Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Moonshine Mirage - Growing our way to energy independence?
Reason ^ | May 12, 2006 | Ronald Bailey

Posted on 05/13/2006 1:44:42 AM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: neverdem
Drill ANWR, drill the west coast, drill the gulf, build more refineries, build more nuclear plants, build more windmills, build more biodiesel plants, develop oil shale, start up a NASA program to come up with solutions for the future. We must have an all out effort to come up with future solutions, in the meantime we must wean ourselves of foreign oil and use our own oil. We have a lot of oil that we can't get to because of envirowaco hysteria.

The truth is we must use our own oil to keep the country strong while we invent the next generation of fuel.

21 posted on 05/13/2006 4:42:52 AM PDT by Trteamer ( (Eat Meat, Wear Fur, Own Guns, FReep Leftists, Drive an SUV, Drill A.N.W.R., Drill the Gulf, Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

One of the interesting and, I think, positive things in Brazil is the refining of the corn is done right on the farms by the farmers and the residue from the process is used to fuel the refinery. The farmers then sell their oil on the open market.


22 posted on 05/13/2006 4:44:10 AM PDT by when the time is right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit; neverdem
This article seems to imply that American can't do...    ...a solution to its energy problems...

My guess is the reason Bailey isn't offering a solution to our out of control end of the world energy crisis, is because he's not  saying we have one to begin with.  He's talking about the out-of-control lack of brain power with the moonshine idiots.

As for the out-of-control idiots who say we're doomed with some kind of devastating end-of-the-world energy crisis, that's probably coming up in a different op-ed piece.

23 posted on 05/13/2006 4:52:05 AM PDT by expat_panama (There are 10 kinds of freepers; them that manage numbers with a computer, and them that don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud

Pure BS, gas mileage rates would take years to adjust, and cars are not going to get better in a big way until some technology breakthrough, and that isn't likely either since physics dictates fuel economy.


Big rig mileage isn't going to get better until trucks are able to triple trailer or carry more in a single trailer. Those things are dependent on roads ability to carry the loads.

Ban cars and trucks and go to bikes mopeds and scooters, and kill the economy, or drill for what the media calls fossil fuels, another grand lie in the scheme of things.

The oil from dinasours/fossils myth is as mythical as the earth being flat, which among ancient explorers, was also a myth.

Oil is the fuel of choice and will remain so for years until another item is discovered if ever, that will replace oil given another fifty years or so to develop as oil has.

Drill for what ails us is the solution, and support the drilling by building refinaries to handle the increaded production. Build latest generation nuclear reactors for power generation, and work out the nuclear waste problems.

Meanwhile supporting with enabling legislation every worthwhile energy efficient discovery, and energy saving technology. We start from right where we are now.


24 posted on 05/13/2006 4:55:03 AM PDT by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We could run the entire country on the millions of tons of pig and cow manure that can be converted to fuel instead of being a pollution problem, as it is today. And the tasty animals do it for free! The author of this piece should watch the Discovery channel more.


25 posted on 05/13/2006 4:59:34 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"Burning food for fuel raises some interesting moral questions in world in which 800 million people are still malnourished."

Sort of let on what his real agenda is here. He thinks our abundance in the face of the rest of the world's poverty is evil. The rest of the world is in poverty because of their own stupid choices. Instead of asking for money they should ask for help in reforming their bad gov't.


26 posted on 05/13/2006 5:01:16 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wita
It has been a racing fuel for years, and even there fuel economy plays a huge role in a teams ability to win races. I suspect the difference between economy with ethanol vs gasoline, would allow a team regardless of standing, to win every race given the advantage of gas in the tank over ethanol.

Methanol etc. have such an antiknock rating and burn cool enough so you can run really high compression ratios and a lot of supercharger boost and/or nitrous injection.

27 posted on 05/13/2006 5:18:21 AM PDT by Gorzaloon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
Lots of comments. One assumption he made, that the net energy gain is two for one. One oil btu for two biomass btus. I studied this A LOT in the 70's and EVERY scientific study(that is with out leftist agenda driven soldiers doing the "work") showed that ethanol was a net energy LOSS. For those of you from rio linda, that means that it takes more hydrocarbon btus to make a btu of ethanol than you get. The same is true for most solar applications(after all, ethanol is just another form of solar power).

Nuclear, coal gasification, oil shale and tar sands are the solution for now. What politician is suggesting it? NONE. Why? because they don't want to take on the environmentalists. so we get suggestions about bagging our grass and conserving our way to prosperity. duh!

28 posted on 05/13/2006 5:22:30 AM PDT by cb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
This article seems to imply that American can't do it.

And that is THE best way to motivate American inventors to get it done!

