Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Study suggests ethanol, bio-diesel not worth energy used to produce them :: Council Bluffs Daily

The conclusions of the study are hotly contested; no surprise there. Who's correct? I don't know. But it does seem like a straightforward question that could be resolved if all sides were willing to swap data and do more than the current low level of criticism (little more than bluster) of each other's analysis.

I do know that ethanol is the big winner in the energy bill. Washington seems to have convinced itself that although ethanol may need subsidies to be viable, ethanol uses less energy than it produces. Even if this is so, who does it make the U.S. more energy independent? Before you answer, explain what energy independence is and show me the logical consequences, say, for U.S. foreign policy.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The study correctly shows that ethanol is an absurd "alternative fuel." What that tells you is that our Congress (both parties) is a very poor predictor of future energy needs, driven as it is (and has been) by the demands of well-moneyed constitutents.

But it makes sense on nearly every level - politically, environmentally, and economically - to begin to transition away from the use of oil as a main component of our economy.

It is tragic and typical, though, that Congress and the White House are constitutionally incapable of suggesting coherent and workable paths for future energy development, beyond such absurdities as ethanol and more drilling.

1:04 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home