Posted on 11/28/2007 9:56:31 AM PST by cogitator
Not necessarily. Check out my post #56 about Bosenova. If only 25% of the atoms are converted to energy to provide momentum to the exploding atoms. The exploding atoms would only have to be going at relativistic speeds (mass increases as speed increases - and I can’t remember the exact formula). I’m not saying it is actually happening but it is an interesting concept.
“In a nutshell, his proposal is this: that the American congress should pass a law mandating that all new cars sold in the United States be flex-fueled, which is to say able to run on any combination of gasoline or alcohol fuels. Flex fuel is proven technology which only adds a few hundred dollars to the cost of a car.”
No, no legislative mandates on what kind of cars MUST exist. If fuel markets for different kind of cars are developed, then as he says, already “proven technology” for such cars is available and needs no mandates. If alternate fuel supplies are economically created, car-makers will willingly produce cars with “flex-fuel” abilities and even before they do, the market-place in conversion kits for existing cars will improve on the technology.
“In 2007, roughly 90 percent of all cars sold in Brazil were flex-fueled”
But 90% of all cars in Brazil do not run on alternate fuels and because of how much resources it takes (land and water) to produce ethanol, even with sugar cane, Brazil’s latest and largest energy development is the discovery of (and oil-well production begun by Brazil’s national oil company), in one of the largest (to date) oil reserves off of South America in the southern Atlantic ocean.
“Thus the effect of a US flex fuel mandate would be global, and within a few years, put hundreds of millions of cars on the road worldwide capable of running indifferently on either methanol, ethanol, or gasoline.”
Cars on the road “capable” of using flex-fuels is not a developmental or economic problem, or question. The questions and the problems relate to the supplies that can realistically be expected to be produced from “alternate” fuel sources, how efficiently, how economically and how soon.
“With such a market available, alcohol fuel pumps and associated infrastructure would quickly appear”
Those things, particular a nationwide “infrastructure” will not “appear” even if EVERY car was “flex-fuel” capable. They will only “appear” when the sourcing, production, efficiency and economics of using alternate fuels makes using them a viable alternative, most of the time.
“the vertical monopoly that the oil cartel holds on the world’s vehicular fuel supply would be broken, as gasoline would be forced to compete everywhere against alcohol produced from multiple sources, including biomass, coal, stranded natural gas, recycled urban trash, and so forth.”
Again, no and no again. A flex-fuel car, globally sold is NOT a technological, production or economic issue and having one will not supply alternate fuels for it.
What keeps OPEC a cartel with a cartel price is the world’s largest consumer of OPEC products is unnaturally restrained from supplying 100% of its own fuel needs, with existing fuel technology.
“To be sure, such a development would not quite destroy OPEC. Alcohol fuels are only competitive against oil when the price exceeds about $50 per barrel. So in a free market, the best Zubrin’s plan could accomplish would be to send oil prices back down to that level.”
Under all present bio-fuel technologies, given any proven bio-source, the U.S. could plant every available arable acre of land not already under production for food with a bio-fuel source and doing so would not cut U.S. oil imports by more than 20%, which would not cut Opec prices by 50%. Meanwhile, that effort would not, in practical terms, get limited to arable land not already under production for food and the escalation in land-costs, not to mention water costs, would raise national prices across the board by much more than any savings from not importing fuel. It would do no more than cut off our nose to spite our face and be an e conmic drag.
“Which brings us to Zubrin’s idealism. He doesn’t just want to take away the Saudi’s treasure. He wants to use it to end world poverty. He says: “Instead of financing terrorism, our energy dollars could be used to fund world development. Instead of selling blocks of our media to Saudi princes, we could be selling tractors to Africa.”
So, after raising the cost of scarce, precious and valuable land and water needed for food, in the U.S., he is also a globalist and wants the Africans, who are not feeding themselves in many places, to become massive “bio-fuel farmers” - and purchase their food from who? (with tons of U.S acres converted to “bio-fuels”.
From cogitator:
“I think he goes a bit over the top here, but there is substance to his case. His points are threefold.”
And
“First, that OPEC’s jacked up oil prices represent a massive regressive tax on the world’s poorest nations. Of this there can be no doubt - it’s one thing to pay $100/bbl when you make $200/day, it’s quite another when you make $2/day.”
The US mandates that have shifted US corn production to ethanol have had a larger impact on food prices, even in poor countries (because they import a lot of food commodities from us) than has $100/bbl oil had on their economies because their fuel consumption per-head and per-capita is so much lower than ours.
More from cogitator:
“Second, he says that by going to alcohol fuels, which can be produced by many kinds of resources, including biomass readily producible by tropical agricultural nations, a substantial fraction of the revenue that is now going to the OPEC petrotyrannies could be much more widely distributed.”
