January 29, 2008

Competitive in the $50-a-barrel range...

Charlene recommends this piece on flex-fuels, by Bob Zubrin (thanks to Glenn)...

...In light of this, a top priority of U.S. national security policy should be to break the oil cartel. This imperative has been apparent since the 1973 oil embargo, but nothing effective has been done. However there is now a way to break OPEC.

What is needed is for the Congress to pass a law requiring that all new cars sold in the United States be flex-fueled - able to run on any combination of alcohol or gasoline fuel. Such cars are existing technology - in fact about 24 different models of flex-fuel cars were produced by the Detroit Big Three in 2007, and they only cost about $100 more than the same car in a gasoline-only version. But, since alcohol fuel pumps (such as E85, a fuel mix that is 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline) are nearly as rare as unicorns, flex-fuel cars only command about 3 percent of the new-car market.


The reason E85 pumps are so rare is that gas station owners don't want to dedicate one of their pumps to a kind of fuel that only a few percent of the cars can use. If we had a flex-fuel requirement, however, then within three years of enactment there would be 50 million cars on the road capable of running on high-alcohol fuels. Under those conditions, E85 and M50 (a 50 percent methanol, 50 percent gasoline fuel mix; flex-fuel cars can use any alcohol, including methanol) pumps would start appearing everywhere.

But most important, this would not just be happening here. By requiring that all new cars sold in the United States be flex-fueled, we would be forcing all the foreign car manufacturers to switch their lines to flex-fuel as well, effectively making flex-fuel the international standard. So there would be hundreds of millions of cars worldwide capable of running on alcohol, forcing gasoline to compete everywhere against alcohol fuels that can be produced from numerous sources. This would effectively break the vertical monopoly that the oil cartel currently holds on the world's fuel supply and keep prices in the $50-a-barrel range, because that is where alcohol fuels become competitive.....

I'm a bit doubtful, myself. There's no mention of how much energy, perhaps from petroleum, it will take to make the alcohol. And what this might do to food prices. What's the per-barrel price of alcohol now? Posted by John Weidner at January 29, 2008 07:56 AM

Comments

Ethanol at a buck a gallon is on the horizon:

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/01/ethanol23

If the link is broken, go here:

http://www.coskata.com/

And at a buck a gallon, alcohol becomes strongly competitive to gasoline.

As for energy input, whatever is needed could be provided by nuclear power, so no petroleum is required. And the best part is that no foodstuffs get consumed in the process-- it uses waste matter as feedstock.

Posted by: Hale Adams at January 30, 2008 10:36 AM

Hale,
A lot of petroleum is used in the fertilizing of corn. A _lot_. The rule of thumb I was taught was that ethanol is a magic way of turning 2 gallons of gas into 1 gallon of gas...

Posted by: Punning Pundit at January 30, 2008 11:02 AM

Well, notice that the feedstock for Coskata's process is anything but corn or other foodstuffs.

And the fact that petroleum and coal are used for fertilizer and other agricultural items is just one more reason to stop putting a match to them. So let's get busy with phasing in nuclear power.

Posted by: Hale Adams at January 30, 2008 11:22 AM

Abundant, cheap energy from nuclear power would also help free up demand for home heating, and would make an electric car more attractive, or hydrogen fuel cells, all of which help relieve price pressure on oil...

Posted by: Ethan Hahn at January 30, 2008 01:09 PM

Terrible idea. The scope for unintended consequences (some mentioned in prior comments) boggle the mind.

Posted by: Frank at February 2, 2008 04:45 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Weblog by John Weidner