| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Victory via fuel choice |
| 2008-01-02 |
| Hat tip Instapundit By Frank J. Gaffney Jr. - The last days of this session of Congress will feature, among other legislative spectacles, an effort to thrash out a bill that purports, at long last, to address what is arguably our nation's most serious single problem: energy insecurity. Unfortunately, the product seems certain to be more of a grab-bag promoting favors for special interests and pet-rocks of senior lawmakers (many of which have nothing to do with reducing our consumption of petroleum imported from unfriendly places) than a program for quickly and cost-effectively ending the main source of that insecurity, namely our addiction to oil from dangerous places. This is all the more astounding — and outrageous — since an option for doing just that is at hand. Call it "fuel choice." In a terrific new book titled "Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil," Robert Zubrin describes how a simple congressional directive requiring that every car sold in America be a "Flexible Fuel Vehicle" could rapidly transform our current, intolerable dependence on oil from unreliable sources. Since there are already 6 million of these FFVs on America's highways, there is no technological impediment to making this happen. Since the Big 3 U.S. auto manufacturers have already pledged to make half their models FFVs by 2012, the question is simply, could we do that — and more — faster? According to Mr. Zubrin, a renowned engineer and widely published author, the pacing item is official certification of the roughly 150 engines on offer to the car-buying public I guess he means types/makes of engines once equipped with sensors that allow them to burn ethanol (from a variety of vegetation, not just corn), methanol (from coal, natural gas, trash or biomass) and/or gasoline. It costs about $1 million to certify each engine. While $150 million sounds like a lot, Mr. Zubrin notes that we pay as much for imported oil in three hours. If every car sold in America were a Flexible Fuel Vehicle, within three years, 50 million cars here would be able to run on alcohol instead of gasoline. Perhaps another 100 million to 150 million such cars sold elsewhere would have that option. With that sort of potential demand, at current prices for gasoline (nearly $3 per gallon), ethanol (at comparable energy values as much as $2.25 per gallon) and methanol (at comparable energy density, $1.70 per gallon), the free market would provide these (and perhaps other) alternative fuels in large quantities. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #40 Uh, hold on a sec. Did you want something that would compete with Middle Eastern oil or something that would magically produce no carbon dioxide? The big problem isn't that the former is impossible, it's that anything someone comes up with will turn out to produce CO2 (or radioactives, or dead birds) somewhere int he supply chain and it gets "what about the polar bears"'d to death. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-01-02 23:48 |
| #39 For what its worth I've visited the RENTECH site where they hope to build a commercial coal plant that will produce significant amounts of petroleum-like liquid as part of a closed cycle product plant where they will basically produce what they used to do (plus a few other products) with natural gas. The site I visited is near E Dubuque, IL but they have other plants and there is a great deal of information at: http://www.rentechinc.com/ There are some problems, like what to do with the carbon dioxide. Also I think financing isn't completed yet. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-01-02 20:39 |
| #38 I've read that Brazil imported 80% of its oil/gas needs in the early 1970's. I'm told this is no longer true. I'd like to evaluate that. They also drilled a lot more. I've seen the reports from Lula's press conference when he went to inaugurate one of the country's new offshore oil rigs... Having read the previous 36 comments, I am beginning to understand and to accept the US's inaction over sending vast subsidies to finance the jihad against it since 1973. We've got to do better. Not all sacred cows are in India. Argument by insult! Wow, it's so convincing! OK, POINT TO ME IN MY EARLIER COMMENT WHERE THE SACRED COW IS IN MY SUGGESTION OF SYNTHESIZING OIL FROM COAL. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-01-02 20:03 |
| #37 Having read the previous 36 comments, I am beginning to understand and to accept the US's inaction over sending vast subsidies to finance the jihad against it since 1973. We've got to do better. Not all sacred cows are in India. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2008-01-02 19:45 |
| #36 WRT using grain to make ethanol for fuel: We can't eat oil, so why put food in our cars' fuel tanks? Ethanol for human consumption, OTOH... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2008-01-02 18:14 |
