Will requiring flex-fuel capable cars free us from foreign oil?
Robert Zubrin thinks so. Zubrin is an aerospace engineer and long-time advocate of manned missions to Mars. While going to Mars is a highly dubious proposition given the issues we need to deal with on our planet right now, making all gasoline engines flex-fuel capable as Zubrin promotes in his new book is probably a very good idea. The incremental cost of flex-fuel capability is only about $100 per vehicle and that would provide the ability to use any alcohol fuel including methanol and butanol. The corn ethanol that we use today will make little if any dent in our oil imports. Cellulosic ethanol, methanol and butanol do hold a lot of promise, though. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and his wife, Helen Smith, have an interesting interview with Zubrin on their podcast that's worth a listen. Some of Zubrin's arguments for using alcohol fuels are a bit over simplistic and ignore some of the pitfalls associated with them. That includes draining fields of nutrients if all the leftover material is converted to fuel. Alcohol fuels are unlikely to free us from oil dependence on their own, although they can make a dent. What they can really do is help diversify energy supplies and domestically produced fuels can also help to fund research into other renewable energy sources. What we really need to do, however, is find different ways to reduce our total consumption of energy while maintaining our current lifestyles. Let the flames begin!
[Source: Instapundit]
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 3)
Julius 4:15PM (1/02/2008)
I would think that the simplest way to affect that lifestyle change is to develop a progressive carbon tax. This would be something that will actively discourage consumption - rather than just promoting conservation - and affect that "painful change" in a more direct and transparent way than legislative mandates & bans.
naggs 4:27PM (1/02/2008)
yeah, a carbon tax is the only real solution
good luck finding a politician willing to mention that let alone a majority who will pass such a program. i cant even imagine how bad it would have to get for republican senators to vote for a carbon tax.
seoultrain 4:12PM (1/02/2008)
"Some of Zubrin's arguments for using alcohol fuels are a bit over simplistic and ignore some of the pitfalls associated with them."
Would you expect any less from someone who thinks we should send people to mars?
Reply
Slim5819 4:35PM (1/02/2008)
I for one, want humanity to still exist 500 million years from now and we won't unless we get started settling other worlds.
JimboNC 5:30PM (1/02/2008)
If we can't save gas we can make better use of it!
Everday there are tens of thousands of people who need a ride to doctors and shopping. They don't drive and have no way to get to places. There are local service providers for medical appointments using small buses, but sudden health problems, like a tooth ache or something similar, do not happen on schedule. And they are afraid to call a taxi.
Those current service providers require calling 30 days in advance.
What IF...people could call a local service which connects drivers with the people who need a ride? A housewife or businessman is going to a certain part of town, they call the agragator provider and ask if anyone has requested a ride?
It could be that simple and provide a great service to many especially the elderly.
Reply
Pete 4:31PM (1/02/2008)
"The corn ethanol that we use today will make little if any dent in our oil imports.
Cellulosic ethanol, methanol and butanol do hold a lot of promise, though."
You morons must have missed this little blurb...
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 4:33PM (1/02/2008)
I think it's important to have flex fuel vehicles not because we are going to use a lot of ethanol, but because then we could in theory do so. Having that implied competitor to gas will help keep speculative and real gas prices down. It also means if OPEC turned the taps off again (like in the 70s), we could still move cars around, even if it cost a lot to do so.
Also, once there are a lot of vehicles out there than can burn ethanol, companies have an incentive to try to develop better ethanol production methods that do make sense (unlike current ones)
Reply
Laddy 4:57PM (1/02/2008)
I'm in central IL, 20 miles from ADM, the largest ethanol producer if I'm not mistaken. I also have an E85 vehicle. I also live on a farm that produces corn, some of which goes into ethanol production. Do I purchase E85 for my vehicle? No. Would I like to? Of course, when it becomes economically feasible to do so. When I purchased my vehicle, there was a 50-60 cent spread between regular unleaded and E85 when gas was $2.00-$2.25 per gallon. I burned E85. That spread is now considerably reduced with E85 being only 20-30 cents below regular (10% ethanol) gas. Given the somewhat decreased (10% based on my experience) gas mileage from burning E85, the spread is insufficient to cause me to search out E85. Even here in the corn belt, E85 stations are few and far between. I do not see how it's possible to produce enough ethanol to make a difference, even with importing from South America. It's also questionable whether ethanol even saves energy. Why not open the Alaskan reserves and refine the oil shale in the west. I think we have more oil shale reserves in the west than the Saudi reserves. Saskatchewan and Alberta are both flush in oil/tar sands and have huge reserves they are currently exploiting. The oil reserves are there, they just need to be exploited. They won't be unless and until there is economic incentive for doing so. As long as free flowing oil is available from the Middle East and elsewhere without increased production costs, that's where oil will be produced. There is some pragmatic value in not using up one's own reserves unless necessary.
