Wednesday, July 20, 2011

CHEMisperceptions: ChemBark on energy policy

Paul's post on energy policy is up -- and there are bound to be some angry corn farmers in Iowa. I hope he doesn't decide to run for president someday (or he should spend his campaign funds in New Hampshire, anyway.)


  1. Actually, Paul's just paraphrasing Nate Lewis' analysis of the energy balance. The presentation by Professor Lewis and Dan Nocera is not new. And neither is the stubborn refusal of Americans to do the same simple math that Lewis and Nocera do. Corn ethanol is dumb, it's a fact not an opinion. Even the National Geographic did an article on it a while ago, and gave enough data to do the math and show it.

  2. I agree with 6:18. Nothing really new, just coming from someone that is actually in the trenches of science.

    The Cato Institute has been harping on the stupidity of energy initiates such as ethanol for awhile. They even poke some fun at the AAAS banner used in 2007 promoting corn as a source of fuel:

    The article also goes into some detail over how dumb govt funded science can get.

    But this is Cato, we can't trust those guys...or can we?

  3. Even conservatives (or libertarians depending on your definition) were wise to this game:

    Scienceblogs typically describes Williams as an:

    "Economist Walter Williams, a predictable right wing hack if ever there was one"

    So it doesn't take a PhD in chemistry, nor liberal bias, to figure out that ethanol is one of the dumbest things to come tumbling out of science funding.

    However, Paul recovers during the later half of the article by covering other energy sources. Though our hopes were not raised much.


looks like Blogger doesn't work with anonymous comments from Chrome browsers at the moment - works in Microsoft Edge, or from Chrome with a Blogger account - sorry! CJ 3/21/20