Gas Prices

[meangreendork]

Everything Rick Said.

I read somewhere that most vehicles have optimal fuel efficiency between 50mph and 65mph, and that on most smaller cars, once you pass 2500rpm, you get a drop in fuel efficiency. Think that one over.

[UNTflyer]

When all is said and done, the 3 most immediate and economically viable answers are:

1. More drilling

2. More drilling

3. More drilling

[KingDL1]

One of the reasons I bring up fuel economy and how people drive is from my very own experiences. I drive slowly, at or just under the speed limit. Anyone of you who has ridden with me to a game knows this. I "grandpa" it all the way and it drives everyone nuts but it's just how it is with me. The guys I work with make fun of me about how they blow by me all the time driving in to the firehall. But I stay in the slow lane where I'm suppose to be. But every vehicle I've owned, GT Mustang(High Performance), Chevy Pickup, Ford Expedition, and now a very heavy Ford F150 and the parents suburban now and then, all of these vehicles matter greatly in how you drive them as to how much mileage you get.

Remember the Arkansas State game in 1989-90, in Jonesborro? I made that trip in my GT. It's Borg-Warner T5 transmission had a hell of a 5th speed overdrive that allowed you to travel at low RPM's, and instead of hauling ass, weaving in and out of traffic for 7 hours I drove 55 mph all the way and got 25 MPG. Two of our three trips to New Orleans we got 23 MPG in the wife's Ford Expedition on the trip down driving 60 to 65, by slowly getting up to speed and maintaining that in between stops. When I got back from the first time I took the thing straight to the dealership to find out what kind of rearend it had(fearing I had gotten some kind of screwed up order than what I was suppose to have) because I couldn't believe that mileage was possible. The Dealership didn't believe me either, but it was true. Then my current F150. The main knock on this truck was that even though it was heavy and safe, it had horrible gas mileage ratings. Some consumer websites had people telling how they were only getting 12 to 14 MPG in a new truck. Then I found out what people were calling "Egg Shell" driving supposely was making a difference. Luckily my truck came with the optional 3:55 gears instead of the 3:75. I started to try the "Egg Shell" driving, meaning drive it like you have an Egg Shell between your foot and the accellerator(Which I already did anyways). When I can do it safely, I get up to speed slowly while merging onto the highway and stay at that speed throughout. I don't break hard because I leave more than enough room between me and the car ahead of me. I don't change lanes and rarely have to down shift to pass because everyone else is blowing by me going 10, 15, 20 or more MPH over the speed limit so I can stay the same speed during my entire commute. In doing this I immediately started to get 17 to 18 mpg. Before any trip I change the air filters of course. And during two trips to New Orleans and last years' trip to Fayetteville I got 19.6 mpg. Ask anyone who has an F150 and they'll tell you that's absolutely impossible. But it's not.

Sure, it's not 35 to 40 mpg that some compacts get. But it'll do so much more because it's a 4x4, has a 10,000 lb tow rating, carry more people(the entire tribe comfortably, very comfortably) and carry a hell of a lot more cargo so that I can get all the needed tailgating supplies to and from the game and most importantly, do all of this SAFELY.

Rick

Hell yes slowing down and speeding really destroys your mpg that is for sure, my old 87 Mustang GT conv made its best gas mileage at just over 80 mph with the curse control on with anticipation we at time made almost 30 mpg driving to and from NY. (You can beat the cruise control if you drive like Rick said "egg shell" and do what a cruise can't "anticipate") We drove a 84 Suburban to South padre every and its best gas mileage was around 70 mph our best ever and it was heading south so down hill a bit we managed 26 mpg out of that old Chevy 350. I did a report on this in college and at the time some of the Japanese sports cars achieved their best gas mileage around 90 mph. So speed is not always the problem but maintaining it and doing slow anticipated changes is huge. And Like Rick said I do always change my air-filter before a big trip as well as my oil and I think it is very important I inflate my tires right to their PSI Rating on the side wall, not what the car manual states, that really has nothing to do with the tires on your car unless they are still factory tires. (And even then I learned that lesson well, tires know best)

