Flex-fuel first, electrification second: Zubrin
My Clean Break column today is based on an interview with Robert Zubrin, the author of Energy Victory and the engineer that has been most vocal about sending humans to Mars. Zubrin’s main thesis is that the Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has been manipulating and benefitting from high oil prices and that this monopoly grip on the fossil-fuel market must be broken. He wants legislators to mandate that every new vehicle manufactured have flex-fuel capability, a move that would boost investment in and availability of biofuels and essentially water down OPEC’s influence.
Now, this is quite the contentious argument given it seems more focused on energy security than on sustainability. There’s no shortage of headlines trashing the environmental benefits of ethanol and emphasizing the impact on food prices and, in some cases, the negative environmental effects of growing corn for fuel. Mandating flex-fuel in all new vehicles would merely amplify the problems being discussed today, critics say.
I have to admit, I’m torn on this one. I see the value of biofuels, assuming our increased production of the fuel can be done sustainably, guided by regulation, and assuming we can transition quickly to cellulosic ethanol. The question is, would a flex-fuel mandate create such a huge, instant demand that all rules go out the window in order to meet this demand? Would it require we import ethanol from other countries where environmental track records are poor and beyond the oversight of North American governments?
Zubrin, I point out in the column, isn’t opposed to electric cars or plug-in hybrids — he’s actually a fan. But he also points out the reality that these vehicles are at least a few years away and that they will come with a hefty premium. Flex-fuel cars, on the other hand, could be manufactured tomorrow and would cost about $100 per vehicle. Zubrin eventually sees us driving flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles — the ultimate vehicle configuration, many say.
I should point out that WWF came out this month with an excellent report titled “Plugged In: The End of the Oil Age,” which argues that the electrification of transportation is necessary to break oil’s monopoly and effectively tackle climate change. You’ll notice from my column that I cite the report, which doesn’t dispute the need for biofuels, but sees biofuels as a complement to electric cars — again, that whole concept of the flex-fuel plug-in hybrid. The report is well worth the read.
I’m curious to get your views on this issue. Should we take dramatic action now by mandating flex-fuel technology, and then go down the path of making these flex-fuel vehicles plug-in hybrids? Or, should we go directly to the plug-in hybrids and all-electrics and forget biofuels altogether?
Tyler Hamilton is senior energy reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the cleantech market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper. Tyler can be reached at tyler@cleanbreak.ca
April 7th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I saw this fellow plugging his book on BNN the other day and he was totaly unconvincing. He seems to ignore the dilemas of bio fuel and the hardship they will cause the poor of the world.
Less cars and smaller cars is the first step with huge x10 today’s gass guzzler penalties.
step 2 Series hybrids are much more efficient, mandate those for any displacement over 1200 cc
step 3 plug ins.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Tyler:
My question is…
With Electricity already being at such a premium in some places (especially during the Summer driving season), do we have enough generating capacity to support anything more than a few thousand electric cars? If everyone charged them at night…. sure that’d work. But I don’t see that happening…
April 7th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
In the US, Ethanol from corn is basically a subsidy to farmers. Big oil is also subsidized to the tune of 18 billion US$.
If (and this is a huge IF), some of this money could go toward cellulosic Ethanol and battery R&D, then our dependence on oil could be reduced, and our dependence on OPEC oil, could be eliminated within less than a decade.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
If flex-fuel vehicles can be made at an additional cost of $100 per vehicle, why not. From a manufacturer’s standpoint I would think it’s a no-brainer. Why do we even need a mandate?
While this does present longer term problems with food production, a move to full electric vehicles is fully feasible. Timers can be used for routine charging at night to prevent taxing the electrical grid.
These two steps alone will put Big Oil on tilt. I expect they won’t go down without a fight. IMHO the recent rise in gas prices is just the first of many salvos. Get the money now before your junkies…. err… customers kick the habit.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Read Paul Krugman’s article today from the New York Times. The case for biofuels couldn’t be more clear: they will be a disaster, not just for us here, but the world as a whole. I’m all for research into new biofuels, but the current technology is a dead end, literally, for many of the world’s people.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:33 am
To me, the idea of using food to displace oil is pretty weak. A few years ago there was enough food on the planet to feed everyone for more than 100 days. Recently I heard that this number has dropped to less than 50 and I now understand that when it gets to about 30, there is a real potential for dramatic shortages in some areas.
