nerfer

It's Now 'Official': Ethanol Is a Scam

Trader T - nuclear is not cheap. Without government subsidies to build them, they would not be profitable. Uranium mining is hardly green. There are no simple easy answers, but making cellulosic ethanol profitable is a very important part of the solution.
User141585 - Get a Trek bike from Wisconsin or another U.S. bike company, they're scattered around (I like the range rider recumbent trike from Montana). Vegetable gardens are local, what grows in Cuba won't grow here. Maybe someday our lawns can be used for cellulosic ethanol, and be an energy source, not an energy sink.

It's Now 'Official': Ethanol Is a Scam

carbonates - that's an important consideration that is often lost. In addition, our changes to the landscape affect CO2 levels, as loss of tropical forests contributes nearly as much CO2 as does our use of fossil fuels, from what I've read (Conservation International has something on this). Global warming was also blamed for the big fires in California last year, but I think our century of artificial fire suppression (resulting in large build-ups of flammable material and flammable vegetation) had a bigger impact. I still think global warming is a serious long-term issue, only solved by peak oil and probably a population crash, but you're right, land-use is an important aspect.

It's Now 'Official': Ethanol Is a Scam

One thing people forget is that ethanol improves emissions, now that MBTF (?) has been shown to easily contaminate groundwater, so it does have a purpose. But we desperately need to put R&D into cellulosic ethanol instead of tax rebates to big oil and coal! That's just insanity, but Pres. Bush continues to cut funding for clean energy, despite his talk. We're coming up on peak oil, and this is imperative for our economic future! Not to mention we need to quit funding both sides of the war in Iraq.
DrCanDo - how do you think solar doesn't have a positive EROEI? Can you provide something to back up a statement like that??

Is Cellulosic Ethanol Always the Bridesmaid?

User161183 - I think Mr. Dikeman was saying that processing oil into gas adds 50 cents per gallon, not that the final cost would be 50 cents. You still need to add the raw cost of the oil into the final cost. At least, that's the explanation that makes the most sense, since as you state, we won't see 50 cents/gallon at the pump ever again.
People here aren't really talking about peak oil, but we're at the onset of it now. That's why OPEC isn't raising their production quotas, despite record high prices (about 5 years ago they said $35/barrel was their target, otherwise people would pursue alternatives and conservation). They can't raise their production (stability in Iraq/Nigeria would help, however), so I would not be surprised to see $130/barrel by the end of the year. Any price drops will last less than 1/2 year, as it continues its relentless climb.
Hopefully the next president will be a lot more open to R&D and incentives for cellulosic ethanol, as that will be our only possible route to some degree of economic stability and avoiding utter dependence on OPEC in the next decade.
Cellulosic ethanol may take some cropland, but it doesn't have to be the high-maintenance, rich soil that corn requires with heavy pesticide and fertilizer requirements. Switchgrass for instance can be grown on non-irrigated acreage even in dry climates. If we can use lumber/tree leftovers from logging and construction, that would be another big source free of current crop production. But conservation will be an essential component of future plans. No passenger vehicle should get less than 30 mpg, for starters. We've got a serious problem and it takes hard answers sometimes.

Ethanol: Three Developments to Watch

Pansyed - Do you really think oil companies don't already have enough incentive to keep drilling? The problem is that it's becoming harder to find the oil (and a subsequent short supply of rigs and engineers to search more areas for oil). No matter how much we spend, we won't find the oil (or bring it to market) appreciably faster.

Alternatives are the future. I agree they aren't there yet, but to cut their funding is slapping our children's faces (and my retirement plans). This is what is treasonous to the American public. The oil supply is plateauing and we need to work hard and fast now to come up with good replacements. A breakthrough in biodiesel production (algae, for instance), battery storage, transportation (electric cars, more rail systems), this is what is needed and what will make a real difference down the road. It will take more than a few years to make it all happen, but our petroleum supply won't have enough years (why is Saudi Arabia cutting their production - is something happening with the Ghawar field they aren't telling us?) The more we dither now and try to keep the status quo, the harder the adjustment to a post-petroleum economy will be. This semi-recession will just be a post-note compared to that hit on the economy.

(By post-petroleum, I don't mean there won't be any petroleum like some wild-eyed peak-oilists, but that it will be so expensive we wouldn't dream of burning it up in our cars when it can be used instead to make all the things we expect in our society).