Al-Zawahri, Al-Qaida's No. 2, says he has broken the US Army in Iraq. It is rather the time for us to break the back of his insurgency. Tom Friedman, author of "The World Is Flat" and a well-known New York Times columnist, likes to say that we are funding both sides of the war on terror. He also is about to publish an analysis that shows that freedom is inversely related to oil prices - as prices fall, oil-nations are more dependent on the world community, and open up; as prices rise, they thumb their noses at the world community and fund mischief at home and abroad. No surprise that with rising oil prices, we see Bolivia nationalizing gas wells, Chavez joining with Castro in anti-American actions, and repression increasing in the Middle East.
We need to break the price of oil, and therefore turn off the spigot funding terrorism, with a long-term solution to American dependency on oil that can be implemented fairly quickly. Surprisingly, such a solution does exist. It does not rely on exotic fuels like hydrogen, nor does it require a wholesale change in the infrastructure of cars, trucks, gas stations and gas distribution. It has been demonstrated to work, and work quickly. If President Bush had pursued this direction after 9/11, its impact would already be felt.
A while back we blogged an event in Silicon Valley where Al Gore gave a global warming presentation, and wowed the crowd. (His speech can be seen on Google Video, and is soon to be a major motion picture called "An Inconvenient Truth.") He then went off to a private meeting with about half the Valley Billionaires, and went off the deep end and lost his audience. Despite that, Silicon Valley luminaries have formed an organization called The 11th Hour Project to get the word out on Global Warming (which of course is now of such pre-eminence as an issue it deserves to be capitalized). The Silicon Valley Boys have a deep belief in the power of innovation to solve problems, and while the politicians pontificate and the talking heads bloviate, the Boys are inventing and the venture capitalists are funding.
At a recent 11th Hour event, two premier speakers laid out the way to break our oil dependency. Vinod Khosla, one of the premier venture capitalists in the Valley, and a strong proponent of clean-tech investments, made the case for biofuels. Dan Kammen of Berkeley made the case for new ethanol vehicles. When you piece together their views with that of other prominent environmental entrepreneurs, a clear answer emerges.
The answer: flex-fuel vehicles. Flex-fuel means they can burn gasoline, or gas+ethanol, or ethanol. A flex-fuel car is virtually the same as a gasoline car - the primary difference is in the fuel lines, which need to be hardened against the corrosive effect of alcohol; the software which manages timing; and the valve seatings. The driver can use an combo of fuel, depending on pricing and availability. Brazil is a success case - it took 20 years to figure this out, but over three years went from 4% to over 70% of its new vehicles as flex fuel. Over 20% of Brazil's transport fuel is ethanol, compared with under 1% worldwide. Ethanol fuel from sugar cane costs less than $1 per gallon to make. People use ethanol after harvest season, and gasoline when sugar supplies are short. They use the same cars, the same gas pumps, the same distribution network.
Similarly, over about five years, we could retool our fleet for a remarkably small amount of money: about $150 a vehicle. We could change every car in America for less than a year in Iraq. Currently Congress is pushing ethanol as a gasoline additive, but is not pushing flex-fuel, and hence is driving up the price of gasoline without solving the problem.
It may surprise you to know that already there are already over 5 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road, although the owners are probably unaware of this. In California, there are more flex-fuel than diesel vehicles. The CAFE regulations, which force automakers into producing high-mileage cars, have a loophole for flex-fuel vehicles, and the automakers have used it to slip trucks under the CAFE limits. Consequently, most light trucks are flex-fuel, although not advertised as such.
Ethanol is cheaper to make than oil is currently priced, and indeed cheaper down at least to $40 per barrel of oil. While it burns less efficiently than gasoline, it is cheaper per mile to use, and it burns cleaner. Also, we have optimized gas engines for 100 years, and we should be able to make more efficient ethanol engines in a much shorter period. Much more on the economics of ethanol and how a flex-fuel economy would benefit many consituencies are in this recent Smith Barney report. Biofuel is not a comprehensive solution - there isn't enough landmass to replace all oil with biofuel - but all we need to do is break the edge of oil, not replace it completely. Oil for transport is only 20% of oil usage in the US, but drives the marginal price of oil as demand/supply lines cross.
