|
|
|
| ETHANOL, PRO AND CON: New energy source means brighter future |
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 18,2008 Atlantic Journal Institution By Newt Gingrich The pursuit of 21st-century energy solutions is an urgent concern of American consumers and our government. With the average price of gasoline in the United States climbing to more than $3.50 a gallon in some cities, drivers cringe when they pull up to the pump. And while the economic impact of a petroleum-based energy system affects virtually every American, so do the consequences for national security. It is in America's best interest to reduce the world's dependency on oil from unstable regions of the world. Starting with a collaborative effort among individuals, businesses and government leaders, we can fundamentally transform the American energy system to one that is more dependable and more affordable. Yet there is no panacea for the energy challenge we face. It will take a wide-ranging approach that adopts more aggressive development of biofuels and solar, wind, hydrogen and nuclear power. We also need increased domestic exploration and development of oil and gas as well as a concurrent and significant effort toward energy conservation through materials technology breakthroughs for lighter, stronger vehicles. As a part of this mix, the federal government has recognized the importance of ethanol, making increased ethanol production a cornerstone of the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. The act calls for the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2022 (up from the 2007 production level of 6.5 billion gallons), of which at least 21 billion gallons will come from cellulosic ethanol. And the law moves us toward a more energy-independent future by requiring more research and testing of moving biofuels via pipelines and higher ethanol blends. While ethanol energy development continues to progress, this act will help solidify America's system of domestic biofuels production by discovering and dealing with challenges to its development. The expansion of biofuels production in the United States is good news. It means more of America's energy dollars will be kept within our borders and go to the Iowa or Georgia farmer rather than to the Saudi princes or the Venezuelan dictator. And that means greater rural development. Ethanol is but one answer to America's long-term energy needs. Without the strides being made in corn-based ethanol and soy biodiesel, there would be no foundation for future improvements. Many vehicles already on the road are equipped to run on E-85 fuel (a fuel made from 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline), and the number of refueling stations that supply E-85 is growing rapidly. Even the widespread use of E10 (a fuel blend made from 10 percent ethanol) is decreasing our use of energy from foreign sources. The future for ethanol is bright. In the next decade cellulosic ethanol, which is derived from crop residues, grasses and other plant materials otherwise discarded, will become a reality. The development of cellulosic ethanol at Iowa State and other universities, government labs and in the private sector portends an even brighter cost-benefit future. The potential is enormous. The development of an expanded energy system that is affordable and ultimately self-sustaining cannot be the government's job alone. America is home to countless innovative entrepreneurs who may hold the key to our energy independence. That is why incentives and prizes must be offered to spur new inventions and accelerate the development of more efficient processes to make and use ethanol. Though ethanol holds a lot of potential as a partial replacement for gasoline, the ethanol we use today will be replaced by an improved ethanol in the future as ethanol producers continue to advance the fuel's positive energy return on investment (the ratio of how much energy the fuel produces to how much energy is needed to produce the fuel). The federal government should put up a monetary prize for the development of ethanol with dramatically higher energy return on investment. The prize money would be a fraction of the benefit the country would gain from the increased efficiency of the fuel. To create a 21st-century energy system, we must embrace and execute a bold strategy. We've taken the first step with support for renewable fuels like corn ethanol. While record prices at the pump have lent urgency, inducements for real change ought to take the form of providing large rewards for those creative citizens who succeed in speeding up the journey toward energy self-reliance. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the general chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future. Photo Illustration by The New York Times Corn-based ethanol and soy biodiesel represent a huge leap away from our dependence on foreign oil, contends Newt Gingrich. Another view says that ethanol's under-the-radar price in subsidies, higher food costs and ecological damage is too high.
|
|
|
|
Tag
| Email |
Print
|
| Comments |
By
rogerroney @
Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:27 PM
|
I agree that conservatives have to engage on the environment if they want in on the solutions of the future, but ethanol is no way to engage in this debate.
It is another bad idea whose time has come, and American history is full of those.
First there is something morally wrong with using arable land to grow food products (even if they are for animals) to power cars instead of feeding people.
second, as the need for Ethanol grows, so too will the land required to farm it. Even if we would only be using throw-away plant products those products have to be grown on land somewhere, and every acre that is used for energy creation is one less acre used for food production. Stupid.
