Pajamas Media

55 Comments

1. Larry:

Two points:

1. There’s already a much bigger prize awaiting anyone who produces a battery for a practical electric car: a huge market. The automakers would, over the life of the patent, pay far more than $300,000,000 to have the enabling technology to move to the electric paradigm.

2. The wording is too vague to be meaningful. How do we determine if entry X fulfills the the requirement of “allow the leapfrogging of the current generation” of electric and plug-in hybrid cars? Something much more concrete is needed.

I don’t think it’s a bad idea; in the big picture, this is pocket change. I just think it’s vague and superfluous. Electrics (such as the Chevy Volt) are coming.

McCain would be better using government resources for enhancing the electric grid, which will be necessary if large numbers of electrics sell.

Jun 27, 2008 - 8:25 am 2. Crockett:

Ahhh, the dilemma. And if we made one iota of effort to increase refining and using out own vast oil resources(over 1 trillion barrels before factoring coal-to-oil), and pursued EFFIICENT ethanol production, we would of been completely independent and most likely a large exporter of oil over a decade ago-with trillions in the hoppers to actually fund the bills our government continue to enact with much credit-card vigor. So is the cost of self-righteousness and complacency by our politicians. Not to mention our domestic terrorist cult environmentalists who vow to stymie the economy of the very country they suck blood from daily. We’ve been hearing this for 30 years, and not one elected official has ever lifted a finger to do anything about it, other then subsidize their(generous) friends which always seem to have the least effective, most expensive ‘solutions’ always a few years away(pending more research $).

Jun 27, 2008 - 9:22 am 3. Crockett:

As Larry said, there is plenty incentive in a free-market economy. Why propose a monsterous prize(subsidy)? Apparently there is money to be made in coming up with better bateries, so why isn’t anyone in the US doing it already? Right now we just buy Sanyo cells for hybrids. McCain needs to ‘flip-flop’ on ANWR(i.e. making an informed decision to change his mind). The true solution is using OUR OIL. Domestic oil will also be the true gateway to alternative energy solutions, when we aren’t in a panic situation all the time. Everything we ‘rush’ using governement(OUR)dollars equals a lot of money spent with little result.

Jun 27, 2008 - 9:27 am 4. Tom:

The easiest solution to this problem is synthetic production of oil from coal. Even including the ridiculous requirement to sequester the CO2 produced by the process it costs between $55 and 70 per barrel to produce oil this way. For those soft on math that is anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 the current, and rising, price per barrel for conventional oil.

Considering our, considerable, coal deposits the US could quickly become an oil exporter and essentially set the worldwide price per barrel.

The fact that no one is pushing this more is simply criminal to me. Especially, as has already been mentioned, what will happen worldwide to the poorer segments of the developing world.

Jun 27, 2008 - 9:52 am 5. Larry:

Crockett, they are working on it. The best available technology is currently the Lithium ion battery that we currently use in cellphones, laptops, and also hybrids. There are a number of issues; cost, density, life cycle cost (i.e. how long until they have to be replaced), and above all safety. These batteries can, under certain circumstances, explode.

But, the Chevy Volt is going forward, and will be in showrooms by 2010. It’s happening. OPEC’s death warrant is already signed, the only thing left to be determined is the date of the hanging.

And btw, I was nowhere near as optimistic a year ago. I think $4/gal is the tipping point that will make these things sell. Now let’s get busy building the nuke plants that we’re going to need to power these cars.

Jun 27, 2008 - 10:17 am 6. david levavi:

Interesting piece, interesting comments.

The good news is that we are moving away from dependence on greedy and predatory foreign oil producers for our energy and our national well being.

I wonder how many people understand the true nature of a cartel. How artificial, and how manipulated the price of petroleum is by the major producers.

Nice to see the Tesla and battery driven vehicles in general getting so much play. Incentivise research into energy alternatives by prizes, profit, legislation and any other way possible, say I. But drill, drill, drill. Here at home and offshore. Extract, extract, extract. From coal, shale, whatever. Ethanol, methanol, bring it on.

Free our nation from the stranglehold of opportunistic enemies.

McCain needs to meet with with his top energy advisers, bone up on the latest in environmentally safe drilling equipment, pull on his chin, clear his throat and do an about face on ANWAR.

Jun 27, 2008 - 10:48 am 7. Tom Villars:

The battery prize has EEStor written all over it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor

I’d be interested to know who whispered this suggestion into McCain’s ear because it’s good one and hopefully McCain will listen to whoever it is a lot more.

Jun 27, 2008 - 11:18 am 8. david foster:

1)Will methanol travel over existing pipelines, or does it, like ethanol, need to be moved by barge/rail/truck?

