Zell, Chris wrote:
A terrific amount of money has been invested in the technology and it
has not improved much. Industry spokesmen claim "a 30% net gain"
which is abysmal. If that is the best they can do, the industry should
be shut down immediately.
And , of course, the same statement applies to cold fusion, new
batteries, and every other alternative technology you can name.
That is incorrect. The best input/output ratio recorded for cold
fusion was inifinite: no input, continuous output, with gas loaded
cells. That is much better than 100 units out for every 70 input.
Also, the amount of money spent on CF development has been a tiny
fraction of the amount spent on ethanol, and the APS and the DoE do
not routinely attack ethanol researchers, so the comparison is unfair.
Since progress is not instantaneous, we should all freeze in the
dark. Who said 30% is the best they can EVER do?
Actually, opponents say -70% of the best they can ever do. 30% of the
best they have been able to do after decades of R&D and billions of
dollars. Woolsey and others think it can be improved, but some
experts disagree. (Woolsey is not an expert.)
A 30% gain - whether on an energy source or your favorite investment -
is not abysmal.
For energy, this is abysmal. For an investment it would be great. The
two are not comparable.
It's an excellent start . . .
30% is not an excellent start for a real world energy system. It is a
stone wall dead-end. If we had to depend upon such energy systems we
would starve to death.
. . . especially in a field where bias is becoming obvious - is
this "ethanol hate"? Is the pessimism here obvious?
It is not pessimism. It is fact-based realism.
Could ethanol get around much of the NIMBYism surrounding refinery
construction
NIMBYism is not stopping refinery construction. This is a myth. Oil
companies do not want any more refineries because they know there is
no more oil. Production will only decrease from now on. It would be a
waste of money to build any more oil refineries.
Suppose we use it to power the tractors that gather the feedstock?
Does that help?
Suppose we just burn money and furniture, while we are at it? As long
as we burning food, why not?
Ethanol looks to be the quickest and possibly easiest way to get
away from imported oil for cars.
Ethanol can only increase US consumption of imported oil by hundreds
of millions of barrels per year -- all wasted. It would make more
sense for us to simply wire transfer a few extra billions of dollars
directly to the Saudis and Al Qaeda, and not bother to go through the
charade of making ethanol.
- Jed
