Find Reviews by Make:
Like most other states, Connecticut has been buying flex-fuel vehicles to comply with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), which requires that 75 percent of new vehicles purchased by the states be capable of running on alternative fuel. According to The Hartford Courant, 1700 of the state’s 4299 vehicles are now flex-fuel compatible. But there’s a snag. There are only two E85 pumps in the entire state. Little wonder that a study released earlier this week by Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell found that the state's flex-fuel vehicles use ethanol only three percent of the time. Given the cost-benefit ratios involved, I can’t help thinking ethanol is a solution looking for a problem.
25 Comments on “Connecticut’s Flex Fuel Fleet: The Ecology of Nowhere...”
Read all comments
Connecticut isn’t alone. California has only one state pump delivering ethanol and that’s in San Diego, quite some clicks from the state capital of Sacramento…. See: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=5491981
Total miles run by the entire fleet on ethanol? zero.
Complete waste of money and yet another example of a stupid federal rule introduced thanks to lobbying.
The worldwide publicity has the potential to be great as well.
“Fat-a** Americans steal food out of starving children’s mouths to drive their enormous SUVs.”
Thanks, ADM!
Not to mention the price of booze! ;-)
The loopholes in CAFE for flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on ethanol is the problem for me. Vehicles being built under CAFE that qualify as fuel-efficient that have no place to fill up with the fuel that qualifies them for the CAFE designation. It’s a joke, but the joke’s on us.
B Moore – Autosavant.net
Whenever there’s talk about hydrogen, people invariably invoke the chicken or the egg argument to proclaim that hydrogen will never work. It’s a valid point. Flex-fuel is a neat solution to a similar problem and everyone bitches about it. Perhaps this publicity will encourage some industrious entrepreneur to open an E85 station in Sacramento or Hartford.
Nope, not a chance. The state is seeking bids to convert one pump in their Sacramento depot.
Connecticut might double the number of its E85 pumps, to a total of just four.
Also think about the costs vs. benefits of ethanol.
Benders, I lump hydrogen and ethanol into a different category than that of chicken-and-egg. Both, at the moment, suffer from lack of cheap & efficient production. If hydrogen or ethanol were able to be produced in huge quantities with little input energy/effort/resources the price would plummet and people would scramble to find a way to use the stuff. As it is, even with government subsidy, E85 is more expensive than gasoline on an energy content basis.
Ramping up current ethanol production methods won’t give economies of scale. Instead it will result in marginal land being used, lowering production efficiency.
E85 and hydrogen need to both go back to the drawing board for more fundamental, scientific research into efficient means of production. The current methods of production will never work.
Hydrogen won’t work simply because it is impractical from a net energy standpoint.
I should qualify that. If there was no oil, hydrogen could be made to work. But there is no way in hell it can replace oil to power the hundreds of millions of cars in the US alone.
When oil starts to get expensive, and people realize that the era of cheap driving is over, there is going to be some serious turmoil.
E85 and hydrogen need to both go back to the drawing board for more fundamental, scientific research into efficient means of production. The current methods of production will never work.
No, they won’t work. But if there is no demand, why would anyone put the effort into developing an alternative production method? The government funds some research (mostly hydrogen).
You can’t deny that gasoline production will cease to keep pace with demand. When that happens, alternatives will become cheaper relative to gasoline. But if no cars run on the alternative fuels, what good does it do us? Brazil seems to do ok with their flex-fuel cars.
Do you think no one is doing research on ethanol and hydrogen? Most of the ethanol research is on more efficiently extracting ethanol from cellulose.
Fourth world mentality, why work on the problem when you can scam the system, do nothing and make a bigger profit?
We have become them.
“We have become them.”
Yup. I have a sudden urge for some bananas.
“Hydrogen won’t work simply because it is impractical from a net energy standpoint.”
If produced using nuclear it would…But why? There is at least 100 years of proven oil reserves with an added benefit of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Connecticut – typical leftist commie wingnut state with imbicilic ideas and politics which drip into “real life” and affect everyone else.
So, of course, the state big wheels go to the trouble of buying E85 cars then can’t fuel them with E85. Morons. Kind of like Washington DC.