2)If the feedstock for the methanol is natural gas, then with this additional NG demand, how long until we hit a major nat gas shortage?

Jun 27, 2008 - 11:34 am 9. Director:

So, how am I supposed to make a cross-country road trip in an electric? Schedule an overnight stay every 250 miles so I can “fill-er-up”?

Jun 27, 2008 - 11:35 am 10. Agrippa2k:

Why are people talking about the Volt. That’s GM – the worst, feckless, automaker ever. Those Pontiacs and Lincolns are nice, but gas mileage is a no-brainer market advantage. Their contribution – nada.

To get an idea of what is AVAILABLE see -
http://www.teslamotors.com

Jun 27, 2008 - 11:43 am 11. Kelly- a knoyd:

Energy independence and security should be the overarching consideration in our energy plan. The oil shale fields of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming hold 6 trillion barrels of oil, with 1.5 trillion barrels easily accessible. This equates to 240 years of self-sufficient supplys without having to buy one more barrel from the Saudis, Hugo, Nigeria, or any other thug oil country.

And this does not even consider the 250 years of coal supplies available for coal to liquid fuel. Although the US was unsuccessful in the 1980’s at making it work, the South Africans have been doing it with perfection for 50 years!

Wake up America, energy independence and security is staring us in the face, and we are doing little more that staring back at it.

Join the call to send a t-shirt to congress (surely a t-shirt will do more for us that who we have there now), but seriously, send a message in the form of a t-shirt. Go to http://www.knoyd.com and see how you can make a difference.

Jun 27, 2008 - 11:49 am 12. austin:

Its a simple criteria:

AMP-HOURS/WEIGHT > X where AMP-HOURS > A1 and MTBF > 5000 usage hours.

Jun 27, 2008 - 11:54 am 13. Joe:

“[W]hy offer a government prize to try to incite further such investment, when the much greater rewards offered by the commercial market for a better battery are so apparent?”

Exactly.

The problem with the battery prize is that there’s already a battery prize out there; the money that would be made from selling a new high-capacity battery to makers of laptop computers and personal electronics. Silicon Valley is already desperate for a leapfrog battery; that it would make electric cars practical would be an accidental bonus.

Jun 27, 2008 - 12:07 pm 14. Larry:

Umm….GM doesn’t make Lincoln. That was always a Ford product.

Tesla may bootstrap themselves into a viable automaker, but it’s more likely they’ll go the way of DeLorean.

And Director, that’s what your other car is for. Nobody said that the ICE was going to be outlawed.

Jun 27, 2008 - 12:12 pm 15. EntropyIncreases:

Flex fuel cars are great, but I still worry about the production of all the fuels. We go through a HUGE amount of oil. So if a flex fuel car can burn 5 or 6 types of fuel, then better than one controlled by a cartel, but what resources do we have to use to generate the required amounts of the less energy dense fuels? So 40% could be domestic oil, maybe 10% as methanol, 10% as ethanol, etc… What is the breakdown and how do we get there?

I don’t know, but I think we need to Drill, drill, drill, plant, plant, plant, and mine. None of the serious candidates are discussing it. Many people support it, and the Democrat talking point on it is ridiculous, but they are holding steadfastly to the opinion that we “cannot drill our way out” of our oil problems. I want a broad spectrum solution. I think we are getting to it. But I want the pols out of it as much as possible. Unfortunately, they are required to participate so we can streamline nuclear plant construction, mining, drilling, etc. We have a huge amount of energy stored within our reach. But we have both hands tied behind our backs, generally.

The timelines are scary. We need massive efforts now. NGO led, preferably.

Jun 27, 2008 - 12:30 pm 16. Nirm:

MaCain’s energy policy is not as incoherent as Mr. Zubrin has it.

Agreed, flex fuel is the way to go now. However, the flex fuel solution involves 2 components – Clean electricity and batteries on the one hand and clean and dependency free hydrogen / hydrocarbon fuel (Petroleum, cellulosic Ethanol, coal oil, Methanol or solar produced Hydrogen or whatever) on the other

Both of these two components can improve and meet somewhere in the middle. The best available option for the first component is nuclear power and better batteries or ultra-capacitors or perhaps even compressed air. Mr. Zubrin describes the second component.

In the future we probably move closer and closer to an all-electric option, perhaps when we have clean, cheap and limitless fusion power, but then perhaps not. The environmentalist nut jobs of the future will be ready with a new bugaboo.

Jun 27, 2008 - 12:36 pm 17. MarkW:

Liberals and environmentalists are wedded to the idea of the electric car is going to save us all.

I view this proposal as nothing more than a low cost (probably no cost) sop to those who scream every time anyone discusses the energy problem, “Why aren’t you talking about electric cars?”

