“Where there is no vision, the people perish...”
- Proverbs 29:18
“Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good that we oft might win by fearing to attempt.” - William Shakespeare (“Measure for Measure” Act 1 Scene 4)
“There are three things needed to wage war: money, money, and yet more money.”
- (unknown at the moment)
Prologue
“Our military is at war; America is at the mall.”
“We have assigned the entirety of our security to a demographic slice, a society of Soldiers, a noble warrior-class. It is superbly equipped, yet notwithstanding and above all, it is so small. And it is all we have.”
- (Michael Vlahos, “Fighting Identity: Why We are Losing Our Wars,” Military Review, Nov- Dec 2007)
Energy security is the central front on the War on Terror, not Iraq and Afghanistan – and we are not even in the fight. Our dependence on oil is funding our enemy's war effort. We have the ability to cut our enemies off at the knees. The choice is ours to do so.
Similar to our conflict with non-state actors today (Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and Hezbollah) two earlier great states faced similar conflicts with non-state actors. Unfortunately for them they did not prevail and this led to the demise of their societies. The first was the Roman Empire's capitulation to the Goths and the second was the Catalans rampage against Byzantine Empire. Today we find ourselves facing the same difficulty the Romans and the Byzantines once did. How will we prevail?
Like the Romans and Byzantines at their demise, the United States - and the Western World - today relies on small armies to protect our societies rather than on our citizenry as a whole. One example is that in 1989, the United States possessed three million activity duty military personnel. By September 11, 2001, the United States possessed 1.5 million active duty military personnel.
More importantly, our civilization no longer relies on the collective effort of its population in order to guard is existence. If we fail to do battle collectively as a people, like the Romans and Byzantines, why should we expect a contrary outcome?
Challenge Number One With the Global War On Terror
Thirty-five years after the 1973 oil embargo we remain a nation without an energy policy, a vision for energy independence, we continue to become ever more dependent on oil reserves in the clutches of oil regimes whose economic and security interests far different than our own, and as long as we solely rely on oil to fuel our transportation we are subsidizing a war against ourselves.
The consequences of relying on oil to power our transportation (automobiles, trucks, airplanes, trains, and ships) are as follows. First, we our undermining our national security by funding enemies that promote terrorism. Second, we do not control the fuel needed to run our economy and our military. Third, the rising cost of oil is damaging our economy – worse it is devastating the developing world which cannot afford $100 a barrel oil. Fourth, numerous environmental problems.
By changing our condition to one where gasoline has to compete with other fuels we will break the oil monopoly of OPEC, contain the price rises that OPEC is now in a position to inflict, reduce the money the oil tyrannies have to fund terrorism, reduce superpower conflict in the Middle East, and counter air pollution.
The solutions exist to solve our energy challenges right now. What is required is a citizenry that possess the knowledge about the available solutions and electing and supporting leaders that will implement the necessary policies. The American people, when honestly informed about the numerous hazards of continuing to rely on oil to power our transportation and the alternatives that exist, will support the necessary efforts to free us from our dependence on oil in order to protect our nation's economy and security, cripple the sponsors of international terrorism, reduce the threat of war between energy starved industrial powers, create affordable fuel for the citizens of our nation and the world, and dramatically reduce pollution.
The solution for victory in the War on Terror, securing affordable energy for our transportation, and dramatically reducing pollution is moving from a hydrocarbon (oil) economy to an alcohol economy (ethanol, methane, butinol, and/or propanol). The means to usher in the alcohol fuel economy is through flex-fuel cars – cars able to run on any combination of gasoline and another fuel, e.g. some alcohol fuel. The premise of Robert Zubrin's book, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror By Breaking Free of Oil, is that the technology not only exists it has already been implemented with success in Brazil. The following will further identify the dangers of maintaining our reliance on oil, explain what flex-fuel cars are, identify the numerous methods for creating alcohol fuels, and present the policies we as a nation must undertake in order to transition to an alcohol economy and energy independence.