Nuclear is the only way to go. Nuclear plants could generate electricity by day and separate hydrogen from water by night (to power cars). And hundreds of plants could be built using the thousands of highly skilled and unemployed car industry workers from Detroit -- a city Newt is always referencing when he talks about failed government projects.
come on folks. no more politics, just get it done.
|
|
|
By
Lamar1106 @
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:31 PM
|
How is this not Fascism? Ethanol has become to the US what the Volkswagon was to Germany... colusion between the government and business. And the folks get the raw deal in the end. All in the name for an alarmist policy of "Global Whining".
I can't believe Newt is on board for this. Newt's a hero of mine. It's like hearing that Superman is in bed with Lex Luthor.
Now while millions of people starve around the world, we BURN OUR FOOD!?!?!?!? This is insane! This needs to stop. If it doesn't stop through sound policy, I'm afraid those starving around the world will stop it for us, and that won't be a good thing.
Why can't we drill? We can do it safer and cleaner than it's ever been done before. STOP BURNING OUR FOOD! START DRILLING!
|
|
|
By
Gatorwest @
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:11 PM
|
There is not much we can do as long as we keep driving the cars we are driving. Ethanol is one of those things the government can do if the citizens DO NOTHING!
We can get OPEC to open up the spigots, drill and refine more of our own, grow Ethanol, or get off gas for personal autos. But America, including the government, is just sitting there saying Duuuuh! Like the problem is going to go away!
Compared to getting to the moon in 10 years this is a cakewalk. Look at where we are with the cars. Not perfect, but Geee! http://www.chevrolet.com/fuelcell/ http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27904 http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
Now the goverment needs to provide the tax credits, help build out the new infrastructure, and we are on our way while creating lots of new domestic jobs. Nothing compared to building the highways and railroads.
http://www.fuelcells.org/thomasstudy.pdf
We have plenty of time to perfect the cars while everyone is debating, funding and making the laws. We need a call to action and the LEADERSHIP to get this going.
Compared to the alternative, why are we waiting?
|
|
|
By
wandpiper @
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:55 AM
|
ethanol is the biggest boondoggle and a complete shell game!
food prices are up cars run worse and get worse mileage.
sounds like a really brilliant idea!
Sounds like a really Democrat idea!
Newt, how in the world have you allowed yourself to be sucked into this huge hoax!
should we worry about the environment? Of course. should we be stupid? Only if we are Democrats.
Newt, you have always been a Futurist, how does this square with being sucked in by the lobby to waste precious resources for a stupid idea which only makes the agribusiness and others richer? But does not help in any way with cleaning the environment? even Europeans are finally waking up to the realization that Ethanol is a worse polluter and a hoax!
regards, Paul
Paul C. Clare, CTC
|
|
|
By
@
Friday, April 25, 2008 2:05 PM
|
How can the few rule the majority? Exactly why can't we drill for oil. China, I understand, is in process of drilling for oil not far from Florida. Maybe I'm insane, but if our "Leaders" don't give the OK for "Us" to drill, I see them as TRAITORS. Our National Defense is at stake. Is not our National Defense top priority? And aren't our "Leaders" sworn to Protect our Nation? If other Countries were not drilling for oil, a case could be made for the U.S. to refrain and follow suit. So, again, why are we not drilling for our National Security? And please Mr. Pol, don't lame out and blame the "Other Side."
|
|
|
By
Gatorwest @
Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:28 PM
|
Incrementalism such as ethanol or convervation are not going to cut it. They are short term helpful, but only delay the problem don’t solve it. There is our health at risk, the economy at risk, the environment at risk and arguably (barely) the planet at risk! And our political leaders don’t have the will and courage to step up to this problem in a real way. They are just snapping at the heels of it with incrementalism like ethanol or conservation. As O’reilly says “let’s all cut back 10 or 15%”. This is not going to cut it, someone has to step up to this problem.
No gas for personal autos in 10 years. That is not incrementalism. That is taking on the problem. We have to make it more than a "nice thing to happen". We have to mandate it, and then provide the funds. The laws, and the means to achieve it.
|
|
|
By
JoeHol @
Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:56 PM
|
|
I feel so frustrated with the lack of leadership in this country. I don’t trust either party to actually come up with real solutions to our energy, economic, educational, you name it, problems. I have read both Real Change and a 21st Contract with America and believed that maybe Newt would be able to lead the way. I am no longer sure about his leadership. I wish the government would spend it’s time solving real issues, like our national debt.
