What's really funny is that two of these congressman are from California. The view of these six is not representative of the Republican party, which is generally in support of ethanol as a fuel. Not sure what these guys are smokin, but they may be trying to jockey for a specific political position.

Also, the ignorance of "Republicans are so irrelevant these days" is comical; thanks for the laugh jpm. How's that Hopey/Changey thing going for ya? Spend Spend Spend :)

Republicans: We work hard, so you don't have to!

↓↑report

So, let me get this straight...

"Chu – who once said that ethanol, as it is made today, "is not the right crop for biofuels"

"... suggest an over $1 billion per year mandate on auto companies... [for] a fuel that is available at less than 2% of gas stations nationwide."

"... it is becoming increasingly apparent that the nation's ethanol production capacity could never be able to support the entire U.S. auto fleet..."

So, "Six Republican members of Congress have taken issue with DOE head Stephen Chu's call for all American vehicles to be E85-capable."

Yet you say that (Chu) "He has a Nobel Prize for cooling atoms to near absolute zero with lasers, give him some credit for crying out loud.

And therefore "Republicans are so irrelevant these days."

So you point is to never question the Gov't? SHEEPLE!

↓↑report

"Diesel engines can't run on E85."

But they can run on E28... ;)

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/20/o2diesel-to-begin-testing-new-ethanol-biodiesel-blend/

↓↑report

I don't know if you've noticed, but most of those GM flex-fueled vehicles are large gas guzzlers. GM made a lot of their biggest and thirstiest into "flex fuel" vehicles because there is a loophole in the CAFE fuel economy standards - only the petroleum part of E85 is considered, thus giving "flex-fuel" SUVs and trucks an artificially high CAFE rating, which in turn allowed GM to sell more high profit gas guzzlers.

If all petrol cars were made "flex-fuel", then that advantage would go away. Hmm come to think of it, with high fuel prices and SUVs not selling, that "advantage" has already gone away!

↓↑report

The following GM cars are flex fuel capable, Malibu, Impala, HHR. I also think there is a Pontiac G6 flex fuel model as well. As for GM selling high profit SUVs, why wouldn't a company losing money and market share want to sell high profit vehicles? Every company does it.

↓↑report

Yes, it appears many have forgotten about that initial ethanol loophole. It definitely allowed Detroit to keep cranking out SUVs and created room for the ethanol lobby to get their mandate passed, just in time to help boost prices in everything related to corn.

I'm in favor or removing subsidies for any farmer who devotes more than a certain percentage of their crops to ethanol. The subsidies were to create food, not an inefficient fuel.

↓↑report

Wasn't aware of that loophole. So they could claim the vehicle uses just 15% as much gas because it *could* run on E85 - even though it likely never will. That's crazy! Guess I should expect them to look for loopholes rather than innovate...

↓↑report

Ethanol doesn't have to be made in 'vast' quantities, just what the market demands. Having every car E85 'capable' just gives car owners (new or used down the line) the option of buying at the pump or making their own - or doing nothing.
Also, the 'less than 2%' of stations is a ruse, because ALL stations in florida (and other states) have ethanol in their gas at some percentage. Maybe less than 2% have full E85, but that is because the station owners constantly say that not enough cars are E85 capable. As soon as the cars are on the road they say, they will order it from their distributors. Of course that isn't really true either because if they are a branded station, and their brand doesn't sell E85, then they're stuck (with one loophole exception).
As it happens, there are already millions of E85 cars on the road, and millions more each year, they outsell hybrids by an order of magnitude, and are much cheaper - and when running on E85 use far less gasoline than any hybrid.

↓↑report

Alcohol can easily replace gasoline. Not all alcohol is ethanol, and not all ethanol is corn. Methanol can be made from abundant and cheap coal and natural gas. For less CO2 you can make it from any biomass without exception including crop residues, weeds, waste, and even sewage.

We are currently, stupidly, walling ourselves off from cheap and abundant foreign ethanol, such as from Brazil. (By the way that country has converted entirely to flex fuel vehicles, ethanol is about half the fuel sold there, and they are 0% dependent on foreign oil. Far from being a hydrogen style scam or a maybe someday dream, it's physical daily reality right now.) Making all our new cars alcohol compatible will create a market big enough so that our farmers won't need the protectionism anymore.

↓↑report

How do you make a Progressive happy?

Give him NO choice!!!!

↓↑report

It's not a matter of ethanol in your gasoline, it's a matter of replacing gasoline with ethanol and other alcohol fuels as the standard and default fuel.

That's a fantastically great idea for economic, geo-strategic, and environmental reasons.

The world petroleum market is permanently and unfixably controlled by OPEC, which sits on over 70% of the world's reserves, including all the cheapest and easiest-to-drill stuff. Neither conservation nor (expensive) domestic drilling can change this reality of geography and geology. What does OPEC do with this control? Restrict production to increase the price above what it would naturally be. That is a giant tax on the rest of the world, including us, and the tenfold rise in oil prices between 1999 and 2008 played a major role in the economic collapse. Furthermore they have the potential to enact another 1973 style embargo on us which would be far more devastating today than it was then (we are now 60% dependent or foreign oil compared to 30% then), and this time they have the cash reserves to make it last (imagine a union with a trillion $ strike fund).

Even worse is what they do with the hundreds of billions they extract from us annually - fund terrorism and the spread of the terrorist/death cult in both its rival and virulent forms (Saudi Wahhabism and Iranian Shi ism). Tens of thousands of Saudi-funded madrassas in Pakistan alone have turned that country into a roiling cauldron of nuclear armed madmen. It's much easier to simply pull the money plug than to try to shut each of them down physically.

Alcohol fuels cannot cause water pollution, since they are water soluble and biodegradable. They are not carcinogens or mutagens (gasoline is loaded with both). When burned, they produce zero smoke, soot, or particulate matter, the sources of air pollution and smog, a problem causing 40,000 cancer deaths a year. They produce less NOx and react in vapor form to it at a tenth of the level that gasoline does, and wash out of the air when it rains. They produce no sulfur, a cause of acid rain. In short, they are far better for the environment.

Their only weakness is lower miles per gallon, but since they are renewable (unless you are using coal- or ND-derived methanol), that matters little environmentally. The hassle of refueling more often can be mitigated with bigger fuel tanks (alcohols are far safer in crashes and less prone to explode BTW). Finally, they, especially methanol, can give you more miles per DOLLAR.

↓↑report

You did not seriously just tell me buying gasoline funds terrorism. Get your head out of the clouds, bro.

↓↑report