The Oil Drum

Robert.

You know that the vast majority of us respect you and I respect your need for secrecy at this point. So, if someone takes this opportunity to debate ethanol at this point, don't take it personally.

One problem, though, is that you used the phrase less than 50%. Well, that includes 49% and 49% is not modest. So, I don't think you should conclude that people were unfair to conclude that the displacement might be more than "modest". "Modest" is more like less than 20%.

And, of course, you are right to point out that this should be better than CTL and tar sands.

But really, the same Senators, like Obama, who are touting the glories of ethanol (in his state) are touting the glories of "clean" CTL (in his state).

Damn right that many of us out here are cynical, but not just about the efficacy of ethanol. We are cynical about the ability of politicians and the American people from restraining themselves. When it comes to supply, we want it all; damn the consequences.

But, yeh, it is obvious that none of us are in a position to evaluate the specific technology that you have in mind.

Having said that, this whole alternative fuels deal is like Pandora's box. Unfortunately, we open it up and get the good with the bad. On top of that, we are not very adept at discriminating the good versus the bad so we take it all.

Peak oil is a curse, not just because there will be less oil around. It is a curse because of all the alternatives that we will puruse in trying to mitigate the problem. Your alternative may be relatively good, but it will just be a part of a big arsenal, not all good.

Alan's comments are in the direction I meant.

The people posting at TOD are generally people living a typical lifestyle for members of an industrial society - which means, we are the ones driving, buying frozen food, and living in air conditioning while making sure the grass stays green year round.

Ethanol isn't a solution - it is part of the problem, an attempt to keep the gasoline motor running, because for many, the alternative seems worse - or unimaginable. And we will, to use Leanan's perspective, burn everything, before we change how we live. A concrete example - our use of oil today will likely be met with the same incomprehension as we have looking back to 1850, when the planet's whales were burnt to provide lighting at night for a couple of decades.

Obviously we will 'require' liquid fuels - which is why biodiesel/straight plant oil seems reasonable - no need to create any new farm equipment, keeps construction machinery running, fire trucks, etc.

Ethanol is fundamentally a fuel intended to keep our current lifestyle rolling - and the underlying problem is how we live, not what we put in our fuel tanks.

I also read the Choren web site - they seem to be just on the edge of suggesting that clear cutting forests would be a practical alternative to using oil - or that any plant material left on the ground is waste.

That we will burn everything seems an ever more realistic prospect. And the tragedy is that it is so unnecessary. But there is no real profit to be earned in having people walk or bicycle - and meeting other people, instead of watching ads on a screen - so we will continue to invest our children's future in today's equivalent of a whaling ship - which also represented a major capital investment, where the owners were obviously entitled to earn wealth from a product that customers were clamoring for.