toofast

Political Energy Policy Just for Laughs

I think, fundamentally, we are all on the same page. The problem always seems to be, our inability to move forward due to, what I believe are minor differences.
Lets try something.
Let us, those of us that are responding to the article, put together a long term plan.
It will not please everyone but it will be a huge step in the right direction. Just to prove that folks who may differ can assemble a plan.
CNG is the quickest way to a bridge alternative fuel. We need a refueling infrastructure. The EPA certified engines both heavy and auto exist. We could bail out the weak 3 and we, the Government, would dictate where the dollars go. They build CNG vehicles. Ethanol needs to be pushed out in my opinion, but if consensus is that it to is a bridge fuel so be it. It has low BTU, is very corrosive, it is expensive to make and economically, is not the best bang for the buck. In Florida we have mandated 10% ethanol in our gas. I try my best to avoid buying it for our fleet due to is poor performance.
The folks who produce NG, along with the manufacturing entities and some private dollars, UPS and FED EX need a better infrastructure and own the highest percent of CNG vehicles, would be part of a consortium to build a CNG refueling infrastructure.
CNG Vehicles must be operated around a refueling hub because of the limited driving range.
Wind energy is a great way to get 15% or so of our electric energy, is relatively easy to convert power plants, lowers emissions by a large percent, and puts folks to work building the hardware, power grid, and NG lines. We have manufactures of the wind generating hardware in the U. S. A. T Boone's plan frees up NG for vehicle use. The debate over the amount of NG is pointless. We have enough to run a 10 to 15 year cycle to bridge us to..., and the effect on manufacturing CNG vehicles is minimal.
Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Cummins, DDC, John Deer, Cat, all these companies and others have EPA certified engines / vehicles.We missed the opportunity to do this once.
In the mid '80's through the state and FPL, there was a tax credit / rebate for solar power. The solar water heater business grew quickly, and left just as quick when the credit / rebate was removed. It is a no brainer to use solar for one of the highest domestic uses of power. This is a two-for, as it creates jobs and can be be put in place now.
I am interested in the use of a floating fuel tax for retail fuel purchases. It would be used to keep fuel at a more stable price, continue to encourage conservation, and generate dollars.
The technology for plug in vehicles and ways to reduce coals poor emissions are two areas that needs funding. The EPA has not put pressure on the electric companies to move forward with coals emission issues as they have with heavy vehicle / equipment. The diesel engine industry has made huge reductions in their emissions and this technology can be used for power plant emission reductions.
Doing the things we are certain will work is better than doing nothing at all.