« Flacking 4 Chavez | Main | The Hawkeye Caukeye »
January 2, 2008
Flexible Fuel Vehicles: A New Way to Energy Independence?
In my search for something to help us break free of Middle Eastern oil, I've run across something worth considering: Flexible Fuel Vehicles. From an editorial by Cliff May over at National Review
We are financing a war against ourselves,” writes Robert Zubrin, nuclear engineer and author of a new book responding to the distressing fact that Americans and Europeans are sending trillions of dollars to militant Islamists whose goal is our destruction.But in his new book, Energy Victory, Dr. Zubrin does not just complain. He proposes a way to break free of dependence on a resource controlled by those who have declared themselves our mortal enemies. The technology already exists. It’s not expensive. All that is lacking is for voters to make this a priority — and to communicate that to the political class.
Right now, 97 percent of the cars on America's roads run on gasoline. Only three percent are Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) — automobiles that can be powered by either gasoline or alcohol fuels, or any mixture of the two. The additional cost to make a new car an FFV is only about $100 per vehicle
The "war against ourselves" he refers to is emphatically not just against al Qaeda. It is against what Walid Phares calls "the jihad" against the West. While primarily a "War of Ideas", he says, there are also military and economic aspects. The military aspect is being fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. The economic part is our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, in particular, that of the Saudi Wahhabists, who make up one of three branches of the jihad, and who are using the money we send them to undermine us.
Continuing on with May's piece:
For the sake of individual security, the government mandates that all cars have seat belts. For the sake of national security, Dr. Zubrin proposes, the government should mandate that all new cars be FFVs.In three years, the change would put 50 million FFVs on the road. The free market would then mobilize to do what it does best: Entrepreneurs would compete to produce alternative, non-petroleum fuels for these potential customers.
Dr. Zubrin expects those fuels to be made from alcohol: ethanol and methanol. Ethanol is made from agricultural products, from plants of all kinds. Methanol can be made from biomass — even biodegradable garbage — as well as from natural gas or coal.
Ethanol can be produced right now for $1.50 a gallon; methanol for 93 cents a gallon. Dr. Zubrin expects the first generation of alternative fuels would be high alcohol-to-gasoline mixtures. These would provide better mileage while still dramatically reducing dependence on petroleum.
The key is you'd be free to choose: You could buy gasoline as you do now or you could buy fuels made mostly of alcohol, giving less money — and hence less power — to Iranian mullahs, Saudi clerics, and Venezuelan despots.
That's the gist of it; read the whole thing for details.
Robert Zubrin's website for the book has some additional information. Here's how it says we should get started
Zubrin's plan is straightforward and practical. He argues that if Congress passed a law requiring that all new cars sold in the USA be flex-fueled — that is, able to run on any combination of gasoline or alcohol fuels — this one action would destroy the monopoly that the oil cartel has maintained on the globe's transportation fuel supply, opening it up to competition from alcohol fuels produced by farmers worldwide. According to Zubrin's estimates, within three years of enactment, such a regulation would put 50 million cars on the road in the USA capable of running on high-alcohol fuels, and at least an equal number overseas.
What I like best is that the plan doesn't directly force you to buy or use alternative fuels. My big question is how much more FFV's would cost. If consumers have to spend a significant amount of money on them, this takes money from other sectors of the economy and thus has a cascading effect that would be economically harmful. But if the cost is only marginally more, then the economic effect would be negligible.
Frank Gaffney, writing in the Washington Times last month, also likes the Zubrin's FFV's
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.Particularly important, such demand would far exceed the ethanol that could be supplied by American corn farmers. They should, therefore, be willing to allow importation of ethanol from other sources without the current tariff that amounts to a crippling $29 per barrel surcharge. With roughly 100 countries around the world enjoying climates that could allow them to grow sugar cane or other biomass they could use to power their own vehicles and help power ours, the world would cease to be dependent on oil-exporting nations, most of whom wish us ill.
I'm not wedded to this or any other proposal. Last summer I even suggested a $3 or $4 per gallon tax on gasoline as a way of encouraging research into althernative fuels and/or vehicles.
My bottom line is that as a national security imperative we have to lessen the amount of money we pay to other countries for oil, especially since as Frank Gaffney says most of them wish us ill. Every dollar we send them is one more that they use to undermine us. Let's find a way to change this.