But this crappy gas has much to do with it also, please stop adding ethanol to my gas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[meangreendork]

When all is said and done, the 3 most immediate and economically viable answers are:

1. More drilling

2. More drilling

3. More drilling

'

I'm kind of a green-side person myself, but yeah, more drilling is in order. The other forms are still in-progress.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

----I have never bought into higher speeds decrease MPG except very high speeds. I did not see any differece in MPG when the limit was 55 than later when it went to 70. It might in some cars/trucks but not in the ones I owned.

---Ethinol is a poor replacement for gasoline. Besides diverting corn/plant production to fuel raises the price of food including grain fed to animals which become food. ... No biofuel please.

--- Price will dictate drilling... there is quite a bit going on but nothing like about 1980 which oil prices collapsed overnight and people in the oil businness went bankrupt along with other people who were located in the oil fields [banks, construction, lumberyards, plumbing companies, etc., could not sell houses even repos after people left the area]. They are much more careful and conservative now after seeing what happened before. This deal looks more permanent as long as the Asian ecomomy continues to expand.

--- Not sure I agree with Rick fully about mpg but I do agree with him about these guys in cities who hit the gas to get to the next red light and just stop are nuts, that really uses a lot of gas for no purpose. Just getting there slower gets down the road just as fast and uses less gas than quick accelerations and speeding into stoplights...just coast.

Edited April 27, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[meangreendork]

----I have never bought into higher speeds decrease MPG except very high speeds. I did not see any differece in MPG when the limit was 55 than later when it went to 70. It might in some cars/trucks but not in the ones I owned.

I googled it just to be sure.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

The idea makes sense. In short, past a certain point, to keep your vehicle moving at a given speed will demand more power and thus more fuel from your gas tank to maintain a given speed. Even the human body works the same way. In terms of calorie efficiency, if you take in 2000cal a day, and you don't do much, you're getting poor efficiency from your 2000cal/day intake. Then if you do a "perfect" amount of physical labor in a given day that makes perfect use of your intake (without having to take in more than 2000cal without eating more to keep you powered), then you're getting optimal efficiency. However, if you do a huge amount of work one day that demands you have a huge meal when you get home and then it makes you want to sleep an extra 3 hours the next day, then you're beyond that "perfect efficiency" point.

So, for most cars, the "sweet spot" on the speedometer is in the range of 40-60 mph. Cars with a higher road load will reach the sweet spot at a lower speed. Some of the main factors that determine the road load of the car are:

* Coefficient of drag. This is an indicator of how aerodynamic a car is due only to its shape. The most aerodynamic cars today have a drag coefficient that is about half that of some pickups and SUVs.

* Frontal area. This depends mostly on the size of the car. Big SUVs have more than double the frontal area of some small cars.

* Weight. This affects the amount of drag the tires put on the car. Big SUVs can weigh two to three times what the smallest cars weigh.

In general, smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic cars will get their best mileage at higher speeds. Bigger, heavier, less aerodynamic vehicles will get their best mileage at lower speeds.

There's math in the article that explains a good amount of it. You also have to take into account that up until a certain point, it's not really a noticeable impact on your fuel efficiency. If it's going about 70mph, you may have a little less travel on your tank of gas since the difference is probably only a few percent. Start driving at 90mph and you'll definitely notice something besides the black&whites trailing you down I35.

[KingDL1]

I googled it just to be sure.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

The idea makes sense. In short, past a certain point, to keep your vehicle moving at a given speed will demand more power and thus more fuel from your gas tank to maintain a given speed. Even the human body works the same way. In terms of calorie efficiency, if you take in 2000cal a day, and you don't do much, you're getting poor efficiency from your 2000cal/day intake. Then if you do a "perfect" amount of physical labor in a given day that makes perfect use of your intake (without having to take in more than 2000cal without eating more to keep you powered), then you're getting optimal efficiency. However, if you do a huge amount of work one day that demands you have a huge meal when you get home and then it makes you want to sleep an extra 3 hours the next day, then you're beyond that "perfect efficiency" point.