I don't believe there will be any one magic replacement for crude. It'll be a combination of fuel sources. I reckon it'll be a combination of electric hybrids, coal gas, hydrogen injection in current gasoline engines, biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, fuel cells and probably some technology that hasn't been announced yet.

29 posted on 05/13/2006 5:46:04 AM PDT by Thermalseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

"This article seems to imply that American can't do it."

Agreed, excuses, excuses, excuses!


30 posted on 05/13/2006 5:47:32 AM PDT by mr_hammer (They have eyes, but do not see . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Without subsidies, ethanol is not viable. Expanding ethanol production (and the associated subsidies) would bankrupt us.

Instead, build more nuke plants, get people who heat with fuel oil to switch to (nuke-generated) electric, invest in coal-to-gasoline conversion (economical when oil is above $30/bbl), etc

31 posted on 05/13/2006 5:52:04 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
The best method to accomplish this is with an increase in fuel economy of vehicles. It is possible if we mandate autos to get a minimum 20MPG and phase out less efficient autos over a five year period by not renewing licenses of the lesser efficient after a specified date.

Rather than increasing government regulation, just let the market handle it. $3+ gasoline is a big disincentive for using a gas-guzzler for long-distance commutes

On the flip side, my wife drives a van. It's big, it makes it possible to transport several kids, their friends, and a lot of gear, and is otherwise very useful. It's a gas guzzler, but she only drives it about 60 miles per week so it doesn't matter

32 posted on 05/13/2006 5:59:21 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gotribe
Ethanol has 6,100 Wh/l, gasoline is 9,700 Wh/l, over 50% more energy/gal. energy density of various fuels
33 posted on 05/13/2006 6:08:16 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

No, we cannot emulate the Brazilian model, because the Brazilian success story is one of increasing domestic supply of PETROLEUM, not ethanol.

We COULD emulate the Brazilian model if there was a ROCK which could be overturned in this country, to get at new sources of oil. The environmental lobby has PARALYZED our political machinery, such that there is NO ENERGY which couldn't be opposed.

The author of this article makes a good case that corn-based ethanol, ethanol from switchgrass, ethanol from orange peels, ethanol from wood chips, ethanol from sugar cane (Florida, Puerto Rico), ethanol from industrial waste, and ethanol from municipal waste, methanol and butanol, BY THEMSELVES are not the answer, and seems to say WHY BOTHER; but fails to acknowledge that combined these renewables COULD provide PART OF THE ANSWER, and thus all are worth persuing.


34 posted on 05/13/2006 6:12:29 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cb

"Nuclear, coal gasification, oil shale and tar sands are the solution for now."

These are the correct answers, however conservation also has a strong economic driver and should expect more advances there as well. Nuclear and coal should be used for power generation, Nat gas and oils for transportation.

Notice that hydrogen does not make the list, it is an inefficient means to providing torgue to the road. (but as long as it doesnt get subsidies like ethanol, it will not get serious consideration)


35 posted on 05/13/2006 6:43:51 AM PDT by bricks4all2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wayoverontheright

Wood chips should be burned directly as we have done so for years.


36 posted on 05/13/2006 6:45:41 AM PDT by bricks4all2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The article had a link to a very interesting joint report from our Departments of Agriculture and Energy:

http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf

37 posted on 05/13/2006 6:49:03 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Why drill in ANWR, it only ads a few percent to our daily supply. Why drill off the coast, it only adds a few percent.

Anyone else think these folks are nuts?

While alcohol may not add that much, in farm states it could do a lot, so could biodiesel. Every little bit helps add to the supply in the long run. With biofuels you have to make very little changes to the basic engines in use today so the cost is low and switching fuels doesn't cause any problems -- the fuel injection system recalibrates for any blend of alcohol and gasoline between 0% and 80% automatically.

Nuclear power would solve our electricity problem. I will bet the writer of this drivel is for that, don't you.
38 posted on 05/13/2006 6:55:40 AM PDT by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

The phrase "American energy independence" is meaningless, and the notion that America has an "energy problem" is a fallacy.


39 posted on 05/13/2006 7:01:33 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Once again, we're presented with a false dichotomy from the ethanol naysayers. "Since we can't do it ALL, why do ANYTHING?"

Nobody has said that the US can entirely replace gasoline with ethanol. But every gallon of ethanol -- produced DOMESTICALLY and benefiting AMERICA'S economy instead of some sand dune Shangri-La -- lessens the need for FOREIGN fuelstuffs.

What can possibly be the objection against promoting a domestic fuel material over continuing a ravaging dependence on foreign oil????

40 posted on 05/13/2006 7:04:27 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson