AutoblogGreen

Haven't read the book, but if I'm interpreting the headline correctly, I am really mystified how one can arise at the conclusion that if every vehicle in the US were flex fuel we'd no longer be dependent on foreign oil.

To elaborate, the US consumes abount 20 million barrels of oil per day, and of this 12.5 million barrels are imports.

The US transportation sector consumes about 13.8 million barrels of oil per day, and of this, approximately 13 million barrels of oil are used to make gasoline and diesel fuel for all the cars and trucks in America.

Since 13.8 mbpd is still greater than 12.5 mbpd, then technically speaking,there would still have to be imports into the US. Not to mention the fact that domestic oil production is waning, flex-fuel vehicles by their very definition still require 15% gasoline, means that we would have even a greater reliance on foreign oil imports than I've alluded to above.

Not a complete fix, but I do applaud Zubrin's vision.

Reply

BioPower. We are forgetting Biopower. Make those engines optimized for ethanol and down rated for gasoline fuels. E100 or E85 both have octane numbers above 100 compared to 87 for unleaded regular. Give me a 12:1 compression ratio engine and I will find the ethanol to burn in it. SAAB is selling these engines in Sweden. Bring 'em over here!!

Reply

Screw that, nobody's gonna make me put alcohol in MY electric car!

Reply

Mr Zubrin is getting a little exuberant about a very problematic fuel. If you use the statistics from the Iowa corn growers association, do a few calculations including an energy return on energy invested of somewhere between 1.1 and 2.0 (which are also on the Iowa corn growers site), you come up with an area somewhere between one half the area of the United States including Alaska to an area many times the United States depending on assumptions.

Cellulosic ethanol MIGHT happen and we might find a way to do it economically but right now it is still experimental...it takes a lot of energy to break up the cellulose and lignin to turn it into alcohol, so energy return is still problematic as well as cost.

If the marginal cost is $100 it makes sense to plunk it into vehicles...maybe the equivalent of having run-flat tires, can get you out of a pinch by pouring so grain alcohol into your tank.

Plug-in hybrids are a lot more promising and maybe these could have flex fuel capacity too on their range extenders/internal combustion engines.

Reply

In my comment above I meant to say an area half of the US or greater planted in corn with the productivity of Iowa...which could and should never happen for a whole bunch of reasons.

Reply

"...if I'm interpreting the headline correctly, I am really mystified how one can arise at the conclusion that if every vehicle in the US were flex fuel we'd no longer be dependent on foreign oil."

I haven't read it either, but I think his point is that if all vehicles were flex-fuel capable, there would be more demand for domestic fuels, especially if they are cheaper, so then it would work itself out. Once the infrastructure was in place, domestic fuels could easily compete and allow us to be be independent from foreign oil. I think that's a bit of a leap, considering the current lack of sources and the liquidity of oil prices (pun intended, I suppose) but it is within the realm of possibility.

Still, forcing all manufacturers to make new ICE vehicles to be flex-fuel via legislation is wrong in principle.

I like Zubrin, but if that indeed is the ultimate action he is proposing, I'll vehemently oppose it. Not only is it a move into 'pinko' land by once again making the elected government attempt to control everything directly, it's entirely self-defeating in the long term as we will then remain dependent on combustible fuels, which as we all have seen, remain unfairly fixed by the producers, clean or no.

No, you ramp up taxes on imported oil (perhaps Mr. Zubrin suggests this as well) to first drive demand for domestic fuels, which would increase demand for flex-fuel vehicles capable of burning them. One part of the extra tax money would go into subsidies for domestic alternatives' infrastructure. The pump gougers with 10-digit bottom lines would have to move internally to compete and meet demand. Then, another chunk of Uncle Sam's jingling pocket would go into R&D for alternative (read: clean) energy generation. The aforementioned gas companies would also be wise to open their very deep pockets to assist in developing and maintaining those new energy sources. Finally, and I usually save the best for last, the rest of that new tax money would offset 100% tax breaks for the vehicles using no 'gas' at all: pure EVs, hydrogen, compressed air, etc. Give that a decade and lets see how much (burned) fuel is used *at all* in this country.

But, that route would of course be very unpopular with the masses because we would have to pay first. No one likes more taxes so it would never fly.

Reply

Even if we accomplished his goal, there still wouldn't be enough domestic raw plant material to fill the fuel tanks.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png

We could try desperately to import it all, but then we're back where we started. And ultimately those other countries would buy the Middle East oil instead of the US.
http://greyfalcon.net/dilbert2.png

So we'd still be importing all our fuel, and OPEC would still continue to get their money. Radically changing the status quo to stay effectively exactly the same.