Reply
sydbot 9:38PM (1/02/2008)
News Report: Nail Hit On Head!
At some point Americans are going to have to get over not utilizing our own resources and start going after fossil fuels within our own borders. And it had better happen quick! By developing more internal engery production, we lessen our need to import energy and the while keeping more money in the States. People complain about these two things (the flagging economy and energy dependence) but do not realize what we have here in our backyards. So everyone, pull the collective thumb out of our bums and start digging!
JD 5:03PM (1/02/2008)
Hell no! It will require a huge political and economic change to move our country away from foreign oil. As long as we are working with a petroleum based economy we will be dependent on foreign oil. It will take a massive change to stop that. And it won't happen any time soon.
Reply
naggs 7:02PM (1/02/2008)
its is going to have to get real bad before real change can come about
i dont even want to think about it, too depressing
Midnight 5:36PM (1/02/2008)
JD is right! What we really need is some tough love. Pick one: higher gas tax, carbon tax, mandated timed driving permits, below 22 mpg vehicle sales tax, E5, E10, B5, B20, walking, etc. Radical solutions for radical state of consumption.
Reply
Mallory 6:03PM (1/02/2008)
Every little bit helps.
The problem is that the real cost of oil is not fully understood by those that consume it. The cost of oil includes everything from the cost associated with dealing with the resulting pollution to our tab for the various middle eastern wars. If all that was piled onto the cost of a barrel of oil (instead of in tax money) then we'd find a way off of it real quick.
Using a quick napkin calculation, we import somewhere around 730mbd from the middle east and the latest Iraq war has cost us ~$480 billion. That comes to about an extra $650 per barrel for the year to get us back even, and that doesn't even include all the other things. That also assumes the war ends today but you get the idea. On the other end of the scale, oil from Canada would be significantly less since we don't have to kill quite as many people to get it, but either way the true cost would be reflected in the price.
If Americans had to pay $750 per barrel of middle eastern oil, or may $200 for oil from Canada, I doubt there would be any shortage of viable alternatives available.
Reply
Mike 6:34PM (1/02/2008)
If E85 were actually something meant to reduce our appetite for petroleum, Detroit would be putting E85-capable engines into the SMALLEST POSSIBLE cars, i.e. something like a 3-cylinder Geo Metro. In other words, a vehicle that could get the most out of each gallon of alcohol.
At present, a 3.5 liter V6 is the smallest E85 engine you can get from GM. It costs Detroit next to nothing to adapt an engine to E85 (this article says $100, I've read $50 elsewhere). This is a MUCH better bargain for them that making real changes to their product line in regards to fuel economy: it gives them brownie points from the EPA while continuing to build precisely the high-profit 5,000 lb. vehicles they would prefer to build (not to be confused with what Americans would find appropriate when faced with higher fuel costs).
Reply
Jimbo 7:00PM (1/02/2008)
I'd love to see something like this. There are E85 stations all across MN, including 4 in my town, and it is up to $1/gal cheaper. It would be nice to have more of a selection in vehicles to take advantage of it.
naggs 7:23PM (1/02/2008)
i would argue that putting flex fuel capability on the highest volume engines (3.something liter V6s and truck v8s) would have a greater combined effect that selling fewer smaller engines.
MikeW 1:57PM (1/03/2008)
I'd like to see the Impala with the 2.8 'high feature' V6 coupled to the 6t45. 210hp with dual rear mufflers, and great mileage.
and the 3.6 HO V6, 270hp, coupled to the 6t70 would be plenty fast.
Or how about GM adding direct injection to their 2.4 ecotec. (they have it on the turbo 2.0) A regular fuel direct injection engine would be more appealing than their current premium fuel port injected engine.
Ethanol is such a red herring, but since it costs nearly nothing to add compatibility, there really isn't any downside to adding the capability and not using it.
The rental companies should be demanding it in the event that someone fills up the tank with E85.
Richard Warren 6:12PM (1/02/2008)
In answer to the question:
NO
Reply
Golferal 6:13PM (1/02/2008)
I have a flex fuel Tahoe, but there is no cost benefit to use Ethanol fuel. In fact, there is a penalty because the mileage is about 20-25% worse than when using regular unleaded. Edmunds confirmed with a real world test.
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/article.html
One could argue that making a decision to use ethanol based only on the efficiency and total cost is missing the point, but things usually come down to dollars & cents. Until there is an improvement to the infrastructure, E85 is little more than a way for GM to satisfy some BS government quota or qualify for some tax credit. There's no real world benefit.
Reply
motorman 9:20PM (1/02/2008)
when they optimize the compression ratio to take advantage of the 105 octane of E-85 some if not all of the reduction in MPG will go away. the compression ratio could be as high as 13:1 or more so we need more E-85 stations so this can happen