|
|
|
By
@
Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:19 AM
|
Newt, this opinion coupled with the Conservative Green Crok, leads me to believe the end is truly near. You, a man research and intelligence, can't really think that this Ethanol Deal is a good thing. I refuse to believe that you think it is beneficial to our Country. That leads me to believe the Powers That Be, have decided to merge the "two" Parties into one. It's either that (paranoic?) belief, or, you have truly "lost it." Newt, please explain further. The thought of the Repubs and Dems morphing makes me want to move to Mexico.
|
|
|
By
magneto @
Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:39 AM
|
As an automotive engineer, I have been utterly stunned at the stupidity of the national ethanol scam. As a once strong, but now fading Newt fan, I am stunned once again to see him put forth such a non-scientific argument for this joke source of energy.
If government stops meddling in energy markets, we may pull out of this foolish mess.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/853/a-free-market-in-gasoline/
Eric
|
|
|
By
jrhunt @
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 8:29 PM
|
Newt you really are talking last years liberal line. Time magazine which just had its green Earth Day issue has already exposed the ethanol scam. This was all to help ADM and the agrobusiness make billions at the expense of the worlds hungry. As others have already commented it has a negligible effect on our energy problem (perhaps even a slightly negative one) and actually contributes to the release of green house gases (if you think as YOU do that is a problem).
Which is another related issue, the human-induced global warming scam that you have embrased. There many reasons to doubt that has any merit at all. To get a more complete explaination check out my global warming page at www.johnhuntspace.com/warming.html
I sincerely urge you to research this issue and when you find the truth speakout about it rather than supporting Al Gore.
|
|
|
By
rmueller58 @
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:48 PM
|
Dear Mr Speaker,
I live in a corn state and find Ethanol as much of a shell game as was the "tax rebate"..
Dollars for Donuts ethanol based on corn is the least efficient transport fuel system we could adopt.
I would strongly advise we look at a 1 yr, 5 yr, 10 yr 20 yr and greater visions.
I don't believe ethanol is sustainable longterm..
My first thing is we need to look at domestic oil production. I want to make you aware most noticeably of the Bakken Formation and Williston basic. Conservative estimates place easy recovery at 5 billion barrels, and oil shale/oil sands recovery at 500+ billion barrels. That alone could fuel our country for long time, that in conjunction with clean coal technologies, CTL/GTL, other shale oil deposits in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are where we truly need to head in the near term. As technology improves for non-petro fuels costs will go done, but there is a great deal of economic pain in doing so before getting to that point.
PLEASE Do more study before you buy into this global warming mythos and consider OUR country.
My wife and I pay more taxes as a percentage of income them people below or above us. We are saddled with household expenses, Fuel prices are driven by insane public policy. I believe the market SHOULD be the decider, NOT politicians!!
|
|
|
By
DJShea @
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:48 PM
|
Newt You sold us out! Just because McCain is a Democrat you don't have to follow suit. You , McCain , and Al Gore seem intent on making a fortune off the phoney global warming, bio fuels, carbon credits nonsense. You and your new found buddies ( Peloust, Kennedy, McCain and Dingy Harry)really think we hAVE THAT SHORT A MEMORY that we don't remember that 5 years ago you people were spouting that if the price of gas ever reached $3.00 / gal. then shale oil was vialable and we had enough for 100 years or more. Were you lying then or now.
D Shea
|
|
|
By
Gatorwest @
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:50 PM
|
Getting off oil – LEADERSHIP MISSING!
Ethanol is better than nothing, but somebody’s got to bite the bullet! Ethanol is NOT biting the bullet. When John Kennedy said “we are going to the moon in 10 years”, that was leadership. And when he threw down his landmark historical gauntlet, we didn’t exactly know how to get to the moon. Unlike Kennedy, we already have everything we need to get off oil – EXCEPT THE LEADERSHIP!
We already have the technology. But Americans, both political leaders and us ordinary citizens, just don’t have the “will” to act! Don’t believe me! Start by going to http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/ and looking at all the hydrogen and Hydrogen fuel cell cars that use zero gasoline and produce zero emissions. These cars are already built.
Go to the websites and look at them, you won’t believe it. There are cars from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, Fiat, Ford, Cadillac, Chevy, GM, Hummer, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Peugeot, Sukuki, Toyota, and VW. Plus others. And I’m not talking prototypes, I’m talking real production cars, with driving reports, performance stats, etc! You can also go to the Chevy site http://www.chevrolet.com/fuelcell/ and see what they say about their Hydrogen fuel cell car. There are also many electric cars that are starting to perform like “cars”. Such as the Chevy fully electric car that you can see at http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/. Completely workable, but America obviously doesn’t want to drive them because they are not as “nice” as a gas car.
