Moonshine Mirage - Growing our way to energy independence?

Reason ^ | May 12, 2006 | Ronald Bailey

[Phocion]

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.

Considering that he is an editor of Reason Magazine, which opposes all foreign aid, I find your idea of his "real agenda" to be extremely unlikely.

[Phocion]

The solution is to make it where politicians can make enough money on it and it will be done very quickly. But until then you can forget as big oil has them all in their pocket.

That's not entirely true. Just about every politician between Pennsylvania and Colorado is beholden to Big Agribusiness. That's why there are huge subsidies and tax breaks for ethanol production, as well of tens of billions worth of other agriculture subsidies. In a lot of areas in the country, they have control over politicians that Big Oil could only dream of.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

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

Well thanks for backing up this conjecture with some facts.

Here's one from me: Assuming Alberta's child is intelligent is a fallacy.

See, equally stupid sentence easily written, but meaningless unless backed up by fact.

[wayoverontheright]

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

Exactly. Some of the same arable land/ yield calculations used to refute ethanol possibilities today were used by Paul Samuelson in 1967 to predict that by 1984 we wouldn't have enough land to feed ourselves. THE POPULATION BOMB, I believe it was.

We could emulate Brazil if we could elect enough pols with spine enough to stand up to environmentalists, AND if we could put enough flex-fuel vehicles out there to give consumers a way to demand ethanol. Out of 200 million cars on the road, 5 million are now flex-fuel capable....just a few more years......

[neverdem]

Sort of let on what his real agenda is here.

The author is a free market libertarian.

[neverdem]

The "Paul Ehrlich and the Population Bomb" site has been retired from pbs.org. Quite appropriate!

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm not as good on the tech aspects as you are; I am thinking more about the arable land vs. demand equations, because I do a lot of work in the ag sector. That said, I think you're right on.

Here are three facts that make the case for me:

1. We can't grow enough ethanol to make a difference unless we want to turn our oil imports into food imports.

2. We have produced about 1 trillion barrels of oil up to this point, and there several trillion (at least 8) left in the ground.

3. If we really do need to replace oil with biofuels, we can make biodiesel out of anything from soybeans to municipal waste to dead cats. The AP even had a story a couple of weeks ago about a guy who has made diesel from hog manure, and he thinks he can make it economical enough to use on a wide scale. If so, he could make enough diesel to replace the gas that should be coming out of ANWR.

Of course, my favorite idea is lots of nuclear plants serving electric cars, but that would be a nightmare with current electric car technology.

[Gorzaloon]

Of course, my favorite idea is lots of nuclear plants serving electric cars, but that would be a nightmare with current electric car technology.

I love to tell the story about filming the Tour De Sol, an electric/solar car race.

It was in Plymouth, MA.

So..at the end of the races, everyone ran their cars to these octopuses of electrical outlets that were strung out.

Everyone was Feeling Good about Saving the Whales,etc., whereupon I made myself unpopular by pointing across the water at a big white building.

"In that building is Boston Edison's 670 megawatt Boiling Water Reactor, which is even now grunting under the load of refilling these free energy cars, SCALDING THE LOBSTERS."

*snort*

But really, new PM Motors are _really_ effifient. If they ever get around the battery eneergy density poblems, it will make a huge difference. However, somewhere upstream, several energy-losing stages away, there is something HOT making the electricity, and it's either coming from coal, gas, or uranium..Unless it is imported Hydro, around here.

[From many - one.]

"...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"


Ditto.