| #35 Altairnano has claimed 50,000 full charge-discharge cycles Oops. That's 20,000 cycles at the end of which the battery still has 85% of initial capacity. Pays to proofread. re: used grease It's matter of scale. It can't provided more than a small fraction of 1% of fuel. It also needs to be cleaned and chemically stripped of the glycerin to make biodiesel. Otherwise only a small amount can be mixed with diesel fuel before it solidifies in cold weather or clogs the engine. There are only three alternative liquid fuel sources in the US that can replace a major portion of oil. That is coal, shale+tar sands, natural gas (uses already spoken for). The US has 300 billion tons (300 years of coal at current use rates). The shale and tar sands on Federal government lands alone is 50 times the US proven oil reserves. The US and Canada have many times the energy reserves of Saudi Arabia, but we are not tapping them to their potential. It's easier (and less risky) money to import than go produce the goods here. It's the Walmart syndrome writ large. Shale is expensive and even more energy intensive to extract the shale oil. Coal is cheap and can produce very fine quality fuels at $40/barrel. 1 billion tons (annual US production) of soft coal will produce 2 billion barrels of fuel (5.5M barrels/day). When combined with a nuclear plant to produce steam and hydrogen, that 5.5M barrels gets stretched to 13.7M barrels/day, more than the total US oil imports from ALL sources. 1 large power reactor is enough to drive the conversion of at least 500K barrels/day. 500K barrels/day in todays market will bring at least $18 billion/year. Huge potential profits, but legislation is needed to set a price floor (e.g. $40) to prevent OPEC from crashing prices and driving free enterprise out of the market as was done in the 1980's. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-01-02 17:46 |
| #34 . I've read that Brazil imported 80% of its oil/gas needs in the early 1970's. I'm told this is no longer true. I'd like to evaluate that. True, also true the Brazil has made one of the largest off shore oil finds in years. Sugar yes, more oil too. |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2008-01-02 17:38 |
| #33 #30: "Buses and trains, folks. Get used to it. Telecommuting is also an idea whose time has come." Depends on the job, EU. I'm into telecommuting (being basically lazy) and do it whenever I can. But that's not very often. Today, for instance, I had to deliver a freelance job (no, it couldn't be faxed or e-mailed over) before I went to work, and once I was a work I had to go up to the courthouse to pick up some papers (no, they couldn't be faxed or pdf'd to us - the gummint wants its money for copies up-front). No train, no bus would have helped. And since I didn't know until I got to work about the courthouse trip, if I normally took a bus, I wouldn't have known to take my car today. Most days are like that in my job. Also, though I usually get to work about the same time every morning (so could theoretically take a bus if one came anywhere near where I live), I rarely know what time I'm going to get off in the afternoon - it's just the nature of my job. (I do know tonight; I'll be off at 7 pm. Bus? Hell, no.) And even if I could take a bus to and from work, I'd waste a lot of time - and probably gas - having to go all the way home first and then taking the car to run errands, rather than grouping the errands and planning my route from work to use the least amount of gas. The problem with using busses and trains to commute is it only works well in larger metropolitan areas. For most of America, not so much. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-01-02 17:33 |
| #32 EU6305 - I work for ...eh.... a large southwestern municipality. I drive my truck daily, but they let me flex my hours to 6:30-3:30, so I avoid the traffic, as well as telecommute one day a week. Times are changing.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-01-02 17:20 |
| #31 How difficult would it be to set up a recycle program for the cooking grease used around the nation. Start with the fast food. I have to believe a process could be developed to clean this stuff up for biodiesel. Heck the veggie van uses the stuff straight out of the fryer so I don't think that much cleaning would have to be done. Let's turn America's fast food habit into victory people! |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-01-02 17:01 |
| #30 Buses and trains, folks. Get used to it. Telecommuting is also an idea whose time has come. There are times when having a car at your disposal is handy but driving it to work every day is strictly for the birds. No matter what kind of fuel it burns, just think of the time you spend stuck in traffic and all that money you spend on something that will eventually depreciate to zero. Face it. You are a slave to your car. Get rid of it if you want to be free. Airplanes should also be deemphasized with high speed trains filling the gap. That is unless you like TSA pat downs and sharing recycled air with a few hundred of your closest friends at 33,000 feet. Just don't wait for Congress to act though. They never will. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-01-02 16:01 |
