Posted on 04/28/2002 8:00:00 AM PDT by Dog Gone
ONCE upon a time, the picturesque university town of Cambridge, England, decided it had too many cars. To remedy the situation, it placed bicycles all over town, free for anyone to use.
The experiment sounded good, but it failed. The bikes were stolen and vandalized.
Sometimes an idea that seems good for the environment doesn't work in the real world. Take the notion of using alternative fuels to increase fuel economy. For years environmentalists and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have grown increasingly strident in their demands that we must have vehicles that get greater fuel economy. At the same time they have been insisting that we replace gasoline with cleaner-burning alternative fuels. Most frequently mentioned are compressed natural gas, or CNG, and liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG.
But the EPA and environmentalists have known all along a dirty little secret: You can't have both. Unfortunately, it's an either-or situation -- either alternative fuels or higher mileage. This is spelled out very clearly in a joint EPA, Department of Energy publication, "Model Year 2002 Fuel Economy Guide." It lists mileage ratings for nearly all American-made and many foreign cars and light trucks sold in the United States.
The numbers are very revealing. A typical example is the mileage ratings for the Ford F-150, for decades the most popular light truck in the country.
According to the EPA/DOE guide, the gasoline-powered version of the F-150 with a 4-speed automatic transmission and 5.4-liter V-8 engine gets 15 miles per gallon in city driving and 19 mpg on the highway.
Same truck, same engine, same transmission, powered by CNG is rated at just 12 mpg city and 16 mpg highway -- 20 and 16 percent less, respectively.
The same truck in a bi-fuel model that can burn gasoline or CNG performs even worse: 11 mpg city and 14 mpg highway. Those are mileage reductions of 27 and 26 percent from the gasoline-powered model.
Mileage takes a big hit in the bi-fuel model built for gasoline and LPG, too: 12 mpg city and dramatically low 13 mpg highway -- 21 percent below the gasoline-powered version.
Automotive experts, such as Robert Brooks of the prestigious auto-industry publication "Wards Engine and Vehicle Technology Update," point out that the poor mileage of these alternatives is to be expected.
In simple terms, they say that CNG and LPG contain less energy per gallon than gasoline and it is the energy contained in the fuel, not just the fuel itself, that moves you down the road. They point out that a similar, though less severe, reduction in mileage is caused by adding the "alternative fuel" ethanol to gasoline.
Dramatically expanded use of ethanol is advocated by both Republican and Democratic leaders, in an effort to appeal to the farm vote. Ethanol is made from corn. The fact remains, you can't have it both ways: It's higher mileage or alternative fuels.
There is a second little secret about these alternative fuels: They come from wells: in many cases, the same wells from which we get oil. Oil that we use to make gasoline. Wells that environmentalists don't want us to drill.
Could the real secret be that environmentalists just don't want us to drive cars at all? No ... to anyone paying attention, that's not a secret.
Randall is director of the John P. McGovern Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at the National Center for Public Policy Research, in Washington, D.C.
If that's the case, how about letting the market make that determination, not government fiat.
So what is a guy advocating more government control doing on a website call FREE Republic?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.