While they are chewing on this bone, the adults can get down to business.

Jun 27, 2008 - 12:42 pm 18. Kay:

Well either way, I hope Halliburton doesn’t mysteriously come in to ‘win’ the prize

Anyhow, as the many other threads on energy lately, heres a fantastic article on coal-to-oil
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/8229

And using nuclear power plants as the clean heat source to create it with 0 pollution is the way to go. At the same time replacing coal power plants means the supply of coal we have can go directly to oil. These plants need to be integrated with processing facilities for coal liquefaction. And years ago, Bush did mention the vast oil shale reserves we have in this nation, conservative estimates were at 800b barrels to over 1.5 trillion.

Both of these (real)solutions were shrugged off as too expensive unless oil hit some incredible inconceivable price-like $40-$50 a barrel.

Nearly every opposition to drilling for domestic oil, refining lower grades of oil, oil sands/shale, coal-to-oil, sugar-cane ethanol, biofuels, ect were all considered not economically viable to commit to at sub-$50/barrel prices.

Coal-to-oil has been in use from Germany in WWII to South Africa now, and as we know Brazil is completely self-reliant between domestic drilling and ethanol from SUGAR, not ridiculously inefficient corn(hence, no government subsidies to farm corn in Brazil unlike here-deals like that kill this country for a small hand-out to the politician that signs it).

Jun 27, 2008 - 12:53 pm 19. McCain offers $300 million for a battery « I’m a Knoyd!:

[...] Any I am not alone in my thinking.  Stop by Pajamas Media for a piece on McCain’s battery proposition. (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-saving-grace-in-mccains-energy-policy/) [...]

Jun 27, 2008 - 1:03 pm 20. Al Reasin:

Congress as of the end of last year requires all government purchases to be environmentally less costly than oil production; so out with coal to fuel, tar sands oil and maybe bio- diesel and ethanol. While there was some talk a few months ago, I haven’t heard that it was rescinded or seen any movement to change the law. Government purchases of fuels made from other than oil spurs development of alternative fuels and have a positive direct impact on our national security.

From internet sources changing an existing engine to operate off of E-85 costs between $500-700, but I have yet to see E-85 sold and I traveled from MD to TX recently.

If I remember correctly most of the alternative fuels will reduce mileage as we already see in the MBTE replacement with 10% alcohol. That will impact the congressional mandated CAFE standards.

Jun 27, 2008 - 1:27 pm 21. Kelly:

Kay,

Great post. Would love to have you contribute your thoughts at my blog: http://oilblog.wordpress.com.

BTW, the reserves of oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are estimated at 6 trillion barrels, but only 1.5-1.8 trillion are vialble. Oh darn! That’s only 240 years worth of oil.

Jun 27, 2008 - 1:33 pm 22. mishu:

Liberals and environmentalists are wedded to the idea of the electric car is going to save us all.

Nope, the left wants to stack us up in block housing and make us use the bus. Everyone must live like a New Yorker in a tenement.

Jun 27, 2008 - 1:34 pm 23. Kyle:

OK, I’m enjoying the conversation etc., but someone please help me out here … Regarding nuclear, what do we do wiht the waste? Don’t we ahve to bury it and put it under armed guard for something like, what, 25,000 years? Am I out of date re nuclear waste? Other than that, I’d support it.

I also agree that the $300MM prize is a gimmick. Not a bad one, mind you, but the market value is much greater.

Jun 27, 2008 - 1:39 pm 24. keithacita:

electric is great – ever wonder where all the electricity will come from? have to build more coal and natural gas power plants if the marxists won’t allow nuclear. guess what will happen to electricity prices. will people want to heat and light their homes and businesses or run their cars. without nuclear non of this makes sense. if the marxist green french can run over 80% electricity and sell electricity to the germans without worrying too much about the fake concern over nuclear waste why can’t we?

Jun 27, 2008 - 1:39 pm 25. Kay:

I’m somewhat indifferent to hybrids. They are not cost-effective at all. One of the biggest arguments is that coal electricity charges the plug-in hybrid ideas. However nuclear powerplants eliminates that black hole. Hybrids will not be an affordable fix at any time for the entire public, nor for heavy shipping such as trucking. The plug-in hybrid IS a strong alternative for the near-future for some. Affordable petroleum is and will be for decades a mandatory requirement.

Obviously everything has to be progressive, no one technology will instantly fix anything. And has to follow a logical order.

First and foremost is to increase refinery capability and begin drilling for easy to get crude. Even if we don’t see it for a few years, it will lower speculation. For the fastest initial fix, some of the reserves have to also be released into the market. Always moving forward will always reduce the effect of speculation on oil futures. We also need a plan to effectively produce ethanol. Using corn has no future. Funny that we can’t upgrade/build a single refinery for gasoline, but dozens of refineries have been built for corn. Moving to sugar cane(10 times more yield then corn), sugar beets, and a newly developed crop(forget the name, but its being tested now) makes ethanol viable, and even more important, completely do-able on a relatively short time scale.

