Oh so now I'm a socialist... its amazing how a simple discussion on energy turns into a "socialist energy plan"

Distortion #1 More carbon isn't going to solve a problem generated by too much carbon.”
Until we install nuclear reactors in every vehicle, we need more carbon to burn in internal combustion engines, so that we can propel vehicles down the road. The problem isn’t too much carbon, the problem is not enough carbon.

Of course Mr Ewing doesn't care about global warming on South Fork. Carbon is precisely the problem. Of course his specialty is to cherry pick quotes to misrepresent a post. What I said was this:

Sure we will need oil to transition to new sources( of energy). However,the longer we prolong the oil boom bust cycle..eventually, and in the not to distant future it will be a permanent bust.

More carbon isn't going to solve a problem generated by too much carbon. Drilling for more oil isn't going to solve a problem generated by decreasing supplies and increasing demand because we are running out of oil.

Here our self proclaimed master of the oil patch shows his ignorance about nuclear energy...

 Distortion #2“You will notice that the US has more nuclear plants and produces more MW than any country on earth.”
No shit, Sherlock. And between Japan, France, and the U.S. we have managed to maintain an outstanding safety record. Fortunately, most nuclear plants are situated in remote locations, where they should be.

Thats patently untrue. If the safety record is so good why is it fortunate they are in remote areas..which many aren't by the way. By and large the safety record in the US nuclear industry is good...hardly "outstanding". Just a sampling:

Niantic Bay, Waterford (nearest major city: New Haven, CT; 3 miles WSW of New London, CT) # miles...why that is remote! Just some of the safety issue at this " remote" plant:

• 1999-2000:  Repeated shutdowns dues to failures of the reactor control-rod drive system, including control rods that came loose and dropped into the reactor.  The plant operator blamed failed insulation and damaged electrical leads. (Source: OC Register)
• Sept. 1999: Two NU subsidiaries pled guilty to 25 violations of environmental and nuclear laws and agree to pay $10 million in "fines and contributions". The charges concerned nuclear training and environmental issues at Millstone Station and environmental issues at their Devon Station in the mid-'90s. (Source: DNC Inc.'s  web site.)
• 1997: Millstone 1,2 &3: 0% Capacity factors. (Source: ORNL 1999 NPP Analysis, Appendix E-3)
• 1996: Labor Day Weekend: unknowingly displaced water from reactor vessel with nitrogen. “A close call!
• Aug5^th,1993: Leak causes shutdown at Millstone; 
• Aug,16^th,1991: Eight control rods show delays in emergency shutdown insertion time at Millstone; 
• Apr 3^rd,1988: Leakage at Millstone

Buchanan ( Indian Point), Westchester County (nearest major city: White Plains, NY. New York City, the greatest city in the world, Pop 8250567 is just 24  miles S of Indian Point.) Just a second or two as the neutron flies...

• Built on an active earthquake fault.  Ran for 12 years on a “provisional” license.  Site failed 5 of 6 1979 NRC rules, however this previous license grandfathered in the next two plants at the site
• Dec. 03, 2001: - A majority of Unit 2 control room operators (4 out of 7 crews; 10 individual operators) were unable to properly solve simulated emergencies that, had they been real, would have resulted in reactor damage or the release of radiation into the atmosphere.  (Source: TheJournalNews.com )

• Feb., 2000:  Steam generator tube ruptures at Unit 2, contaminating 19,000 gallons of cooling water and releasing radioactive steam into the atmosphere. (Source: OC Register) Plant stays closed for 1 year. (Source: NY Times, Dec. 8^th, 2001.)

  Nov. 1993: Two original safety valves at IP3 found to be insufficiently rated; in the rush to replace them before an upcoming NRC inspection, engineers install them backwards, blocking both cooling systems and disabling backup generators.

• Scriba (nearest major city: Syracuse, NY; 6 miles NE of Oswego, NY)

• Late 1990s:  Cracking in the reactor's internals has made NM1 "the worst case of cracking in the nuclear industry" (Union of Concerned Scientists).  Most attention has focused on the core shroud, but other cracked pieces (emergency condensers, main drain line, control rod stub tubes) suggest the problem is pervasive.

  1979 - 1996: Systemic mismanagement at NM1 result in ~200 cited violations or nearly 1/month. 

• 1987 ­ 1989: NRC shuts NM1 for over 2 years after NiMo revealed they had covered up huge waste-handling problems at NM1.  For years, the waste building was flooded with 40,000 gallons of primary coolant water; three months prior to that announcement, NM1 dumped 50,000 gallons of coolant directly from the reactor into Lake Ontario. 
  

Hutchinson Island (12 miles S.E. of Ft. Pierce SMSA 381,033; nearest major city: West Palm Beach, SMSA 357,000 )
Cowans Ford Dam, Huntersville (17 miles N of Charlotte, NC (nearest major city)Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC had a population of 2191604)

Daisy (10 miles NE of Chattanooga, TN Pop 155,554(nearest major city))

What I said was this:

You will  notice that the US has more nuc plants and produces more MW than any country on earth.( Second column is plant under construction)

France population 61,875,822  per capita generation 978.11

US population 301,139,947 per capita generation 2991.68

 And heres the point of the whole paragraph:

So we  use a shit load more electricity per capita than they do...

US: 13,351.067 kWh per capita

France 7,899.736 kWh per capita

Also only 1.9% of our electric generation comes from oil....smaller cars...less petro based packaging all that stuff we could go along way to reducing oil usage.

Duh...Sherlock

Distortion # 3 Spoken like a guy who has never calculated an energy balance equation, and who doesn’t understand the concept of an energy sink. Ethanol process will always suck up more money and more energy than it will ever produce, no matter what is bubbling in the mash.

I understand perfectly the concept of an energy sink...responding to your posts is a good example. Like I said in the original post,corn based ethanol yield is very close to the energy put in( not a very good solution). However your quote is spoken like a guy who has already made up his mind...and does no research. 

Cellulosic ethanol is made from the byproducts of harvested grains, cane, wood...things we have already invested energy in to get the main product. Cellulosic ethanol is made from the waste.That's why cellulosic ethanol yields 80 percent more energy than is required to grow and convert it.

But to answer your question I have calculated plenty of "energy balance equations"...running naval engineering plants.

We captured data continiuusly to determine the efficiency of the plant. And analogous to cellulosic ethanol process, naval vessels capture waste heat from the main driver either steam, nuclear or gas turbine and use it for distilling water, driving aux pumps...things like that...it makes the plant more efficent. So bite me.