Ethanol sucks. Literally. Every single car I’ve ever tested gasohol / E10 in since 1979, has used at least 7% to 20% more fuel when using ethanol mixes. Taking into account that it takes 7 gallons of oil to produce 10 gallons of ethanol to mix with gasoline (not to mention a lot of ground water as well), it is an obvious idiocy which we as a nation cannot afford. We are literally raising the price of food, raising taxes (to “give” to ag-corporations as subsidies to make this stuff) and importing more oil.
Imbicilic. Moronic. Typically Washington DC and left wingnut. All of it.
I’m not a fan of E85, but I’ll be damned if all the Kroger locations in central OH don’t have an E85 pump now, even in small towns.
If no one else has embraced it, the Kroger company sure has, at least in Ohio.
Ramping up current ethanol production methods won’t give economies of scale. Instead it will result in marginal land being used, lowering production efficiency.
Now, I’m not ethanol apologist, I think it’s probably a bad idea. However, right now the federal government does (at least) two stupid things when it comes to corn subsidies. 1) Farmers are payed to not grow corn, and 2) The government buys “surplus” corn and dumps it in the ocean. Both of these subsidies exist to artificially inflate the price of corn to help farms. Now with ethanol coming online, the corn that is produced is being diverted from food to fuel. If we could get rid of these ridiculous subsidies, especially the dumping in the ocean subsidy, then maybe we could have both food and fuel at reasonable prices.
Hey Glenn, it’s not just the leftwingers as you put it. It’s rampant everywhere. the rightwingers can be and are just as bad at any number of things.
Fear Not! The future of gasoline engine is here!
The Mercedes DiesOtto… Controlling auto-ignition is key.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/7679/
FDR started the pay not to grow crap. He did more damage to this country than anyone else…Which is quite a feat…And people STILL worship the scumbag!
I like the statistic that says that if all vehicles ran on hydrogen today, three out of every five such vehicles would be a hydrogen tanker.
Distribution needs a pipeline grid and what happened in Dallas (not Atalanta) today is peanuts compared with what would happen if an idiot with a backhoe cut through a hydrogen line at 3000 psi.
Hydrogen makes gasoline look nearly inert by comparison.
Do you mean Dallas philbailey?
Yeah…It would make the Hindenburg look like a dud firecracker.
Does anyone make a 4 cylinder flex-fuel car for the NA market?
I am looking at the fueleconomy.gov site and according to them a v6 is as small as they come. And if you look at the list it’s virtually all GM cars/trucks/SUVs with a model or 2 from Chrysler, Ford, Mercedes and Nissan.
As I look at that list I can’t stop thinking that this whole flex fuel thing is another GM scam forced on the American public to keep there sorry asses in business. Skirting CAFE regs and this government purchasing BS scam.
I guess the good thing might be when GM implodes it takes this flex fuel thing with it.
Nice work Mr. Swanson. I didn’t expect a tip of the hat to James Kunstler on this site.
Glenn 126: Regrettably subsidies are not a left-wing-thing. Pork has no permanent political affiliations. Think of Newt, or any effective career politician for that matter. Hell consider the Abramoff scandal.
Pork is systematic bipartisan looting of the public treasury for the benefit of well connected corporations. You know, corporate welfare. Or billion dollar bridges to Nowhere, Alaska.
Subsidies are potentially a good thing if they produce the desired result. Since politicians receive kickbacks from the people they subsidize in the form of campaign donations and in some cases bribes or promises of future employment there is little “incentive” for them to monitor the incentives. Programs falter because their primary purpose was to channel money into undeserving pockets. Cloaked in lovely rhetoric of course.
The real issue here is the level of uncertainty in the energy sector going forward. America is the “Saudia Arabia” of coal, but the environmental impact is a real concern. The end of oil is like the end of antibiotics. Unless we get a handle on these major problems, quality of life will decline precipitously. Everywhere.
In other news, Lindsay Lohan has been arrested for another dui…
Seriously? maybe they will finally take that accident prone twit off the road.
eh_political:
Got to love the name of JHK’s blog. :-)
Redbarchetta:
Great song, great handle.
I am gonna catch Rush in Toronto when they come round to the ACC. I am encouraged by the increasing number of female fans at the gigs…
Hippy: I enjoy JHK and RF for the same reason, they are a bit too shrill to have their arguments considered by the mainstream, but thank god for them both.
Hey, does anyone know what happened to Jonny Lieberman? I miss his input.
Trying to build false economies never works out in the end. Energy supplies are becoming too tight to base economic policies on hopes and dreams.