Oil's Preeminence
Today our sources of energy are oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and biomass. Oil is preeminent because it is the only energy source that is able to produce portable vehicle fuel for cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, and ships. Vehicles are what move the economy and military force. We cannot win the War on Terror as long as our enemies control the only means of portable vehicle fuel – oil. In order to challenge oil's preeminence there must be an alternative. The short term solution is alcohol based fuels.
Economic and National Security Dangers of the Petroleum Economy
In 1972, the United States paid $4 billion for its oil imports. This amount equaled 1.2% of the defense budget for the same year. In 2006, the United States paid $260 billion for its oil imports. This amount equaled 50% of the defense budget for the same year. In 2008, with $100 a barrel oil, the amount the United States will pay for its oil imports will likely be equal to 70% to 80% of our defense budget. More than 50% of our trade deficit is due to the oil we import.
There is no amount of conservation that can be effective in reducing the cost of oil. In 2002 OPEC controlled 71% of the world's oil reserves while the United States controlled 4% the world's oil reserves. By 2020 OPEC will control 83% of the world's oil reserves and the United States will control 1%. OPEC holds all the assets and the rest of the world has zilch.
In 2004, the United States Department of Energy projected that oil would reach $25 dollars a barrel by 2025. During the same year oil reached $40 a barrel. In 2004, the Department of Energy did not forecast China to become a major oil importer. Today China is the world's third largest oil importer behind the United States and Japan. By 2014 it will be the world's largest oil importer. With China and India industrializing demand for oil will only increase for the foreseeable future. Imagine the affect on the oil market with another customer the size of the United States. Imagine the affect on the oil market with another two customers the size of the United States.
Global Power
Oil is power. Victory in World War II was decided by who controlled the oil. Oil did not win the war, but it decided which soldiers, sailors, and airmen won. During World War II the United States produced 60% of the world's oil and the Soviet Union produced 15% of the world's oil. The Japanese, on the other hand, were limited to oil reserves in Indonesia and the German's were limited to oil reserves in Romania and their synthetic oil research and development. The German need for oil led to the failed campaign to capture the Soviet oil fields in the Cacauses. This failure allowed the Soviets to fuel their massive tank armies. In 1943, the United States destroyed 40% of the Romanian oil fields in a bombing raid that resulted in 101 out of 180 bombers being lost. In 1944, 900 bombers completely destroyed the Germans synthetic oil industry in one day. Three months later the Germans were out of fuel. The Ardennes campaign was to capture the Allied fuel in Belgium. This campaign failed because the Germans ran out of fuel before they could get to the Allied fuel stores. The Japanese had their oil cut off by United States submarines sinking their tankers. In 1945, despite being able to produce 20,000 aircraft, the Japanese could not send up one plane to intercept the Enola Gay. If the Axis powers controlled the oil the war would have turned out completely different. The Germans would have defeated Great Britain by shutting of its supply of oil preventing the Royal Air Force from challenging the German air force during the Battle of Britain and the Royal Navy would not have been able to challenge the German navy on the seas. The Soviets would not have been able to mobilize its tank armies. The United States would not have been able to get its fleet, aircraft, and armor into the battle against Japan. We controlled the fuel and we won. Today we do not control the fuel.
Today the United States produces only 10% of the world's oil while the majority of the oil production and oil reserves are in the hands of totalitarian regimes hostile to virtually every principal of Western Civilization. How long can we afford to leave this power in their hands – the power to decide who controls the world?
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an oil cartel made up of twelve petroleum-tyrannies. These twelve countries decide what the price of oil will be – not the market.
Oil has no competitor. Because of this there is no free market for fuel for transportation. Oil exists in a monopoly controlled by the OPEC. OPEC uses the ever increasing demand for oil to leverage prices. Unless OPEC's monopoly on oil is challenged there is nothing to stop oil from rising to $200 a barrel. Not too long ago $100 a barrel oil seemed fantastical. In 1999 oil was selling for $11 a barrel. In 2008 it reached $100 a barrel. By cutting production only by 10% OPEC can increase the price of oil by a factor of three.