The idea of using plug in hybrid cars, to me, is a great concept. provided the cars are small – and efficient.
I recently downloaded a paper that I can forward to you that described a study done in the US suggesting that there is enough “off peak” electricity available to power more than 70% of the vehicle fleet – and this use would result in a big drop in total GHG emissions. At 6 cents per kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is less than 20 cents per litre. The night time cost of off peak electricity is generally very cheap – note that in Ontario, it has fallen to zero on at least 2 occasions in the past 18 months.
There appears to be a real need is for credible studies to determine the real quantities available, and the impact that this approach will have on total carbon emissions.
To me it would make a lot more sense than burning our food supply.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:22 am
Do as the Israelis and the Danes: go for the option with highest efficiency, least down sides, best integration in current power distribution infrastructure and best boost-argument for large scale clean electricity production.
Use the by product of this electricity generation option to also make a moral point: the West can make a difference by leading by example and facilitate a new mythology.
For current models lose out on all sides and the new is knocking on the door
We can
Emil M
April 8th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Ultimately, I don’t think we can keep doing business as usual using a different fuel source. The bad urban/suburban design accommodated by affordable car travel would (and should) end at some point. I think that there are solutions out there to the oil problem, but I don’t think that they will be implemented in time to matter. We don’t have enough time to solve the problem when you take into account the rate of progress.
But, at the same time, if we were to try and keep the juggernaut going (which I assume we will), then I think cars do have to ultimately run from electricity (or hydrogren generated from nuclear or renewables — but there seem to be a lot of physical problems with this related to gas volume and volatility when we try to deal with the volume problem).
One of the possible solutions is to have everyone running solar shingles on their roofs that feed electricity into the electrical grid. I expect a lot of work will be required to upgrade the grid to allow this, and I’m not sure there’s much of a genuine appetite for it. The other problem, of course, is that most people would charge their cars at night when the sun isn’t shining.
It seems to me that energy STORAGE is a bigger challenge right now than energy GENERATION. If there was some efficient means of storing and transporting electricity over long distances (as we currently transport things like LNG and oil in tankers) then solar plants in Saudia Arabia could probably feed the entire world’s demand for electricity or electricity-generated mediums such as hydrogen. But the problem of efficient hydrogen storage and transportation seems to be a roadblock (I don’t think the issue of “hydrogen production using more energy than it gives back” is a roadblock if we are dealing with renewables, but how do we get it efficiently from where it’s produced to where it’s needed if you’d need 7 tankers to move the hydrogen-equivalent of 1 tanker of oil — make our cars 7 times more efficient, perhaps?).
April 8th, 2008 at 8:53 am
“The night time cost of off peak electricity is generally very cheap – note that in Ontario, it has fallen to zero on at least 2 occasions in the past 18 months. ”
But it wouldn’t be cheap if the night-time and day-time consumption was equalized from overnight car charging
The only reason it’s cheap is because nobody wants it at night-time right now.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“While this does present longer term problems with food production”
The Western perspective is that our Coke and popcorn becomes a bit more expensive and we just have to cope.
The Third World perspective is that people die of starvation because they can’t afford their staple grains since the land used to grow those grains was repurposed to grow corn to produce ethanol and demand began to exceed supply.
They will not be happy about this, and there will be consequences. Anyone wanting to cause an uprising will simply show a starving population the images of a fat, overfed Westerner getting into his oversized SUV required only to accommodate his oversized frame, fueled by what used to be their barely-affordable food supply.
It’s quite a polarizing image.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I think there is still a big potential for bio-fuels, as long as they do not use land capable of growing food. There seem to be many options for plants that grow on marginal land that is otherwise not used – Jatropha, hemp, switchgrass, and algae to mention a few. Also tropical maize and ‘diesel’ trees are other candidates.
This way, you get non-productive land put into use, which could possibly be a great benefit to third world economy and farmers. Imagine Ethiopia with a booming economy thanks to millions of farmers growing Jatropha on every small plot of previously useless arid land… then they will love the fat Americans getting into their giant diesel SUV land-yachts to go to the corner store.
Don’t throw the bio-fuel baby out with the corn-subsidy bathwater!