Next, as nuclear power becomes more prevalent, push hard for coal-to-oil. Some can be manufactured right away by coal-powered facilities but the plan MUST be to move to be ever more efficient eliminating coal as fuel for powerplants and liquefaction facilities.

During this time, easing strain on the economy will give us TIME to get into more biofuel research, a mix of hybrids, hydrogen(will also make a lot more sense if produced in conjunction with nuclear power plants), wind, solar, and hydro.

The problem is, our government would actually have to become honest and help the truly viable programs and continue to realistically push for efficiency. We could produce all the oil we could use for a few centuries and still easily get lazy again the minute it gets cheap.

Resting our immediate future in ‘alternative energy’ without increasing oil production to supplement it as the vast majority of energy for next 10 years would be a disaster.

Jun 27, 2008 - 1:40 pm 26. sh:

Might as well resign to the situation: The Arabs will continue to get richer, control more (including battery trademarks).
The superficial “prize” will be: allow the destruction of Israel, or the world will continue to suffer.

Jun 27, 2008 - 1:44 pm 27. Larry:

I don’t get what makes people think we have a shortage of refinery capacity.

Jun 27, 2008 - 2:00 pm 28. Kay:

And as usual I forgot to add something. I do have faith in the newest ideas in biofuel technologies that manipulate the DNA and cellular structures of materials and in theory can essentially make fuel from virtually nothing into hydrocarbons. Similar to fermenting cheese but instead creating diesel. Something along the lines of this:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4270240.html?series=19

In the long-term scheme of things, I really don’t see solar or wind power having any real potential, as nuclear easily triumphs it. Some of the latest ideas for hydro-electric, including using ocean tides may have a future.

Jun 27, 2008 - 2:06 pm 29. david foster:

“Hybrids will not be an affordable fix at any time for the entire public, nor for heavy shipping such as trucking”…hybrids may not be useful for over-the-road trucking, but will be for local work–lots of start/stop driving. Hybrids will also have a niche in the railroad industry, for example in hilly territory.

GE is currently working on a hybrid locomotive although I haven’t seen a schedule yet.

Jun 27, 2008 - 2:20 pm 30. AST:

I generally support the use of prizes like the X Prize to prod development in areas where market forces aren’t enough of an incentive, but that isn’t the case in battery technology. I think we could do better things with $300 million.

Jun 27, 2008 - 2:51 pm 31. George:

Good article.

In my opinion we mostly just need prune back government regulations and endless lawsuits from environmentalists that slow down market reaction to price signals so obvious that even congress can see them. Private industry has plenty of incentive to increase fuel supply.

A good place to start is to allow oil drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida, building on oil infrastructure in the Western Gulf. Revenue from oil leases and oil production off the Florida Gulf Coast could also fund the flex-fuel vehicle mandate. If auto manufacturers were required to make all vehicles flex-fuel, mostly a requirement to add an optical sensor on the fuel line, but they were also paid for the extra cost, then the flex-fuel mandate wouldn’t be an unfunded mandate.

The main reason for requiring cars to be flex-fuel is so they can run on methanol from coal. Methanol is easier to manufacture than the more complex hydrocarbon molecules that make up gasoline. Methanol is also a potential fuel for fuel cells. Corn ethanol farm subsidies drive the politics of flex-fuel, but I predict coal synthetic fuels crush biofuels in the real world fuel market. If I’m wrong and biofuels end up being inexpensive, flex-fuel vehicles would be able to use them too.

Think we can’t drill in the Gulf? Google “Flower Garden Banks” and learn about the salt domes off Texas that support both a marine sanctuary with a coral reef and 10 oil production platforms. Hurricane Rita came through that area in 2005 and oil didn’t spill on the coral. http://www.gulfbase.org/reef/view.php?rid=efgb

Jun 27, 2008 - 3:16 pm 32. Larry:

Locomotives have been diesel-electric for at least a half century. The only thing that makes them not “hybrid” is the lack of a significant battery bank.

Several decades from now, after we’ve passed through all of the transitional technologies, large vehicles such as ships and locomotives will be hydrogen/fuel cell powered. The H2/FC combination will never power private cars. Long explanation why, but that’s how it’ll all end up by roughly mid-century.

Jun 27, 2008 - 3:23 pm 33. Fascism by Any Other Name… « Ragnar Danneskjold:

[...] by Any Other Name… Here is a perfectly fascist proposal.  In fascism, nominal private ownership is tolerated.  But it is subjected to coercive [...]

Jun 27, 2008 - 3:45 pm 34. Laura:

Answer to David: actually, Brazil sends its ethanol through the same pipelines as oil (reportedly, as long as ethanol is followed at certain intervals by some oil, there is no corrosion problem – thus nullifying yet another anti-biofuel myth). I agree this is a good article. I was interested to see that McC was seriously animated and sounding like he means it in the part of his speech where he said that as president he’d assure implementation of a flex-fuel mandate (that all cars sold in US must be flex-fuel capable). For anyone who hasn’t read Zubrin’s “Energy Victory” book yet, I’d note that it answers a lot of the questions raised here.

Jun 27, 2008 - 4:07 pm 35. otpu:

For Kyle:

Nuclear waste will stay radioactive for a long time. Depending on the exact type of waste it will retain sufficient radioactivity to still be classified as unsafe by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for up to 20,000 years.

That’s all true but the official levels of “Unsafe Radiation Exposure” are so low that you could get more exposure to radiation than OSHA would allow for someone working in a nuclear plant for a year by flying between New York and London less than a dozen times. The planes are radioactive but they do fly above more than half the Earth’s atmosphere and the passengers are subsequently exposed to higher levels of naturally occurring cosmic rays.

The safe storage time for nuclear waste is highly dependent on exactly what kind of wast is being stored. All high level waste has a short half life, that’s pretty much a self defining tautology. The half life of a radioactive isotope is the time it takes for the isotope to lose half its radioactivity.

Strontium 90, a major component of nuclear fallout, has a half life of 28.8 years. In ten half lives, 288 years, the level of radiation from a sample of Strontium 90 would be less than a thousandth of what it was originally. In ten more, 288 Plus 288 or 576 years, the radiation level would be less than a millionth of what it was originally.

Low level waste has a long half life and will stay radioactive longer but is nowhere near as radioactive to begin with.

Because of the short half life of high level isotopes it will take between 500 and 1000 years for the nuclear waste being stored in the underground bunkers at Yucca Mountain to decay back to the original radioactivity level of the uranium ore it was refined from.

A thousand years, not 25,000, is the “real” decay time of nuclear waste and we already know how to keep things high and dry and out of the way for that long.

Hell there are pubs in London that are older than that.

otpu

Jun 27, 2008 - 5:12 pm 36. otpu:

Eratta:

“The planes are radioactive”

should be

“The planes aren’t radioactive”

otpu

Jun 27, 2008 - 5:14 pm 37. david foster:

Larry..”Locomotives have been diesel-electric for at least a half century. The only thing that makes them not “hybrid” is the lack of a significant battery bank”..correct; this makes it impossible for them to recover energy lost in braking. In fact, diesel-electrics use dynamic braking in which momentum is converted to electricity, which is then dissipated in the form of heat via resistor grids. Adding the battery bank allows the energy to be captured and reused.

Laura…US practice so far is to ship ethanol by rail and barge, not pipeline–maybe there’s something different about the engineering of the Brazilian pipelines. My question was really more about the feasibility of sending *methanol* over US pipelines.

Jun 27, 2008 - 7:24 pm 38. nirmal:

Kyle, Optu,

Another key factor that is often ignored by many environmental hucksters is that while nukes generate dangerous waste, it is the relative scale of it that separates Nukes from the rest. The amount of fuel and waste in terms of weight/volume per mega Watt (MW) capacity for nukes is miniscule compared to other power sources.

For instance, a large nuclear reactor (over 1000 MW) produces about 3 cubic metres (25–30 tonnes, nuclear fuels are roughly 10 times heavier than water) of spent fuel each year. Even this is too much because in the US spent fuel is not reprocessed to separate reusable plutonium or to breed more fuel. So now only about 5% of the potential fuel is really used!

US Nuke power plants have been operating for over 30 years and they have been storing ALL of their high level wastes ON site in a large swimming pool size tank – 30 years worth! Just try that with coal or even wind and solar (they generate wastes indirectly during manufacture, installation, maintenance and disposal of the large number of power plants that are needed to match a single large Nuke)

Another factor that is ignored is land area required. Nukes require the least amount of land area per MW of power capacity by a huge margin. We could build fewer extra-high capacity nukes on a few locations on remote, low grade real estate instead of blotting the landscape with large number of low capacity solar/ wind power generators. Just ask Ted Kennedy.

Jun 27, 2008 - 7:37 pm 39. Jack Okie:

Nuclear reactors using thorium are under active development. A thorium reactor requires a small amount of external energy to sustain the reaction – a china syndrome is impossible. Thorium reactors can consume the nuclear waste from conventional reactors. India has committed to widespread deployment of thorium reactors; their reactor technology is home-grown in India.

