Alternative Fuels and Government Spending
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:46 pm
Over the past few days you may have seen news stories about how the current President is moving more towards Federal fleet use of alternative fuels. It caught my eye because about a month ago I was shaking my head upon seeing something that is already going on.
At least some Federal employees are being told they have to use alternative fuels in government vehicles capable of using them. Usually that means E-85 as there are pretty many flex-fuel vehicles. The employees in question were given the link http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/locator/stations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and told they had to use it to plan their trips so that they'd go to stations that provide E-85. And they are supposed to go out of their way if necessary to do so. They were told there was once the potential for getting exceptions if alternative fuel wasn't sufficiently available but no more.
What this means is that at least some Federal employees are forced to incur substantially greater fuel cost. To begin with, you can see at http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirec ... /index.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that it costs about 11% more to drive a given distance on E-85 fuel than it does on typical regular gasoline because, though E-85 costs less per gallon, it contains only about 75% of the energy per unit volume as gasoline does.
On top of that, the subject Federal emplloyees are required to drive additional miles in order to sometimes go out of their way in order to go to E-85 stations.
In the grand scheme of Federal spending I'm sure it isn't much. But should the Federal government really be pushing an internal policy that will raise fuel cost by something greater than 11% when, at the same time, it's kind of starting to hit the wall after decades of copious over spending?
At least some Federal employees are being told they have to use alternative fuels in government vehicles capable of using them. Usually that means E-85 as there are pretty many flex-fuel vehicles. The employees in question were given the link http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/locator/stations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and told they had to use it to plan their trips so that they'd go to stations that provide E-85. And they are supposed to go out of their way if necessary to do so. They were told there was once the potential for getting exceptions if alternative fuel wasn't sufficiently available but no more.
What this means is that at least some Federal employees are forced to incur substantially greater fuel cost. To begin with, you can see at http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirec ... /index.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that it costs about 11% more to drive a given distance on E-85 fuel than it does on typical regular gasoline because, though E-85 costs less per gallon, it contains only about 75% of the energy per unit volume as gasoline does.
On top of that, the subject Federal emplloyees are required to drive additional miles in order to sometimes go out of their way in order to go to E-85 stations.
In the grand scheme of Federal spending I'm sure it isn't much. But should the Federal government really be pushing an internal policy that will raise fuel cost by something greater than 11% when, at the same time, it's kind of starting to hit the wall after decades of copious over spending?