April 8th, 2008 at 10:15 am
let’s keep it simple:
- a h2 route is inefficient and with fast growing numbers of consumers with increasing energy footprints, it’s a dead end or at least an unnecessary liability
- bio fuels are fine for niches (air travel), but not for bulk energy applications. Reasons are sufficiently know by now
- re storage: EV’s store electricity in ‘virtual oil fields‘. On top of that with EV’s emissions, fossil usage/dependency are cut.
To the extent that electricity generation is made clean (see my previous posting) and production of cars is done to Cradle to Cradle standards, we’re making interesting extra progress.
EV’s are a good way to start, since they evoke a demand for clean electricity. As Shai Agassi states: ‘make this world a better place, one EV at a time’
Finally, a success with EV’s (or any large scale success) has the potential to open up the debate on what are core issues.
An interesting one is how our cities are arranged geographically and how future cities can be layed out in order to minimise car transport.
As I read, 2/3 of the world’s cities in 2020 has still to be built.
Good example is Bogota
Emil M
April 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Wow, that’s sounds so simple. It must be easy to fix, then.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:58 am
A better option is just to mandate higher fuel efficiency. For decades, power has been rising while cars have remained equally inefficient. There is no reason for which lower-power 40 mpg cars couldn’t be the minimum option within a couple of years. In the slightly longer term, 60 mpg is a decent minimum target for 2020.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Nice summary. I agree on every point.
Stephen
April 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
when
- a threshold in domains of actors (business, public office, academia, burghers)
- – have taken the time to educate themselves
- – then see through the smoke screens of current interests
- – have a -resulting-
- – - required sense of urgency
- – - focus of how to start & follow up wholesale
- – have balls to act upon their insights
it’s simple indeed
Emil M
April 8th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
True – but what is happening right now is that the off peak electricity is essentially going to waste. Ontario exports to Quebec at night at below about 3 cents/kWh – which is equal to about $8/gJ for delivered heat. Meantime, they burn natural gas at a delivered heat cost of about $14-15/gJ – and that makes little sense. Meanwhile, Quebec has large hydro storage capability and they can resell the energy the following day for a lot more than they paid for it. A recent US report showed that there is enough off peak electricity to power most of the vehicle fleet… I would suggest that this is quite a large resource… So equalization of night and day use would be a long way away.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I agree. It appears the non-profits that feed the poor will be able to feed 25% less people this year with the same budget due to increased prices. Not to mention that higher fuel and oil prices are increasing the number of people that will need food aid. The rising price of oil that is making biofuels a cost-competitive product, combined with crop failures due to sporadic climate and drought, are setting the stage for some of the ‘climate wars’ or ‘water wars’ or whatever you want to call them that some have predicted.
Even with cellulosic production of ethanol, if there is a market for ethanol, then farmers from around the world will produce for that market. They are already overworked and underpaid.
Biofuels might be part of the solution (air travel?) but it will be part of the problem as well.
If mandating plug-in hybrids and possibly plug in cars (powered by renewables) will increase the cost of cars, then so be it. That too can be part of the solution.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Maybe I’m missing something, but how would mandating flex-fuel vehicles increase investment and availability of biofuels?
We don’t produce enough ethanol to make all of our gasoline 10% blends, so it’s not like biofuels are being held back by non-flex fuel vehicles. And making cars that can use gas or high-ethanol blends does nothing to improve the energy balance or economics of ethanol production.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I see a lot of proposed solutions, but wonder why it has to be an “or” situation. I mean, all of these approaches may be needed, and may need to be phased in based on time-to-market, cost, etc… First, I completely agree biofuels offer some hope for air travel. On the vehicle side, I think it can contribute but in the long term only as a minor appendage to electrification. It’s the short term that’s the bigger question mark.
There’s a lot of talk here about rising food prices and increased poverty and violence and war, but I think ethanol is being blamed far too much for this. The culprit is $100-plus oil — simple. One could argue that moving quickly toward competitive biofuels (and flex-fuel) so that it provides strong competition to oil would help reduce crude prices and ease the burden on farmers and the developing world. Then again, maybe it won’t. It’s certainly a big gamble. That said, I do have high hopes for cellulosic approaches — whether it’s through gasification or designer enzymes or bark-munching bacteria — and feel there are non-crop resources to supply this, whether it’s forest slash, municipal solid waste, agricultural residues, or wastewater sludge.
I see corn as a path that perhaps we had to go down to learn some valuable lessons, and those lessons have contributed to a more enlightened approach to biofuel production.