Posted by Tom at January 2, 2008 8:00 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1045
Comments
Great post Tom,
The last time I heard people get excited over flex-fuel vehicles was when a group of my friends returned from Brazil. They were impressed with the flex fuel system system in Brazil, most cars were flex fuel and both types of fuel were readily available. The story of how this 'emerging market' country is quickly on the way to energy independence is worth further research. After a little online searching, I was amazed to find that this change in Brazil was started in earnest after the 1970 oil crisis. The Brazilian government poured money into research and development.
---Researchers "developed alloys to protect the internal parts of gasoline-powered engines and fuel tanks from corrosion by ethanol. At the program's peak in 1986-89, 90% of all new vehicles sold in the domestic market were ethanol-fueled.
...Today, Brazil is the second biggest producer of ethanol in the world (20 billion liters) after the United States (24 billion liters). Close to 80% of this is for the domestic market - the fuel used in 45% of Brazilian vehicles is ethanol.---
With Brazil's booming economy, Ford has decided to gain some of the market and has unveiled a flex fuel car in Brazil.
Sure, Brazil has a natural advantage because they grow so much sugar cane. But the story of their path to energy independence is a good rebuttal to those who say there are too many obstacles (it rusts gas tanks, etc) in having the government actively encourage this conversion. Look what government intervention has done for Brazil, imagine if we had 45% of fuel in our cars from ethanol. Would our president still be holding hands with the Sauds?
My biggest concern is not necessarily that our oil consumption funds terrorist supporting regimes, but that our economy is entirely dependent on importing foreign oil, from any nasty, corrupt dictators and royal families we can cozy up with. The reality is that after 9/11, we had to treat the Saudi's gingerly since they essentially held/hold the key to our economic stability. Period. To me, this is a fatal weakness, not just the unsavory fact that our demand for oil helps prop up these goons, but that if they ever cut the supply, our economy would tank. Flex fuels are about choice and options, but a little government guidance has gone a long way in Brazil. Has this government regulation hurt their economy? Judging from the outstanding returns on my Brazilian based mutual fund, I would say not.
Posted by: jason at January 4, 2008 12:31 AM
Fascinating about Brazil, jason, I had no idea that they were so into flex fuels. I think you may be onto something here. They might be a good model that we can learn something from.
My big concern about ethanol is the amount of energy it takes to produce the stuff. Are the Brazilians able to make it more efficiently that we can because they make it from sugar cane and not corn? Is that it?
The big rap on ethanol is that some say it takes almost as much energy to make it as you end up getting. I'm not sure if this is true or not. What do you know about this?
"My biggest concern is not necessarily that our oil consumption funds terrorist supporting regimes, but that our economy is entirely dependent on importing foreign oil, from any nasty, corrupt dictators and royal families we can cozy up with."
Sounds like we're arguing two sides of the same coin. Terrorism, nasty dictators, it's all part of the same problem.
I agree with you that our government has to get involved and provide guidance. This has been an area of contention between me and some of my conservative friends. I get the "free market and private enterprise will solve all our problems if the government would get out of the way" line.
Sigh.
I'm working on them, using the arguments put forth here on this blog. I think I and others are making headway, too. Some conservatives are seeing the light on this, like Frank Gaffney (quoted above), Cliff May, and Victor Davis Hanson.
The left tends to look at it from an environmental standpoint, and their extremists tell us that the earth will warm and we'll all fry unless we adopt Kyoto. It's this that makes us on the right roll our eyes. But when you start talking national security, conservatives listen. So as I said, I think we're making headway.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at January 5, 2008 9:40 PM
Tom,
Check out the October 2007 National Geographic magazine (corn-based fuel is the cover story). I really can't say it better than they do.
Yes, according to their research, the ratio of fossil fuel energy input required per unit of output for corn is a paltry 1:1.3 while the ratio of input to output is 1:8 for sugarcane. (Look under the Energy Balance tab in the interactive page.) That is not encouraging for corn based ethanol, but a 30% improvement is better than nothing. But there are many other ways of making 'biofuels', such as algae and cellulose, as detailed in the article.
Posted by: jason at January 8, 2008 4:32 PM
