Shouldn't the EPA provide alternative fuels at service stations?

Question

If the EPA does not want drilling off the coasts and in Alaska, then why don't they investment in alternative fuel technologies or install hydrogen pumps in fueling stations? Stop preventing and start providing a solution to the problem!

Answer 1

This isn't an EPA issue.. the EPA's job is to regulate pollution, and force (as much as possible) polluters to clean up the messes they make. They also do reports on the environmental impact of various human endeavors, for use by other entities in their decision making process.  

The EPA, as a branch of government, is hardly funded independently .. when you say "they", you're saying "we"... any money they have is taxpayer money, same as the Department of Defense, Department of Education, etc. And while, like most governmental agencies, they're big, they're certainly dwarfed by many other agencies.

And they're not "getting in the way", they're looking out for our interests -- yours and mine, versus the exceptionally well funded interests of Big Business. It's much cheaper to build a thing if you can simply dump your toxic leftovers into the ground and move on, but that's not acceptable to the people moving onto that land next, or drinking the polluted water, or discovering 10 years later they have a dramatically higher chance of getting cancer, etc.

As for oil drilling, today's oil companies already hold existing government leases on some 40 million acres of offshore land they can use for drilling (usually requiring state approval, but NOT EPA approval). They're not building those dereks, they're not drilling... it's not currently seen to be in their economic interest. The whole flack about increased offshore drilling is a grab... the oil companies figure the time is right, with the oil-friendly Bush administration in power still, to grab leases on more of the available offshore land. It's not really in their interest to drill today... after all, oil's at record high prices, but oil companies are at record high profits... ExxonMobile made $40.1 billion dollars profit last year. That's not just good for a company, that's more than the GNPs of 2/3 of the world's countries.

And they could open up some drill sites tomorrow, and it's still going to be something like 10 years before the first barrel of oil is pumped out. The oil companies all know this, and as long as they have cheaper sources to continue their supply, they're not going to do more offshore drilling. But they want the option to do so, whever they like, whenever they like. So this is been made an issue, since most "regular folks" will assume that this could actually have some effect on oil prices over the next 5-10 years... which it cannot. Unless they decide to stick the consumer with the bill for the new dereks, of course...

As for the EPA, basically, it's beyond their charter to do as you suggest. If the government (eg, We the People) decides to get into the alternative energy business directly, this would more like be done under the auspices of the Department of Energy, which is already in the business of funding energy-related research. Of hey, even as government incentives to private industry.

Or why not the Department of Defense... after all, the simple fact that a few poorly run Middle Eastern monarchies  can, at their whim, throw our economy into chaos, should be a really serious security concern for us all. Becoming energy independent, in a sustainable way, is the single best thing we can do to actually defend our way of life. Not only would that eliminate any concern over the dramas of the Middle East, but it would launch a new era of prosperity here, based on all the new technology, just as WWII and the Space Program did here in previous generations.

Getting off petroleum isn't a simple thing, either. It's not just that there are few if any H2 pumps at fueling stations, it's the fact that the tried and true fuel cell stacks use very expensive materials like platinum... consumers would reject $50,000-$100,000 economy cars. There has been work to deliver other FCEV technologies, but it's not a problem you can solve overnight. And IF they did, well, you still have to get the H2 somewhere... H2 isn't really a fuel, it's more like a chemical battery -- you have to put energy IN somewhere to get H2 out, whether that's cracking H2O with electricity, cracking natural gas or methanol (all of which are options). If you wanted to move to cracking sea water from electricity, this would require a doubling of the USA's electric output... just to cover consumer vehicles. Same goes with electric cars, even if they do solve the battery problem (current batteries take at least 15 minutes to "fill up", and would probably have to be replaced every 2-3 years, at a cost of $20,000-$40,000 per car).

This is a big problem, and it's not one that either private industry or government can solve overnight. Escalating this to a "Manhattan Project" scale, however, with government and private industry working together, could very much solve it.

But first we need a President who's not in Big Oil's back pocket.

Answer 2

It isn't the government's job to provide that as a service to the public.  That is up to private industry. What you are proposing is much like a socialist government structure.  

Technology has come a long way, but there are not vehicles that are that far along to be completely move off the use of gasoline or ethanol.    There are hydrogen fuel cell cars in prototype, but they are very expensive.  Once the cost and price of these alternatives become affordable the numbers of them will start to increase.

It isn't the EPA that is preventing it anyway.  It is the environmental lobbyists with a a stranglehold on congressional members that are preventing it.

The oil companies on Neil Cavuto's show said they would trade their current leases in order to get ones that would be more cost effective to drill in.  Also, I believe it was said that it would be around five years, not ten that we get production from those sources.  BTW, they only make 8 cents for every dollar whereas other industries make two or three times that per dollar.  Industries such as beverage companies (soda and water), tobacco, pharmaceuticals, etc.  Not quite the profit the media is playing up, is it?  Do a lot of reading on this because it involves a worldwide fungible market.  Most of their profits are coming from other parts of the world and exploration and production rather than refining and gasoline.

Answer 3

Don't say that too loud or some politician will try to mandate that stations provide other fuels. This would either be at the station's own cost, which will jack up gas prices, or at taxpayer cost. Don't think it couldn't happen.

Drilling and exploration are the best solutions.