Jun 27, 2008 - 9:15 pm 40. Larry:

Nirmal – kWH for kWH, coal plants produce more waste uranium than nuclear plants. It may not be radioactive uranium, but the ash from a coal plant is so much more massive than the waste from a nuke plant, that you end up landfilling more uranium from the same total amount of energy produced than you do from a nuke plant.

Jun 27, 2008 - 9:44 pm 41. peter jackson:

I’ve always hated the phrase “addicted” to oil. One of the reasons it’s a ridiculous idea is that if we are “addicted” to anything, it’s electricity. We use it everywhere, including in our cars. And what’s more, every indication is that our “addiction” to electricity will only deepen as time goes on. Batteries are mostly storage cells for electricity generated elsewhere, and as they become more efficient and more utilized in automobiles and everything else, the demand for electricity generated elsewhere can only grow.

McCain should have offered a fusion prize, although that may very well be a similar situation with batteries in that there is already a great deal of capital being invested, I don’t know. I do know that whether our cars engines are powered with electricity or compressed air, an additional investment in nearly free electrical energy is probably broad enough to do the most good and avoiding picking specific winners and losers amongst competing technologies.

yours/
peter.

Jun 27, 2008 - 10:23 pm 42. Lem:

I red about you on Playboy years ago. Followed your work ever since as much as I can.

I like how you seemed to startle the NY Times by proposing that it would be a good thing to have gun rights on Mars.

Jun 27, 2008 - 10:42 pm 43. Dave:

McCain should give credit where credit is due and call it the “Shipstone Prize”. Read your Heinlein, folks. A great name with which to publicize the prize.

Prizes do NOT require giving up patent rights, royalties, etc. What they do is use the promise of an immediate and large reward to insure maximum effort is made. They are useful.

On the conservation front: Since the guvvamint buys large-sized fleets of vehicles, it should specify nothing but full-sized sedans/SUVs that have real good performance and at least 35mpg in the city. “If you build them we will buy them and you can name your own price” produces results
and those results will be available elsewhere as well. Much better than mandating CAFE.

On the supply front: Let refiners ignore those silly antiturst laws and fix prices for a while. 30 to 35 years. They will buy any and all domestic/contiguous state crude oil and similar refineable substances at $80 to $90 a barrel. That kind of guaranteed income will produce a surplus while lowering the current overall price of oil.

Opportunity is knocking/

Jun 28, 2008 - 1:14 pm 44. AnAverageAmerican:

If alcohol flex-fuel is so great why is the US government simultaneously subsidizing domestic production of corn-ethanol and maintaining a tariff against Brazilian sugar-ethanol? Creating ethanol from sugar is 8 times more efficient that creating it from corn, so why is the US government backing US corn and penalizing Brazilian sugar? Can you say, politicians in the pockets of agri-business interests? Interestingly, Obama has flown several times on private jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland recently (Illinois is the 2nd largest corn producing state in the country). Where is the mainstream media outrage?

Jun 29, 2008 - 3:40 pm 45. kabud:

I hope someone reads this despite of ignorance and institutional dumbness.

Our nation faces a death threat as we speak.

I am writing this and praying that God makes me wrong in the end

but RATIONAL analysis makes me continue.

Oil just reached $143-

Ben Laden in 2001 announced that HIS TARGET PRICE FOR OIL IS $144.

We all heard that this is a time of WAR (with terrorism).

It is also a war against us in terms of making our economy pay
regressive tax on EVERYTHING by making us pay an enormous amount for transportation fuels.

Today we pay for imported oil MORE than we pay for our DEFENSE BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you think that enemy will be just collecting the pay and get rich:
YOU ARE DANGEROUSLY AND UNFORGIVABLY WRONG!!!!!

They will use this unique opportunity to destroy us with a devastating
strike. It is so simple. It is going to be THE BEST TIME TO ATTACK USA
when everyone is SO MUCH demoralized by economy going fast into decline.

There is only one way out and it is DOABLE:

METHANOL ECONOMY.

Just think about it. If McCain camp aggressively promotes it-

Johnny will win and Country may get saved from economic depression and
enemy attacks, for some time at least.

Methanol is like ethanol in terms of been liquid transportation fuel.

But it is NOT!!!!!!! depending on agriculture AT ALL. Meaning: floods is not
effecting its price, food shortages are not the issue and so on.

Do yourselves a favor- RESEARCH IT. It is so simple you can get all
answers in 1 hour.

(1)
in order to completely substitute petroleum in transportation needs
in this country we need :
a total capacity to produce methanol at the level of 500 billion gallons a year

Right now we produce around 1% of the above amount.