Again, their is neither science, land-and-water-use or production studies that demonstrate the above “can” statement to anything more than a theoretical “can”. We “can” produce hydrogen lots of different ways also. Does that make it likely, efficient, economical and not destructive to other sectors of the economy, just because it’s theoretical possible? No. A theory is not a plan.
More from cogitator:
“As Zubrin points out, in 2005, Saudi Arabia, with a population of 24 million received $150 billion in foreign exchange revenues from oil, while Kenya, with 36 million inhabitants, took in $2.5 billion in foreign exchange earnings from all sources. So distributed more equitably, the Saudi’s profits could double the foreign exchange earnings of 60 countries the size of Kenya. That’s quite a thought.”
I don’t even want to begin to plug the holes in the apples-vs-oranges in that statement.
velopment.
More from cogitator:
“Thirdly, Zubrin makes a strong point by showing how redirecting petroleum dollars towards biomass-based fuels could expand the market for farm products to the point where advanced sector nations might be induced to drop their trade barriers against third world agricultural imports. This certainly would be good all the way around.”
Let’s see, we take land for food, use it for fuel, ask everyone around the world to do the same, and expect exchanges of the fuel that has been produced (wouldn’t all that production lower the price) and then expect the revenue from that exchange to buy enough food. The fact is that attempting it will raise the cost/price of food in tandem with a lowering-cost/price/revenue per/bbl for the “bio-fuel”, from which more food must be bought, and from whom??? Even if the US quit producing any food of its own, it could not produce enough bio-fuel to 100% replace oil. How in the hell would anyone else???
“For the rest, Energy Victory, contains further chapters backing up Zubrin’s main thesis with charts, tables, figures, and footnotes, as well as informative digressions discussing the successful Brazilian experience in achieving energy independence - “
Ethanol from sugar-cane, in spite of its wide-spread availabilty and increased production in Brazil does not make possible their energy “independence”, the national oil company, having become one the largest in the hemisphere has done that.
“biofuels can act in the long term to mitigate global warming”
Thats a scam.
“As Zubrin puts it: “So the crux of the matter comes down to this: Do we want to win or lose? The issue at stake in energy security is not a matter of whether the price of gasoline will be $2 per gallon or $3 per gallon; it is who will determine the human future. Do we want to have the enemy’s fate in our hands, or do we want to have ours in theirs?”
“Indeed. That is the issue at stake, and finally, someone has published a book that really lays it on the line. Energy Victory is a knock out. It should be read by everyone concerned with policy in this vital area, and its central recommendation implemented as rapidly as feasible.”
Neither is it feasible, practical or economic because the practical economics of it - land and water - do not favor bio-fuels. The water and acreage needed to obtain the btus needed is not there, unless we switch our sciences in “synthetics” from plastics to food.
Our first goal cannot be to play politics with current science, or current technology. Our first goal must be energy independence, pure and simple, from any and every source, including any and all currently untapped fossil fuel sources within our national reach, and with no politics, only economics choosing between them.
Instead of transferring money from tax-payers to politically selected fuels, we need to reduce taxes, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, with any and every energy company, energy exploration company, energy research outfit, corresponding to capital investment in (1) energy research (2) development of sources, (3) technology, (4) development of product, (5) production and distribution - again, without politics granting any favors to a favored fuel choice - purely based on basic science.
For fossil fuels and nuclear energy in particular, we need a “Manhattan Project” style program that (1) cuts through all state and federal regulatory hurdles, (2) embeds EPA oversight on-site within any component of the plan wherever needed (figure out how to solve the issues), (3)works off of a national energy grid plan that understands (a)where are the energy sources (all), (b)what is the usage distribution of each source, (c)what are the usage rates by area of distribution, (d)attempts to account for how new sources can (d-1)improve existing low-supply conditions, by source, (d-2)alter supply sources with new sources while shifting the existing supply that is displaced to other uses or other end-points in the distribution grids. The idea is to maximize the use of the development of new sources in a way, working with industry and with industry embeded in the project, so that “independence” goals are met in part by improving how well new sources and existing sources work in a complementary way (instead of simply displacing existing sources) so that actual independence is achieved soonest.
Once, U.S. energy dollars are spent 100% on U.S. domestic energy sources (or it could include Canada), we might, then , be forced to let politics monkey with the resulting system (to our peril).
The benefits are more than they seem and would not only accrue immediately but would be larger than they seem and unlike theoretical plans do not demand that theory stand above practical economics, and therefor would most likely produce energy independence itself, sooner than otherwise.
No governmental unit would lose revenue from the tax breaks (tax breaks do not transfer individuals money to corporations). The massive additional capital expenditures in the entire energy sector would, largely, become taxable revenue - to its employees, its contractors, its suppliers, its vendors and its consultants, with a combined amount of taxes on them that will exceed the revenue forgiven directly to the energy sector.