| #29 I understand the Zubrin book takes a close look at the country of Brazil and how it can be emulated by the USA. I've read that Brazil imported 80% of its oil/gas needs in the early 1970's. I'm told this is no longer true. I'd like to evaluate that. I don't think we're set up to produce nearly the sugar cane that Brazil does. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2008-01-02 15:31 |
| #28 First generation Lithium ion batteries did use chromium and cobalt, but those are unsuitable for transportation due to thermal runaway (e.g. Laptop batteries catching on fire). Transport quality Li-ion batteries don't use heavy metals and can be disposed on in a landfill (but are too expensive for than and will be recycled), but are less energy dense. An interesting news item today had Altairnano complete manufacture of a 2 MW-Hour battery pack for an electric utility for $1 million. The news item said 2 MW but I assume 2 MW-Hour, otherwise the story does not make sense. That comes out to $500/KWH or 33-40% of the price that advanced Li-ion batteries go for. let's hope for our futures that they can ramp up production of a transportation format battery and get the price down even more. Altairnano has claimed 50,000 full charge-discharge cycles and 10 min charge time for their battery tech and have already demonstrated 15,000 cycles. That means batteries that last a human's life time. The bad news: the largest known lithium deposits are in China. The electric Aptera is uses a 10KwH battery pack to get 120 miles. That about 2.5 times the efficiency of cars like the Prius or over 3 times the efficiency of the GM Volt. But it is classed as a motorcycle, so don't expect the same safety level testing as a car. It will make a great urban/suburban commuter. But it will take a price insensitive consumer to pay twice the price of a compact car. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-01-02 15:04 |
| #27 Gotta tell you guys and gals here at RB that I'm taken aback at the apparent hostility to which Mr. Zubrin's book has been received here at RB. A site I always assumed to be bent on the destruction of the enemy. Call me naive but I'd prefer not to fund our own destruction by the KSA/ME (direct and indirect spread of islam - peaceful or violent). Will converting to flex-fuel kill islam? No. Would converting to flex-fuel diminish the amount of money the USA sends to the KSA/ME. Yeah, I think it might. I like that. You don't? I understand the Zubrin book takes a close look at the country of Brazil and how it can be emulated by the USA. I've read that Brazil imported 80% of its oil/gas needs in the early 1970's. I'm told this is no longer true. I'd like to evaluate that. Have any RB critics of Zubrin even READ his book? I have not. I logged onto my local county library's website today to reserve it and learned I'm 5th in line to read the book once the library receives same (expected date of arrival: 2 weeks). I'm keeping an open mind on this subject until I've read Zubrin's book. I'd ask my fellow RB'er's to do the same. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2008-01-02 14:54 |
| #26 The Asperta looks like a direct ripoff of the Corbin Sparrow, although two seats.(Same design) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-01-02 14:46 |
| #25 #2: Ima wanting my pony power. Got hay? Exhust emissions are the problem here. (Horseshit) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-01-02 14:38 |
| #24 Ethanol is a sham. It is a method by which Congressmen are bribed to remove $0.51/gallon from your wallets and give it to farm state ethanol producers. Ethanol will not be more than a small component of our liquid fuels. Currently 25% of the US corn crop is used to displace about 2% of gasoline (diesel not included). It requires vast inputs of land, fertilizer, labor and natural gas to grow the corn and distill it (400K BTU corn + 100K BTU nat gas for 250K BTU ethanol. I.e. only 50% energy yield of raw inputs). It makes more sense to burn the raw corn (+cob+stalks) in a power plant and produce electricity. But more importantly, the US produces 40% of the world's corn, so you see what effect corn ethanol has on the world's food and feed stocks. Instead, this administration's policy is to rely on Canada. They have asked tar sands production to be ramped up to 5 million barrels/day. That's twice the amount the US imports from the middle east. Or another way to look at it is the extra production can replace all US imports from the middle east and Venezuela. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-01-02 14:36 |
| #23 Might as well just burn the diesel if they really must use corn as feedstock. 1.25 gallons of ethanol for each 1 gallon of diesel burned, if memory serves. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2008-01-02 14:12 |
