Do you support a federal law mandating all cars sold in the U.S. be flex fuel?

Question

Flex fuel cars are available now, for about $100 more than non-flex fuel cars, but only on a few models. If every car were flex fuel it would cost consumers almost nothing, would give a big boost to companies trying to boost ethanol production, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
http://www.setamericafree.org/

A 2008 Chevrolet Impala has MSRP $21,310 and there is a FREE flex fuel option.
FREE
FREE
FREE
AVAILABLE NOW AT YOUR CHEVY DEALER!

So don't give me that "it costs too much lie"!

Don't believe me? See this web site:

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/chevrolet/impala/100864161/options.html?action=1&x=153&y=15

Ethanol is not the only alternative fuel. Methanol is another and better bio fuel. It can be made from anything, like weeds, leaves, trash, anything organic. Cheaply. If there was a market. If there were enough cars to burn it.

Listen to this audio program (quite long, but really good!).

http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=854

The program talks about a recent bill in Congress to mandate flex fuel cars that was killed by the Japanese car lobby, because American car makers are better at making flex fuel cars than the Japanese. Mandating flex fuel would be as cheap as mandating seat belts, and we already do that.

Only large cars are now available with a flex fuel option. I would like to buy a small, fuel efficient car with a flex fuel option, but none are available right now! The mandate would cost the consumer little or nothing and would not even tie us to ethanol, because flex fuel cars could use gasoline or even methanol. But lobbies from foreign car makers and oil suppliers got the bill killed.

Since 60% of our oil is imported, moving away from foreign oil gets us 60% of the way to being COMPLETELY off oil. Don't you want a FREE way to get 60% of the way to the goal?

Everybody keeps saying corn, corn, corn, while ignoring METHANOL and other ways to make ethanol that are not dependent on corn.

Michael C, This proposal would NOT prohibit diesel cars. It would only prohibit the sale of new cars that are limited to using only gasoline as a fuel. And since the option is presently offered for FREE, it is no financial burden on either the consumer or the manufacturer. It does not prohibit diesel, or electric, or hybrid, or hydrogen cars or any other kind of car. It expands choices, not limits them. The only choice it limits is the choice of the car manufacturers to limit the buyer's choices.

Answer 1

I *absolutely* would support it if the Congress would like to mandate a flex-fuel option and I am planning on sending a fax to the presidential candidates mentioning my concern. I was listening live to that Space Show program and you heard Dr. L ask a few of my questions on air (I'm "Mel from GA" nice to meet you). Off air, we continued to talk about it.

What the other people who have already answered this question seem to be ignoring or perhaps don't understand the economics behind all of this. Now I'm a scientist of sorts (tech transfer specialist by day, astrosociologist by night), and not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but the implications of continuing to use foreign oil is quite clear and disturbing and very well could cause tremendous problems in our economy.

One answer mentioned they didn't want options to be taken away. Hello! Its called an option! Mandating a flex-fuel option on cars does *not* mean you *have* to use the flex fuel. This flex fuel option should be as common as air-conditioning (how many cars do you know that don't have AC?) With a flex fuel capable engine, if you want to use normal gas, that's cool. You have that option on your car to do either one, however someone should not prevent me from putting flex fuel completely out of my reach. And forgive me if I am wrong, but some of the answers that have already been given show an ignorance of science, economics, as well as the current technology, issues, and costs that currently surround alternative fuels for the transportation industry. $100 more per month? No... $100 more *total* from what I have seen. Its pennies a month more.

On to a more patriotic message, which if you know me (which you don't) is not something I usually do, but not at least considering ways to decrease the dependence on foreign oil (and increasing the availability of flex fuels seem to be the best way in my opinion) by whatever means necessary is really fundamentally unamerican. The Middle East doesn't want us on flex fuel because, of course, they are making some ungodly amount of money on us per barrel of oil. Over 70% of the oil we purchase goes where? That's right! Transportation! Imagine just a 10% or 30% decrease in oil. Several foreign car manufacturers are lobbying Congress to prevent mandated things like flex fuel. Why? Because the American manufacturers are ahead in this issue and they want time to develop their own R&D.

People really have to ask themselves, do they want to continue to give their money to what is effectively a foreign monopoly? Or do they want to keep much of that money here in the US? Oil is going to run out sooner or later and flex fuels are cheaper, less polluting, and something we have much more access to than gasoline.

Answer 2

Oh I absolutely agree that burning 100 gallons of OIL to produce 138 gallons of ethanol is a WONDERFUL idea. I am NOT IN FAVOR of a law requiring anything additional on new cars. Every time they do this, it pushes the cost up...weather it costs the automakers next to nothing or not. I agree with the previous answer that said they are in favor of a law requiring new automobiles to get 38 miles per gallon or better. The Germans (VW) built a car that will be in production by 2010 that gets, are you ready for this, 100 Km per .89 LITRE of fuel. (264 MPG for those of you not hip to the metric system...like me!) What do you think the odds of this being offered for sale in the US are? slim to non-existant. (don't believe me, google 1 liter car and see what comes up.)

On Bio-fuels. I really like biodiesel. It has superior properties to it and it does not have such a hideous rate of exchange from energy imput to output. (fuel it takes to make it, etc.) Ethanol is cool, but I also agree that corn is an absolutely horrendous crop to make it from. The exchange rate is very poor. Switchgrass and some of the others are much better...and easier on the soil as well. By the way, have you every burned PURE grain alchohol? (Everclear for example?) It burns with NO VISIBLE FLAMES... You want to talk about a bad thing? YIKES! To give it color when it burns, they add sulpher. You know, the exact same ingredient they have been taking out of diesel fuel because of acid rain? Hmmm. Methane (natural gas) is better yet, since it is produced from waste...(pig doo and cow doo-doo for example.) But, by far the best clean fuel is Hydrogen. It's only drawback being a serious lack of infrastructure to support it. (Ever seen a hydrogen pump at the gas station?)