The world, without any global development program, will benefit as (1) 100% market economics and science, not politics, demonstrates what can and cannot actually work, on a practical economic, practical and efficiently achievable basis, and from (2)the market-determined (economically capable) technological advances that the project will rapidly produce.
And, that independence will be done WITHOUT massively shifting land and water usage/values/costs in any way that is not determined to be economically feasible simply to achieve a “bio-fuel” goal as opposed to an independence goal. If, and to whatever extent, “bio-fuels” come out of the mix, they will do so because, and only however, the economics actually work, not because they are a political priority.
Thats the first part of my Wuli for POTUS platform. / LOL
You are right about the risk to investment, but wrong about the only solution being “total government control”.
Consider what would happen if the government put an offer on the table to buy up to 2 billion barrels of oil from domestic shale each year at a price of $40/bbl. The offer was good for 30 years. If the producer can sell for more than $40/bbl on the open market, then they’ll do that. But if they can’t, the government will buy for $40, sell it on the open market and eat the loss. What would happen ?
All those companies that claim they can produce oil from shale for $20/bbl would know they had a guaranteed profit because they had a guaranteed customer at $40. No more investment risk.
If we wanted to go the alternative-fuel route, the government could make the same offer for energy equivalence of methanol from coal, biodiesel, etc. Because the price offered was only $40/bbl, there wouldn’t be much in the way of food crops being diverted, which has been a problem with simple subsidies for ethanol.
I’m pro Iraq war and pro Bush. Mine main problem with him is he is too liberal.
I’m saying that $100 oil helps Iraq pay the bills. They need it and I can see why Bush does not do everything in his power to get the price of oil down. If I was him I would want Iraq to have a good steady stream of income, it should help them past the hard times.
I didn’t say “The High Price of oil puts money in the US treasury” so I wish you would not just make things up.
High oil prices help all the oil producing countries and that would include Iraq, which needs it more than most.
I also never said “”paying for Iraq”” so instead of calling me a lier you might try to work on your reading skills.
In the cold war we purposefully ran the price of oil down with help from OPEC to hurt the USSR, I don’t think Bush in regards to Iraq is upset at the high oil prices because it helps them.
bookmark for later
You position on this issue is so wholly divorced from all factual reality one has to wonder if you are really this ignorant or just a fraud posting ignorant talking points dictated to you by some Democrat Party front group like Moveon.org.
So which is it, fool or fraud?
You had me until that part, if it was funded for a Manhattan style project to research alternative energy it would be another thing.
What the hell is your post about?
Who in their right mind would build a refinery in the US?
bump
Likely not about #3 in this thread. ;-) MNJohnnie can go off fully cocked sometimes.
After the last two years, I don’t care if it goes to fifty cents a barrel.. These record high gas prices are un-American and unacceptable. We protect the world and keep it safe for liberty, we should get oil for substantially less.
If we don’t find new supplies (our fault) or start using more efficient autos (our fault) then we deserve what we get.
I want to see a a US Senator stand up and make a speech about oil prices, with a life size model of a oil drill bit in his hand, and say “This is what it takes to make oil”
We need to control more of the production than we do, then we will be able to control the price.
I forgot about natural gas autos. It is a transportable fuel with vary low emissions. Instead of making any NG auto’s we have been making NG peak electric plants (almost all the new plants in CA) which is a waste of a good auto fuel. Had we made 5 nuke plants and 20 coal electric plants we could have made a few million NG autos and trucks, most of our NG comes from Canada not OPEC.
If in the last 10 years we had made 2 million electric cars ,2 to 5 million NG hybird SUV(I like big cars too) more coal and nuke plants and some true lean burn engines like the ones I posted, we would not be in the position we are in.
Lets face it OPEC has us by the balls and for some reason we like it.
The central idea of "Energy Victory", according to the review, would actually open up the transportation energy market, rather than control it. It is currently monopolized by petroleum-derived fuels. So if this is a Government dictate, bring it on. I think this is a remarkable conservative/libertarian idea.
The alcohol doesn’t have to be biofuel. It could be derived from coal.
You haven't driven through the panhandle or the metroplex lately, haveya!?
Of you guys who want to set some magic floor on crude oil prices to reduce risk on alternate development investments...how do you do that with tariffs?
If you put tariffs on oil imports to the US, then you put an artificial floor on oil, but what do you do to gasoline refining? If I own gasoline infrastructure here, I’d move my refining to Mexico or Canada to take advantage of the cheaper oil prices. In fact, I could probably convince the Saudis to bankroll the ops, right?
Great post AND an even GREATER thread. Thanks to all contributors/researchers.
Solutions to problems BUMP!
Wrong. The difference between US prices and European prices is primarily taxes, with regulatory impact making a small difference in retail pricing. But local crude availability and transportation pricing makes little difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.