Monday, May 15, 2006
Promoting Alternative Fuels or Buying Votes?
The Governor was at it again, promising more wealthfare to firms in Pennsylvania. He plans to ask the legislature to bestow $30 million on firms in the alternative fuels industry over the next six years. The goal, he claims, is to reduce the state’s dependence on foreign oil while encouraging the production of ethanol based fuels in the Commonwealth.
While there are currently no firms producing ethanol in the state, they are already lining up, hat in hand, to accept this largess. Evidently it is not profitable to open such a plant on its own merit, but with a government subsidy, it just might work. If not, these firms can always ask for more handouts.
Keep in mind that ethanol has not been a proven replacement for gasoline. The National Ethanol Vehicle Association notes that cars running on the fuel get lower fuel efficiency while the cost per gallon ($2.69) is not much lower than the current price of gasoline ($2.89). Few vehicles are equipped to handle the new fuels and there is only one station in the Northeast. Will the state begin subsidizing the cost of ethanol stations as well?
Even the Sierra Club sees this for what it is—pandering to the hysteria of higher gasoline prices. As their national press secretary notes, “(w)e couldn’t possibly produce enough ethanol to make up for all the oil we use because there isn’t enough space to grow the crops to make it.” Furthermore it takes large amounts of fossil fuels to produce and process the crops needed to make ethanol.
The money for this program, from the fuel tax paid at the gas pumps, will be diverted from research and development that encourages the use of natural gas in vehicles. Could it be that this alternative fuels agenda will succeed where the other one failed? If the governor wants to help drivers in Pennsylvania, this money would be better spent on badly needed infrastructure repairs such as on roads and bridges—as the gasoline tax was originally intended. Of course in an election year, helping drivers is not as important as helping one’s own reelection campaign.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06131/689204-85.stm
While there are currently no firms producing ethanol in the state, they are already lining up, hat in hand, to accept this largess. Evidently it is not profitable to open such a plant on its own merit, but with a government subsidy, it just might work. If not, these firms can always ask for more handouts.
Keep in mind that ethanol has not been a proven replacement for gasoline. The National Ethanol Vehicle Association notes that cars running on the fuel get lower fuel efficiency while the cost per gallon ($2.69) is not much lower than the current price of gasoline ($2.89). Few vehicles are equipped to handle the new fuels and there is only one station in the Northeast. Will the state begin subsidizing the cost of ethanol stations as well?
Even the Sierra Club sees this for what it is—pandering to the hysteria of higher gasoline prices. As their national press secretary notes, “(w)e couldn’t possibly produce enough ethanol to make up for all the oil we use because there isn’t enough space to grow the crops to make it.” Furthermore it takes large amounts of fossil fuels to produce and process the crops needed to make ethanol.
The money for this program, from the fuel tax paid at the gas pumps, will be diverted from research and development that encourages the use of natural gas in vehicles. Could it be that this alternative fuels agenda will succeed where the other one failed? If the governor wants to help drivers in Pennsylvania, this money would be better spent on badly needed infrastructure repairs such as on roads and bridges—as the gasoline tax was originally intended. Of course in an election year, helping drivers is not as important as helping one’s own reelection campaign.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06131/689204-85.stm
