I’m torn
So, Insty notes this really cool plan to get the US less dependent on foreign oil. It involves requiring (for about $100) new cars to be flex fuel vehicles. I’m torn because, well, it’s a good idea. But at the same time it makes my libertarianish side want to smack me about the head and neck area what with its free market idealism and all. The benefit of energy independence is huge. I mean, without a heavy need for oil, the world would treat the middle east like it does Africa. Which is to say that, generally, no one except Bono and Angelina Jolie would give a damn about it. Think that’s harsh? Not paying attention, then. Another benefit would be that the wealth of the region dries up and they have to find another means to sustain themselves, such as making our lead-coated toys for $0.05 an hour.
So, I’m really torn. I mean, if I buy this collective good nonsense this one time, when does it stop?
Full disclosure: I have a flex-fuel vehicle. And no one made me do it. The issue is, that, the only place in town that sells E85 is Pilot Oil. And I don’t shop there because Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam (whose family owns Pilot Oil) is a member of Mayors Against Guns. C’mon, Bill, quit the group. For the environment. And energy independence.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Ethanol subsidies have given me a real dilemma. It gives money to ADM, but I get 105 octane for 2.50. I suppose it is better than giving the money to the arabs.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Flex fuel vehicles still need a fuel of sorts.
I’ve been writing bits about synthetic fuels, check it out if you’re interested.
http://mokofd.blogspot.com/
February 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Great!
When that flex fuel car uses zero (formerly known as food and feedstock)
bio-additives that require an astounding amount ot energy to produce, and transfer at least the same ergs per dollar/atmospheric adulterants, let me know.
Yep! The show “South Park” presented an episode with an opinion I share on that “dilemma”.
Got a whine glass?
February 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Which episode?
February 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Punching up our use of ethanol has consequence that have not been fully dragged out into the public spotlight, although for starters, the price of grain and how that impacts meat prices, starving third worlders, and everything else has been touched on a bit.
You would think that when our congress-critters mandate the increase in the use of ethanol, like they have recently, they would also knock off on the sugar import tariffs. After all, if free trade is good, it’s good for everyone, and not just the people who don’t own massive chemical factories used to convert corn into high fructose corn syrup.
I often wonder about chemically converting coal, (which we have gobs of) into feedstock for the refineries. Last I heard (when gas was $1.25/gal) is that it only would be practical when gas stayed consistently above $2/gallon. Well guess what?
Getting back to what the Feds ought to be doing, however, even if you subscribe to the theory that the fed-goons ought to only be just delivering the mail and defending the borders, then i can still see giving corporations tax breaks to build E85 vehicles and building new refineries (hopefully not sticking those refineries only around the Mississippi gulf area where it could be go down with all the other refineries during another hurricane) under the umbrella of homeland defense.
Forcing them to build cars a certain way, without very good reasons, just rubs me the wrong way too.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Have you actully driven a flex fuel car on higher % EtOH Fuel?
In Mass its required by law that ALL gas sold be 10% EtOH. I grew up in Maine where the petrol is 100% Texas tea. The Gas guage on my Ranger has always been a little dodgy since I bought it, but if I go off of milage I KNEW EXACTLY how far I could go on a tank of Juice.
Then one afternoon in Mass I found myself walking to a gas station with a Jerry Can. EtOH gas costs AS much, if not more than normal gas, but you can’t drive as far on it.
It SUCKS. Not to mention all the other problems encountered with making it, and its flamability…..
I guess having a car that’s flex fuel doesn’t HURT….but it’ll hurt when you can’t buy an actual tin of real gas a LOT more than not being able to buy a real lightbulb, IMHO….
February 1st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
For the same cost as what it would take to impose this regulation you could run national ad campaigns that tell people the benefits of FlexFuel.
Then you’ve informed the populace and let the free market run without anyone’s rights getting trampled.
It is that easy.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Get a diesel. Then use biodiesel.
1 metric ton of dead hippies can be converted to 80 gallons of biodiesel via heat depolymerization.
Formerly annoying dead hippies are a nearly inexhaustable resource … and if we did exhaust them, people would cheer regardless.
And the hipiies carbon foot print goes to near zero once they stop breathing.
A win win scenario for all.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
1 metric ton of dead hippies can be converted to 80 gallons of biodiesel via heat depolymerization.
While neither moral or legal, the science works.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
We could also drill for our own oil! That would be a start along with building more refineries and nuclear power plants. But the enviros won’t allow that.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I think biodiesel is going to be the winner in this. We just need somthing to keep it from turning into J-E-L-L-O in the snowy north. Untill then Diesel cars are quick kickass in their milage.
And do the hippies need to be dead? I really don’t have an issue with the DEAD ones….
February 1st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
As a biochemist I have no wish to see less efficient fuels replacing petroleum distillates. In addition to the aforementioned higher prices of everything that depends on corn (most food), you also must consider the immense amount of energy needed to purify EtOH vs. gasoline (energy usually derived from fossil fuels like oil or natural gas). Corn is also one of the hardest crops on the soil – expect fertilzer run-off to begin killing rivers and lakes in agricultural areas if subisidies keep up. Besides – the final product simply does not contain as much energy as gasoline. While I would love to convert my race car to E85 because it is cheap (and I will if a gas station in the area starts carrying it), it is not a good fuel for most people to use.
Diesel and steam (6-cycle) cycle IC engines are the way to go – I’ll blog more on that tomorrow if I have time on Schroedinger’s Blog.
One parting word: TURBOS!!!!!!
February 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I buy this collective good nonsense this one time, when does it stop?
When it doesn’t make sense to continue, that’s when. There’s no requirement that you be an absolutist, you know. Sometimes it makes sense to enforce the common good, and sometimes it doesn’t. So you support it when it makes sense and oppose it when it doesn’t. Seems simple enough to me.
In any case, until we can get away from corn and soy ethanol, both of which are horribly inefficient and drive up food prices, flex fuel doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pm
The only problem with using hippies as biofuel is that dope is fat soluble. So when you burn the hippie juice you and the local neighborhood will get a contact high.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Zubrins mandatory flex-fuel idea would be more interesting if the available alternative fuel (ethanol) was in any way competitive with gasoline. Imagine your choice: Fill up with gasoline at $3/gal and get 30 mpg, to pick an arbitrary number, or fill up with (unsubsidized) ethanol at $4/gallon and get 18 mpg from the same vehicle.
At the same time, you also make another trade off; Subsidize terrorists, or give up your meals.
I like the idea of drilling our own oil.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Government intervention in the energy industry got us into this politically-created mess in the first place. More government intervention isn’t going to fix it.
Saying that some new restriction or requirement is going to fix anything is exactly like saying that throwing more tax money into the WA DC school system will improve student performance. That’s what created the problem, and doing more of it will therefore make it worse.
OK? (he said as we sat on billions of barrels of oil that can’t be drilled and tapped due to government restrictions, while the Chinese drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, while the U.S. started using food as fuel by government mandate, driving up the cost of food for the starving poor around the world)
Free markets feed. Socialism kills. How many thousands of times must we fail to learn that simple lesson?