Dirty little secret is out: We can't have alternative fuels and lower mileage

Houston Chronicle ^ | April 28, 2002 | TOM RANDALL

[Doodle]

There is major opportunity in this area by constructing more electricly-powered, high-speed mass-transportation systems in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas. The electricity could be generated utilizing clean-coal and nuclear technology, thus reducing our dependence on imported petroleum.

If that's the case, how about letting the market make that determination, not government fiat.

[Doodle]

As for mileage, just have people park the stupid vans and suvs unless doing something which actually requires them, and have something more rational to commute and run errands in.

So what is a guy advocating more government control doing on a website call FREE Republic?

[Dog Gone]

Some silly quacks believe New studies indicate that there are limitless supplies of natural gas under the Earth, and not just in Saudi Arabia.

[budwiesest]

that heralded the "great leap forward"

Cousin to "A Leap of Faith"? How about "Leaping from the Pan into the Fire"? Or "The Great Society".
Each represents a 'leap' from where we were at some point in time (market, society, culture) toward some unkown but no doubt desirable destination. Stupid ideas (enviro-whacko, gungrabbers, etc.) from the Left shall now be kept in my "Great Leaps Forward" folder. Thanks VOA.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[Willie Green]

Providing transportation infrastructure is a legitimate government function.
Providing alternatives to choose from is not a "fiat", it's market development.

[supercat]

They point out that a similar, though less severe, reduction in mileage is caused by adding the "alternative fuel" ethanol to gasoline.

Can anyone state anything good factual about ethanol as a gasoline additive? The only thing I can think of is that it boosts measured octane (allowing fuel companies to use lower-octane fuel for the rest of their gasoline) though unlike real octane which makes fuel less volatile but provide more energy, ethanol makes it less volatile by providing less energy.

Ethanol would improve emissions in a car without a catalytic convertor, but those aren't exactly the most common breed these days (and since they're generally collectible, people who drive them generally don't want to destroy the engines by running ethanol through them). AFAIK, farm equiment is exempt from fuel-additive requirements, even though gasoline powered farm equipment without catalytic convertors is probably the place such fuels would provide the most environmental benefit. Oh well...

[Doodle]

Providing transportation infrastructure is a legitimate government function. Providing alternatives to choose from is not a "fiat", it's market development.

When the "alternative" comes from taxes, it's government fiat. If you believe that paying taxes is a "choice," I guess that's your perogative. I happen to believe it's coercive.

[Willie Green]

I suppose you don't care much for paved roads, either.

[Dog Gone]

Being neither a chemist, nor on the refining end of the oil business, I can only parrot some of the things that I've read and understand a little.

For some reason, the EPA requires oxygenates in gasoline, presumably to lower emissions. There seem to be two choices, ethanol and MTBE. MTBE delivers better engine performance and does a nice job in preventing smog, but has a nasty habit of getting into ground water. Whether that is from tank leaks or is a tailpipe emission, I don't know.

Ethanol is safer for the environment, but it's a lousy fuel. Farmers love it, because it drives up the price of corn.

[July 4th]

The thing I am surprised by is that we don't purchase diesel passenger cars and trucks

Diesels have a bad name in the Northern states. In Wisconsin, some cold winter nights easily dip into negative fahrenheit (or about -20 celsius), and diesels are notoriously hard to start in that kind of weather. You're increasingly seeing Mercedes and others produce diesel cars - like they used to on a more frequent basis 20 or so years ago - but it's a hard sell to move those cars in our area.

[Doodle]

I suppose you don't care much for paved roads, either.

I agree that there are legitimate government functions - national defense being at the top. And as long as roads are publicly-owned, not private, obviously they must be paid for by taxes. Public transportation, however, never having paid for itself in any city, is simply a transfer payment from those who don't use it to those who do.

And yes, I realize there are taxpayers who don't use the roads who are also getting the shaft. That number, though, is much smaller than is the case with public transportaion. Even so, it should be mitigated through tolling whenever possible.

[supercat]

For some reason, the EPA requires oxygenates in gasoline, presumably to lower emissions.

Two technologies were devised in the 1970's to reduce emissions: catalytic convertors and oxygenated gasoline. Used alone, either will significantly reduce emissions with minimal effect on fuel economy. Used together, however, the emissions reduction is little better than either alone, yet the reduction in fuel economy is greater than the sum of the two methods.

[supercat]

Public transportation, however, never having paid for itself in any city, is simply a transfer payment from those who don't use it to those who do.

In the burroughs of London, mass transportation was a profitable business well into the 20th century. The above-ground and subsurface (shallow-underground) trains turned a direct profit for their investors. At least three of the deep underground routes were funded by private investors; though I don't think they turned a profit directly, they did lead to increased business for the surface adn subsurface routes.

[Octar]

The modern diesels start easily even at -40F. I own one and I live in Wisconsin.

[Willie Green]

is simply a transfer payment from those who don't use it to those who do.

No, those who don't use public transportation benefit by less congestion on the roadways. Mass transportation also provides greater availability of limited parking in urban areas.

[weegee]

Houston's bike plan got them "government" $$$ for making the roads less efficient. All over town, 2 lane roads became 1 lane + a (never used) bicycle lane or 2 narrow lanes and a (never used) bicycle lane.

I've seen police riding bicycles on the sidewalk along side the bicycle lane. I've seen a few bicyclists riding next to the bicycle lane (in exercise attire; this was meant to replace commuter traffic).

Someone got rich repainting all of those roads. And when they laid down new reflectors, the ratio was 1 to 5 (where there were 5, now there is 1 if any); this makes it hard to see the lanes at night when the roads are wet (or flooded).

Throughput of many roads was effectively cut in half doubling the wear on the lane and increasing congestion and pollution. Government inaction...