Filed under: Economy, Green, Tech
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)
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.
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 LS2LS7? 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
JimboNC 5:30PM (1/02/2008)
Changing lifestyles can be as simple as changing habits. I see it everyday when drivers leaving shopping centers try to make left-turns across busy four-six-or-eight lane thuroughfares holding up other drivers who have sense enough to make right-turns followed by left-turns at the proper time to go in the opposit direction. And it's the safe way to avoid an accident.
I see it at bank drive-thru teller stations when drivers sit with their engines running. If the wait takes longer than 4-minutes turn them OFF, with fuel injection you save gas.
Either THEY change their lifestyles or somebody will change them in other ways not to their likeing.
Reply
naggs 7:04PM (1/02/2008)
turning off you engine when in line and courtous driving are one thing, but those are the easy things that are drops in the bucket
those are not examples of the real change that will become necessary sooner or later
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
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
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
MikeW 10:12PM (1/02/2008)
Never going to happen.
What happens when you don't use E85, or E70.
You can find 100RON fuel in Australia. Shell puts 5% ethanol into their 98RON fuel, and they get two extra points on the RON scale.
The cornbelt gets 10% ethanol (shell quotes 3.5% loss in mileage for their 10% ethanol 'petrol') and gets nothing, no gain in AKI, only a fleecing in the wallet.
It is about time the US gets 86, 90, 93AKI gasoline grades.
E70/85 will be a turbo engine novelty at best.
http://www.motec.com.au/pdf/fueltest.pdf
Hopefull a decade newer car will start under -10F using E70
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/taurus.pdf
95AKI gas, nice.
http://www.shell.com/static/au-en/downloads/vpower/vpower_racing_tds.pdf
Steve 6:14PM (1/02/2008)
There are so many things that could be done, but they are more difficult than just mandating higher CAFE standards, so our politicians just don't get them or find them policitically impossible (aka, thinking limited to the time before the next election rather than long-term sustainability):
- higher gasoline taxes (make people think about their purchase decisions and incent the purchase of smaller cars)
- higher registration fees based on fuel consumption or carbon footprint (same as above)
- optimized roads/traffic signals to keep traffic moving instead of idling (optimize the infrastructure we currently have)
- incentives for companies to stagger working hours so that rush hour congestions could be reduced (I actually remember that Kmart HQ in Troy, Michigan did this years ago to placate concerns about traffic in the local city)
- Increased used of technology to let more people work from home (heck, they were predicting this 20 years ago and it hasn't happened)
- incentives to buy homes closer to work (today, the incentives are reversed as it's usually easier to buy homes way out in the exurbs in order to take advantage of mortgage tax deductions and homes closer to city centers are out of reach financially... especially here in Northern CA) How about a state tax credit if I can show that my home is
Reply
naggs 7:18PM (1/02/2008)
i hate when it cuts me off
anyways, the problem regarding long commute distance and time is really a problem of centralization. everyone wants to live close to where they work but few can afford to. why is it that everyone needs to work in the same place? why are unrelated companies all crammed into business districts of a few square miles? why does everyone go the same way to work and the same way back? why do all these companies make the same decisions knowing that it will be to the detriment of the wellbeing of their workforce? it certainly doesnt cost less to have your office building downtown than it would to have it somewhere slightly more rural.
all these stupid zoning regulations that go back decades are now biting us in the ass.
centralization is the problem, you see it when you realize that the head of lettuce traveled 2500 miles to get to your grocer because the Omni Corp that owns the grocer has a deal with ACME lettuce who produce 30% of the lettuce on earth and just happen to be located in florida.
there are dozens of ways that centralization rears its ugly head and we all pay the hidden cost
why not the LS2LS7? 2:04AM (1/03/2008)
I hear yah on a lot of this stuff. But head to China (or many Oriental countries) and check out what an unzoned city is like. Many Americans just aren't ready for that.
Steve 6:18PM (1/02/2008)
continued, I got cut off:
tax credit if I can show that my home is
Reply