Here's a review of Bob Zubrin's new book, which is about energy rather than space.

If you're in the DC area, there's an opportunity to hear him speak about it tomorrow night.

Sounds like a good idea. M85 flex fuel is interesting since methanol can easily be synthesized from CO2 and water using _any_ energy source (Solar, Nuclear, Wind etc.) using the sabatier reaction. Much more practical and energy efficient than fermenting plants to produce alcohol.

Sounds like a good idea. M85 flex fuel is interesting since methanol can easily be synthesized from CO2 and water using _any_ energy source (Solar, Nuclear, Wind etc.) using the sabatier reaction. Much more practical and energy efficient than fermenting plants to produce alcohol.

Sounds like a good idea. M85 flex fuel is interesting since methanol can easily be synthesized from CO2 and water using _any_ energy source (Solar, Nuclear, Wind etc.) using the sabatier reaction. Much more practical and energy efficient than fermenting plants to produce alcohol.

Sounds like a good idea. M85 flex fuel is interesting since methanol can easily be synthesized from CO2 and water using _any_ energy source (Solar, Nuclear, Wind etc.) using the sabatier reaction. Much more practical and energy efficient than fermenting plants to produce alcohol.

Sounds like a good idea. M85 flex fuel is interesting since methanol can easily be synthesized from CO2 and water using _any_ energy source (Solar, Nuclear, Wind etc.) using the sabatier reaction. Much more practical and energy efficient than fermenting plants to produce alcohol.

Apparently this sounds like a good idea. Five times better than similar ideas.

Great, just when I thought it was safe to bite into a piece of corn bread. An imported energy tax should accomplish the same goal for a smaller negative effect on the economy. Ironically, an imported energy tax would reduce energy security by using up cheap local resources. Similarly, Zubrin's mandate would in effect be a tax on auto manufacturing which would result in waste and deadweight loss in our economy. With ethanol trading at 50% of the price of gasoline even though it has 70% of the energy, drivers have an incentive to do the conversion Zubrin's talking about. Smith's invisible hand will do the right amount of conversion. $15 billion in ethanol subsidies and a mandate for ethanol as an additive, we are already torquing our economy far too much for good economic health.

Where do they keep finding all of these gullible folks who think ethanol is a workable replacement for petroleum?

Sam: "With ethanol trading at 50% of the price of gasoline even though it has 70% of the energy, drivers have an incentive to do the conversion Zubrin's talking about."

I think his point is that drivers don't have the incentive to do the conversion, because the gas stations don't support it, except in low population farm areas.

http://e85vehicles.com/e85-stations.htm

Her also argues that since drivers don't have the incentive to do the conversion (or buy flex fuel vehicles in the first place), manufacturers don't have the incentive to offer many of the vehicles.

He's definitely advocating a government interruption in the workings of the invisible hand, but his goal seems to be a situation where consumers can reasonably make fuel purchasing decisions guided by the invisible hand. Right now there's already a big non-ideal economic factor in the situation: OPEC.

He also clearly has political motivations that probably trump any laissez-faire attitude he might(?) have.

TJIT: "Where do they keep finding all of these gullible folks who think ethanol is a workable replacement for petroleum?"

From the book: "The United States uses 380 gallons of gasoline per day. If we were to replace that entirely with domestically produced ethanol, we would have to harvest approximately *four times* as much agricultural output as we currently grow for food production. ..." Then there's more about not needing to replace the whole gas use, future technology improvements in ethanol production, importing ethanol, etc, but nevertheless ethanol doesn't do the job.

ie he's not trying to replace gas with ethanol by any stretch of the imagination.

What he's advocating is mandating flex-fuel vehicles that support gas, ethanol, AND methanol (and mixtures thereof). He argues that ethanol and methanol have different strengths (political, environmental, cost, available supply ...) and FFVs that just support gas and ethanol will not do the job.

He's clearly counting on methanol for most of the gas-replacing gallons.

Now, does he have a good argument? I don't know. I just wanted to clarify where I think he's coming from.

I understand 'gray market' blended methanol is penetrating the gasoline market in China. It's technically illegal, both because of fuel system materials issues and the lower energy density (which cheats the consumer, more so than ethanol would), but the government is turning its gaze because it reduces oil imports.

If this takes off there, then car makers will have a strong incentive to sell cars that can tolerate methanol in the fuel, and Zubrin's desideratum will arrive by default.