In 2007, $1 trillion in oil revenue went to OPEC. Besides being a lot of money this represents to a lot of power – power to do good or to do evil. Within OPEC Saudi Arabia receives the largest amount of this money. Why? Saudi Arabia controls OPEC. Saudi Arabia is the largest oil exporter within OPEC - exporting more than what the next four largest exporters combined export. Saudi Arabia not only has the largest oil reserves it has the cheapest oil - $1.50 a barrel to produce. As the world's largest oil exporter Saudi Arabia is the regulator of the price of oil.
Saudi Arabia
What has Saudi Arabia done with the immense wealth it has received from its oil resources? Besides wasting it on the largest narcissistic expenditures the world has ever seen (palaces, narcotics, concubines, race horses, and so on) is has used over $100 billion to spread its brand of Islam, Wahhabism, around the world. Wahhabism is the most intolerable form of Islam. It completely denies religious, personal, and intellectual freedom. It calls for the killing of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Scientologists, Mormans, Shias, atheists, and so on. To promote Wahhabism Saudi Arabia supports an alphabet soap of organizations around the world. The Saudi government has established over 20,000 madrassas (religious schools) outside of Saudi Arabia that teach young boys that the way to Paradise is to kill the before mentioned infidels. It has set up over 1,000 madrassas in Pakistan alone, which were responsible for creating the Taliban. The majority of the foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudis and Wahhabi trained jihadists from other countries. In Algeria Wahhabi trained jihadist's efforts to subvert the progressive Islamic government has resulted in over 100,000 deaths. In Egypt Wahhabi trained jihadists killed Anwar Sadat. Wahhabi trained jihadists are in Nigeria, Israel, Central Asia, India, Kashmir, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Sudan, Philippines, and Africa. The total casualties they have visited upon humanity is well into the millions.
One example of Saudi propaganda are publications claiming that the United States has medical teams in Iraq that harvesting the organs from Muslims that have been killed in order to bring them back to the United States. This is one recruiting tool used to recruit foreign fighters to kill Americans in Iraq. More devastating has been the casualties to the poor of the world in the developing world caused by Saudi Arabia and OPEC fixing the price of oil - artificially high priced oil people people in the developing world are unable to afford.
Saudi influence in United States politics has to make one wonder who is dictating our foreign policy and our energy policy. After Colin Powell resigned as the Secretary of State he received a brand new Jaguar from the government of Saudi Arabia. James Baker III’s, who lead the Iraqi Study Report, law firm is on retainer with the Saudi government to defend Saudi Arabia against the claims of the families of the 9/11 victims. Akin Gump, and other powerful firms on both sides of the political aisle, represent the Saudi government. Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy during President Bush's first administration, is now a lobbyist or the Saudi government. Could this be one reason why the United States has no energy policy, has had a less than successful Middle Eastern foreign policy, and has not demanded that Saudi Arabia stop sending foreign fighters to Iraq?
Iran
Iran funds and supports Hezbollah which until 9/11 was responsible for having killed more Americans than any terrorist group. Hezbollah now is growing in Latin America. Despite Hezbollah having murdered numerous ethnic Russians throughout the old Soviet satellite states in the Central Asia, Putin's Russia has deemed it a priority to support Iran in its quest to develop nuclear weapons in order to challenge the United States' efforts in the region.
Short-term, Mid-term, and Long-term Energy Solutions
A national energy policy must factor short-term solutions, mid-term solutions, and long-term solutions. What can be done now, what will be to be done over the next several years, and what will be possible over the next several decades.
The flex-fuel car and alcohol fuels are the short term solution for our present energy challenges. The technology exists. The technology is being successfully employed in Brazil and the United States. The cost to the American consumer to change to flex-fuel cars is negligible. The flex-fuel car and alcohol fuel technology will work with our existing energy infrastructure - which is where the biggest challenges and costs will occur.
Plug-in hybrids may be a mid-term solution as the price of these vehicles decreases. (Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars That Will Re-charge America, Sherry Boschert). Currently hybrid cars cost about $5,000 more than equivalent gasoline powered vehicles. More important, this will depend on our on our willingness to build new state of the art power-plants. Today we are not willing to build new state of the art power plants just as we are not willing to built new state of the art gasoline refineries. This refusal is due to the lack of understanding of the necessity to update our energy infrastructure; the successful efforts of the depopulation and anti-capitalists elements of the environmental movement; and American communities that want the benefits of an industrial economy, but do not want that which creates our quality of life in their midst.
Hydrogen may be the long term solution when a way is found to create inexpensive hydrogen and when we are willing revamp our energy infrastructure. (The Phoenix Project: Shifting From Oil to Hydrogen, Harry Braun). In addition, dependable solar power and fusion may be long term solution to our energy needs.
Transitioning From a Petroleum Fuel Economy to Alcohol Fuel Economy
In order to transition from a petroleum fuel economy to an alcohol fuel economy we must, through our Congress, mandate that all cars “sold” in the United States be flex-fuel cars.
Roberta Nichols – Inventor of the flex-fuel car
“Ideas are a dime a dozen, men and women who can implement ideas are worth diamonds.”
Roberta Nichols invented the flex-fuel car in the early 1990's. She was a race car and a race boat driver who worked for Ford as head of their alternate fuels program.
Nichols first developed cars that used methanol for the state of California. Despite the state of California establishing fueling stations for its fleet of methanol powered cars, without a means for the public to refuel these cars, owning these cars was impractical.
Those seeking to transition to fuels other than gasoline realized that in order to transition to another fuel cars had to be able to run both on gasoline and an alternative fuel. Once enough of these cars were in our society then gas stations would be able to add alternate fuel pumps in order to meet the demands of the new market. With this understanding, and by overcoming the engineering challenges of creating a car that is able to be powered by two different fuels, Nichols succeeded to creating the flex-fuel car. By the early 1990's 8,000 gasoline-methane flex-fuel cars were built in the United States. However, by the mid-1990's the champions of the gasoline-methane flex-fuel car quit. At this time the Farm Lobby picked up the flex-fuel car cause in order to create a market for crops used to create ethanol. As a result of this flex-fuel cars became primarily powered by gasoline and ethanol. By 2007 twenty-four different flex-fuel cars were being built by United States car companies alone. Today flex-fuel cars make up 3% of the United States auto market.
The cost difference between a gasoline car and a flex-fuel car is only $100 compared to $5000 for hybrid. This is a important point for mandating that only flex-fuel cars be sold in the United States because this mandate will not inflict any additional costs on the Americans who buy new cars.
Today there is no benefit to owning a flex-fuel car because there are very few gas stations sell ethanol. Of the 200,000 filling stations in the United States only 700 have ethanol, and most of these are in farm states where they are subsidized. With only 3% of all the cars in the United States using ethanol there is no incentive for American gas stations to modify their stations with the storage and pumps needed to provide ethanol.
The lack of a price differential between gasoline powered cars and flex-fuel cars makes a government mandate possible. Further, a mandate will make the flex-fuel car the national standard. Not only would the flex-fuel car be made the national standard with a mandate, the flex-fuel car will also become the international standard because the Japanese, Germans, and Koreans will produce flex-fueled cars in order to continue to sell their cars in the world’s largest car market – the United States. These cars then will be marketed throughout the rest of the world. Considering how many cars Americans buy in a year, 50 million flex-fuel cars can be on the roads of American alone in three years. This is the catalyst that American gas stations need to start selling ethanol.
Mandating that all new cars sold in the United States is this action that will force gasoline into competition with alcohol fuels everywhere in the world. It is this action that will break the OPEC monopoly.
Making the Transition to Alcohol Fuels
Ethanol, methanol and other alcohol refineries do not require complex technology. Because of this medium size refineries are being built within two years. Presently ethanol production is increasing by 50% a year. In contrast to this in order to build a new gasoline refinery in the United States it is estimated to take twenty years – ten of these years being devoted to the legal assaults from anti-industrial environmentalists and the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) community groups. The consequence of this is that building a new gasoline refinery in the United States is an unwise and risky investment by American energy/oil companies. This is one reason why no new gasoline refinery has been built in the United States in over thirty years. The legacy of the successful efforts to prevent new refineries from being built is that the United States will shortly become, for the first time, an importer of refined gasoline to meet our energy needs. The legacy we leave our children and grandchildren, unless we change course, is to leave them every more dependent on foreign energy resources and being vulnerable to the whims of the energy providers.
In 1942 American car companies were able to convert their factories within a year to makes tanks and other military vehicles. Converting today's car factories from producing traditional gasoline powered cars to flex-fuel cars can follow a similar time-line. As of today American automakers intend to convert half of the car fleet they produce each year to hybrids by 2012.
Mandating flex-fuel cars flex-fuel cars be sold in the United States will further accelerate our conversion to an alcohol fuel economy by mobilizing capital for building factories, building refineries, expanding agriculture, converting service stations, and research and development into alcohol fuel production. Why, in order to capture a piece of the $1 trillion a year energy market. Serious money attracts serious efforts.
The Market and Fuel Choice
Mandating flex-fuel cars does not mandate what alcohol fuels should be produced. Flex-fuel cars can use all alcohol fuels. It will be the market that decides which fuel/fuels best support the alcohol economy. Mandating flex-fuel cars will create a market that does not currently exist. It will, for the first time, create a market where people have a choice of fuels they want to use. By mandating flex-fuel cars gasoline will finally have to compete with another fuel.
What will happen when OPEC drops the price of oil in order to destroy our efforts to convert our economy to alcohol fuels by means of flex fuel cars? We place tariffs on oil and do not let the get away with their tactics. What is more important, to get cheap fuel for the moment or to be our own master?
Social Justice
Creating an alcohol fuel market would create more demand for agricultural products than American farmers can meet. American farmers will have more business than they can handle with business left over. This is a good thing. With the great demand for agricultural products we can stop the welfare to American farmers in the form of farm subsidies. We may even be able to dismantle the Department of Agriculture. I have wondered why we persist in maintaining the Department of Agriculture and subsidizing farmers when the United States possesses the world's best farmers, the world's best farmland, the world's best agriculture universities, more than 400 cash crops to choose to grow, and with farmers making up only 1.5% of the population of the United States? Further, the United States can end the atrocious tariffs against ethanol produced in Latin America (specifically Brazil) as well our other tariffs on foreign agricultural products established to protect United States farmers at the expense of the American consumer and foreign farmers.
The demand for agricultural products needed to produce alcohol fuels would also be more than European farmers could meet which would even eliminate Europe's more restrictive trade barriers on agricultural products from the developing world which led to the collapse of the Doha Talks in 2007.
The developing world's greatest strength is biological productivity - farming. The developing world's ability to produce agricultural products is essential for establishing an alcohol fuel economy. The amazing benefit to the developing world will be the shift of money from OPEC to the developing world's farmers. In 2007, the total amount of foreign aid money that went to the developing world from all sources, the United States and other developed countries governments, the United Nations, churches, and private organizations amounted to $50 billion. The shift to alcohol fuels can potentially send ten times this amount, $500 billion that would have gone to buy oil from OPEC, to the farmers of the developing world for their products needed to create alcohol fuels. The shift to alcohol fuels would create the largest engine for development in human history for the poor of the world.
Ethanol
Ethanol is made from food crops. In the United States it is made from corn. In Brazil it is made from sugar cane – which is more promising than corn. For my Cuban family members this should create excitement for Cuba's potential future without Castro. Ethanol can be made by fermenting almost all food crops - potatoes, grapes, honey, and so on. Crops have limits and the move to an alcohol fuel economy will dramatically increase research and develop efforts to develop other sources of ethanol.
Methanol
Methanol can be made from all plants (food crops, weeds, leaves, aquatic plants, and so on) and all parts of plants (roughage). Methane is also created from coal, natural gas, stranded natural gas that is flared, land fills, and urban trash. Methanol costs less to produce than ethanol, but it also has less energy than ethanol.
Ethanol and methanol both work in flex-fuel cars and both need to be pursued in order to achieve global energy security.
Note About the Detractors of Alcohol Fuels
Zubrin cites several studies that refute the research concluding that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than ethanol provides. Several of the detractors of alcohol fuels are those who are opposed to modern agriculture and support the belief that the world's population needs to be reduced by two-thirds. Such beliefs undermine their credibility as a dispassionate researchers.
Environment
The initial reason why research in alcohol fuels was pursued was to reduce pollution. Ethanol and the other alcohol fuels are far less polluting than gasoline. One of the positive consequences of Brazil moving from petroleum fuels to alcohol fuels has been a dramatic improvement in air quality in Rio De Janero and San Palo. Alcohol fuels burn cleaner, are less toxic, are not carcinogenic, are soluble in water (posing no hazard of spills as are possible with oil tankers).
Plants cool the environment via evapotransportation. This is why it is cooler to be on the lawn rather than on the cement in the summer and why summertime in Alabama is cooler than summer in Iraq when each is at approximately the same latitude. Promoting agriculture in order to meet the demand for alcohol fuels will do a great deal to reduce green house gases while promoting economic growth at the same time.
Will the expansion of agriculture production harm the environment by using more water, more land, more fertilizers, and more pesticides? Yes, soil and land has to be protected. By increasing the value of crops the value of farm land increases. The more valuable farmland becomes the more desirable it becomes to protect the land. The more valuable the land is the more incentives there are to take proper care of the land. Case in point, consider Pebble Beach and Augusta golf courses.
Brazil
In 2007, Brazil became independent of foreign oil for fueling its cars and trucks. The transition to an alcohol economy was completed in thirty years. It was the flex-fuel car that made this transition possible. The flex-fuel car provided a no lose situation for the Brazilian people. If gasoline prices fell below ethanol prices the people bought gasoline. If gasoline prices rose above the price of ethanol then the people bought ethanol. The people of Brazil, unlike those of us in the United States and around the world, have a choice of fuels they can buy. In 2007, 90% of the cars sold in Brazil were flex-fuel. In 2008, 100% of the cars sold in Brazil will be flex-fuel cars.
Compare the success of a nation with an energy policy, Brazil, with that of a nation without an energy policy, the United States. In 1980 the United States imported 35% of its oil while Brazil imported 80% of its oil. By the mid-1990's both countries imported 45% of their oil. In 2007, the United States imported 60% of its oil while Brazil imported no oil to fuel its cars and trucks. This is the difference between having an energy policy and not having an energy policy. This is the difference between victory and defeat. Not only has Brazil weaned itself off of petroleum fuels for its cars and trucks, Brazil has also become and exporter of ethanol.
Mandating Flex-fuel Cars and the Alcohol Fuel Economy – Who Benefits?
It is in the consumer's interest to have a choice of fuels. It is in the consumer's of the world to have a choice, especially those in the developing world. The only people who have no interest in the alcohol fuel economy are those who want to preserve the OPEC monopoly/cartel and those who profit from the status quo. Whose interests do we want to prevail? Do we want to win the War on Terror?
Liberty
Liberty cannot exist in a state of siege. Necessary and pragmatic actions by our President and Congress to protect our security against terrorist threats come with a price – loss of liberty. The only way to protect our liberty against the threat of international terrorism is to defeat the threat. Military action alone will not defeat this threat. The power of the OPEC cartel and its financing of terrorism must be destroyed. This victory is now possible by mandating flex-fuel cars and ushering in the alcohol fuel economy. This will break OPEC's monopoly and its ability to finance terror.
Victory Is Possible NOW!
Victory in the war on terror, destroying the power of our enemies, preserving world peace, energy independence, protecting consumers world wide, improving the environment, increasing world trade and development, and creating an engine that can lift up a significant portion of the developing world is all possible now. Remember what the United States has accomplished during its short history - landing men on the moon, building the Panama Canal, creating the Internet, defeating the Axis powers, rebuilding Europe, and so on.
The choice to prevail is ours. What legacy shall we leave our children and grand-children?
Sincerely,
Peter
No comments:
Post a Comment