Page added on February 18, 2006
…I received another e-mail from David, a professor of chemistry at an Ivy League university. David said:
“What I would like to know is how many of those guys out there promoting ethanol know that an ethanol-based fuel is energy-negative by a mile? And even if you could make it energy-positive, the very act of growing ethanol to burn as motor fuel would turn the world into one big dust bowl. I guess the question is, how many of those guys are clueless and how many are simply liars? …
“It would be great if the Peak Oil crowd was as nuts as people say (ed: Oh yeah? Smile when you say that, pal). But I’ve looked at it as much as a non-oil specialist can look at it and still hold down a job. I concluded that it is a scary scenario. What is particularly problematic for me is that my training as a physical scientist helps me see the proposed alternative energy technologies for what they are — a load of baloney in many cases.
“I spent a particularly harrowing hour with a high-ranking official from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who answers directly to President Bush. He was not a tree hugger but he sure took Peak Oil seriously. I asked him for his best guess on the date and he said, ‘2010.’ Of course, that answer is becoming a little too common for comfort. It is scary. We talked about the alternatives and he could not have painted a more gruesome picture. He also expressed utter amazement at the complete lack of attention to the issue.”
Byron’s Reply: This is why I love reading the e-mails from our readers. I happen to know who David is and where he works. He is a top-notch researcher in the field of chemistry and chemical biology, and firmly established in the upper echelons of American science. David’s e-mail speaks for itself. Do me a favor. Read it again. It is that good.
Leave a Reply