It’s not about “or” — it’s about and, and, & and…. and all those “ands” can add up without the apocolyptic scenarios being thrown around here.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:22 am
I see a lot of proposed solutions, but wonder why it has to be an “or” situation. I mean, all of these approaches may be needed, and may need to be phased in based on time-to-market, cost, etc… First, I completely agree biofuels offer some hope for air travel. On the vehicle side, I think it can contribute but in the long term only as a minor appendage to electrification. It’s the short term that’s the bigger question mark.
There’s a lot of talk here about rising food prices and increased poverty and violence and war, but I think ethanol is being blamed far too much for this. The culprit is $100-plus oil — simple. One could argue that moving quickly toward competitive biofuels (and flex-fuel) so that it provides strong competition to oil would help reduce crude prices and ease the burden on farmers and the developing world. Then again, maybe it won’t. It’s certainly a big gamble. That said, I do have high hopes for cellulosic approaches — whether it’s through gasification or designer enzymes or bark-munching bacteria — and feel there are non-crop resources to supply this, whether it’s forest slash, municipal solid waste, agricultural residues, or wastewater sludge.
I see corn as a path that perhaps we had to go down to learn some valuable lessons, and those lessons have contributed to a more enlightened approach to biofuel production.
It’s not about “or” — it’s about and, and, & and…. and all those “ands” can add up without the apocolyptic scenarios being thrown around here.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Medium term it would make a difference, I think, by dramatically increasing the potential market for high ethanol blends.
Still, I’m for electrification first with biofuels used where really unavoidable, like aviation. On the subject of aviation, this may be a place where hydrogen can find a use.
Stephen
April 11th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I am not sure I ever heard of this idea, but what if we had 50 million hybrids and electric cars, we all plug them in to a special device that has a (In from the grid at night and out to the grid during the day.
So lets say 10 million cars are program to feed the grid during the day, Let say you not commuting to work today, so you just leave your car plugged in, we now are load balance the grid, Depending on the demand you could even get more. Now the need to create addtional electric plants are much less needed,
April 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Palm oil plantations are an ecological catastrophe in South East Asia. The ethanol boom in N. America is wasting taxpayers money and productive topsoil.
Bio-fuels are an illusory solution. At their worst they are theft from the mouths of the world’s poor
April 11th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Why does everyone think that petroleum is the main source of CO2 in the environment? It isn’t. Electricity generation and heating are the main culprits. Give flex fuel a chance.
Did you hear about this tree in South America that bleeds diesel fuel for sap? An acre will provide 1500 gallons/year compared to an acre of corn which produces 30 gallons/year. Which, unlike the corn process, the fluid can go directly into your diesel car.
You want to make huge inroads against CO2 – look at coal plants. That’s where most of the CO2 is coming from.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:24 am
that’s why EV’s are logical: http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/2/10/134714/529
Emil M
April 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
There has been plenty of conversation regarding the infrastructure required to power a ‘plug-in’ transportation sector. Yes. Most of the charging would happen during the night, when nuke plants run idle and demand is at its lowest. If the current demand increased, than capacity can also be increased to follow suit (this can happen quite quickly).
I don’t feel that there will be any surge due to EV’s hitting the road, as the petroleum vehicles will phase out over time.
One would hope that EV’s would also spur a decentralized power infrastructure, with people installing their own sustainable generating capacity on-site (at home). We can all generate electricity at home through PV and wind – but we cant refine gas. I think there will be much appeal to this and it will really change the way that people think of both energy and transportation.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I don’t think it is a question of whether flex-fuels will be mandated. In my view they already have been. Mr. Zubrin is simply restating the status quo.
My belief is that we need to concentrate on open engineering, allowing for the capture and storage of intermittent power on board vehicles and utilize open electrical network infrastructures to allow those same vehicles to contribute overproduction to the grid.
Keep in mind that a vehicle mostly sits all day long. And this is during the peak solar hours. I’m sorry to say this, but the Ontario government already realized this and went for Smart Metering (an abomination).
It sounds a bit crackpot, but I believe the government and industry are worried about losing control over the population if energy is made too widely and inexpensively available.
Can you say “nomad?” Sure, I knew you could.
Imagine how much rent will be if energy comes at too low a cost and that to power your daily life you can simply drive 40 km out and back again.
It will be flex-fuel first. Hydricity or electricity will come at the price of consuming mass quantities of dysfunctional engineering designed to keep people from mixing and matching systems. This is the standardization of disincentive that plagues computer users from migrating from X-Box to Sony Playstation. Same thing will happen in energy.
As far as Mars goes… well, I think he’s got a good idea there. We’ve managed to pick war as the main thrust of human endeavor. When did you see a genius of math graduate from a university and not contribute to R&D for defense either along the way to her degree or as the first step toward lifetime employment attached in some way to the military industrial complex, the auto sector or bio-engineering.
I don’t want this to start sounding like a manifesto, and it is probably not a good idea to spout off like a maniac that it is all just a lie, so I’ll end by saying that we have benefited in Western Society more by the majority of us originating from a cold climate ecosystem with virii than from going to war.
My beef with the government of Ontario too is that certain parts of cottage country haven’t been opened to Net Metering. My guess is this is gated economics in lieu of the lack of county and municipal guidance on issues of bylaw enforcement than anything else. Too bad officials who like the city don’t want to travel and actually work on migrating energy economics or hire the willing staff to do so.
The planet mars sounds like a better pyramid than oil and war, that’s for sure. On this one we should listen to our neighbor not some Greco-Roman god.
– tim
April 13th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Given the long time it takes to turnover the car fleet, a flex-fuel requirement in the near-term would at least give a significant portion of the drivers the option to use any locally available non-petroleum fuels in future. For $150 a vehicle, it is common sense to give ourselves options. Ethanol has shown where picking favourites gets us. No point ignoring potential sources of methanol for fuel, they could add up. Methanol can be made from logging/sawmill waste among other things, and obviously that is a large industry here.
That doesn’t mean electrification should come second. Urban electric vehicles are viable now – whether delivery trucks or a small car as a secondary vehicle.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I WISH THAT ALL THE PUBLIC KNEW THAT ICE (internal combustion engine) IN ANY FORM IS SO INEFFICIENT THAT ANY ALTERNATIVE TO CONTINUE WITH THIS PROCESS HAS NO FUTURE. IT’S THAT BLACK AND WHITE. IF PEOPLE WHO HEAT THEIR HOUSE 3,000 A YEAR WENT TO 18 TO 20% EFFICIENCY AND COST 15,000 A YEAR, THEY GET IT QUICKLY, THATS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO WITH BIOFULES ETC.
Heating your house with oil or gas is a good use of fossil fuels, Because we are getting 80 to 90% efficiency that is why it is 3,000 a year, running a transportation system on it, is irrational at best.
Electricity is 90% efficient to the motor and drive systems. Base on this ALL OUR EFFORTS SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON ELECTRIC CARS. 1st on plug in hybrids, then on electrical storage, nothing else makes any sense either economic or solving the global warming problem. Forget about the short term 5 to 10 years and focus all of our energies in the right place. Translation, there are lots of people who have an interest in keeping us on the current ice transportation model.
DON’T LET THEM DO THAT… If you put 100 billion in electric storage research, we be there in 10 years. not only that, the industry and businesses that would spin off of this would result in not only solving our energy and global warming problems, but would create such a huge new industry that would spur our world economy for well past 20 years.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
FLEX FUEL IS NOTHING BUT A SCAPE GOAT.
Really. Why do you think GM / Chevy / Ford are so interested in it and are already going forward with making their fleets ‘flex fuel capable’?
Because It’s cheap, makes them look good and requires little change on their parts. Oh wait.. and the biggest thing? It allows them a free ticket to escape penalties based on the US Gov’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE). You see, since only 15% of the ‘fuel’ pumped into the tank is actually petroleum based (ie. pumped out of an oil well) they only get counted on that 15%. The corn portion (85%in e85) is a get out of jail free card.
The problems are ovbious and painful.
(A) that no one fills up on ethanol. So really that 15% is false.
(B) ethanol is hugely energy intensive and is NOT carbon neutral.
(C) they put the flex fuel badge on SUV’s to make them ‘green’
(D) they don’t bother producing more efficient cars.
It’s a way that they can keep doing business as usual and please the fleet emission averages without actually doing a thing. So instead of creating more efficient vehicles using EV or hybrid technology (more expensive up front) they produce a bunch of fuel injectors and fuel filters, toss them on SUV’s and in the ‘CAFE numbers’ they look as green as a Prius.