So, for most cars, the "sweet spot" on the speedometer is in the range of 40-60 mph. Cars with a higher road load will reach the sweet spot at a lower speed. Some of the main factors that determine the road load of the car are:

* Coefficient of drag. This is an indicator of how aerodynamic a car is due only to its shape. The most aerodynamic cars today have a drag coefficient that is about half that of some pickups and SUVs.

* Frontal area. This depends mostly on the size of the car. Big SUVs have more than double the frontal area of some small cars.

* Weight. This affects the amount of drag the tires put on the car. Big SUVs can weigh two to three times what the smallest cars weigh.

In general, smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic cars will get their best mileage at higher speeds. Bigger, heavier, less aerodynamic vehicles will get their best mileage at lower speeds.

There's math in the article that explains a good amount of it. You also have to take into account that up until a certain point, it's not really a noticeable impact on your fuel efficiency. If it's going about 70mph, you may have a little less travel on your tank of gas since the difference is probably only a few percent. Start driving at 90mph and you'll definitely notice something besides the black&whites trailing you down I35.

That is a very generic article and there is much more to then just that, aerodynamics, engine design, gearing, the best balance between torque and engine load. I assure you my overdrive in my mustang sputtered at 45 mph and at 80 mph it turned around 2000 rpm. Engines in some cars with good aerodynamics will go much faster at their sweet spots where they are most efficient. I have seen a car by car comparison they best gas mileages is all over the place, and very surprising.

[greenminer]

As nit-picky as ya'll are, I think we need a longer off-season to work this doosy out.

Put football talk on hold so we can find gas mileage efficiency sweet spots.

[FirefightnRick]

----I have never bought into higher speeds decrease MPG except very high speeds. I did not see any differece in MPG when the limit was 55 than later when it went to 70. It might in some cars/trucks but not in the ones I owned.

But who's doing 70 or less? 70 mean's 80, 85, 90 plus. Does that constitute "very high speeds"? I'd say so.

Other than increasing the splatter upon impact factor, and less control just before it happens, THE speed is less of a concern as far as fuel mileage. It's WHERE the actual speed is occuring that makes it the concern. Some places you can drive 90 mph and never have to let off the gas. Mostly other places, especially in the suburbs and city, you can't. I live in rural Parker County and drive into western Tarrant county on across to the east side of Fort Worth and everybody out here, especially the morons pulling horse trailers, have convinced themselves they can drive 90 mph plus the entire commute between point A and point B, and that's just not going to happen. They speed up to as fast as they can, whatever it is in the fast lane, then have to break when they come up on someone doing 3 mph less than them. Then gun it to swerve into the middle lane, getting it up to 4800 rpm's and 95 mph in order to pass someone doing maybe 75 mph(which is 10 over the posted maximum speed), then they get past them, swerve back into the inside lane until they come to the next pair of tail lights, then break......etc...etc...etc all over again for 35 to 50 miles. Then they complain their Chevy 3500 3/4 ton pickup is only getting 14 mpg? I see it every third day as I'm sure most of you see it EVERY DAY. But the fuel mileage certainly doesn't stop them from driving like that. At some point you would think people would wake up and leave early and take it easy during their commute and save some of that fuel, but they just won't.

