Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'E85 carbon CAFE GHG emission'.
Found 1 result
Flex fuel vehicles are losing value upon auto industry per EPA rating system. The low utilization of E85 fuel within flex fuel car ownership surveys has forced EPA to push carbon rating of these vehicles up and value to automotive industry down. We should understand the engineering of modern vehicles turn heavily upon the conformance to government emission regulations. This is the primary driving force upon future plans to invest capital and development of new model cars. Note that EPA likes electric and hydrogen cars no matter the real carbon emissions and offers automotive industry zero grams per mile rating. The reality of real carbon emission will place a hybrid at higher value as compared to electric car in much of the country with higher coal power plants. So, what's going on here? Much of the rating system is biased and set in place per belief system of government agency that throw more weight per desire and not science. Take the example of cutting much of the ethanol value of carbon efficiency off at the knees per theoretical indirect land use formulations. In common talk its merely a WAG system put in place to thwart progress of ethanol as a environmental solution. Also, we all know ethanol only improves vehicle emissions and engine thermal dynamics potential yet this low carbon fuel is positions along side heavy carbon diesel per MPG ratings. Something is wrong with that measure. My guess to pull ethanol out of this malaise of not being awarded rightful carbon rating and environmental benefit, is the E85 only light duty vehicle. That would force EPA to accept the full benefit of ethanol. Currently the natural gas fossil fuel vehicles will get better ratings as compared to flex vehicle. A flex vehicle that has potential to utilize negative carbon fuel such as cellulosic. Something is amiss with how we rate fuel per carbon emissions. I would guess the genius of such rating system merely lies within minds of those with bias that throw in the mix their inaccurate assumptions to factor away to desires. The rating system, especially for fuel, should entail simple hard provable data as must all benchmarks. Probably a BTU carbon rating. The fuel delivered to electric car should be rated as well as hydrogen. Why does the EPA assume the electric car will fuel up on solar or wind power, then pivot to assume flex cars will use gasoline. Why does the EPA assume jungle will be tore down to farm grain for ethanol, then turn heads away from the horrible rare earth mining industry problems for battery car, solar, wind? How about the mercury pollution of typical grid power, yet the focus on fertilizer runoff of farm field. The yearly improvements of the farming and ethanol industry that goes unacknowledged.