Your writer has had an interesting day. I returned from the API provided trip to Washington D.C. yesterday evening. (I’ll get to that next week, it’s a lot to study, distill and cover.) Since Christmas morning I’ve nursed along a cracked tooth. Now if you have an abscessed tooth, take folk’s advice and don’t fly. Really, even with good meds, the airliner cabin air pressure changes matter to the sensitivity of the nerves. Then today my dental professional extracted the wounded tooth and emptied out the microorganisms. Yup, I do have mixed feelings about microorganisms tonight.
Before I left, Sunday January 2nd, 2011, I found the eminent, admired and widely circulated Robert Rapier, author of the R-Squared blog had left a comment on a week ago Tuesday’s post, December 28, 2010 in the spam file. I marked Mr. Rapier as ‘Not Spam’ and replied in the wee hours of Monday morning.
The documentation in the comments of the Dec 28 post is instructive and worth a review, not so much by yours truly, but by all of you. The main divergence between Mr. Rapier and myself is in seeing the ethanol matter as a whole or taken apart into various points.
But to get an early grasp of the situation, please keep in mind that Mr. Rapier and John Stossel were cited as examples of the breadth and depth of the disinformation and misinformation circulating about ethanol. Also, Mr. Rapier is as far as I can tell, is fully independent, while Mr. Stossel is in the employ of Fox News, owned by News Corp. controlled by Rupert Murdoch., the Australian news empire owner. Murdoch also has managed to gain the ownership of the Wall Street Journal that has also gone on the offensive against ethanol.
Mr. Rapier saw the Dec. 28 piece as a sort of personal affront, while Stossel simply ignored the work. Both men remain ignorant of the full context here. Thus in respect I have apologized to Mr. Rapier. But Rapier is a public figure and should become accustomed to being a part of others thoughts. It’s the last apology from here and it’s my sincere wish Mr. Rapier will not need apologies again.
The issue in play is the petroleum to ethanol ratio. The sly wish to use energy metrics; the wise will choose the economic, i.e. monetary facts existent in today’s reality. Over the course of the conversation, one can see how it goes. The closing point is, when I returned the night of January 5th 2011, Rapier was back in the spam file and had lit off another round of conversation.
From your review of the whole, in context, I seek your opinions. Rapier may have a smashing Internet success in progress, but some of you are even smarter. What you think matters, perhaps even more if others can be apprised of your thoughts.
One parting shot before I retire to nurse my wee wound. Its not a blast at Rapier, rather this writer thinks that even with the sophistication, investment and effort leading to immensely powerful and efficient internal and external combustion, burning fuels is a blunt and primitive way to extract the energy. We can do better, and simpler fuels, richer in hydrogen to carbon ratios are sound, viable alternatives to simply burning stuff up.
Have a great weekend to start off the New Year.