-----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Bush and ethanol in Slate.com
Zell, Chris wrote: >Much of the criticism about ethanol is simple pessimism, and ignores >the likelihood that the technology will improve as it develops. 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. Since progress is not instantaneous, we should all freeze in the dark. Who said 30% is the best they can EVER do? A 30% gain - whether on an energy source or your favorite investment - is not abysmal. It's an excellent start, especially in a field where bias is becoming obvious - is this "ethanol hate"? Is the pessimism here obvious? How much imagination does it take to foresee the ENORMOUS amounts of waste heat this country generates being used to aid distillation? Hasn't Amory Lovins and others complained about this waste? Do utilities commonly waste heat? Would 5 - 10 - 30% of our imported oil money be better spent in US rural areas - than on unstable Third World countries and terrorists? Has the Almighty told us that cellulose derived alcohol can't work? Could ethanol get around much of the NIMBYism surrounding refinery construction by siteing distilleries in Midwest states? Suppose we use it to power the tractors that gather the feedstock? Does that help? Ethanol looks to be the quickest and possibly easiest way to get away from imported oil for cars.
