re: "“Engel (NY) #73
The amendment to title IX would require new vehicles to be capable of operating on alcohol fuel, such as ethanol and methanol, and a range of other vehicle technologies.”

My questions about this are:

1) At what cost?

2) How is the cost absorbed?

3) Does this bias new vehicles to use "alcohol fuel", thus creating a demand for this fuel, which could become, in a real sense, an artifact of the legislation itself?

4) Are alcohol fuels a realistic solution for a large percentage of vehicles - (i.e., other than special use vehicles?)

So, my initial response would be "No". I'd be interested in others' opinion.

re: "Shimkus (IL) #23
“The amendment to title X mandates certain volumes of Alternative Fuels each year, including; renewable fuels, qualifying coal-derived liquid fuels, and fuels derived from biological materials, including natural gas, biogas, and others. In the year 2013, the motor vehicle and nonroad fuel sold or introduced into commerce in the United States would be required to contain 14 billion gallons of Alternative Fuel. By 2025, the applicable volume would rise to 35 billion gallons.”
YES: Prefer market driven, but better some than none to prepare for Peak Oil." (endquote)

Likewise, as the price of oil rises and/or shortages develop, the cost of so called "renewable fuels" will also rise.

As far as I can tell, the analysis shows only a small percentage of current gasoline use can be replaced by "alternative fuels".

Coal-derived liquid fuels - a good idea? It doesn't seem to be.

Do these measures only worsen the impact, if what we really need to do is to develop electricity-based transport?

I could see something along these lines with the qualification that such conversions be for special-use vehicles only: firetrucks, etc.