Bioethanol boost

[Lotus49]

Actually its 54 cent/gal.




Actually its to protect the few American sugar cane growers ages ago (I'm thinking it was about 100 years ago). The US started to protect them when we were considering making sugar a major crop in the US. Since then, noone has had the political will or muscle to end it. (It probably doesn't help the corn growers because the government buys up the surplus anyway.)

"Actually" I was referring to the political lobby in Congress (mainly made up of the Representatives & Senators from the midwestern States that are fighting to prevent the tariff from being dropped, as it really should be. That's what I was referring to with the sarcasm, previous post.

But, they may be overpowered here soon. I'll be surprised, but, who knows.

Just like everything else in America, special interest groups/lobbyists can block the majority from getting what they want. That's probably what'll happen.

 

[Goa]

Nothing stays the same forever...Costs always go down after we learn about how to produce.

What did a computer cost in 1990? What did it do? See my point?

I think you are doing a fundamental error here. You are applying the same economic laws to products produced in a factory using cheap energy, and the "production" of this energy.
In the conditions we are now, considering only physical constraints we can produce a number of computers which is much bigger than population on earth, the limitating factor here is an economical. For energyproduction* we are limited by the economilcal and geological/physical/biological constraints. You just can't produce energy in a factory (fusion being the wildcard). And when I have to chose whether I believe a scientist who tells me which are the limits of biofuel production (and there are quite severe limits) and an economist who tells me "the market will sort it out", I believe the first one.
By the way, I consider myself personally an optimist, thinking that we can and will have a good living without oil. But I consider it necessary to prepare in time and reduce consumption so that the transition will go smoothly.

* Physically speaking its of course not energyproduction but energytransformation.

 

[Xenocrates]

IAnd when I have to chose whether I believe a scientist who tells me which are the limits of biofuel production (and there are quite severe limits) and an economist who tells me "the market will sort it out", I believe the first one.

Can the 'rules' of markets be applied to system with finite resources? I would say that they can't/shouldn't. This is why I stab every economist that I see. At least I would if the production of [+5 daggers of fire damage] didn't depend on finite resources! We either manage our consumption according to ethical, scientific or religious principles or suffer from shortages. I see no way of reconciling economics (as I believe it to be) with resource/environmental constraints. Markets don't 'think' ahead!

JHill: what's the word from the environmental economists on this? I realise that the kind of economics that I despise has probably been superceded by something better that is yet to make an impact on Government policy. Can you clue me in?