Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Most sensible environmentalists know the difference.

Teasing out the oversimplification
pwokenyaw — (archived)

Most ethanol in the US is produced from corn, a highly subsidized crop that uses a large amount of fossil fuels for fertilizers as well as for production and transportation.

I think the jury's still out on corn-produced ethanol and whether it will ever be environmentally and economically sound, as opposed to a pig-trough for corporate farmers from the mostly-Blue states (and to be fair, all presidential candidates of either party that decide to participate in the Iowa caucuses). However, anyone who claims we enviros oppose biodiesel is blowing smoke.

Most efficient use of X amount of government dollars to create energy, I've read, is encouraging conservation. Not subsidizing wind farms or pebble-bed nuke reactor cores.

FWIW, I don't oppose or support nuke power, but I think it hasn't proven its economic case like wind power has in the short term, and that solar is likely to do in the medium/long term. As I've said before, a lot of us whackos are desperate about global warming, and nukes/ocean fertilization/deep ocean sequestration are among the scary subjects that many of us think should be on the table.

Last point - it would be very interesting to get a cumulative total for government research subsidies on energy starting in World War II. My wild-assed guess is nukes get the most of the historical total, then coal, then all other fossil fuels, then hydro, with alternative energy way far behind.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (63 posts)