The EROEI on biofuels is mostly negative - a few promise positive, but low, EROEI. For a negative EROEI, it's much better to just cut out the middleman and use petroleum. Even for EROEI sufficiently low, it's dumb to waste time on biofuels which could displace food crops; and frankly, anybody who thinks biofuels can provide more than a fraction of our energy needs is a lunatic - fossil fuels are the equivalent of thousands of years of stored solar energy, and we think we're going to get enough energy out of exactly ONE year via ethanol or switchgrass? Even old inefficient photovoltaics are a better investment of both energy and money; and wind is nearly competitive with coal these days - stop wasting time on farm subsidy crap and just get going with the stuff that actually works.

Bithead, you're a real piece of work.

The reason is that producing biofuel is not a “green process”. It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make “green” fuel.

Now, this is pretty strange reasoning. Presumably this would be true in the beginning, but in the long run those tractors would run on biofuels, wound't they?

I'd like to know where they got those motor rounds. We should send them a bunch more......

While I disagree with her endorsement of Hillary!, what she has to say is interesting and can give those of us who are pro-life, as she is, something to think about......

Here's the latest addition to the List of Things That Offend Muslims. As usual, the complaint is very damning over a trivial issue.JW: There are rules of shari'a in everything. We have counted almost 70 rules about how to urinate...

But, like every other wet dream these people have come up with, it's turned into a nightmare. It has become clear that we are not going to be able to do that. As a result, we now have an energy starved nation, paying $3.00 a gallon and better for the ability to drive back and forth to work... and all the economic repercussions that invokes.

The common complaint, and one that I am sympathetic to, is that our environmentalist friends are about damaging the economy of the united states, and with it, our standing in the world. It's pretty hard argue against that statement, with results like what we have in front of us.

For 30 years and longer we have, at the behest of the "environmentalist" left, avoided the real solution: increased domestic drilling and increased domestic refining capacity.

It's about time we turn that situation around.

Today I decided to revisit some of the articles we’ve written in the past year about Islam and Islamism . Perhaps our questions and conclusions will stimulate questions of your own?...

Those that are mourning those three students that were lined up against a wall and shot in the head, executed, are asking why?...

It seems the usual suspects are rushing to undermine the progress report of General Petraeus, before he even gives the report. A recent article, including the usual unnamed military source......

Andrew Samwick observes, “Putting energy reform in the hands of domestic agricultural producers seems like no better an idea than putting it in the hands of domestic petroleum producers.”

Are those the alternatives? Or are we really talking about putting energy reform in the hands of NOC's?

Canada and Mexico aren't so bad but look at the rest of the major players: KSA, Russia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela.

I agree that subsidizing corn production for use in ethanol. The arguments against cellulosic ethanol production don't seem as strong.