On hydrogen. People say it is explosive. Duh, so is gasoline vapor, methane, alchohol, and propane. That is kind of a requirement for a motor fuel.

I agree they should make it an OPTION...but it should be heavily suggested by the government, not mandated by law.

Enjoy. D_Offio

Answer 3

I do not support the government "Mandating" anything unless it deals with national security. Mandates usually cause more problems. Let the market take care of it. If the people want "Flex Fuel", then the manufacture res will make them.

I am still not convinced bio fuels which require the depletion of another resource, and a lot of transportation, and energy to make the conversion is a great alternative in the long run.

Answer 4

Here's the interesting thing. Automakers already get about a $60 tax credit (by way of reduced CAFE requirements) for making a car E85 compatible. My understanding is that the cost of making a car E85 compatible is minimal... slightly more sophisticated software and different materials in the fuel lines. However, companies are slow to scoop up that tax credit. Why?

Anyway, don't get too excited about ethanol - it's got some serious problems.
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/renewablefuels/balance.htm
Notice that you're burning 100 pounds of fossil fuels to make 134 pounds of ethanol :(

You also see another biofuel with considerably better ratio on there. Making cars compatible with ASTM certified biodiesel would also be worthwhile. It would be better yet if the biodiesel process could be skipped and cars run direct on straight vegetable oil. That would be harder.

But when you go legislating stuff, you end up with a very angry auto industry. Remember what they did when a few states tried to "make" them do electric vehicles? They lobbied to change the law, recalled the vehicles and crushed them. All the automakers did.

Answer 5

I do not support a federal law mandating such a proposal for several reasons;

1) The energy ratio of corn ethanol is (at the most favorable analysis) 1:1.3. This means that for every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes .75 gallons of some hydrocarbon fuel to produce. This is also where the cost of ethanol becomes a factor; the energy ratio is not the cost by itself - you need pay someone to burn the fuel and produce the extra 0.3 gallons of energy you will produce. This amounts to a salary, overhead, insurance, taxes etc. If it made as much economic sense as it's proponents state, then some company would already be doing it without the subsidies.

2) Available land - of all land available for cultivation in America, just over one-third would be required to produce enough to replace ethanol. However, realistically speaking, only half of available land is used for farming (the rest is CRP). This means that two-thirds of available land would be required for ethanol production. What this would do to the cost of food and other goods would be a disaster for lower income familes and people (see bbc source).

3) Energy density of ethanol - The energy density of ethanol is approximately 30% less than gasoline (This again factors into cost). By mass, a 10% ethanol/gasoline mix has approximately 7% less energy than straight gas. By volume (gallon) a 10% ethanol/gasoline mix has 19% energy less than one gallon of straight gass (think of that when you are at the pump). These energy density reductions kill your mpg. Most cars will have higher operating costs due to the lower efficiencies with ethanol (more $ / mile). This is also not taking into account the $0.50 subsidy on every gallon of ethanol on top of the regular tax.

So - you can mandate what they have to produce, but be ready to pay the price. You will pay significantly more to travel less. Arguments of global warming aside, from a cost perspective, wouldn't it make more sense to build a rail system that is comparable to Europe's?

Answer 6

I thought Ethanol was a good idea. Unfortunately, if the government is for it, one must be skeptical. First, Ethanol produced by corn requires nearly if not more energy to produce than the energy that is derived from it.

It requires tremendous quantities of herbacides an, pesticides and fertilizer. Next it diverts grains away from food production and raises the prices of food. and last, the ethanol produced is not 1 to 1 in quality as gasoline. You won't get nearly the miles per gallon.It also must be susidized to be anywhere near profitable.

There are many trash crops that make lots more ethanol, They cabn be grown on marginal land requiring very little chemical additive.

Thinking ethanol s a good idea, may be a bit naive. It is only a good idea to con agra and farmers that stand to make more money. Not the average consumer.

Answer 7

I think the problem is that the auto makers are in the pocket of big oil. More fuel efficient vehicles could have been made long ago. We have a 2002 Pontiac Grand Prix that we drove to idaho and back from Arkansas and got 32 miles per gallon. And that is a decent sized car. As far as i can tell, they have stopped making the engine in it. Now, why would they do that?

Answer 8

No, because it would drive the cost of food sky high. Plus there's not enough plants around yet to be able to make all that ethanol.

All the other technologies to create ethanol are still in the developing stages from what I understand, so the only thing to make it out of would be corn. I don't think it's in the best interests of the US to tie our energy supply to our food supply.

Instead, they could make a push for plugin electric cars. This would require more electricity, which hopefully could be generated through cleaner technologies other than coal or oil.
I think that's the way to go.

Answer 9

Car companies gain credits for the Flex-Fuel cars they make, but how many of those cars run on e85? Maybe 1%. Soon we will be shifting the price burden from the car to the food we buy. It's a good idea on the outside, until you start to look at the details. For the most part, it's a "feel-good" tactic by politicians.

We need electric. We don't need to move away from foreign oil. We need to move away from oil as a whole.

Answer 10

No, because I don't support the government trying to force the market and take away choices. You say flex-fuel cars cost only $100 more? You neglect to say that's $100 more per month. Plus, although biofuel decreases dependence on foreign oil, it greatly increases the price of food because it takes 2.5 bushels of corn to make one gallon of fuel. Also, mandating flex-fuel cars will stop the R&D into other types of cars because manufacturers will be forced to sell only one type of car. Once again, the electric car is killed off.