Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Allch Chcar

Congressmen promote Open Fuel Standard

Recommended Posts

I couldn't find anything that recently referenced this story, perhaps a repost?

 

Congressmen Promote Open Fuel Standard

 

...National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, outlined their Open Fuel Standard Act (HR 1687) which would set a deadline of 2017 for automakers to stop making cars that run on only gasoline. After than point, all American made cars must be either flex fuel (capable of burning gasoline, ethanol or methanol or any combination of these), or powered by natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric, or fuel cell.

 

Obviously the commentary is eating up the Methanol and Ethanol FFV bit. And I am sure this has been brought up in congress several times already.

 

Is 5 years enough time for this to happen? Chrysler, Ford, and GM have been adding FFVs for awhile now so is that an unreasonable length of a time line? Or perhaps this is simply too far for government to go and therefore just a show a power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the call for methanol.. adding methanol capability is expensive compared to just Gasoline and Ethanol. Clearly "someone" has a financial interest otherwise the methanol nonsense would have ended a long time ago...otherwise good job ..keep pushing to ensure all vehicles are FFVS

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the call for methanol.. adding methanol capability is expensive compared to just Gasoline and Ethanol. Clearly "someone" has a financial interest otherwise the methanol nonsense would have ended a long time ago...otherwise good job ..keep pushing to ensure all vehicles are FFVS

 

I know from reading that in the early 90's OEMs were using E85 and M85 in FFVs. The price to add Methanol compatibility was said to be around $50 onto the $100 for Ethanol compatibility. Obviously, that campaign fizzled out with the price of Oil dropping.

 

I'm morally opposed to it coming back since Methanol fumes and exhaust emissions are outright toxic when burned as opposed to being carcinogenic or simply bad for your health. And the cheapest source is Natural Gas/Methane. But it is an alternative to building special natural gas cars, and then the natural gas users wouldn't be dependent on one fuel source or a small sub-market of vehicles.

 

I would support this bill if only because it is going to get us to a more open fuel market instead of a monopolistic market. I would probably finish reading the bill before actually voting though. The wording could make or break this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the call for methanol.. adding methanol capability is expensive compared to just Gasoline and Ethanol. Clearly "someone" has a financial interest otherwise the methanol nonsense would have ended a long time ago...otherwise good job ..keep pushing to ensure all vehicles are FFVS

 

I know from reading that in the early 90's OEMs were using E85 and M85 in FFVs. The price to add Methanol compatibility was said to be around $50 onto the $100 for Ethanol compatibility. Obviously, that campaign fizzled out with the price of Oil dropping.

 

 

 

Interesting..yeah I knew like the Taurus was methanol and ethanol but always thought the cost to add methanol capability was More expensive because it is so corrosive.  Anyway..yeah It's rather pointless to add methanol to any FFV bill as there aren't any Stations even selling methanol (any real volume )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should be saying no gasoline-only vehicles next year, and that any new ethanol FFV only needs to certify emissions on gasoline, and that if they simply add ethanol FFV capability to an existing certified gas calibration, no further testing need be done.  We all know ethanol emissions are lowered compared to gas, even with your typical backyard conversion.  Why even test it?

 

I also don't understand why they're still even mentioning methanol.  All I can think of is that someone must be making money on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They should be saying no gasoline-only vehicles next year, and that any new ethanol FFV only needs to certify emissions on gasoline, and that if they simply add ethanol FFV capability to an existing certified gas calibration, no further testing need be done.  We all know ethanol emissions are lowered compared to gas, even with your typical backyard conversion.  Why even test it?

 

I also don't understand why they're still even mentioning methanol.  All I can think of is that someone must be making money on it.

 

5 years sounds more reasonable than next year. Although that should have been enacted 10+ years ago IMHO. If we waited for market forces to do it we would be looking at who knows how many years of the same old same old.

 

There isn't a big corporate push for Methanol if that's what you mean.

 

quote=James48843 "It is simple.  The legislation that keeps popping up was originally written in the early 1990's, when people didn't know if methanol was going to be a descent fuel or not. The politicians who are introducing the legislation don't know the difference.  They are simply taking legislation words written 20 years ago and recycling them. 

 

That's all there is to it."

 

Alternative energy is not a new concept and the big players haven't really changed. If anything they're not excluding any single source with the legislation. The only bad part about recycling the old legislation is that it wasn't accepted in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...