_

Frankly, this whole "Domestic Fuel" rhetoric is just a lead-in for increased use of tar-sands, oil shale, heavy oil, and coal-to-liquids. Of which, we have more than enough to meet our demands, but it has the catastrophic side effect of emitting orders of magnitude more greenhouse emissions. (With of course the impractical caveat of "someday we'll use sequestration and make it green")
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy

Reply

You guys really should read the book.. If nothing else, it would limit the number of red herrings been thrown about here in the discussion.

1)Zurbin states in his book, that we CAN NOT grow all this fuel domestically. On the contrary, he advocates we drop these silly tarrifs we have against Brazilian ethonal and other third world country agricultural products. His point is simple: instead of sending billions to the middle east, we should be sending that money to the third world farmer.

Now i know many of you have a reflex negative reaction to the thought of increased 3rd world agriculture (cries of "de-forestation!) -- Don't do it.. Lots of fantastic farmland in Africa that's not being efficiently managed. Same goes for Latin America -- in fact, if we can help these people invest in the kind of Ag technology we have in the states, they can be just as efficient as we are, if not more so. Without the de-forestation so many of us worry about. And here's the kicker, With well managed farms sprouting up across the globe, the amount of C02 sucked up by these super farms will be far greater than the sum currently being absorbed by the fallow dusty mess we create with our mis-guided tarrif policies.

And Zurbin isn't at all in "love" with corn ethanol. The guy is literally a "rocket scientist", he knows a thing or two about fuel. You'd be surprised at how numerous the avenues are en rout to alcohol based fuels.

Just read the friggin book before you throw away the "good" in your search for the "perfect".

Reply

Even if we were to lump in all of Africa and South America thats still not enough.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png

Which then we get into the territory of opportunity costs.

Putting a $100 doo-dad on cars is one thing.

Trucking in huge massive gargantuan quantities of vegetation from South America and Africa is quite another.

Especially with all the sewage and processing pollution that would leave in it's path.

_

Raising fuel economy, or shifting to electric would be a far more sound policy solution.
(And that actually would be "domestic")

Especially considering for a "rocket scientist" he seems to fail basic macroeconomics if he thinks OPEC would simply fold if 1 country (And only 1 country) were able to stop buying from them.

They were fine with only $10 a barrel just a few years ago. The chances of the price of oil dropping by more than a factor of 10 is near impossible.


_

==the amount of C02 sucked up by these super farms will be far greater than the sum currently being absorbed by the fallow dusty mess we create with our mis-guided tarrif policies.==

That is of course, a bait and switch.

Since the carbon isn't actually "sequestered" in the same context as coal sequestration.

And in the process you make lots of CH4 and N2O, which are orders of magnitude more potent than CO2.

Agriculture is anything but "greenhouse neutral"

Reply

I seem to get the feeling, that this guy really doesn't give a crap about benefiting society.

It's like he has some dogmatic "WE MUST KILL OPEC" approach, rather than trying to deal with anything practical like "We need to increase domestic security" or "We need to stop global warming".

Sounds like more of a hyper-vigilance nutjob, as opposed to anyone we should take seriously.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/18/zubrin.htm

Reply

GreyFlcn...

How does the idea of "killing Opec" not "increase domestic security"?

Second point: Calling Zurbin's "super farm argument "bait and switch" doesn't make it so.

How would using fallow land to actually grow stuff lead to more greenhouse gasses? It would take a hyper-anti-agriculture-cynic to make such an argument. Ohh... Never mind...

Lastly, do i take it that you are in favor of Coal to Liquid CO2 sequestration? Or was that just a bad faith argument? Classic "bait and switch"?

Honestly, we're just throwing the Co2 arguments out there for the "greenhouse cool-aid" crowd. The idea of "sequestration" doesn't move me either way seeing as how even the "greenest" old growth Amazon tree belches out a Ginormous amount of CO2 and methane once it dies/decomposes -- Where exactly is the "sequestration" in that?

I guess GreyFlcn, you'll prolly include me in your ("Doesn't give a crap about benefiting society/naughty list") because I don't share the exact same reasons as you do for ending fossil fuel consumption.

Reply

One last thing:

I'm actually in favor of going the electric rout too. But that's my "perfect world" scenario. I'd much prefer to see our ag subsidies go into battery subsidies. as far as "mandating" all cars be "flex fuel", it does rub my libertarian instincts a bit raw, but in the end, I don't see how "mandating" more fuel CHOICE for our vehicles could be a bad thing. Right now, we have no choice.

Why not make all the cars flex fuel, and let the "market" decide how to fuel them instead of coming up with a million negative scenarios on why it would never work? Like Zurbin says, flex fuels are but a temporary solution, it's the only one we have until electric finally takes hold.

Thats it, I'm done.

Reply

Maybe I am missing something. I thought all cars could accept E10 without modification. And, according to recent information, from ABG and elsewhere, modern gasoline powered engines could accept E20 with no problem.

So, with no modification necessary you could reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. transportation sector significantly, as well as reduce dependency upon foreign oil. And, the amount of ethanol coming from domestic sources would improve balance of trade. So at least a "three-for", which is why even the dirty energy bill might help if Big Oil would accept rather than continue to resist adoption of the lower blend.

Reply

==How does the idea of "killing Opec" not "increase domestic security"?==

And how does America stopping buying oil from OPEC kill them?

They were fine with 10$ a barrel just a few short years ago. Now it's 100$ a barrel.

Even if America completely cut off all of it's oil imports from there it wouldn't make much difference compared to that.

And China, India, Europe, Latin America would be sure to pick up the slack in just a few short years.

So whats the point?

Reply

==Lastly, do i take it that you are in favor of Coal to Liquid CO2 sequestration? Or was that just a bad faith argument? Classic "bait and switch"?==

Me, I favor changing our cars.

Starting with honoring the second law of thermodynamics.

That means diesels, hybrids, aerodynamics, lightweighting, whatever it takes.

Ultimately though the shift should be towards getting off of liquid fuels entirely.

(Except for those few niche applications where liquid fuels are required, such as aircraft, ships, and military)

Reply

I agree with him. We need plug-in hybrids with range extenders that can use gasoline, ethanol, methanol, or butanol. No single things is the answer to independence. Diversity is. Our cars need to be omnivores, not susceptible to shortages of any particular energy source.

Reply

Why is energy independance the ultimate goal to begin with?

The goal is dealing with global warming.

If it weren't the goal, then all we'd need to do is just liquefy coal and be done with it.
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png

Which largely is the whole goal of this "Energy Independence" rhetoric.

Since frankly anything which can cheaply and easily liquefy raw biomass, can also cheaply and easily liquefy coal. Since Coal is Biomass.
http://greyfalcon.net/cellulosics

_

As for Zubrin, this guy figures we "must" also be colonizing Mars.
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Robert-Zubrin/dp/0684835509/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

Can we really expect this guy to be practical?

Reply

Wow GryFlcn. I thought I was the only one engaged in falacial argumentation..

You repeatedly claim that Zurbin wants to "kill" OPEC. (as if this goal was somehow undesirous).

In fact, he doesn't want to "Kill" OPEC. He wants to limit their ability to manipulate prices.

Your second strawman, is basically some mis-leading rhetoric along the lines of:""How can ONE country stop OPEC?"" Geee.. "one" country does sound small doesn't it? Except when that "one" country consumes 25% of the entire global oil market..

Now before I continue, I'd just like to make a small confession, I do not think OPEC controls the market as much as Zurbin gives them credit for. The majority of OPEC countries are pumping at full capacity, and haven't demonstrated the discipline necessary to cut back according to Saudi dictats.

However, using your perverse criteria for "giving a crap about benefiting society" as the litmus test for action:: how does taking the trillions we send to bigoted, sexist sheiks in the middle-east and re-distributiing those funds to embattled African/South American farmers not constitute "giving a crap about benifiting society" ??

Bottom line is this, If we were to mandate the flex fuel option for all domestic vehicles, you can bet that the reverberations would not be felt in "just one country"(your favorite phrase). It would affect the entire world. In case you havn't noticed, we still EXPORT a vehicle or two from time to time.

And the stable market we create domestically for alcohol based fuels would also be of some "benefit to society" around the globe.

Now ofcourse, if you believe that ending global warming is the only true "benefit to society" one should pursue, then you will likely be content with continued agriculture tarrifs on developing countries, continued zillion dollar profits for Arabic despots and the continued hijacking of science by UN beurocrats using climat model algorythms that would be rejected by most 8th grade science fair commities.

Me, I'd like to see the price of oil collapse.

That alone would bring more "benefit to society" than you could ever imagine.

Reply

==hijacking of science by UN beurocrats using climat model algorythms that would be rejected by most 8th grade science fair commities.==

So what would it take?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2u4zNGtnY8

Reply

Hello All
Tomorrow Jan 6th 2008 Mr Robert Zubrin Will be on book TV Cspan2 @ 7:30Am. Give him a watch and listen then based on his excellent presentation you will better understand his conceps. Also www.The new Atlantis.com report is good.

Best wishes let work together and good will come about.

Stephen

Reply