Detroit likes it though, because it diverts attention from promoting small, fuel efficient cars.

Anyone disagree?

“In fact, it’s entirely possible that it takes more energy to produce corn-based ethanol than it releases when it’s burned.”

That’s always true unless we are talking nuclear energy. If the amount of energy released when a fuel is burnt/used is greater than that used in its production, the world will have an endless supply of energy. Not going to happen; law of thermodynamics.”

Not exactly true. While the law of conservation of energy applies here, we don’t have to “produce” oil, it’s just there, waiting to be pumped.

In the first case, Governor Suwarna Abdul Fatah of East Kalimantan, Indonesia just received 18 months jail time for selling a 2.5 million acre land concession contract to PT Surya Dumai Group – they were supposed to log rainforest and replant with oil palm but didn’t – they just logged the forest and didn’t bother replanting. Oil palm is used for many products, of which one is biofuel; the biggest Indonesia oil palm product importer is China.

For the court outcome, look at http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=713

For some eco-based gory details, look at http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1220-borneo.html

The second case is closer to home. Possible conflicts of interest came up when two Wisconsin state representatives recently introduced an incentive program/bill that will provide a $1,000 tax credit going to E85 car buyers. In 2003, State Representative Eugene Hahn’s wife bought $20,000 in shares in the United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC; UWGP’s current annual production is 40 million gallons of ethanol and is expanding its operations to double output in the near future. The other bill sponsor, State Representative Mike Sheridan is president of UAW Local 95 at the local GM plant; half of the Janesville plant 2007 model year production was 120,000 flex-fuel vehicles.

See http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=577322 for a report from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

You’re quite right, used “mass transit” in a way that is confusing there! In the modeling I’ve seen for future roadways and utilization the distinction between public and private transportation is significantly blurred.

I mean major roads – highways, etc. And yes, this is Cassandra syndrome to the nth degree, let’s trust we’ll find some good optional sources of energy for our cars before we get to that kind of crunch.
Bet still holds, though, for Europe! :-)

Keep the ideas as simple as possible and make it so that those that are on board early are rewarded. Isn’t that how the free market works?

Aren’t you contradicting yourself in thse two paragraphs ? A Manhattan project is by definition not a free market approach, and requires someone, probably with an agenda (and hopefully a public spirited one) to make decisions about what is going to be.

Are you talking about Europe or the US? Or both? I can’t imagine that in 10 years we won’t still be doing at least 70mph on interstates in the US, and I’m not sure what you mean by “mass transit road.” But I agree about learning to be smarter w/ energy.

Best, David

I have a bet down that ten years from now, we won’t be driving personal vehicles over 50mph on any major road.

It took several years, a lot of money and big brains to make the Manhattan Project work. Seems like we know how to tackle big projects, but can’t get out of our own way to just move forward with the energy issue.

Keep the ideas as simple as possible and make it so that those that are on board early are rewarded. Isn’t that how the free market works?

Luther,

that equation is science. Harnessing the power of the atom is technology. It is one thing to understand the science, and something else completely to turn it into a technology that people can use at reasonable cost and without undue environmental consequences. (By the way, I make my living writing about science, technology, and medicine.) By your logic, there should be unlimited power available, and we should be able to cure any genetic disease (including cancer) where we know what the flaws in the genes are.

I bet we’d save a lot more oil by putting up solar panels instead of corn fields. Last time I checked, $$$ payback time was 3 to 15 years depending on your location. Not bad at all. Even more risk-free than government bonds, and gives you better return time than [almost] any small business ever could.

Think about all the natural gas you can free up to use for buses, vans, trucks, aircraft, etc. In turn letting us use gasoline strictly to power our personal means of propulsion.

Or just get double windows in your house. Close the shades in the summer. Turn off the light when you leave. Take a train to New York instead of driving, and then trying to park in the middle of Manhattan like an idiot. And oh yeah, keep your old(er) car instead of getting “the next big thing that’s gonna save you a lot of money in gas”.

Easy little things that will allow you to drive a 440ci Barracuda @ 12mpg, and still come out ahead of those Prius-driving eco-nazi’s.

Is ethanol “part of the solution”? Why don’t we let the market decide?

The point is that there are a huge number of potential solutions (drive less-huge cars, drive less, bio diesels, oil shale, butanol, bio-diesel from algae, heck much cheaper ethanol from Brazil kept out of US . . . ). Our policy should be to let the market pick the best solutions, not subsidize expensive boondoggles.

Where do you draw the line? If I offered alternate fuel for 100 bucks a gallon would this be “part of the solution”? The point is that ethanol is now not the best solution.

Based on current wholesale prices ethanol costs almost 2X more to drive a mile. Ethanol can only compete with massive subsidies from taxpayers, increasing federal deficit. There is no free lunch.

Will ethanol become more efficient in the future? Sure but how much more – remember ethanol has been at the public trough for 30 years. The other alternatives are also improving. If the US subsidized the slide-rule industry in the 1970s then slide rules would have improved *some* but would not have surpassed the calculator.

I don’t mind a few 100 million for research – but government should not engage in running the economy.

The irony here is that we have a “free market” president employing same type of central planning that the Cubans use.

Ever drive a vehicle in cold weather that had ethanol in the tank? (provided you could start it).

Knock-knock! Who’s there?

Too bad farmers can’t grow electricity … then their lobbies would go for that, and we wouldn’t have to suffer through these harebrained schemes.

1:1,38 – overstating.

Yes, you’re probably right. As I put it in that note, I have seen lots of different figures, and I chose to go with the agro-lobby one, in order to not show bias.
The farther north you go, the worse the relationship, and I’m sure the agro-lobby number has a healthy helping of Amazon forest growth rates in it.

I have absolutely no belief whatsoever in Ethanol from corn grown in northern latitudes being a solution.

E=MC^2

It dont get more panacea than that.

If the U.S. is going to find a way to manage the political, environmental and economic implications of our energy production, delivery and consumption, we need to take a rational and independent look at ALL the alternatives– from Alaskan drilling to nuclear power to corn-based ethanol production. Otherwise, greed and hypocrisy will stymie any effort– however noble– to create any genuine change.

The public and the political class it represents are currently NOT rational. But it’ll be interesting to see how the marxist ethanol lobby and the meltdown enviros deal with long term $3/gal gas AND world food price spikes.
(They’ll probably blame Haliburton between tokes…)

How this all actually plays out, especially if one of the 2.5 file, will be a train wreck. Many in the general public are economically insane regarding gas prices. I overheard some local car biz (UAW?) types talking about monthy FUEL stamps (for subsidizing your fill up). I thought it was a goof – but they were serious.

BTW, whatever happened to the viability of compressed natural gas as a substitute fuel? Or is NG priced out of the market because we’re burning so much for the electric grid?