If Robert Zubrin’s program to convert us to an alcohol economy is in fact adopted, it raises a serious question for the rapid development of domestic oil resources. Given the huge cost and long time frame to develop the domestic resources the advantage of alcohol could render oil development a very risky venture.

Perhaps the time is soon coming to short the oil companies.

I just finished reading ‘Energy Victory’ by Robert Zubrin. I was most impressed by his presentation at AIPAC and was equally impressed with his book. While I recommend you buy and read the whole book (270 pages) here is the quick summary.

We need to convert to an alcohol economy over an oil economy. The primary reason is for national security; it is just suicidal to transfer the amount of wealth that we do to regimes that are bent on our destruction. Radical Islamic forces that terrorize the world are funded by the oil revenues, primarily to Saudi Arabi.

The secondary reason is the benefit to our economy by drastically reducing our trade deficit. It would also benefit the poor in the third world by giving them an incentive to produce organic commodities to convert to fuel. Instead of funding people who hate us we could help the poor become more self sufficient and less dependent on foreign aid.

The third reason is environmental. While he acknowledges that global warming is real, it is not the urgent crisis that many of its advocates propose. Weaning us of oil would reduce the man made impact.

Zubrin is an engineer and he gives a lot of technical data to support his points. He disposes of the hydrogen based fuel cell technology as technically inneficient. He also describes in detail why alcohol is superior to wind and photovoltaic production as a broad solution. Alcohol fuels do not require a dramatic increase in the production cost of cars or require a new electric infrastructure as battery hybrids require.

He proposes more nuclear energy for the electric grid and his hope for fusion nuclear development would be a huge advancement of epic proportions that would dwarf the benefits of all other fuel sources.

He devotes a chapter to Brazil and how their emphasis on alcohol technology has made them independent of imported oil. In fact they export both oil and the alcohol they produce to replace it. Brazil supported alcohol production even after OPEC lowered prices, making it uncompetitive. The IMF even pressured them to cease the subsidy to help with their debt repayments. Brazil resisted and benefited handsomely.

While admiring Brazil’s long term solution, Zubrin’s critical idea is not to subsidize the production and distribution as they did, but to mandate that all cars SOLD in the US be flex fuel compatible. Flex fuel mean the cars are built to use both methanol and ethanol blends as well as gasoline. It requires very little extra cost and would create such a demand incentive that the private fuel distribution network would create the supply to satisfy demand.

By demanding that all cars sold, not just produced in the U.S., be flex fuel compatible we would in effect force this standard on the world, and deal OPEC a fatal blow.

Killing OPEC for good is Zubrin’s ultimate goal. I’m OK with that.

I keep getting some preposterous e-mails about Obama. I recently got one that was a supposed article by Maureen Dowd about Obama getting millions of dollars through the internet from Saudi sources. Dowd never wrote the article, but the e-mail cut and pasted her picture and made it look as if it was copied from the New York Times.

I have received a supposed e-mail from a US soldier in Afghanstan about how Obama ‘blew off’ the soldiers when he visited. It was made to look like a forwarded e-mail from a regular grunt.
It is also false.

I realize that a lot of conservatives don’t like Obama so strongly that they will believe anything negative about him. Both of these stories and many others can be easily discredited at http://www.snopes.com/. Just type in the article heading. Be a little responsible.

I do not support Obama, but there are plenty of reasons in his stated policies, his 180 degree shifts on about 80% of his positions, and his utter lack of leadership experience on anything other than getting elected.

7/22/08

I was up early and watched an interview with Obama after his tour of Iraq. Obama was asked if he regretted his opposition to the surge since it apparently has worked quite well.

He stood by his original vote, and credited the success not to the surge but to the change in the Sunni participation in the government and the surrender of the Shiite militia, which he admittedly did not foresee.

Does he seriously believe that the change in both the Sunni and Shiite postures was not directly related to the military commitment of the surge? Did they just miraculously change their minds and fight the insurgents and support the government process, just coincidentally at the time of the surge?

Furthermore does Obama believe that Malaki would be so quick to agree in some fashion to a withdrawal of US forces if the surge had not been executed and been successful? Would Obama have even visited Iraq without the surge he opposed?

The ultimate irony is that Obama is able to score political points because he was wrong. The success of the surge which he opposed has paved the way for the withdrawal that has been a center piece of his campaign.

Just to show you how open minded I am, Jimmy Carter deserves credit for one successful energy policy.

In 1974 about 17% of U.S. electricity was produced by by burning oil and 18% came from natural gas. Carter’s Fuel Use Act discouraged this and by 1985 oil generators supplied only 4.1% of our electricity. Today oil is down to 3%. Nuclear power went from 4% in 1973 to 20% today.

The success was because the policy focused on substituting a better fuel rather than conservation. During that period energy consumption increased substantially.

While the Fuel Use Act was a success, most of the rest of Carter’s energy policies were substantial failures.

from Energy Victory by Robert Zubrin