Actually, just a quick note on the fertilizer issue;

It is not necessary to presume a high energy cost with regards to fertilization. If we are genetically engineering biofuels, what we are trying to create is a plant that creates more hydrocarbons than current plant species.

Although other chemicals may be necessary, the primary chemical in this equation are hydrogen (from water) and CO2. It is not impossible for example to create a plant that could be grown hydroponicly and create large amounts of simple sugars which can then be processed into alcohol.

Likewise, since plant efficiency is the goal, there is no reason to presume that any plants grown, regardless of their nature would take up more space than is currently dedicated to agriculture.

A current plant produces x amount of sugar, but theoretically, by increasing the genes for sugar production in a plant, we can increase the amount of sugar a single plant produces.

Currently, corn is impractical for ethanol production as corn produces very little sugar in relation to the amount of cellulose it creates. By changing that ratio, you change the efficiency of the product. Likewise, if you cannot for what ever reason increase the amount of sugar without increasing the cellulose of a plant, you still come out ahead as the cellulose also is made from CO2 removed from the atmosphere. In that sense you may be able to create a plant that creates enough sugar to make it viable for ethanol production while at the same time sequestering a great deal more CO2 than is produced by the burning of the ethanol.

The point is, regardless of initial research costs, or the long term production costs, this option should be at least as seductive as solar, or nuclear energy both of which have extremely costly mineral based production process that are anything but environmentally friendly.

As may be, I just don't take very seriously any discussion of alternative energy sources that does not account for total energy costs of said energy sources.

Well, obviously you need to go there for a final solution, but I don't think it's wise to shut down any viable avenues for exploration based on not knowing for sure if they'll work out in the long run.

Back on the original topic, I think a lot of consumers are far more picky about what they put in their own bodies than about what they burn in their vehicle. Or maybe not, they smoke like crazy in Europe... Hmm.

I found the legal tactic to be interesting, too - it's like what Bush is doing with detention and torture. As long as they can keep adjusting they're legalese framework every so often, the courts can never actually catch up.

any serious discussion of our current--and impending--energy problems really should include the *actual energy cost* of everything discussed.

That is to say (with apologies to Howard Odum and Jay Hanson if I get this wrong) any source of energy should be evaluated for efficiency based on how much energy it actually takes to transform it into something useful.

So, in the case of GMO grainstock for alternative fuels, what are the energy costs for growing and harvesting methods (including fertilizer), not to mention the energy costs of environmental mitigation to protect topsoil, and water and air-quality?

It may be that grains transformed into carbon-based fuel is a good idea. But until we know the actual energy costs of the thing, from soup to nuts, we know nothing.

The problem here is one I've mentioned several times in the past. When you abstract everything to money, you no longer have to make a strict accounting of energy costs. Because, in the abstract world of money, you can make a profit on an energy-sink. You can make a profit on all kinds of things that, in the real physical world, should not be profitable.

(I've explained this before, but I'll spare everyone this time, unless Andrew really wants me to go over it again.)

In the real world, this sort of legerdemain will put you out of gas fairly quickly. In the fun-house world of money-abstraction, it is possible to violate the laws of physics, in a sense, for awhile.

Eventually, of course, a bill *does* come due, and the more you've screwed with the laws of thermodynamics in pursuit of profit, the more devastating the bill will be.

Our melting polar ice is as salutary an example of this as anything I can think of. And, oddly, it may be that this apocalyptic result of our burning too much fossil-fuel, may make the production of alternative fuels of any kind mandatory, energy sinks or not. Destabilizing Earth's albedo by creating anomalous polar-ice-cap-melt may be far more dangerous than running out of fossil fuels, in the long-run...although since when has homo-sapiens ever worried much about the long-run?

As may be, I just don't take very seriously any discussion of alternative energy sources that does not account for total energy costs of said energy sources.

You know, for years I've been saying, gee if we can make tomato that produces more vitamins, why not a peanut that produces more fat.

For that matter why not simply genetically engineer a plant to produce petroleum?

What shocks me is that rather than having this possibility extolled from the highest parapet, this is the first I'm hearing about it in the whole gm debate.

Obviously a gasoline tree is a pretty advanced concept, but a more efficient plant isn't. For pity's sake can't we engineer a seaweed that produces more oxygen and takes out more CO2 from the atmosphere?

Of course if we did, the scientific ludites would be right there screaming that this was a mistake, that man was meant to travel by horse cart alone, that tampering with the structure of plants is the domain of the gods alone.

But where are the scientists standing up when these short sighted bullies damn us all to darkness? They pop up pleased as punch to explain how global warming will kill us all, here is a very real solution, why aren't we exploring it, and why are people mute on the possibility?

The US government just dumped a boat load of money into ethanol research; shouldn't we be putting that money into better corn instead of better distilleries?

Honestly, isn't this what the world needs? A relatively environmentally safe method of converting the sun's energy into a viable fuel?

Can some one tell me why this isn't where a great deal of time, energy, and investment capital should be going?