What's surprising about this is the source: Rolling Stone.

Buried in this scathing screed is the idea that the United States is the breadbasket of humanity and that we as a people are obligated to feed the masses of the third world.

Let's see: Increased demand for corn (for ethanol production) causes the price to rise, causing the price of tortillas to jump 60 percent! Why not let the marketplace balance this? Won't farmers grow more corn so that they get an increase in income? Won't this cause supplies to increase with a decrease in prices?

Another factoid: burning ethanol in a motor vehicle results in "only" a fifteen percent decrease in CO2 emissions and destroying the tropical forests in Iowa and Illinois. (Is the real agenda to ban ALL motor vehicles with a 100 percent decrease in emissions?)

Many other negative comments, but of course, no alternatives are offered to the carbon based energy requirements of the US. Not unusual in an article from this source!

In the end, the ethanol boom is another manifestation of America's blind faith that technology will solve all our problems. Thirty years ago, nuclear power was the answer. Then it was hydrogen. Biofuels may work out better, especially if mandates are coupled with tough caps on greenhouse-gas emissions. Still, biofuels are, at best, a huge gamble. They may help cushion the fall when cheap oil vanishes, but if we rely on ethanol to save the day, we could soon find ourselves forced to make a choice between feeding our SUVs and feeding children in the Third World. And we all know how that decision will go.

I have to say that Nat is at least partially right. The problem is that there is a solution. The solution is the economic development space, coupled with fusion for power. That works and makes oil just a quaint memory.

The problem is that there is a solution. The solution is the economic development space, coupled with fusion for power.

One could hardly illustrate 'blind faith' any better than your comment does. Both space and fusion face very serious barriers to success. Fusion is closer, but even there success is doubtful. The economics just doesn't seem to work out.

One could hardly illustrate 'blind faith' any better than your comment does. Both space and fusion face very serious barriers to success. Fusion is closer, but even there success is doubtful. The economics just doesn't seem to work out.

It all depends on how the infrastructure is built out. The ESAS architecture is absolutely the worst possible for economic development but that architecture will not be around in two years. There are ways and means to make this happen.

It is clear that there are trillions of dollars worth of materials out there. The key is that for those of us who are engineers to design systems to obtain them in a cost effective manner. It is my professional opinion that this is possible. It is actually much easier to move around after you get into space than to get to space. Therefore that is where to focus efforts.

"The ESAS architecture is absolutely the worst possible for economic development but that architecture will not be around in two years."

Dennis, you really think Fred is going to make significant changes in ESAS?