| #22 Meanwhile, the price for grains is going through the roof and causing food prices to soar. So now we have high gas AND high food because of the various bio-fuel projects. Bio-fuel COULD be made out of vegetable-based waste products, but the variations in the output due to the variations in what was fed into the converters make emission compliance a nightmare, so the bio-fule guys are going for the consistency of corn. This forces all the rest of the grains up. |
| Posted by: USN,Ret. 2008-01-02 14:03 |
| #21 I like this idea because it allows the market to decide which fuel. Even if Jihadism doesn't need oil I don't think anyone on this board wouldn't think cutting off oil money to our enemies wouldn't help slow or reverse the spread of Wahhabism and return the Islamic world to its earned status of equal to Africa in dispair and being easily ignored by the the civilized world. Yes electric cars are better (hydrogen's foolish as superior batteries will be developed long before hydrogen economy comes around) but this solution can start now rather than waiting a decade and for 150 million? Heck they could find that in the Congressional sofa these days. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-01-02 13:52 |
| #20 VW will be putting a diesel into their Rabbits to get around 70 miles per. I am praying that all diesels will be likewise altered in the near future. It's a start. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2008-01-02 13:44 |
| #19 Oh, one other thing. Reviews said the Aptera was a "Babe Magnet" on test drives. I believe that. In the mid-70s a friends father had a dealership for a wedge shaped electric. Wherever he parked it young women seemed to gather and approach him. Esp. the Brittany types.. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-01-02 12:47 |
| #18 1) The Aptera is not using batteries. It is using Super-Caps (look that up - they are fairly new) 2) Concept looks good. 3) You will not be able to drive it - BECAUSE - with no HISTORY no INSURANCE company will insure it for a reasonable rate. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-01-02 12:19 |
| #17 the most worthless and corrupt Congress ever. |
| Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611 2008-01-02 11:59 |
| #16 The other thing to remember about all these great and wonderous battery powered vehicles is that these batteries are heavy metal batteries. A car wreck won't just be a tragedy, it'll be a hazmat site requiring expensive cleanup. This is why the hummer actually pollutes less than these hybrid cars they're touting. All those high tech materials require lots of exotic chemicals and materials to make, that are worse than plain steel. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2008-01-02 11:13 |
| #15 We don't have ethanol and methanol wells either, and it's energy intensive to grow. I've read in reviews that Zubrin's fallback program is to make the stuff out of coal. But if we _wanted_ to, we could make diesel oil straight out of coal, and also get higher mileage at the same time. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-01-02 11:11 |
| #14 Per the Aptera, In the FAQ it mentions that the full-battery version will cost about $23K and the hybred version $29K. These are 'speculations' so figure it'll be at least double. Kind of expensive for something which only seats 2 .5 people. When they come out with one which will carry me, the wife, and two kids (and their washington-state-mandated-carseats until their 8) I'll be interested. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-01-02 11:06 |
| #13 I believe in the margin. At the margin a few less petrodollars mean a few less dollars for dawa, a few less for direct terrorism. On the other hand, we don't have pipelines yet for ethanol and methanol and because these are super solvents, they probably can't use existing pipelines. Also, new fuel tanks at service stations will have to be placed. I don't have figures for how much this would cost. It might be reasonable to begin with the midwest and see what the costs are - say in Iowa or Wisc or Ill where they already produce lots of ethanol. In any case, the $100/vehicle figure needs to be augmented to account for the new distribution and point of fueling infrastructure that will have to be created. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-01-02 11:02 |
| #12 #3 Is Zubrin also the fellow who wrote "Curing HIV with garlic." No, but he does have a lot of work on Mars colonization. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2008-01-02 10:11 |
| #11 I notice two things about the Aptera: 1) They say nothing about how much it will cost (and they ask to pay 500$ for reserving, so if alter they set an outrageous price, eg five million dolars a pop they keep the money. bTW, that is a nice business plan. 2) It looks their target is gay couples because I see no space for these, how is their name?, ah yes, children. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-01-02 09:05 |
| #10 We need to use nuclear energy - clean efficient fission here at home for electricity, somewhat clean fusion / fission for thermonuclear explosions over islamic states until they really see the light... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2008-01-02 08:16 |
| #9 Cute little job, EC7436, but I'd to see it collide with my SUV. Looks like it's planned as an all-eleectric or gas-powered hybrid. FAQ: What will be the battery life and cost replacement? This depends largely on usage and if you have an "All Electric" or an "Electric Plug-in Hybrid" version of the Aptera. We will share these exact numbers when they become available closer to the start of Aptera production. Why aren't you using a diesel engine in the hybrid? Due to the way diesel emissions are calculated (emissions per gallon instead of emissions per mile); it's proven impossible for us to find a suitable small Diesel engine that passes California emissions. That's why we're using a very clean, efficient, and small gasoline engine that will make the Aptera emissions friendly. I'm waiting for Al Gore to get one. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2008-01-02 07:06 |
| #8 You want nearly ridiculous fuel efficiency? Take a look at this little number. |
| Posted by: Eohippus Chavilet7436 2008-01-02 05:39 |
| #7 I always understood that prices depend on supply vs demand. Lower the demand (What's the matter? Americans always complain that the rest of the world steals tech secrets from 'em. But not this particular one?), you lower the price. JFM Islam is the problem---but as long as they've all these petrodollars to bribe---carrot, and the threat of oil embargo---stick, nobody is going to do anything what actually means something (as the six years of "WOT" demonstrate) |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-01-02 03:54 |
| #6 Islamic extremism was a problem when oil prices were low. It's a problem now that its high. Making oil cheap again won't magically make extremism stop The problem is not oil but Islam in general (a supremacist doctrine of conquest of the entire world) and wahabism/deobandism in particular. If we want to do something about the root causes of terrorism we have to destroy the ideology so perse and the only question is if attack it frontally (eg by massively turning movies, pamphlets, noivels against islam) or if we keeep a lower profile and play one sect against another. In both cases we should play on the nationalistic components of their societies (eg by pointing about Saudis sucking money from Bangla Desh throughh the hadj, Islam's role in the opression of Berbers, Arab's arrogance to Afghan's) and in both cases we should strive for replacing the Seoud by Hashemites and in both cases we shouls strive for having Pakistan split apart in smaller entities (given that its very existence and the profits of its dominants class depends on the radiacalization of its society. Its elites depend on Islam the more radical, the better for Pashtuns, Balokhs and Sindhs not asking where the money goes and why ion the hell they have to remain in a country who gives them no benefit). |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-01-02 02:38 |
| #5 Poorly thought out hypothesis. Islamic extremism was a problem when oil prices were low. It's a problem now that its high. Making oil cheap again won't magically make extremism stop. Forgetting the problems with ethanol for a moment, reducing our use of oil could make oil cheaper, but with cheaper oil, other countries will use more and the ME will still have tons of oil money. This also doesn't take into account how much more money our adversaries will have at their disposal due to reducing gas subsidies. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2008-01-02 01:39 |
| #4 An area where otherwise sensible types like Gaffney fall down. "Can't anybody here play this game?" Energy security is not a matter of magically replacing the best fuel (oil) with something found in Iowa. There is no security apart from general security - not for the sole superpower, the quintessential open society and economy, in a globalized world. Folks, get a clue. To paraphrase Dean Wormer, being as economically illiterate and analytically challenged as Thomas Friedman is no way to go through life, son. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-01-02 01:04 |
| #3 "Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil," Is Zubrin also the fellow who wrote "Curing HIV with garlic." |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-01-02 00:50 |
| #2 Ima wanting my pony power. Got hay? |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2008-01-02 00:42 |
| #1 From what I understand ... they are. The auto companies just don't tell us how to switch them or include the switch cabling. Esp. the engine computers. Same ones in Brazil models as US ones. Jets etc the same. It doesn't make sense to do separate parts for Brazil only. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-01-02 00:25 |