Rick

Edited April 27, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[FirefightnRick]

In referring back to one of my posts http://www.gomeangreen.com/forums/index.ph...0374&st=43#

Here's what I was referring to about Ford responding appropriately with the '97-2003 F150. Click on the photos below.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=7

This is the IIHS's laboratory result of their 40 mph frontal, off-set crash test for this truck. There are a lot of these vehicles still on the road including one in my family and I have asked her to please consider getting rid of that POS. Look at how the cab completely lost all integrity upon the impact. That is absolutely pathetic. The frame of this truck was a badly designed "C" channel backbone. It recieved one of the worst ratings(Poor, all across the board) by the IIHS of any vehicle(of any make or model) made during this time. The Chevrolet 1500 series still utilizes a "C" channel frame by the way and recieved a "Marginal" rating(Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Poor). But after seeing the results reported and hearing the complaints Ford responded to completely rebuild this truck and started with implementing the largest box channel frame in the 1/2 ton truck industry. Here's the results of the new truck in '04.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=192

In '04 this truck set the standard with a "Good" rating. I'm willing to bet that the driver's side door could still be opened with little effort, the rear passengers door for sure. There was hardly any buckling at all.

That's no "Illusion", that's safety. Which of the two trucks would you prefer to be in?

Rick

Edited April 28, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[UNTflyer]

'

I'm kind of a green-side person myself, but yeah, more drilling is in order. The other forms are still in-progress.

Especially after this study was released...

167 BILLION barrels of oil in North Dakota

[GoMeanGreen1999]

----I have never bought into higher speeds decrease MPG except very high speeds. I did not see any differece in MPG when the limit was 55 than later when it went to 70. It might in some cars/trucks but not in the ones I owned.

I have a guy I work with that used to work in the auto industry, and he told me that I would notice a difference between driving 55 - 60 in my Honda Accord than I would at 70. He also told me, having studied as a Mathmatician that due to all of the stop and go's of normal driving, most people will get to their destinations at the same time if you drive 60 or 70 and you will also avg. more per tank of gas at 60 than 70. So, I tried it out, and I can get 30 - 40 miles per tank of gas going 55-60 than I can driving 70, I feel my car runs better at the lower speed, and I get to places at virtually the same time others who race past me do.

[HoustonEagle]

Especially after this study was released...

167 BILLION barrels of oil in North Dakota

Hey UNTFlyer, what is your field in the Energy Industry? I personally work for Amerex Energy brokering Electricity and Nat. Gas derivatives.

I agree with you, there is plenty of oil out there. Expensive oil to capture but it is there. That does not contradict the peak oil theorist as these reserves have been accounted for in most models. All I can say to those that do not like high energy prices is you better get used to it and plan accordingly. Crude is due a short term correction but lets get real people. We can correct to 80bbl but the long term trend line is still intact. I understand high prices are hard on people now but markets do indeed work. The technologies that are required to help us out of our long-term energy problems need high prices to get a footing. High prices are the problem but they are also the solution. In the mean time we will all be taking a big hit in the wallet.

I actually love this conversation and have a lot more to add but this thread is already quite long.

Just one more thing. There is no mass conspiracy. Speculators in the end cancel themselves out. They do not cause long-term trend lines to form they only exacerbate short-term price movements.

Edited April 28, 2008 by HoustonEagle

[UNTflyer]

Hey UNTFlyer, what is your field in the Energy Industry? I personally work for Amerex Energy brokering Electricity and Nat. Gas derivatives.

I agree with you, there is plenty of oil out there. Expensive oil to capture but it is there. That does not contradict the peak oil theorist as these reserves have been accounted for in most models. All I can say to those that do not like high energy prices is you better get used to it and plan accordingly. Crude is due a short term correction but lets get real people. We can correct to 80bbl but the long term trend line is still intact. I understand high prices are hard on people now but markets do indeed work. The technologies that are required to help us out of our long-term energy problems need high prices to get a footing. High prices are the problem but they are also the solution. In the mean time we will all be taking a big hit in the wallet.

I actually love this conversation and have a lot more to add but this thread is already quite long.

Just one more thing. There is no mass conspiracy. Speculators in the end cancel themselves out. They do not cause long-term trend lines to form they only exacerbate short-term price movements.

I prefer not to say who I work for, but I work in the transportation sector of the energy industry. And since I'm just an IT geek, I'm sure you know more about this than I do. It is my understanding that peak oil production is based on current technology. This article about the 167 billion barrels in North Dakota acknowledges that they can only get a little over 2 billion right now, and that it is the 2 billion number that the USGS uses for its analysis.

You are right about speculators. When the prices correct, a lot of these people predicting $200 oil and $10 gas will get burned.

But think about that find... 167 billion barrels would sustain the U.S. for 22 years.

Edited April 28, 2008 by UNTflyer

[HoustonEagle]

I prefer not to say who I work for, but I work in the transportation sector of the energy industry. And since I'm just an IT geek, I'm sure you know more about this than I do. It is my understanding that peak oil production is based on current technology. This article about the 167 billion barrels in North Dakota acknowledges that they can only get a little over 2 billion right now, and that it is the 2 billion number that the USGS uses for its analysis.

You are right about speculators. When the prices correct, a lot of these people predicting $200 oil and $10 gas will get burned.

But think about that find... 167 billion barrels would sustain the U.S. for 22 years.

Well, peak oil theory is often thrown about like it is some mad science when the truth shows that Mr. Hubert's model has been used many times over on a nation to nation basis and been quite accurate. In a nut shell you are just looking at the rate at which diminishing production is being replaced by new reserves. When relating to the peak oil theory one must ask is this a new find or was it already accounted for in potential or proven reserves. The vast majority of news articles are detailing the "discovery" of oil that was already accounted for. The oil companies have done a tremendous job of mapping the globe for potential and proven reserves and thus to get a big "new" discovery is rare. This is why news of these findings (remember the Brasil find recently) are not having a huge impact on the forward pricing curve of crude. They were already accounted for or the amount of recoverable oil is minute compared to the size of the discovery.

The easy oil has been found. We are becoming more and more dependent on the difficult reserves. That means high prices are necessary to make it economical to bring this oil to market. Think about this....the largest oil field (Ghawar) was discovered in the 40's. It produces over 5% of world production and is in decline. North Sea production is in decline, Mexican production is in decline, Canadian production is in decline (not counting tar sands and shale) and now Russian production is suspected of being in decline. We are replacing these fields with expensive reserves in the form of deepwater drilling, tar sands, oil shale. The days of filling up your tank with 1 or even 2 dollar gas are gone folks. Still all that means is that world will become more efficient and will keep on spinning.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

The easy oil has been found. We are becoming more and more dependent on the difficult reserves. That means high prices are necessary to make it economical to bring this oil to market. Think about this....the largest oil field (Ghawar) was discovered in the 40's. It produces over 5% of world production and is in decline. North Sea production is in decline, Mexican production is in decline, Canadian production is in decline (not counting tar sands and shale) and now Russian production is suspected of being in decline. We are replacing these fields with expensive reserves in the form of deepwater drilling, tar sands, oil shale. The days of filling up your tank with 1 or even 2 dollar gas are gone folks. Still all that means is that world will become more efficient and will keep on spinning.

Well said...and I agree with what you stated in your earlier post: these rising prices are going to be what will eventually force us (and the market) to begin to heavily shift to alternative sources of fuel and energy - solar, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, nuclear, food trash, cow farts, hot air coming from SMU fans, Quoner's raw homo-erotic desires, etc.

I too have faith that everything will work out in the end.

[Cerebus]

HoustonEagle is right, peak oil is not a crackpot theory. Cheap oil is gone.

25% of all the oil used in history has been used in the last ten years. That is nothing compared to what is going to happen when China and India ramp up, and start having some sort of middle class.

Also, I don't even think most people fully realize the impact of oil. I bet most peoples life are more affected by petroleum based plastics rather than gasoline.

It's impossible to package/ship anything, build 80% of the things you use every day, etc without oil. Just think of the nightmare keeping a operating room sterile would be without petro based plastics.

[meangreendork]

I'm sure someone can educate me on this...

...what about synthetic crude?

[yyz28]

That is a very generic article and there is much more to then just that, aerodynamics, engine design, gearing, the best balance between torque and engine load. I assure you my overdrive in my mustang sputtered at 45 mph and at 80 mph it turned around 2000 rpm. Engines in some cars with good aerodynamics will go much faster at their sweet spots where they are most efficient. I have seen a car by car comparison they best gas mileages is all over the place, and very surprising.

Agreed. I've got a similar car (Z28 w/ 6 speed)

Sweetspot is north of 70MPH. Engine is darm near idling at 60 in 6th gear.

Power + Gearing have a lot to do with that equation. This is why under computer control many V8's today can achive mid to high 20's milage on the highway.

[yyz28]

I have to disagree with you on this to a point. Ethanol is not the only answer and any evironmental scientist worth his pocket protector will tell you that in order for the US energy needs to become self sustaining, it will take a combination of solutions: ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, solar, wind, geothermal, etc., etc. But, from the research I've done, ethanol and biodiesel are the closest right now to providing a reasonable alternative to petroleum for our transportation needs. Hydrogen has a ways to go (at least 20-30 years by some estimates) until it is cheap and efficient enough to be a viable alternative. Until that time comes, ethanol might fill a key role.

Switchgrass is a very common plant that can be grown almost anywhere and does not require alot of water, so you wouldn't have to really touch any current farm land if the logistics were planned out and controlled properly (which is difficult in a free market economy). I recently read an MIT article about bacteria that are being developed to be able to turn plastics and rubber (trash) into ethanol. Here is the link for anyone interested...alot of geekspeak thrown around, very interesting:

Bottom line is that none of alternatives have been able to match petroleum...yet. But its great that a big push is being made after almost a century of relative inactivity in non-petroleum transportation research.

I fully agree with you on this!

I saw the following article and thought of your response and this thread. What follows is an opinion piece by our Senior Senator from Texas, but it is a compelling and even headed case. I don't know if it adds to this debate or not, but it is interesting reading:

Undoing America's Ethanol Mistake

By SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON | Posted Friday, April 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once said, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

When Congress passed legislation to greatly expand America's commitment to biofuels, it intended to create energy independence and protect the environment.

But the results have been quite different. America remains equally dependent on foreign sources of energy, and new evidence suggests that ethanol is causing great harm to the environment.

In recent weeks, the correlation between government biofuel mandates and rapidly rising food prices has become undeniable. At a time when the U.S. economy is facing recession, Congress needs to reform its "food-to-fuel" policies and look at alternatives to strengthen energy security.

On Dec. 19, 2007, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act. This legislation had several positive features, including higher fuel standards for cars and greater investment in renewable energies such as solar power.

However, the bill required a huge spike in the biofuel production requirement, from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012 to 36 billion in 2022.

This was a well-intentioned measure, but it was also impractical. Nearly all our domestic corn and grain supply is needed to meet this mandate, robbing the world of one of its most important sources of food.

We are already seeing the ill effects of this measure. Last year, 25% of America's corn crop was diverted to produce ethanol. In 2008, that number will grow to 30%-35%, and it will soar even higher in the years to come.

Furthermore, the trend of farmers supplanting other grains with corn is decreasing the supply of numerous agricultural products. When the supply of those products goes down, the price inevitably goes up.

Subsequently, the cost of feeding farm and ranch animals increases and the cost is passed to consumers of beef, poultry and pork products.

Since February 2006, the price of corn, wheat and soybeans has increased by more than 240%. Rising food prices are hitting the pockets of lower-income Americans and people who live on fixed incomes.

While the blame for higher costs shouldn't rest exclusively with biofuels — drought and rising oil costs are contributing factors — the expansion of biofuels has been a major source of the problem.

The International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that biofuel production accounts for between one-quarter and one-third of the recent spike in global commodity prices.

For the first time in 30 years, food riots are breaking out in many parts of the globe, including major countries such as Mexico, Pakistan and Indonesia.

The fact that America's energy policies are creating global instability should concern the leaders of both political parties.

Restraining the dangerous effects of artificially inflated demand for ethanol should be an issue that unites both conservatives and progressives.

