a per-vehicle quota on ethanol/gasoline production, it
would force automakers to incorporate plug-in hybrid and other energy
savings technology in their larger vehicles, meaning that the people
who own SUV's and hummers are usually better able to afford the added
expense than small car owners and bear more responsibility for high
fuel prices and global warming.

Tri-flex hybrid vehicles are another possibility -- they'd utilize
hydrogen in their internal combustion engines for local travel, then
switch to ethanol once they'd exhausted their hydrogen fuel. And we
can make all the hydrogen we need, although if it were derived from
wind it might be more expensive than gas or ethanol when burned in an
internal combustion engine rather than the more efficient fuel cells.

OTOH, it seems to me entirely possible that fuel cell vehicles will be
in production before we exhaust the supply of cellulosic ethanol. Any
regulations should be flexible enough to allow the market to make the
best choices.

>Whether that happens in time for us all is still in debate, but I'll 
>note that screaming about it isn't convincing anyone. (Josh is not 
>screaming; I'm just sayin')

The screaming now comes I think from the enormous frustration people
feel with the Administration's failure to address these issues. We've
lost six years and we're going to lose two years more before a new
president, Republican or Democratic, does the inevitable and puts us
on course towards energy independence and control of greenhouse
emissions. Meanwhile, we're suffering at the gas pump, allowing Iran
to develop nuclear weapons, fighting terrorists who are financed by
oil money, and delaying the inevitable transition, meaning that when
we do do it it will be costlier and more difficult.

>Rob, wondering if Brazil requested the import tariff to keep demand 
>lower in Brazil for Ethanol

I think it was designed to protect American sugar farmers, and I
gather from something I read that it doesn't apply to refined ethanol
but rather to the feedstock, meaning that the Brazilians could build
refineries and ship us the ethanol.

-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
                                                                            
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)