Energy Victory

I am not a conspiracy guy nor a BDS sufferer. I think that W is the second best president of my lifetime.

But the comment by his science adviser to Bob Zubrin that they "don't do mandates" is the most asinine, inane, and stupid, perhaps even corrupt statement I have heard in a long time. They "do" mandates all the time- for CAFE (which I am, BTW, fine with- let Detroit get creative for a change), for ethanol market shares, for seat belts, auto crash safety, breakfast cereal labels, public school test scores, required Medicaid coverages, you name it.

The fact that this simple, virtually costless, bipartisan, economically sound, consumer-friendly, liberty-enhancing idea to require flex fuel capability for all new car engines was dismissed out of hand suggests that my guy W is indeed bought and paid for by the Saudis, just like Baker, Akin Gump, and half of Congress. They want us to die covered in oil.

Sickening.

Robert Zubrin's Energy Victory policy, when implemented, will have no effect at all. It is the "energy independence" equivalent of cold fusion....

"Robert Zubrin's Energy Victory policy, when implemented, will have no effect at all. It is the "energy independence" equivalent of cold fusion...."
So true. And even if it did, it wouldn't break OPEC since we import little of their output. It might lower the price of oil which China would ike

Oil is a globally traded commodity...it doesn't matter if we get our oil directly from the Saudis/ME or not. A nation such as the U.S. purchasing less Venezuelan/Mexican/Canadian oil could potentially lower the price due to simple demand/supply economics. How OPEC would react, though, could lessen the impact....artificially then creating a short supply isn't exactly something they are above, for example.

Kurmudege writes: "I am not a conspiracy guy nor a BDS sufferer."

No, no, of course not (backs away slowly), just take a deep breath, it's all over now.

As long as the mandate includes a prohibition against using food crops (corn, soy, sugar beets, sugar cane) to make the ethanol - then fine. Otherwise, the ethanol producers will increase the demand for food crops, causing food prices to increase. Alternatively, we could invade Cuba to seize their sugar cane fields to fuel our ethanol consumption.....

Somehow, I have a hard time seeing the next president approving anything having to do with "meth." Kidding, sort of. For $100 a car, why not have it be voluntary? Any other requirement is a tax. And not very libertarian, Glenn!

Why ethanol and not biodiesel?

We've already established that the feed stocks for ethanol are petroleum-intensive in their cultivation and net-losses of energy in their conversion to ethanol. Simply put: growing corn to produce ethanol consumes more oil than just making gasoline in the first place. (I'll leave aside the run up in food prices in developing countries which is being blamed on ethanol-driven consumption.)

Biodiesel differs in that (1) you actually get net-increases in energy from feestocks, (2) it can be made with rendered and recycled oils which are in surplus, (3) the engines are also compatible with any vegetable oils, propane, natural gas, ethanol and hydrogen gas, (4) Johnathan Goodwin has demonstrated practical/realworld 100 mpg H2 hummers.

Another benefit of biodiesel over ethanol: up to 50% reduction in the hazardous emissions from goods transportation and a corresponding decrease in medical costs.

It is important to know that the science is showing more and more clearly the biofuels are not the solution they are being touted as but are merely a boondoggle for agribusiness. The use of petrochemicals in the fuels' production, the complications of land use and habitat destruction and the diversion of food, all greatly complicate the picture and put the whole project in doubt. Don't be fooled; it's not as simply as energy from plants, not at all.

While I agree that we need to investigate alternatives to petrochemicals, I don't agree that it's time for the government to choose ethanol.

Ethanol is economically questionable and it's affect on corn/grain prices would screw food prices throughout the poorest countries the world over (unless/until technology for using cellulose feedstack is developed). The only reason that ethanol is on the table is that its a windfall for agribusiness and would let automakers off the hook.

Methanol has possibilities but is a ways from commercialization.