Filed under: Ethanol, Flex-Fuel, Legislation and Policy, USA
EXCLUSIVE: Does president Bush know how many flex-fuel cars are on the road?
Recent statements by President Bush about the number of flex-fuel vehicles seem to show a lack of understanding of the market. His mistake could have real policy implications. Lets start with what Bush said and facts about flex-fuel vehicles. In a December 17 press conference, which you can see in the video above, President Bush says "most automobiles are flex-fuel vehicles." According to the EPA website, only 6 million cars are flex-fuel capable, which is a small percentage (around 3) of the more than 195 million cars total. Most sources I read put the number of flex-fuel vehicles at about 1 percent of cars on the road. Considering growth and depending on how you measure it, flex-fuels make up, at most, a few percentage points of the total number of cars in the country, and that's being generous. Either way, characterizing "most" of the cars as flex-fuel is wrong. Here is exactly what Bush said about flex-fuel cars:
Yes. Listen, a couple points there. First of all, the first hurdle to the use of ethanol is to have automobiles that are capable of using ethanol, and most automobiles are flex-fuel vehicles. You've probably -- you've got one and you just don't know it. I mean, you use gasoline or ethanol and the engine works, either way.
Bush's follow up to the statement that most automobiles are flex-fuel vehicles was: "you've probably got one," which again seems to imply a majority of cars can use ethanol and that the lack of cars is really not a problem. Bush does say the number of cars is a hurdle but I think it is fair to ask: Does President Bush know how many flex-fuel cars are on the road? It's possible, when Bush says most cars are flex-fuel, he is talking about the average car's ability to run on E10 (10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline) which, since the mid nineties, most cars are capable of burning. Technically though, these cars are not called flex-fuel vehicles. The real question is: if he thinks the majority of cars can use a high percentage mix of ethanol, does the mistake have policy implications?I think it does. Go below the fold to find out why.
Bush is pushing for 20 percent use of ethanol by 2020 while some say there is already a ethanol glut as production begins to ramp up. The glut is due to a lack of gas stations that pump ethanol and the number of cars (flex-fuel vehicles) that car run on ethanol. The energy bill, which president Bush signed, encourages the use of flex-fuels but Bush has not gone as far as some presidential candidates that say all cars should be mandated to be flex-fuel and every gas station should have an ethanol pump. Did president Bush not push for a flex-fuel car law because he thinks most cars are already flex-fuel capable?
I really hope Bush meant to say "many" instead of "most" and that he is aware of basic facts about flex-fuel vehicles. In the same video above he says "your automobiles are going to get less miles per gallon," when taking about gas taxes, which I think is just a slip of the tongue because other remarks seem to show an understanding of gas taxes. In my opinion though, the way he describes the number of flex-fuel cars, in particular the follow up "you probably have one," seem to show he mistakenly thinks there are many flex-fuel vehicles and I think this may have led to bad policy decisions.
But who cares what I think? I want to know what you think about Bush's statement on the number of flex-fuel vehicles. Do you think his statements reflect a correct understanding of the market or do you think he is mistaken about the number of cars? If you think he is mistaken, do you think this led Bush to not support laws that would mandate all cars be flex-fuel vehicles? Sound off in comments.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
MarkR 11:50AM (12/28/2007)
I think you need to read the statement again. Hes not saying cars are certified by the manufacturer as flex fuel. but hes saying most cars are capable of flex fuel as they are currently built. And on this point I'd agree. All Diesel will run on bioD blends but yet the manufacturer wont warranty it. And other sources I've read say the same thing about gas autos. You can put E85 in most cars and not have a problem, other than the manufacturer voiding the warranty because they didn't intend the car to be used as a flex fuel car. If you are looking for a way to bash Bush go right ahead but you are mistaken in your post. Bushes statement is valid and correct, yours is not. Do the research, or go out and try it.
What you and Bush should do is bash the automakers into backup their regular fleet on flex fuel.
Reply
MarkR 11:59AM (12/28/2007)
Lascelles,
I'll clarify my comment a little, you've slanted the story to make Bush appear to have made an incompetent statement even though you didn't say his statement is incorrect your choice of words makes it appear this is your intent and if it is you have some serious issues.
Reply
MarkR 12:05PM (12/28/2007)
Ok the source may be just as biased as some sources hear that look for ways to bash Bush but never the less heres a link to what I'm talking about.
http://tinyurl.com/2txsp9
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2txsp9
Reply
Rick 12:07PM (12/28/2007)
A recent article showed that most cars do as well or better on ethanol blends between E20 - E50 depending on the model - even though they aren't flex cars. Also bringing in your car for a quick kit fix of under $500. to make it an E85 car would be very doable - if that much ethanol was available.
Reply
kballs 12:07PM (12/28/2007)
Flex fuel vehicles are the emperor's new clothes... at least if you live outside Iowa or Nebraska. On the west coast I sometimes see big guzzling SUVs and trucks with "Flex Fuel" corn logos on them and I laugh, because you can't buy E85, or even E20 out here... but I bet some of the owners feel smug about how they're green and patriotic.
As far as Bush, who knows what he really meant? I bet he doesn't.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 12:09PM (12/28/2007)
MarkR, I was actually going to mention that. I have reported on the ethanol use in normal cars for some time. While, encouraging, I don't think Bush was validating these very early studies. Even if he did, he should have mentioned it's a fringe idea. The EPA does not encourage it and the EPA website says you will fail emissions test. If I included that, you would have probably thought I was bashing Bush even more :D
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/07/can-any-car-use-e85/
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/06/study-non-flex-fuel-cars-get-better-fuel-economy-on-ethanol/
Reply
rick 12:14PM (12/28/2007)
I agree with Mark. For a professional writer, your comments are a paper thin disguise for your opportunistic attempt to take something he says out of context. I think what he was saying is that most cars currently in production are capable of running as flex-fuel.
On the other hand, you could probably go to work for CNN tomorrow with your bias sticking out like that.
Reply
MarkR 1:04PM (12/28/2007)
My question now is how would adding flex fuel to a regular auto cause you to fail emissions? That sounds like a oxymoron. Also, after further reading E85 may be a stretch given it can eat rubber but I'd say all cars could do E10 especially after reading the second page of this article
http://autorepair.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/aa102100a_2.htm
also theres probably a lot of things the EPA doesn't encourage, but it doesn't mean its bad for your auto or the environment. Especially given the latest ruling against Cali. This statement may be GW's way of distancing him self from Johnson. But either way it doesn't make it any less true.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 1:51PM (12/28/2007)
MarkR, I could not tell why. I am not an engineer. I just know what they said. I assume it's because the engine is just not made for that type of fuel and does not burn completely or something. Again, I don't know and I don't think Bus says ignore the EPA or that headline would have made you any happier :D
Also, I am really sorry you and Rick think I am biased and took it out of context but I actually think Bush has a good record when it comes to transport. Even though he threatened veto, he called for increases in CAFE and 20 percent ethanol in 2020 was his idea. He has even said he would have gone further.
I think I made a balanced case and their are things to be concerned about or even change. Maybe this could lead to Bush proposing or supporting all cars be flex fuel? Anyway, the mention is linked in the article but here is the quote anyway.
"E85 & Conventional Vehicles
Consumers should never use E85 in a conventional, gasoline-only vehicle. This can lead to a range of problems, including not being able to start the engine, damage to engine components, illumination of the check engine light, and emissions increases."
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/growandgo/documents/factsheet-e85.htm
Reply
Rojo 3:08PM (12/28/2007)
For the love of all that is unholy we quit splitting hairs and looking for anything to use in the name of denouncing Bush as nothing more than a coke-headed simpleton?
The man boiled it down in the simplest terms possible. "Flex fuel" was used in the most general context, not the 'industry standard' E-85 context. If that was the case, he wouldn't have said, "they call it E90 or something like that" when talking about corn-based ethanol availability in the mid-west. From that statement alone, it's obvious he doesn't equate 'Flex-Fuel' with E-85, as few outside the 'nucular' realm of green-heads would.
His point was that our current (non-diesel) engines are capable of burning ethanol RIGHT NOW, and they ARE.
To further the point I think he was getting at, go put E100 in a mid 90's sedan and the thing WILL run. YES, you will have serious issues much sooner than later, but current engine technology and design are perfectly capable of functioning on ethanol rather than requiring a paradigm shift in vehicle power plant technology, such as hybrids or hydrogen fuel cells. This is proven by current, non "Flex-Fuel" vehicles easily running without issue on a 10% blend of ethanol. That, BY DEFINITION, is 'flex-fuel capable' and is the context in which he used the term.