So here is a plan:

we need either 2000 big METHANOL plants producing 250 million gallons
of METHANOL each.

Cost to construct 1 big METHANOL plant is around $100 million if money
is not wasted of course.

It is a typical capacity for any existing big methanol factory that could be
constructed in the near proximity to substantial coal mine.

Because coal is a highly concentrated feedstock for METHANOL production

Or we can solve it by constructing many more smaller METHANOL plants
next to
-garbage landfills,
-lumber plants,
-crop fields:
because all mentioned is a good feedstock for METHANOL production including but not limited to:

coal,
natural gas,
crop residues,
urban trash,
dry leaves,
wood
residues,
dry trees from the forests, -

you name it: any kind of biomass.

Methanol is produced for over a century through different chemical
processes: known and tested.
AND CHEAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND DOMESTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=====================================================

(2)

Re-equipment of

-fuel distribution and

-existing cars to METHANOL.

This will cost our nation under 10 billion, including fuel lines in
existing cars and METHANOL pumps at gas stations, may be not at all of
them at once- but at least 25% of all gas station will do good.

—————

So all together:

we look at total investment on national scale in the amount under $500 billion.

Compare this with what this nation pays for petroleum at the price of
$144 a barrel: this year it is going to be OVER 1 TRILLION DOLLARS

From which $650 billion will go to foreign powers, including:

middle eastern totalitarian regimes,
Hugo Chavez,
Kremlin and alike

Today USA consumes little less then 20 million barrel a day and it is growing.

Get the calculator, folks!!!!!

At $650 billion for oil imports a year we pay more for oil imports then we pay for DEFENSE BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!

(3)

The plan to TRANSFER our transportation industry as a whole to METHANOL
will give US economy a huge boost:

1.Domestic construction and chemical industry will get a HUGE kick:
plants will be build, technologies applied, etc.

2.A new industry of BIG METHANOL will emerge, including network of
Methanol fueling stations

3.AUTO industry will get up to 300 million orders to re-equip ALL existing cars and TRUCKS !!!!

4.Other transportation industries will get a kick:
aircraft industry, ship building, train building: EVERYTHING THAT MOVES WILL HAVE TO REENVENT ITSELF in a doable manner.

4.Application of Flex-fuel laws as in
Open Fuel Standard Act
will add to the AUTO industry even more momentum:
Automakers will have to start producing all car able to burn METHANOL.
Mind: if car is good to burn METHANOL it is good to burn ETHANOL AS WELL(not the other way around)

and finally:

(4)
In 1989 President Bush senior said:
On June 12,1989, President Bush addressed his campaign promises to
deal with the pollution problems long facing the United States.

He unveiled an ambitious plan to remove smog from California and the
nation’s most populous cities, as well as efforts to reduce acid rain
pollution. Bush recommended auto makers be required to make
methanol-powered cars for use in nine urban areas plagued by air
pollution. Methanol is the simplest form of primary alcohol and is
commonly called wood alcohol.

Bush called methanol “home-grown energy for America.” He further
proposed a 10 million ton reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from
coal-burning power plants; that’s a 50% reduction over present
standards. Sulfur dioxide is a major cause of acid rain, which kills
50,000 Americans and 5,000-10,000 Canadians yearly. (Brookhaven
National Laboratory 1986)

William Reilly, chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, at a
briefing before Bush’s speech, estimated the cost of the plan would be
between $14 billion and $19 billion a year after its full
implementation at the turn of the century. Bush said, “Too many
Americans continue to breathe dirty air, and political paralysis has
plagued further progress against air pollution. We’ve seen enough of
this stalemate. It’s time to clear the air.

==========================================
To McCain camp:

USE THIS SIMPLE PLAN AND WIN.

PUBLIC WILL SUPPORT YOU OVERWHELMINGLY !!!!!!!!!!!

GET TO WORK!

Jun 30, 2008 - 8:58 am 46. keimica:

I think Robert Zubrin has said pretty much all that needs to be said on this matter…coal to gasoline is expensive-and to make it, you first turn it into methanol!

Jul 1, 2008 - 3:17 am 47. Israpundit » Blog Archive » McCain proposes flex fuel vehicles:

[...] Pajamas Media [...]

Jul 1, 2008 - 6:28 am 48. Kelly:

So, am I missing something here? Everyone is talking nuclear, bio, ethanol, etc., but no one is talking oil shale! We have 240 years worth of oil in the oil shale fields of CO, UT, and WY, at today’s consumption rates.

We already know how to mine it, and refine it, so why all the talk about everything else? Rather than putting our tax dollars to work coming up with gimmicks for alternative fuels, put that money into mining, refining, and developing systems for cleaner emmissions of fossil fuels, put Americans to work for the next 5 generations, and get on with life…

Jul 7, 2008 - 12:40 am 49. kabud:

to Kelly:

do you have ANY idea

-how fast and on

-what volume and at

-what cost

oil shale fields of CO, UT, and WY

could be processed?

WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE MONEY?

compare this to 200 billion cost to totally switch to METHANOL

and put an end to
OIL STRATEGIC VALUE FOR OUR ENEMY

do you understand this concept?

feel free to ask if you dont

Jul 9, 2008 - 3:06 pm 50. Kelly:

Kabud, Frankly, I am unable to find the actual production cost of Methanol, except in euro’s from a Swedish study, which means little to me. The cost for oil shale production is around $75-80 barrel, perhaps more. But it is no where near the cost we are paying per barrel at current market for pumped oil from OPEC.

Additionally, if you have read my posts at http://www.knoyd.com, you will see that I am a big proponent of coal to liqued fuel, which for all intents and purposes, is the production of methanol. Coal is a perfect source for methanol, and with 250 years of coal reserves, absolutely, this would be a great opportunity.

The bigger factor, however, is independence and security:

According to http://www.knoyd.com (”Drill and Mine US Oil–Buy and Refine US Oil!, copyright 2008),

US Energy Independence and Security comes from a three-fold mission:

The United States of America…

1. …has a divine destiny to defend democracy in every nation that currently embraces democracy, and promote democratic principles where tyranny and dictatorship runs supreme. This cannot be accomplished while the US is beholden to the very tyrants against whom it fights.

2. …has energy, whether from oil, bio-mass, coal, or nuclear power, as the life-blood of the US economy. The effects of skyrocketing fuel cost have a direct impact on the affordability of food, clothing, and shelter for every citizen, rich or poor. We must bring down the price of energy without further delay.

3. …energy policy plays a vital role in the creation of thousands and thousands of jobs. The oil shale fields alone can produce enough oil to replace our current imports and do so for 240 years. This is a minimum of 5 generations of employment for families in CO, UT, and WY. We have 250 years of coal supplies that can be converted to liquid fuel, and produce thousands of jobs.

It is time for liberal politicians to severe ties with fascist, economy-wrecking, pseudo-environmental groups and begin to do what is in the best interest of the whole of the citizens of the United States. It is time for conservative politicians to stand and make a very vocal demand for energy independence and security. And it is time for every citizen to follow in the footsteps of Patrick Henry and declare that “Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” (Patrick Henry, 1775, House of Burgesses)

Jul 12, 2008 - 10:03 am 51. Kelly:

Kabud, one thing I overlooked. Your question about getting the money for oil shale production- Private industry! The only thing holding back production at this time is the fascist psuedo-environmental cult applying pressure on spineless liberal politicians. Remove the road-blocks to mining on federal and private land, and the market will find a way to make oil shale production the more feasible alternative to foreign imports.

Jul 12, 2008 - 10:08 am 52. kabud:

Kelly:
if you talk about cost:
we buy oil at $150 but then there are added costs to process it to gas and to distribute.

METHANOL was sold retail for around $1-$2 a gallon recently

then with the oil price jump- the methanol retail price also followed

coal to methanol is cheap, there is at least one plant in US that does it on industrial scale

AND COAL IS OUR OWN RESERVE- 25% of World coal is HERE

I am sure coal-methanol plants are much less expensive then new refineries and:
EXXON made it clear: they are not going to build more oil infrastructure because it will never be profitable. They estimate oil to get of the fuel market by 2030, so ..drilling is disinformation((

Jul 15, 2008 - 7:22 pm 53. kabud:

Kelly

some details on methanol
http://xyu.livejournal.com/639657.html

also in my blog there are many articles collected and links on the subject

Jul 15, 2008 - 7:43 pm 54. Breaking the Oil Cartel’s Monopoly « Ronan Conlon:

[...] argue that it is the greatest transfer of wealth in human history with 100 dollar a barrel oil. Zurbin even argues that American independence is at stake given the power of sovereign wealth funds: “OPEC will [...]

Sep 18, 2008 - 10:35 pm 55. jimv:

but what about Butanol?

After reading “Energy Victory” I was convinced of the wisdom of changing over to flex fuel automobiles as soon as possible. But then just recently I discovered this article about Butanol. Butanol is another alcohol alternative fuel, and has the great advantage that it can be used in today’s cars without modification. From the material presented, it looks like it would be much better for the ethanol producers to switch their production to butanol immediately. Therefore, the course of action is not to push the Open Fuels Standards Act, but 1) to push Congress to fund rapid research into volume production of Butanol, and 2) push the automakers to allow use of Butanol in their vehicles without voiding the manufacturer’s warranty.

Oct 13, 2008 - 7:56 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: