Thus speaks the provincial New Yorker. Reminds me of that Saul Steinberg cartoon in the New Yorker: 
Posted on 02/25/2006 7:51:26 AM PST by Rakkasan1
When discussing economic policies it is important to not let rhetoric overpower reality. That happened in a recent, much-reprinted New York Times article that argued "endless fields of corn in the Midwest can be distilled into endless gallons of ethanol … that could end any worldwide oil shortage … and free the United States from dependence on foreign energy." The story went on to discuss how much energy goes into producing ethanol. But it failed to substantiate its lead assertion of "endless gallons of ethanol" that might "free the United States" from oil imports. The United States is an agricultural powerhouse, but even common crops like corn are not endless. In 2004, we harvested just under 12 billion bushels of corn, the most in several years. One bushel of corn yields about 2.7 gallons of ethanol. So if we processed all the corn we produce, we would have 32 billion gallons of fuel alcohol.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
The same BS mindset convinces the left's minions that it is useless to drill ANWAR for the same reasons.
We'll never get anything close to energy independance because everybody poopoos all the little things that add-up.
One bu corn = less than 2 gallons of alcohol.
Why would the laws of supply and demand not apply here. I imagine if we decided to depend heavily upon this for a fuel source, a lot more corn would be grown.
Bingo. There are days when I wonder if half this forum isn't made up of oil spokes-holes.
Nothing is the complete answer. There are a number of partial answers. Even if we cut our dependence by 30-50%, would that be a good thing?
Hell yes.
Thus speaks the provincial New Yorker. Reminds me of that Saul Steinberg cartoon in the New Yorker:
It may not be a cure all but it will help. It just got to produced on the whole supply and demand system. However I'm all for drilling in ANWAR and anywhere else we have oil and natural gas.
My main thing is my wish to watch the mideast starve themselves back to pre 1800s population levels.
"But we should not get carried away with our own rhetoric. Grain-derived fuel alcohol is not a panacea for all energy and environmental problems."
President Bush specifically mentioned "cellulistic" dervied fuels, not grains. This would dramtically increase the alchohol production in the US if not elsewhere.
And we will nerer get anything close to energy independance if we are not even capable of basic math.
Ethanol will help. The US should expand this resource and continue to invest R&D dollars to help it. But it will come nowhere close to replacing our transportation energy needs. It can only be part of a much larger solution.
He articulates his objection, assuming that grain fuels are to be used straight, without mixing with fossil fuels.
How would you like to have a man sized sirloin @ Charlie's Stake House right now?? AND... I'll have the house made Blue Cheese dressing.
Energy? oil for cars... Nukes to heat/cool homes and water. Quite simple actually.
In reading on this forum I have come to the conclusion that some folks equate alternative fuels with tree-huggers and close their minds from that point forward.
everybody poopoos
now if we can convert that.....
At work, I keep hearing that it takes more than a gallon of oil based fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol based fuel. I don't know if this is fact or fiction but FR ought to be able to dig it up. Does anyone have info on this?
Cost-Benefit. Oil is still relatively cheap
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.