The technology we already have that is ready and waiting to “get us off oil” is overwhelming. What is underwhelming is the will of the American people and the American leadership to get us to these cars! California has already passed a law that there will be 20 Hydrogen filling stations in 10 years. Is that it? How weak is that?
What America needs now is a leader like JFK who says: In 10 years we are off oil for personal vehicles! You can buy whatever you like, but you can’t buy gas for it 10 years from now. Sure there will be those who say we can’t do it for this reason or that reason. That it cost too much or some part of society will be hurt. But American ingenuity would step up to the challenge as it always does. And the government could help close the infrastructure gaps. We did after all build all of the railroads and highways. What’s changing the fuel supply compared to that? Aren’t we that same America?
China & India are catching on to autos. Globalization is industrializing the great masses of the world. New wealth is looking for better life styles. China and India represent one third of the world’s population but currently consumes only 1 barrel of oil per capita per year. The USA with 5% of the world population now consumes 25% of the world’s oil, or 17 barrels per person each year. If China and India like Japan, go from 1 barrel per capita to 15 as they industrialized, the oil holes are going to be “sucked dry” the residue sent up to the sky! The Arab finger stuck in our eye as the economy runs dry! Americans MUST have the will to deal with this problem. Where is our leader?
Russell West Desert Hot Springs, CA
|
|
|
By
maidintheus @
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:01 PM
|
"fossil methane from wells but it's also produced any place organic matter is decomposing such as in land fills" Exactly!!
"The interesting numbers about ethanol are that you burn 15% ethanol for 20% less mileage at a subsidy of 50 cents a gallon." Exactly!!!
"I really hate to do things by government fiat but we are at war and by sending our dollars to the Middle East we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I think it’s time we forced vehicle manufacturers to offer the bi-fuel option to the public and matural gas suppliers to offer and service the home fueling devices to those who are willing to pay for them." I strongly disagree. This is a strawman issue. Let's start (start) by using our own fossil fuel. It's readily available. We will then create enough revenue and freedom to do the alternative things if (still) deemed appropriate and necessary. This would be wise and frugal. Quit telling me you're looking out for America and being wise and frugal if you're not doing what it would take to run a basic Lemonade Stand. If anyone needs to use scare tactics then I've decided to be suspicious. Let's start at a reasonable point. Use our own dang fuel! I have never spoke out against Newt but I'm going to now. Newt (and all the other politicians) have fed us a line of rhetoric that they have not honored or has been proven wrong. I have had it.
I am removing myself from this site. Newt didn't follow through with a less burdensome government in the 90's and now he's hooked up with Carter via Polosi.
McCain is playing on the fence too.
I was very concerned about R.P. not supporting the war in Iraq. Now at this late date, I'm rethinking all this. This is the first time I've said something in support of R. Paul but...I don't think he's against so much as in "how" and "when." Hmmm.
I do wish he'd get voice lessons though :D
Yes, I'm getting bitter and clingy! Thanks Newt. Perhaps he'll do a commercial with Jane Fonda next.
|
|
|
By
MarioG @
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:57 PM
|
What is the matter with Newt joining with the far, far left Nancy Pelosi to support Al Gore's version of climate change? Pat Robertson is a gadfly, but Newt? Can't figure out this one. > By definition, any economic decision that does not flow from demand and supply without coercion by either the government or influential elitists, would lead to a misallocation of resources and economic chaos. This is what is already happening with biofuels and will happen as a result of any coerced actions imposed by government to address climate change, especially with all the emerging evidence that exposes the monumental hoax that is blaming humans for whatever is happening.
|
|
|
By
emiklus @
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:40 PM
|
|
World Bank President Robert Zoellick: "While many are worried about filling their tanks many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs." Ethanol as an answer to the gasoline problem along with the now debunked Hansen hockey stick graph on global warming is the biggest ruse perpetrated on the American people and the world. We now have higher food prices and world hunger for no measurable effect on ending the gasoline situation. Mr. Speaker may I recommend "A Global Warming Primer" by the National Center for Policy Analysis for some straight talk about Global warming. And...please no more sitting with our current speaker; it only legitimizes a non-intellect buffoon.
|
|
|
By
rexg @
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:01 AM
|
As a long time Newt supporter, I must say that I am EXTREMELY dissapointed in you're alignment with the far left on the "climate change debate". I am all for being a responsible steward of the planet, but will not be influenced by the Al Gore voodoo science. If giving the Left Wing radicals legitimacy, is part of the Real Change you are promoting, you have lost a BIG fan. I'll be watching!
|
|
|
By
QuickLearner @
Monday, April 21, 2008 8:34 PM
|
Ethanol from corn or anything else we grow is not an answer to high fuel prices or Climate Change! We should, at least, allow imports of Brazilian sugar cane ethanol to remove the pinch of high food prices.
Man's impact on global climate is insignificant next to variations in solar output, massive volcanic eruptions or potential asteroid collision. Current cooling is correlated with sun activity and is reminiscent of the previous academic cry that an ice age was imminent!
I am so displeased with your falling into the nonsense Climate Change trap.
|
|
|
By
CHOGAN @
Monday, April 21, 2008 2:19 PM
|
|
What a disappointment, Newt. The global warming hysteria is a fraud and a hype. I'm not opposed to freeing ourselves from foreigh oil (the sooner, the better), but ethanol isn't going to do it. Not to mention, it's reducing valuable food crops....
|
|
|
By
pmc847 @
Monday, April 21, 2008 12:50 PM
|
Ethanol is not the answer, nor is wind, solar or taxes. Al Gore and those that support him don’t have the answers nor are they believable. The answer to our energy crises is right here in our own back yard. We have the oil to run this country to well past the time real viable energy solutions are discovered and implemented. We could feasible supply all the oil we need and still be able to export a large amount.
Here is a possible solution;
Open up federal and state lands for drilling. Contract with oil companies to drill and extract the oil and pay them 15% over their cost of producing each barrel and make a law that says that any petroleum products recovered from federal/state lands must be kept and used in the USA and its territories.
If the oil is on federal land then it belongs to the people of the good ol US of A. Let’s use it to our advantage. If we did this then you would see the world market price of oil drop to a reasonable rate, the whole world would benefit thanks to the United States of America.
Also, nuclear power would greatly improve the current problems.
I know no one want power plants or refineries in their neigborhoods. GW Bush had a solution. Build these facilities on military reservation. Either old abandoned bases or even on active bases. Built-in security and out of the neighborhoods.
Philip
|
|
|
By
BravoSierra @
Sunday, April 20, 2008 4:12 PM
|
Ethanol is a fraud, just like global warming. Alcohol as a fuel was tried and found wanting more than 100 years ago. In addition to its detrimental effect on food production it takes 4-6 gallons of fresh water to produce a gallon of ethanol. Aquifers in the Midwest are being pumped dry to produce ethanol nobody wants to burn.
Why don't you spend your time trying to convince the Luddites that govern us to let us drill for our own oil instead of pimping the much-abused taxpayers to subsidize even more of this snakeoil that passes for fuel.
I used to have great respect for you Newt, but it is hard to take you seriously on any matter after seeing you and Cruella de Pelosi playing kissy-face in that global warming commercial. I suppose you're selling carbon credits now, too?
You've been in Washington too long.
|
|
|
By
peachy @
Sunday, April 20, 2008 1:17 PM
|
Hydrogen may indeed be where we're headed, but it takes a great deal of energy to split the hydrogen from a water molecule. That energy is going to have to come from nuclear power plants. In the mean while we have plentiful supply of methane or natural gas. Not only fossil methane from wells but it's also produced any place organic matter is decomposing such as in land fills ( Georgia Power gets natural gas from a land fill in DeKalb County for it's "Green Energy program". Like hydrogen, methane is a lighter than air flammable gas. If we build infrastructure to supply and compress the natural gas we have now it can be used later for hydrogen.
|
|
|
By
bronzeditions.com @
Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:26 AM
|
Not only is ethanol a non solution to our enegy needs, but it is unsustainable politically. Subsidizing global food shortages? Not winning the future in my estimation. Real change is moving as quickly as possible toward the hydrogen economy. In the meantime, use the resources we have, drill and refine oil and coal domestically. PS- Kudos to "dcallan" - Atlas is indeed shrugging!
|
|
|
By
dwright432 @
Sunday, April 20, 2008 9:06 AM
|
|
Peachy, nice comments! CNG nuclear power, good stuff. How about also allowing the exploration and exploitation of domestic supplies in places like large areas in colorado ND and the outer continental shelf? We can use incentives to get after this fuel while we fine the fuels of the future. The problem with all of this posturing is an over reliance on something that does not exist. Meanwhile we are being the instrument of our own destruction. We CAN solve this problem if we institute the proper policies and have the will to do so.
|
|
|
By
hal_reid @
Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:04 PM
|
I have made several trips through the cornbelt and across the country. Most recently, this month from Georgia to Oregon. I have only found one gas station that sold ethanol - a 10% blend. I have an E-85 vehicle and never found a place to buy ethanol. So the question is, if it is pushing food prices up causing shortages and is such a big money maker for people producing it. Where is it? Why can't you buy it.
I am also disappointed in Newt for buying off on this humbug. The interesting numbers about ethanol are that you burn 15% ethanol for 20% less mileage at a subsidy of 50 cents a gallon. The Dems used to talk about vodoo economics, ethanol is really a great example of vodoo.
|
|
|
By
55kjsmith @
Friday, April 18, 2008 11:52 PM
|
|
One question. What happens to food prices as ethanol blends become more prevalent? We're already seeing increased food prices due to increased ethanol production. It makes sense to invest in the improvement of biofuels (just by the fact that they're renewable) but their sale should be region specific, and we should instead focus our effort on domestic oil exploration (ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico), increasing the use of clean coal, and improving the efficiency of automobiles (but not by government mandates). Let the free markets work. Americans want clean, safe energy but not at the cost of their kids' college fund.
|
|
|
By
dcallan @
Friday, April 18, 2008 11:48 PM
|
I can not express enough how disappointed I am in Newt for his support for one of the biggest hoaxes done to the American public. The hoax is ethanol. Any freshman chemical engineer can figure out that there is no net energy gain from its use. This product as a fuel is total uneconomical. The support of ethanol by Republicans is one of the examples where Republicans have lost their way and the subsequently the support of the American populace.
Too bad. Atlas is shrugging!
|
|
|
By
peachy @
Friday, April 18, 2008 11:44 PM
|
Does it make you mad when you have to pay $65 for a tank of gasoline? Do you hate the fact that we are reliant on the militant Islamist and Hugo Chavez for that gas? Does it make you mad that the price of food is going through the roof because too much of our grain is being turned into ethanol? Did you know we have a very good and relatively cheap domestic alternative? Compressed Natural Gas or CNG is plentiful in North America. The US produces 85% of what we use, of the rest all but 2% comes from Canada. Natural gas is always present in oil wells but oil is not always present in natural gas wells. They are flaring off the natural gas that comes from the oil wells on the north slope of Alaska to get rid of it because there is no gas pipeline running beside the oil pipeline to Valdez. CNG has an octane rating of 120. It burns cleaner than gasoline. It burns cleaner than ethanol. It cost half as much as either. It doesn’t need to be refined. Both Ford ( option Z99) and GM ( option KL5) make bi-fuel ( not to be confused with flex fuel which is gasoline / Ethanol) SUV’s and Pickups. They crank on gasoline, run on CNG and switch back to gasoline when you run out of CNG. They don’t sell them to the public. They only sell them to fleet operators and government agencies. Ford makes a Crown Victoria that runs on CNG. They only sell it to taxi companies. Why? The only vehicle made for sale to the American public that runs on CNG is made by Honda. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=107568 The Canadian company Fuelmaker builds an appliance that mounts on the wall of your garage and can fill your CNG tank overnight from your natural gas line. You never need to go to a service station again. http://www.myphill.com/ Unfortunately the Honda is only sold in California and New York, and the Fuelmaker is only for sale in a few states. Why? Oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens has started a company that builds and supplies CNG service stations, but they’re only in the West and New York State. http://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/ In most cities, you get to use the HOV lane with only one person in the car. We need to quit wasting our precious natural gas by using it to generate electricity and move it to a transportation fuel. Electricity should come from nuclear power. I really hate to do things by government fiat but we are at war and by sending our dollars to the Middle East we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I think it’s time we forced vehicle manufacturers to offer the bi-fuel option to the public and matural gas suppliers to offer and service the home fueling devices to those who are willing to pay for them. To encourage the use of CNG, the state and federal government should wave or at least reduce the motor fuel tax on it for ten years or until infrastructure for dispensing CNG .to the public is comparable to that of gasoline and Diesel.
|
|
|
Click Here to post a comment
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|