Thanks for the response. I'm going to pass it on a little. In Taken For A Ride, by Doyle, it was pointed out that the Oil Companies have some history of coming up at the last minute with new Reformulated gasoline ideas, that will do the trick.
In any event, those of us who have followed the Battery Electric Vehicle efforts in California know that things aren't always what they seem when it comes to trying to clean up the air here, or introduce any technology which threatens the Refiners' and Oil Companies' Integrated Monopolies. I don't disagree with all of Feinstein's points, but on the whole I'd like to see some way toward more use of biofuels in CAlifornia. http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-ethanol03.htm On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:45:50 -0600, you wrote: >Please don't let me get started on her, to my knowledge, she has done more >harm than good in many cases, and an there are a few things she is not >saying in her address. > >1) Her comments were written around May 13, '03, and according to her, she >paid, $50.00 for a tank of gas, well, at $2.00 a gal. that was at least a >25 gal gas tank, that she put the gas into. Little fuel efficient, cars >have fuel tanks in the 12 - 15 gal range or smaller. Vehicles that have >fuel tanks in the 25 gal. ( or more ) range are the larger truck's, van's, >and suv's. > >2) According to comment #3, she is concerned about " Transportation and >Infrastructure Problems ", yet in her home state, is ( from my under >standing ) the largest produce producer in the U.S., and the have big >problems with agriculture waste ( the non-edible ), and she does not seam to >understand ( or she does not want to ) that this non-edible ag. waste can be >feed stock for ethanol ( and methanol for that matter ). > >3) Her argument about a high ethanol tariff in comment #8, is based on >drinkable ethanol, and even if it is not, the tariff could be easily >modified for the use of denatured ethanol for fuel. > >Her comment " Instead of mandating ethanol into our fuel supply, we should >be lifting all mandates or at least allow states a choice. We need to >provide flexibility to refiners to allow them to optimize how and what they >blend instead of forcing them to blend gasoline with MTBE or ethanol. ", >clearly shows her lack of thinking ahead ( or her lack of thinking >altogether ), because if this were to take affect, then gas prices could >very well get totally out of hand just for the simple reason, that if each >state were to have a totally different mandate on what the fuel blends >should do we are looking at a possibility of 50 different fuel blends and >the cost of blending 50 different types of fuel would increase the cost of >fuel over what it would be if there was only a dozen different fuel blends. >There is already a problem with people living near the borders of different >states, crossing state lines to get cheaper fuel, this would only get worse >if the blending of umpteen different fuel mixes, caused even larger >differences in fuel cost. > >"California has long sought a waiver of the 2 percent oxygenate requirement. >I have written and called former EPA Administrator Browner and the current >Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and both former President Clinton and >President Bush, urging approval of the waiver for the state. Yet both the >Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration have denied California's >request." California has not been able to solve it's smog problem in the >past, what makes Feinstein think that they can do it without blended fuels? > >"As Red Cavaney - President of the American Petroleum Institute - said in >March before the Energy Committee, 'Refiners have been saying for years that >they can produce gasoline meeting clean-burning fuels and federal >reformulated gasoline requirements without the use of oxygenates.... In >addition, reformulated blendstocks - the base in which oxygenates are >added - typically meet RFG performance requirements before oxygenates are >added" " Then why haven't they already done so? > >Repeatedly in her speech, she talks about the concern of the environment >with one hand and how ethanol will harm it, and on the other hand talks >about how non-blended fossil fuels will make the environment better. To bad >we can't take the excreatment that she throws around, and put it in a >methane digester, and make biogas from it, maybe then we would have no >world wide shortage of renewable fuel sources, and energy would be as cheap >as she would like it to be. > >Greg H. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "murdoch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com>; ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 04:47 >Subject: [biofuel] Senator Feinstein's (D, Cal) Arguments Against U.S. Ethan >ol Mandate > > >> >> http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-ethanol03.htm >> >> >> >> > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
