Ethanol has two thirds of the available energy of gasoline, Obviously burn rate plays a part, but I don’t think anyone has made the case that ethanol gives a greater power density.

I know it sounds “sexy,” if you will, but it is a thermodynamic system after all. I believe that this is one of the chief problems we face. Not what to do, but rather what can be sold.

If entrepeneurial types could offer jitney service of various kinds, with minimal regulation, a LOT of people would refrain from owning cars within larger cities. But, a lot of small operators are less likely to be a source of money to politicians, or so the cynic inside me diagnoses the problem.

Maybe growing something like corn just feels less upsetting to the environment because it’s grown for that purpose. The fields need to be cleared of brush and trees *anyway* but it’s less immediate.

re: mass transit, my husband hasn’t had a job where even car pooling made sense. (And mass transit to the grocery store with small children is some additional circle of hell.) In order to have a system to take a whole lot of people from one place to another all at the same time a whole lot of people need to *need* to go from one place to another at the same time.

When the Soviets figured out that you could eliminate America’s first strike and response ability by sending a message that nuclear energy is bad. Even though it was Chernobyl that went up in a critical reaction, not Long Island. Long Island’s reaction was stopped before it leaked out over everywhere. Chernobyl leaked. So the Soviets figured “hey, why not pull a New York Times” and use one of our mistakes to put pressure and blame on the Americans.

I’m not much of a scientist, but I envision this: A massive growth in the nuclear power industry to fuel electrical energy. This can power all manner of electrical devices for the home, business, and communication. It can be used for refrigeration, microwaving, stove and oven, and even air conditioning and heating.

But as to the question of mass transit. Spoke and hub systems, or grid coordinate systems: between them would run large trains powered on electricity, transporting large numbers of people from point to point. From these points, many smaller tracks extend into neighborhoods. On these smaller tracks run a large number of smaller vehicles that each seat no more than twenty people. A LARGE number of these SMALL vehicles run everywhere, to transport people around their neighborhoods, and also to those grid points where the larger trains run.

And all powered by nuclear energy, converted to electrical energy. Not an ounce of gas or oil or coal in the mix.

The one problem to be solved is the generation of atomic waste. Solve that, and the sole large problem, I think,disappears.

We seem, as an American culture, to have a hatred of atomic energy as somehow evil, or beyond our meager capabilities. When did that happen to us Americans?

I think the capture and use of alternative energy sources is perfectly fine as well. All possible efficient use of hydroelectric, geothermal, biofuel, windmill, etc should occur. Yet the scale of our economy demands that we think beyond just these. We should use them, absolutely! But we should continue to think grandly!

It’s not going to draw in the campaign contributions if you fund alternative energy sources. The big money comes from large corporations, and the Democrats know this. That is why the Democrats are for regulations, which kill competition, and which big businesses can absorb easier than small businesses. More money for Democrats and a little bit more sustainability for large corporations in the profit scheme.

If people want a concrete example of this, please read this short link.

link

Yep, sure enough….funding increased markedly in the first Bush administration, plunged during the Clinton Administration, and surged again in the GW Bush era. Yet, I am sure that most Americans think that the Republicans are the ones standing in the way of progress on developing energy independence.

Today, our Clintonista Congressman Rahm Emanuel had an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune calling for a Democrat-led “New Deal” for Americans, a big part of which was government research into alternate energy development. What twaddle!

Europeans are also getting some of their biofuel from palm oil, which means that tropical forests are being sacrificed and cooking oil prices are going up in Asia.. So yes, there is a big diff between Europe and America.

My argument is not against biofuels. It is against politically motivated jumping on the latest feel-good bandwagon, as most European greenies do. Bush mentioned the promise of cellosic biofuels several years ago, but the demonizing greenies didn’t hear him. Anyone who suggests that the dream du jour may have a downside is a denier. It’s their way or none. I am all for testing different ideas.