100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
#1
11-15-2005, 03:56 AM
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Severna Park, MD
Posts: 1,089
100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
Dunno of this is serious backing, or if Harkin is tossing something in to quiet down the campaign contributors in his neck of the woods. Obama does seem to be for real about renewable fuels, though.
.....................
from Harkin's website 10 Nov 05:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today introduced legislation that would ensure all new gasoline-powered motor vehicles sold in the United States are able to use fuel blends of up to 85 percent ethanol (E85). At a time when fuel costs are hurting family budgets and businesses nation-wide, Harkin, along with Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced the bill to gradually increase the percentage of “flex-fuel” vehicles -- those able to use regular gasoline or ethanol blends such as E85. Under Harkin’s legislation, within roughly a decade all new motor vehicles sold in the United States would be flex-fuel capable, increasing drivers’ access to renewable fuels that promise to reduce their fuel costs while lessening America’s dependence on foreign oil. Generally, E85 is significantly less expensive around the country than regular gasoline.
“For too long, our country has been dependent on foreign oil, and now America’s drivers are paying the price at the pump,” said Harkin. “This legislation will free our drivers from relying solely on oil based gas and allow them the choice of using ethanol blends that could be saving families hundreds of dollars if cars were E85 compatible now.”
Currently most drivers cannot use fuel blends with high ethanol content in their vehicles since only 2% of American cars are flex fuel capable. The legislation introduced today would require automobile manufacturers to gradually ramp up production of flex-fuel vehicles and reward those who exceed minimum requirements for making flex-fuel vehicle by giving credits that can be bought and sold among automobile manufacturers. Our heavy reliance on oil for fuel, the majority of which is imported from foreign countries, has left many consumers suffering from quickly rising gasoline costs with little alternative but to absorb those costs. The Harkin legislation introduced today would eventually ensure all drivers have increased choices in buying fuel, helping keep costs down.
“By expanding driver access to ethanol, we can decrease our reliance on foreign oil while stimulating demand for home grown ethanol,” Harkin said. “That’s a great deal for America’s drivers, the rural economy and the environment.”
The legislation introduced today is part of Harkin’s ongoing effort to reduce America’s dependence on oil through increased use of renewable fuels and alternative sources of energy. Harkin was instrumental in including provisions that will double the use of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012 (renewable fuels standard, RFS) in the comprehensive energy bill enacted by Congress earlier this year. Harkin has also worked to improve driver access to renewable fuels like E85 by increasing their availability in gas stations nationwide and pushing auto makers to put stickers on vehicle fuel-tanks indicating if they are capable of using high ethanol content fuel blends.
.....................
from Harkin's website 10 Nov 05:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today introduced legislation that would ensure all new gasoline-powered motor vehicles sold in the United States are able to use fuel blends of up to 85 percent ethanol (E85). At a time when fuel costs are hurting family budgets and businesses nation-wide, Harkin, along with Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced the bill to gradually increase the percentage of “flex-fuel” vehicles -- those able to use regular gasoline or ethanol blends such as E85. Under Harkin’s legislation, within roughly a decade all new motor vehicles sold in the United States would be flex-fuel capable, increasing drivers’ access to renewable fuels that promise to reduce their fuel costs while lessening America’s dependence on foreign oil. Generally, E85 is significantly less expensive around the country than regular gasoline.
“For too long, our country has been dependent on foreign oil, and now America’s drivers are paying the price at the pump,” said Harkin. “This legislation will free our drivers from relying solely on oil based gas and allow them the choice of using ethanol blends that could be saving families hundreds of dollars if cars were E85 compatible now.”
Currently most drivers cannot use fuel blends with high ethanol content in their vehicles since only 2% of American cars are flex fuel capable. The legislation introduced today would require automobile manufacturers to gradually ramp up production of flex-fuel vehicles and reward those who exceed minimum requirements for making flex-fuel vehicle by giving credits that can be bought and sold among automobile manufacturers. Our heavy reliance on oil for fuel, the majority of which is imported from foreign countries, has left many consumers suffering from quickly rising gasoline costs with little alternative but to absorb those costs. The Harkin legislation introduced today would eventually ensure all drivers have increased choices in buying fuel, helping keep costs down.
“By expanding driver access to ethanol, we can decrease our reliance on foreign oil while stimulating demand for home grown ethanol,” Harkin said. “That’s a great deal for America’s drivers, the rural economy and the environment.”
The legislation introduced today is part of Harkin’s ongoing effort to reduce America’s dependence on oil through increased use of renewable fuels and alternative sources of energy. Harkin was instrumental in including provisions that will double the use of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012 (renewable fuels standard, RFS) in the comprehensive energy bill enacted by Congress earlier this year. Harkin has also worked to improve driver access to renewable fuels like E85 by increasing their availability in gas stations nationwide and pushing auto makers to put stickers on vehicle fuel-tanks indicating if they are capable of using high ethanol content fuel blends.
#2
11-16-2005, 12:40 AM
Re: 100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
Well, it makes sense to put FFV technology into all vehicles, it gives consumers a choice and if they choose gasoline-only it doesn't affect them. Once more FFVs are on the road then fuel production and distribution can be ramped up cost effectively with many more people able to use blends. This may also encourage some engine design updates to take full advantage of the high octane ethanol so that using ethanol results in better mileage and more power, also a plus for 'power' drivers.
#3
11-16-2005, 06:08 AM
Re: 100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
"At a time when fuel costs are hurting family budgets and businesses nation-wide, "
unless, of course, you happen to be connected to big oil. then the sky's the limit.
does anyone really think we can make any progress with new fuel as long as we are controlled by oil companies? i would love to see it happen, and also see detroit start making more fuel efficient cars, but there is just not enough pressure to do it.
unless, of course, you happen to be connected to big oil. then the sky's the limit.
does anyone really think we can make any progress with new fuel as long as we are controlled by oil companies? i would love to see it happen, and also see detroit start making more fuel efficient cars, but there is just not enough pressure to do it.
#4
11-16-2005, 10:40 AM
Re: 100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
Hi GoNavy:
___I forgot which exact thread we were involved with in regards to Ethanol costs … Here is where I saw the $0.50/gallon for Brazilian Ethanol vs. $1.00 - $1.25 for Corn based Ethanol from here in the states. This article is over a year old so probably add another $0.25 to US Corn based Ethanol and $0.10 for Brazil’s sugar cane based Ethanol.
When Is Ethanol Not Ethanol?
NYMEX Gasoline Futures Close Nov. 04 – Nov 05:
___$0.50/gallon for a 100% renewable and darn near GHG neutral with the only real caveat of a 20% hit in FE (or less for a smaller, higher compression, ICE designed for Ethanol use exclusively for close to similar FE and performance
) or $1.45/gallon for the garbage we ultimately refined but imported much of from our friends in the Middle East and Venezuela? This just pisses me off to know end 
Corn based? Screw that! Let Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi grow Sugar Cane for fuel instead of reinvesting 100’s of Billions into rebuilding at or below sea level infrastructure?
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___I forgot which exact thread we were involved with in regards to Ethanol costs … Here is where I saw the $0.50/gallon for Brazilian Ethanol vs. $1.00 - $1.25 for Corn based Ethanol from here in the states. This article is over a year old so probably add another $0.25 to US Corn based Ethanol and $0.10 for Brazil’s sugar cane based Ethanol.
When Is Ethanol Not Ethanol?
NYMEX Gasoline Futures Close Nov. 04 – Nov 05:
___$0.50/gallon for a 100% renewable and darn near GHG neutral with the only real caveat of a 20% hit in FE (or less for a smaller, higher compression, ICE designed for Ethanol use exclusively for close to similar FE and performance
) or $1.45/gallon for the garbage we ultimately refined but imported much of from our friends in the Middle East and Venezuela? This just pisses me off to know end Corn based? Screw that! Let Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi grow Sugar Cane for fuel instead of reinvesting 100’s of Billions into rebuilding at or below sea level infrastructure?___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
Last edited by xcel; 11-16-2005 at 11:08 AM.
#5
11-16-2005, 11:21 AM
Re: 100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
Does anyone know of any articles that have done a full analysis of what the true costs would be to produce enough ethanol to fuel, say, half the transportation fleet of America year after year? I know we have capacity to produce more than we're making now, but what's ethanol account for nationwide at this point? 2%? I think Venezuela also gets quite a lot more rain than we do. Do we have sufficient infrastructure to sustain the production, year after year, of ethanol? I would want to see proof that we can actually produce all that ethanol before we make a law mandating that every vehicle sold has to use it. No sense requiring something that isn't even feasable.
#6
11-16-2005, 11:45 AM
Re: 100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
Hi AZCivic:
___I do not think it can be done (enough for total gasoline replacement) but the more feedstock planted, harvested, and ethanol manufactured, the price will go down … The energy balance issue is utter non-sense when looking at Brazilian based Ethanol because I am sure they are not selling it at a huge loss on our account. Switch grass and the cellulosic method’s are pie in the sky apparently as only 1 company has the tech rights and they have yet to ramp up a pilot plant let alone a full blown multi-million gallons/year setup. On a similar note, almost 25% of Nebraskan corn is used in the production of Ethanol today. Imagine the whole state of MS. and LA. doing the same with Sugar Cane if feasible?
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___I do not think it can be done (enough for total gasoline replacement) but the more feedstock planted, harvested, and ethanol manufactured, the price will go down … The energy balance issue is utter non-sense when looking at Brazilian based Ethanol because I am sure they are not selling it at a huge loss on our account. Switch grass and the cellulosic method’s are pie in the sky apparently as only 1 company has the tech rights and they have yet to ramp up a pilot plant let alone a full blown multi-million gallons/year setup. On a similar note, almost 25% of Nebraskan corn is used in the production of Ethanol today. Imagine the whole state of MS. and LA. doing the same with Sugar Cane if feasible?
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
#7
11-16-2005, 11:52 AM
Re: 100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
Yeah I'm not saying it isn't totally sustainable. Venezuela has proven it's sustainable but they have a ridiculously large amount of arable land and a proportionally small amount of automotive fuel consumption. Honestly though, the funniest news this week was this story where it seems that just as our country is trying to achieve energy independance through alternative fuels, the farming industry suddenly realized that we're not the only country in the world that has farm land and refineries. Oops!
Doesn't bother me much though, I think if we put our minds to it, we can farm more effectively than anyone else anyway. Competition from the outside will provide a huge motivation to honestly do their best. From what I've read, soy isn't even the most effective crop for biodiesel; rapeseed is better, and for that matter, there's been those studies saying that farming isn't even the best way to go about it, algae ponds are even better. Competition should help drive us towards doing the best we can.
Doesn't bother me much though, I think if we put our minds to it, we can farm more effectively than anyone else anyway. Competition from the outside will provide a huge motivation to honestly do their best. From what I've read, soy isn't even the most effective crop for biodiesel; rapeseed is better, and for that matter, there's been those studies saying that farming isn't even the best way to go about it, algae ponds are even better. Competition should help drive us towards doing the best we can.
#8
11-16-2005, 06:07 PM
Re: 100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
Hi AZCivic:
___I agree. The Algae ponds in the Sultan sea is another one of those pie in the sky items that keep popping up. If it were this easy, I am sure someone would be looking at it in far more detail then what we have heard about so far?
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___I agree. The Algae ponds in the Sultan sea is another one of those pie in the sky items that keep popping up. If it were this easy, I am sure someone would be looking at it in far more detail then what we have heard about so far?
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
#9
11-16-2005, 06:27 PM
Re: 100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
No doubt. Generally a lot of things that look great on paper aren't adopted because the companies that would have to spend their own money on it can't figure out how to do it any cheaper in the real world than existing proven techniques. We already know how to cost-effectively turn plant waste into biofuels, so that will likely be a trend that continues to be improved and worked upon before they put too much serious effort into other methods. It's good to know there's a lot of options out there to be explored though. The market for biofuels will only increase as more and more news reports of major oil fields peaking come out.
#10
11-16-2005, 09:01 PM
Re: 100% FFV by 2015: Senate Bill
Originally Posted by AZCivic
Does anyone know of any articles that have done a full analysis of what the true costs would be to produce enough ethanol to fuel, say, half the transportation fleet of America year after year? I know we have capacity to produce more than we're making now, but what's ethanol account for nationwide at this point? 2%? I think Venezuela also gets quite a lot more rain than we do. Do we have sufficient infrastructure to sustain the production, year after year, of ethanol? I would want to see proof that we can actually produce all that ethanol before we make a law mandating that every vehicle sold has to use it. No sense requiring something that isn't even feasable.
The Ethanol Answer to Carbon Emissions from the Issues in Science and Technology Journal published by the National Academies/University of Texas, Dallas
LESTER B. LAVE
W. MICHAEL GRIFFIN
HEATHER MACLEAN
http://www.issues.org/18.2/lave.html
To grow enough biomass to enable ethanol to replace gasoline would require an enormous amount of land. To provide sufficient ethanol to replace all of the 130 billion gallons of gasoline used in the light-duty fleet, we estimate that it would be necessary to process the biomass growing on 300 million to 500 million acres, which is in the neighborhood of one-fourth of the 1.8-billion acre land area of the lower 48 states. Most U.S. land is now grassland pasture and range (590 million acres), forest (650 million acres), or cropland (460 millions acres). The remaining acreage is used for human infrastructure, parks and wildlife areas, and marsh and wetlands. The 300 million to 500 million acres could be supplied from high-productivity land (39 million acres of idled cropland), from land currently used to grow grain that is sold below production cost (approximately 45 million acres), and from pasture and forestland that are not associated with farms. No land from national parks, wilderness areas, or land for buildings, highways, or other direct human use would be required.
The economic case against making a massive commitment to ethanol is that cellulosic ethanol currently costs too much to compete with gasoline. The refinery gate price of gasoline is about $0.80 per gallon; transportation, storage, and retailing add about $0.40 per gallon; and taxes raise the price at the pump to roughly $1.50 per gallon. Producing cellulosic ethanol costs about $1.20 per gallon (1.80 per gallon, gasoline equivalent, since ethanol has two-thirds of the energy of a gallon of gasoline). Assuming that the per-gallon distribution costs are the same for ethanol and holding total tax revenue constant, ethanol would sell for $1.80 per gallon at the pump. However, this is equivalent to $2.70 per gallon in order to get as much energy as in a gallon of gasoline. Technology improvements promise to reduce this cost, but it is unlikely to fall below the cost of producing gasoline.
Motorists will not switch to ethanol unless the price of gasoline is at least $2.70 per gallon. Although this price will seem astronomical to U.S. drivers, it is actually much lower than the price that would be required to convince Americans to buy 50-mile per gallon cars or the price that the Europeans and Japanese are paying now. If the United States decides that the motor vehicle sector must reduce its carbon emissions, it will be much easier to convince them to switch to ethanol fuel, even at $2.70 per gallon, than to convince them to drive smaller cars or cars with smaller engines.
The economic case against making a massive commitment to ethanol is that cellulosic ethanol currently costs too much to compete with gasoline. The refinery gate price of gasoline is about $0.80 per gallon; transportation, storage, and retailing add about $0.40 per gallon; and taxes raise the price at the pump to roughly $1.50 per gallon. Producing cellulosic ethanol costs about $1.20 per gallon (1.80 per gallon, gasoline equivalent, since ethanol has two-thirds of the energy of a gallon of gasoline). Assuming that the per-gallon distribution costs are the same for ethanol and holding total tax revenue constant, ethanol would sell for $1.80 per gallon at the pump. However, this is equivalent to $2.70 per gallon in order to get as much energy as in a gallon of gasoline. Technology improvements promise to reduce this cost, but it is unlikely to fall below the cost of producing gasoline.
Motorists will not switch to ethanol unless the price of gasoline is at least $2.70 per gallon. Although this price will seem astronomical to U.S. drivers, it is actually much lower than the price that would be required to convince Americans to buy 50-mile per gallon cars or the price that the Europeans and Japanese are paying now. If the United States decides that the motor vehicle sector must reduce its carbon emissions, it will be much easier to convince them to switch to ethanol fuel, even at $2.70 per gallon, than to convince them to drive smaller cars or cars with smaller engines.