As far as your view on how Bush 'should start by passing a bill mandating ALL gasoline models sold after X date must be capable of burning E-85,' first that is already possible with simple changes as you pointed out and second, it isn't up to just him to pass the bill. Talk with your congressman/woman and suggest that a bill be passed to set EPA standards requiring ramping-up of all motor vehicle fuel sold in the US to be E-85 or better by X date, and the car makers will follow suit along with the ever-increasing demand.
Reply
Whopper 3:12PM (12/28/2007)
I think Bush has just made my case for me – keep legislators out of engineering! Lobbyists, Congressmen and Senators all clamoring for a solution that benefits their particular constituency is not the way of science. Bush and Congress, for the most part, know only what their lobbyists and advisors tell them. A slanted view at best. Ethanol, hydrogen, diesel or banana oil, the market will decide. And that is the most efficient way.
Reply
Whopper 3:22PM (12/28/2007)
Engines capable of running 10% ethanol are not damaged by higher concentrations. Everyone included a substantial safety factor in their material choices. The EPA doesn't like ethanol/gasoline mixes in older engines because of cold start problems, slower catalytic converter light off and lean missfire during light cruise. The closed loop sensing system doesn't do a good job of adapting to the necessary air/fuel mixture change required by E85.
Reply
GreyFlcn 4:20PM (12/28/2007)
==Ethanol, hydrogen, diesel or banana oil, the market will decide. And that is the most efficient way.==
Except that the market won't decide what the most greenhouse-effective solution if there's no cost associated with it.
Personally I like the "Auctioned Cap-and-Trade" route.
Government sets an emissions cap. And the Market figures out what price they want to pay to emit, or otherwise reduce.
Much more effective than a Taxes, where you have Government making huge assumptions about the market, and ends up with a big pile of money for the government to waste on fashionable money pits like hydrogen, biofuels, nuclear, and coal sequestration. And ultimately might not even result in reduced emissions.
Reply
PJD 4:29PM (12/28/2007)
Thanks Whopper for some real "facts" about the issues. I too saw some of the coverage about running higher ethanol blends in non-flex rated vehicles, but knew that there were some important factors not discussed, which you have mentioned. While some cars undoubtedly have an extra margin beyond E10 before the engine controls, emission system or fuel hoses would start degrading/failing, it would be a mess trying to introduce some national intermediate blend (E20-E30) since no one would know whether they are trashing their emissions profiles or eating away their hoses. Unless of course they were driving flex rated and then they might as well go E85.
I wouldn't give any pass to Bush if he were referring to a possible capability to run fuel through a car for which it is not tested/rated.
However, anyone ever thought that maybe Bush was tailoring what he said to the particular audience to which he was speaking? I think there is a much higher percentage of flex vehicles in the models that are aimed at middle states... no?
Reply
Baldguy 6:47PM (12/28/2007)
Converting to E85 can cause an emissions test failure depending on how it was done - both the test and the conversion. There is (now) an "emissions legal" conversion kit available, but at the time of the EPA statement there was not. Also, much of the country does not have emissions testing to a level that would detect it. Most places outside of California use an OBD-II port test and possibly a visual inspection; no tailpipe sniffing. As A result, Running E85, if done properly, would not cause an emissions test failure.
20% ethanol use does not require anything more to be done as far as flex-fuel vehicles. Across the board 10% ethanol use combined with E20 and E85 use can easily accomplish it.
I do find it interesting that in the same paragraph you say that flex fuel vehicles total some 6 million out of some 195 million vehicles and also say that flex fuel vehicles account for less than one percent. Six out of 195 is about 3 percent. IIRC ethanol use a couple years ago is about 6-8%.
Furthermore, all cars since the mid-to-late 1980's are required to be able to run at least 10% ethanol, and most make it to E20, the recommendation. So he is in fact correct in the context of what was said.
The thing you need to know is that Bush does not write his speeches. Reagan was the last one to write most of his speeches, and the last to write his own at all (according to the biographies). A writer should know these things and not use a speech as an opportunity to slam Bush when the likelihood Bush wrote that speech is only slightly less minuscule than the likelihood I wrote it.
Reply
PJD 9:24PM (12/28/2007)
Baldguy... could you elaborate on your statement "most make it to E20, the recommendation." I was under the impression there were only two classes of vehicle those which manufacturers state will work with E85 (flex-fuel) and those that are not (only recommended for use with E10). Is there some other source of info showing vehicles which can go to E20 but not E85?