It is remarkable - and depressing - that no major politician has seized this issue. Instead they talk nonsense about hydrogen. Flex-fuel solves many problems at once, and should have the support of all major constituencies. Environmentalists like it. US automakers can offer new "green" vehicles despite having fallen behind Japan on hybrids. Rural states gain more demand for agriculture. ADM and other makers of corn products, such as high-fructose corn syrup, would have other ways to extract value out of corn waste. Coca-Cola should like this, as they can go back to sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup, since to increase supply of ethanol we should drop sugar tariffs. (Yes, we have an import tariff on sugar, which hurts friendly Caribbean countries, but no import tax on oil, which helps hostile terrorist nations.) Even the oil companies should support this, as over 90% of all oil is controlled by oil-nations not private companies, and they can retool their own operations to source, refine and distribute ethanol as well as gasoline.
Best of all, this should break oil prices dramatically - recall they were as low as $16 a barrel only a few years ago (and of course before the adventure in Iraq). This will force the terrorist nations to re-join the world community, as they would be unable to finance mischief and also meet the rising demands of their burgeoning populations.
Time to 'flex' our muscle and turn our agricultural surplus and biowaste into Green Gold.
Until Pearl Harbor was attacked, Americans did not understood the world they were actually living in. Government, no matter how well it understood, could do nothing even though we were in mortal danger. After the attack, the entire country understood, and quickly responded to the challenge. And with Churchillian blood, sweat, and tears, it all worked out.
American's do not yet "get it". And until they do, government is powerless to act. It's the people, stupid.
We're still in the denial stage, moving to anger (at gas prices, of all things, as if anyone can do anything about that, including this flex-car proposition here). We're still completely enthralled in what I will call a hyper-consumerism fantasy, that is unsustainable in the long run.
Rather surprisingly to me, Gore really does seem to understand. He does see the whole picture rather clearly. And, in the end, that world view will have to become incorporated into the political system one way or another. We have to move to a truly green world, but it seems to me it's a century or so away from happening. Too many idiots, true believers of all strips, and innocents too, will have to die off first.
Silicon Valley, and the energy initiatives of the venture community? Well intentioned naivety, or shrewd grabs for riches? I hope the latter, but suspect the former. We'll see.
Posted by: Rich Melmon | Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 07:27 AM
Ethanol may help, but the real problem is that even with it... who is to say people won't buy a 4th or 5th automobile (where on earth are you going)?
There is another problem that arises though and it has to do with fertilizers, which are products of oil. These, in turn, enable us to produce tremendous crop yields cheap for consumption.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594200823/102-0337307-0320149?v=glance&n=283155
You will see these ideas presented in the Omnivore's Dilemma. Consequently, because corn is so cheap, farmers are in the red and rely on government just to keep those fields churning and consumption going. We use corn fructose as sweetners for many processed foods because they are so cheap.
Also, take a look concerning the farming situation in India and the run off that is associated with these types of fields. The author goes on to talk about how animals and crops have been distanced from one another and that animals were traditionally used in agriculture to fertilize the fields. Today, modernity has all but eliminated these practices through the increased use of fertilizers. (Like the stupidity of using fertilizers on your lawn, then paying someone to mow it!)
Here is a poem I wrote about the situation, which is much deeper than just automobiles and gasoline because crude oil extends to all reaches of modernity.
http://sentientorder.googlepages.com/dropofgas
The solutions have to start with lifestyle changes and alternative thinking. Ethanol helps, but it is naive to believe that this will cause anything but more mindless consumption of new autos. "Oh I am saving the earth and helping the oil problem by buying ANOTHER car. Hey kids, who wants to go to Home Depot and get a Supersize?"
Jeff
Posted by: J Lee | Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Oh and which leads to:
http://sentientorder.googlepages.com/deadzone
Another poem that is connected with the one above... Biotech and agribiz...
Posted by: J Lee | Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 11:50 AM
You are absolutely right that we need to break our oil dependence on these countries. Biofuels may indeed give us the energy independence that we so need in these times of turmoil in that whole part of the world.
Posted by: thebizofknowledge.com | Sunday, September 03, 2006 at 06:23 PM
As previously meonitned, the Jeep Grand Cherokee with the Flex Fuel engine is designed specifically to accomodate E85 fuel should you choose to use it, so it will not damage your Jeep at all.Just keep in mind that E85 has only 77% the energy content of gasoline, so it won't give you as many miles as gas (and will cost you more money to go the same distance).I don't know if it's true that by buying E85 more of your money is going to a domestic corn farmer rather than some Middle East sheik, but that's something you can do some research on and make your choice.Either way, yes your Jeep can use E85 without any chance of causing damage, but it will cost you more per mile.
Posted by: Zulfahmy | Sunday, May 27, 2012 at 07:21 PM