As a recent Time cover story pointed out, biofuel mandates increase greenhouse gasses and create incentives for global deforestation.

In the Amazon basin, huge swaths of forest are being cleared to meet the growing hunger for biofuels.

In addition, relief organizations are facing gaping shortfalls as the cost of food outpaces their ability to provide aid for the 800 million people who lack food security.

The recent food crisis does not mean we should entirely abandon biofuels.

The best way to lower energy prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, is to accelerate production of all forms of domestic energy.

Expanding biofuels while refusing to take other measures, such as lifting the ban on oil and natural gas production in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf, is counterproductive. We should be tapping into a broad portfolio of energy options, including clean coal, nuclear power and wave energy.

The key is increasing energy supply. By taking these measures, we can enable biofuels to be part of the energy solution, instead of contributing to the energy problem.

Congress must take action. I am introducing legislation that will freeze the biofuel mandate at current levels, instead of steadily increasing it through 2022.

This is a common-sense measure that will reduce pressure on global food prices and restore balance to America's energy policy.

As the Senate debates this issue, we must remain focused on the facts.

At one point, expanding biofuels made sense for America's energy security. But the recent surge in food prices has forced us to adapt. The global demand for energy and food is expected to rise about 50% in the next 20 years, and the U.S. is well-positioned to be a leader in both areas.

That will require a careful, finely tuned approach to America's farm products.

By freezing the biofuel mandate at current levels, we will go a long way to achieving that goal.

Hutchison is a member of the Senate Republican leadership and the senior senator from Texas.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

I saw the following article and thought of your response and this thread. What follows is an opinion piece by our Senior Senator from Texas, but it is a compelling and even headed case. I don't know if it adds to this debate or not, but it is interesting reading:

Undoing America's Ethanol Mistake

By SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON | Posted Friday, April 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT

I have to agree with most of what she said (which is hard to say for a Dem like me). I agree the mandate should be scaled back, but I would like to see them put more funding into biofuel research.

And something else that bugs me to no end is that everytime an article comes out attacking ethanol, they are only discussing CORN and GRAIN ethanol and complete skipping over CELLUOSTIC (sp?) ethanol. I agree that corn ethanol is only a very temporary fix and I believe (based on what I've read so far) that we will start to see a shift away from this type of ethanol within the next few years. I would have like to seen Hutchison briefly address in her editorial the great promise this type of ethanol holds once the research and technological advances are more complete.

[yyz28]

I have to agree with most of what she said (which is hard to say for a Dem like me). I agree the mandate should be scaled back, but I would like to see them put more funding into biofuel research.

And something else that bugs me to no end is that everytime an article comes out attacking ethanol, they are only discussing CORN and GRAIN ethanol and complete skipping over CELLUOSTIC (sp?) ethanol. I agree that corn ethanol is only a very temporary fix and I believe (based on what I've read so far) that we will start to see a shift away from this type of ethanol within the next few years. I would have like to seen Hutchison briefly address in her editorial the great promise this type of ethanol holds once the research and technological advances are more complete.

Research should be free-market driven, not mandated. Nobody really knows what "great promise" other types of ethonol may hold. We thought great things about corn and grain based ethonol before we put it into practice, now it's creating a world wide disaster.

[UNTflyer]

Research should be free-market driven, not mandated. Nobody really knows what "great promise" other types of ethonol may hold. We thought great things about corn and grain based ethonol before we put it into practice, now it's creating a world wide disaster.

Agreed. Market forces will create solutions far better and more efficiently than government mandated research.

[Coffee and TV]

Agreed. Market forces will create solutions far better and more efficiently than government mandated research.

The space race disagrees with your assessment.

[UNTflyer]

The space race disagrees with your assessment.

Only because by law all space flight was to be approved and managed by NASA. That was lifted, I believe, in 1990.

Since then the promise of commercial space flight is being fulfilled not by government, but by private companies.

Edited May 1, 2008 by UNTflyer