Not sure I agree with the rationale that it's ok for a president to be sloppy with info in a speech just because he wasn't the one to write it. The accuracy of the info still significantly reflects on the leader and public face of the White House. Not that I'm coming down on one side or the other as to what was meant or whether it was misleading... I just don't buy the pass the buck argument.
Reply
Paul 4:09PM (12/31/2007)
OMG just when I was hoping he wouldn't.... What a completely incorrect, stupid statement by Bush. Does the fact there are atoms comprising gasoline and metals make our cars 'nucular' also?
There are amost no true "Flex-Fuel" sedans (that burn E-85 Ethanol) being sold today, save for a few Chrysler Sebring V-6s (and their Dodge versions), Chevy Impala V-6s, one or two Mercedes sedans, and I think the Lincoln Town Car V-8. The rest are a handful of pickup trucks, one or two Chrysler/Dodge minivans, and I think a Mazda and Ford pickup. No 4-cylinder vehicles sold today are Flex-Fuel capable.
And no -- "E-10" (10% ethanol/90% gasoline) capability (all gasoline vehicles sold today) does not mean a car is a "Flex-Fuel" model. That's just ridiculous. Use E-85 in a standard E-10 vehicle and you risk destroying the fuel system. The higher alcohol content in E-85 is damaging to plastics, some metals and seals, and other internal parts. E-85 models use materials that can resist damage from the fuel. Also, Flex Fuel models have special fuel sensors, larger fuel injectors, and unique computer programming that adjusts the combustion process to account for burning E-85. Standard cars lack this and risk damage and poor performance and higher, illegal levels of tailpipe emissions.
If Bush wants to do something good, he should start by passing a bill mandating ALL gasoline models sold after X date must be capable of burning E-85. The cost to buyers is generally miniscule, at most a hundred or so dollar per car.
Reply
rollsplit 12:01PM (1/02/2008)
Hey author, if every speech, comment, and statement that was made by you was done so in front of a camera, you would probably make some mis-statements too. I wouldn't try to read too much into what Bush did or didn't say.
Do we really know what effect running cars on the road today at E20, E30, or E40 blends would have? There have not been sufficient studies. Everybody just repeats the same talk that it will make fuel system components more brittle and void warranties. How do they know? One study for the American Coalition for Ethanol (certainly they are not biased right? ;) show actual increases in fuel economy in non flex fuel vehicles at E20, E30, and E40 levels, depending on the make and model. In another study, they ran a non flex fuel Chevy Tahoe over 100k miles on E85 and then dissected the engine and fuel system. It showed no adverse wear. The point is, that these were actual studies and they can help to bust some myths out there. The first myth being that you always will get worse fuel economy with ethanol and the second that a regular old car can't run on anything higher than E10. Blender pumps need to be more widely available all over America. If that were the case, Americans could begin to reduce their petroleum consumption in their exsiting cars (without having to buy a new car.) Heck, what percentage of cars on the road are still under warranty anyways, and what percentage of warranty claims are actually approved? Those manufacturers often find a way to deny anyways.
I have an 87 Honda with 235000 miles on it. As soon as there is an E85 pump in my region, I'm going to begin to run it on more ethanol. Darn, I'd better be careful, I'd hate to make those fuel lines brittle.
Reply
Whopper 1:59PM (1/02/2008)
rollsplit,
I would find any study, by the American Coalition for Ethanol or others, that indicates a mileage improvement with ethanol use, to be suspect. On a volume basis there is less energy available in ethanol than gasoline. Therefore, with all else being equal, the engine must burn a greater volume of ethanol to generate the equivalent power.
The use of ethanol would permit a higher compression ratio (or increased turbo-supercharger boost) but then we've changed some basic engine parameters.
Back in the '60's GM used water/ethanol injection on certain turbocharged engines to prevent detonation. They abandoned this quickly because the consumer could not be depended upon to be certain this additional fuel container was maintained.
Reply
rollsplit 4:58PM (1/02/2008)
Whopper,
I think you may be running into trouble when you say "with all else being equal." The results I referred to are from an actual study, not just verbage from folks who think that lower BTU per unit must equal lower fuel economy. There are a heckuvalot of things going on in an automobile so "all else is not equal." That is why further studies should be performed to discredit or verify this one. Don't just sit there and say something must be so. The study I refer to was performed for ACE by the University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center along with the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research. Surely they could be in the pocket of ACE, but maybe they aren't... they do have their professional reputations at stake. Check it out at
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/ACE_Optimal_Ethanol_Blend_Level_Study_final_12507.pdf
Reply