GM and E85: Fool's Gold?
Flip, flop. Mandates on the oil industry are bad, mandates on the oil industry are good - that's the position of Hillary Clinton on mandating that the oil industry put E85 pumps in half of America's gas stations. Hillary Clinton, like all good politicians, has learned to stand for votes, rather than convictions. While she has publicly stated that ethanol mandates would hike fuel prices and VOTED against them, now she knows ethanol mandates will hike auto worker votes in her direction. Convictions or votes? Votes or convictions?Despite Hillary's strong convictions, I say, E85 is Fool's Gold for GM. (Full Story)
Labels: Congress, E85, Ethanol, GM, Hybrid Vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
9:12 AM
1 Comments:
Certainly, alternative fuels are a good tool to fight foreign oil dependency, but without more fuel efficient vehicles, E85 will have little effect on foreign oil dependency.
Most important, there simply isn't enough ethanol available today, at least not corn-based ethanol. Eventually, as cellulose-driven ethanol is developed, ethanol might be able to end foreign oil dependency - might. Again, however, without more fuel efficient vehicles, E85 will probably lead to more problems than solutions.
Inevitably, Americans are only concerned with one thing when it comes to fuel, cost. If ethanol makes fuel cheaper, then we'll increase our demand for ethanol. Unfortunately, since America is the world's oil hog, less demand for oil from America will also lead to less global oil demand, and here's the rub, cheaper gasoline.
What if ethanol, which burns less efficient than gasoline, costs $2.25 per gallon and gasoline drops to $2.00 per gallon? Which will Americans choose? What if the disparity is even greater?
Automaker or Energy Company?
Ironically, Republican oil-man, President George Bush, is now a harsher critic than Hillary Clinton when it comes to U.S. automakers. Bush told Detroit to build more "relevant" vehicles. Yet, Detroit seems to believe they ARE building more relevant vehicles. The problem isn't gas-guzzlers, it's the oil industry, and now Hillary seems to agree.
America doesn't need hybrid cars, it doesn't need more fuel efficient vehicles, it just needs E85.
Let's get real. Why is GM focused on fuel, rather than automotive technology? Isn't GM an automaker, not an energy company? Does GM really believe that E85 will put a Hummer in every driveway?
Cheaper energy always leads to greater consumption in America, which is why fuel CANNOT be the answer to America's energy problems. Additionally, bad weather, such as hurricanes, might not just be an issue for oil disruptions. Bad weather, such as drought, could cause huge problems for ethanol supplies as well. If E85 simply leads to slightly cheaper fuel and slightly less foreign oil consumption, but greater overall fuel consumption, such a drought could cause massive fuel price spikes - for BOTH oil and ethanol.
Perhaps ethanol could provide a temporary fuel price reduction, but it will not solve any long term problems, especially for GM, and it could cause far greater problems if fuel efficient automobiles are not included in the mix. In terms of competition, Honda and Toyota can also make flex fuel vehicles, including flex fuel hybrid vehicles. Inevitably, some day, GM has to truly address the fuel efficiency of its automobiles.
Fool's Gold
E85 is not GM's solution. Better automotive technology should be GM's focus. For years GM has been making flex-fuel vehicles for CAFE credits - even when there were no ethanol pumps. If that was enough incentive then, then it's enough incentive now.
Congress, and hopefully Hillary Clinton, should focus on giving Detroit incentives to build more, much more, efficient vehicles. That is the business of automakers, is it not?
Incentives for ethanol, or even mandates, are an issue for Congress and energy companies.
Post a Comment
<< Home