Robert Zubrin talks about requiring all cars to be flex-fuel capable
Robert Zubrin has new book on gaining petroleum independence by switching from imported oil to alcohol fuels. He wants Congress to require that all new cars and trucks built be flex-fuel capable. There's an interesting interview done by Glenn Reynolds and Helen Smith on their podcast. Zubrin certainly makes a good case that all new vehicles should be built with flex-fuel capability. More importantly, he wants to make sure that vehicles can run on any alcohol, including methanol or butanol. It certainly makes sense to have all gasoline engines be capable of running on alcohol fuels. The marginal cost of producing the vehicles is only about $100. The problem lies in the fuel. While Zubrin argues that the U.S. could become completely independent of foreign oil by using alcohol, the reality is far from that simple. Certainly corn ethanol will not get us anywhere near total independence. While cellulosic ethanol holds a lot of promise there are other potential issues. Some of the potential materials that would be used as feed-stocks are currently left on fields and forest floors to decay and replenish the soil. Using those materials to produce fuel would potentially degrade the ability of soils to grow future crops. Using methanol and butanol definitely provide additional fuels that could come from other sources than food crops. Some of Zubrin's arguments seem a bit over-simplified (and don't even get me started on his anti-hydrogen arguments) but the interview is thought-provoking nonetheless.
[Source: Instapundit, thanks to Alex for the tip]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Reuben D Shepek 3:18PM (6/26/2008)
I noticed in a recent speach Senator John McCain advocated the greater use of Flex Fuel. I think we all need to get behind him in this effort.
Reply
Reuben D Shepek 5:08PM (6/29/2008)
i noticec Senator John Mc Cain recently advocated Flex Fuel. We all need to get behind him on this matrter.
Reply
George S. Makovic 3:27PM (6/28/2008)
I read the book. Studied his charts and graphs. Even my token college chemistry could gave me a feel for his formulations.
My conclusion is that Mr. Zubrin has a bullet-proof and practical plan that shold work better than the fortuitous Brazilian experience. Despite the overwhelming negative comments submitted to this site, I find no downside to his FFV market based approach. Thank you Robert Z.
Reply
Bob 2:53PM (7/08/2008)
It's certainly true that 13.8 million is more than 12.5 million. But if 13.8 million is how much we use, and 12.5 million is how much we import, the math dictates not a net import, but a net surplus of 1.3 million. If we can produce all the automotive fuel we need, there's no need to import any. Even if we can't produce it all, getting it from stuff that grows gives us a wide choice of supplier.
I don't like mandates either. In many cases they are used to force people into doing something that they would do on their own, if it were a good idea. There are some cases, though, in which market forces don't work as well as regulations. Here are a few:
Pollution - some people care enough about the air quality that they'll pay more for a car that pollutes less. But most people won't, because the person who pays for the cleaner car isn't the one that gets the benefit. It only works if everyone has a cleaner car, and that can only be done by requiring it.
Bumper height - should we let market forces decide this? Every car would be different, and bumper wouldn't meet when cars collide. The standard had to be enforced externally.
The problem with leaving something like fuel choice to the market is that nobody wants to be a pioneer, losing money for the sake of society. I don't want to pay more for a car that can use a fuel I can't buy, and gas stations don't want to install pumps designed to fill cars that don't exist. Break that cycle with a regulation, and you can achieve something great. Especially as the cost is so little, it seems like a very low-risk action. Including flex fuel in a new car costs less than air bags or seatbelts or anything else that's already required.
I hope my next car will be a flex-fuel pluggable hybrid, that can run on natural gas, ethanol, methanol, or gasoline, and while we're at it, I want filler caps on both sides of the car. :-)
Reply
Dan Cohen 9:20AM (7/20/2008)
Reading though these comments it seems only a small number of you have actually read the book. If everyone had read the book only half of these comments would not have been made as it address the issue of global warming.
Dr. Zubrin (not Mr. Zubrin as another blogger referred to him) explains through strong documentation how incorporating an alcohol economy in our society will combat Global Warming in many different ways, not to mention cleaning the air we breath and limit the potential damage or fuel spills (alcohol is water soluble so if the Exxon Valdez was will with ethanol the effect to the environment would be negligible). If all of LA was run with alcohol fuels there would be no smog in LA. The increased planting and use of vegetation helps cool the earth as the leaves absorb much of the suns energy that would otherwise be trapped.
Dr. Zubrin is very pragmatic, unlike Al Gore's or President Bush's energy plans. He is not claiming that this is the ONLY alternate energy we should pursue but one that will we can impalement in the near future as we continue to develop other technologies. Whether you want to believe it or not, OPEC has the power to destroy the American economy and we need to find a solution to becoming energy independent before we do not have the means to do anything about it.
If you have not read the book, please do so before commenting on this subject, it is worth the $20.
Reply
Patrick 5:22PM (9/27/2008)
I have read the book and I am absolutely impressed with Dr. Zubrin, he truly is an intellectual giant. It is quite obvious that the negative comments about Dr. Zubrin on this blog come from people who have not read his book. Please read the book before commenting or you will make a complete fool of yourself.
I am an energy analyst and have a BA in Economics and yes folks OPEC does control the crude oil market. Oligipoly and Monopoly are virtually the same thing and Saudi is the price leader in the OPEC Oligopoly. Zubrin illustrates that in the book.
The demand for Crude Oil or Transportation fuels is highly inelastic which means that there are no substitues, thus we are held hostage by the whims of OPEC. To say that mandating FFV capability on all cars violates market principles is indicative of someone who doesn't understand market principles. Using Bob's great example of bumper height regulations, it is OK to set standards especially if they give consummers a choice and FFV capability would give us that and OPEC would lose their Monopoly power and that wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit.
Come on folks, we have a workable solution to achieving true energy security which translates to economic and national security. Even though I get disgusted with negative comments, I understand that there will be a great deal of resistance to this because OPEC will have a lot to lose and the rest of the world will have much to gain.
Reply
bjd002004 7:12PM (1/02/2008)
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
Art Vatsky 8:19PM (1/02/2008)
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
Mik_Cal 8:55PM (1/02/2008)
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
BlackbirdHighway 8:51PM (1/02/2008)
Screw that, nobody's gonna make me put alcohol in MY electric car!
Reply
Mik_Cal 8:58PM (1/02/2008)
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
Rojo 9:03PM (1/02/2008)
"...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
GreyFlcn 9:53PM (1/02/2008)
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
GreatGreenHammer 12:17AM (1/03/2008)
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
GreyFlcn 2:00AM (1/03/2008)
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
GreyFlcn 2:11AM (1/03/2008)
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
GreatGreenHammer 2:56AM (1/03/2008)
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
GreatGreenHammer 3:10AM (1/03/2008)
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
jcwinnie 12:13PM (1/03/2008)
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
GreyFlcn 1:12PM (1/03/2008)
==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