The Auto Channel
The Largest Independent Automotive Research Resource
The Largest Independent Automotive Research Resource
Official Website of the New Car Buyer

Dealing with Both Ends of Fuel Ignorance at the Same Time


Introducing.....NATURAL ENERGY

By Marc J. Rauch
Author of The Ethanol Papers
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher

A couple of days ago, Paul Driessen (author, attorney, and senior policy advisor with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise), published a study and editorial on that is highly critical of the "Green New Deal" and other proposed renewable energy mandates. The editorial and link to the study can be found by CLICKING HERE.

The very next day, Steve Hanley, a technical issues writer for, wrote and published an editorial that is highly critical of Paul Driessen's study and editorial. Hanley goes after Driessen's attack on the Green New Deal and its primary supporters. He also attacks Rush Limbaugh and Fox News (which he calls Faux News), apparently just for the heck of it. Hanley's editorial can be found by CLICKING HERE.

PHOTO (select to view enlarged photo)
Marc Rauch
What we have here is an editorial that presents the polar extremes of politics and energy ignorance, mixed in with fantasy about catastrophic man-made global climate change. It's the old left vs. right argument.

People typically graphically imagine the left vs. right argument in horizontal linear terms with the radical left all the way to the left, and the radical right all the way to the right, with a moderate/objective/truthful position to be found between them. What I learned a long time ago in Jr. High School (so long ago that it was before Jr. High Schools became known as Middle Schools), is that the radical left and right weren't really at polar extremes of each other. They are really very closely aligned, with the moderate/objective/true position diametrically opposed to them. In graphic terms, refer to the image at the top of this page.

The "Green New Deal" is nonsense championed by a pubescent level ex-bartender and old dementia-addled lefties who never worked a day in their lives at real jobs.

The Heritage Institute side is wrapped up in petroleum oil sycophancy combined with a probable API-funded hatred of alternative fuels and alternative energy solutions.

While I am generally on the "right" side of politics as espoused by Heritage Institute, their position against most alt fuels and energy solutions is completely wrong. I have told them this on several occasions via published essays and emails. Paul Diessen, author of the study Steve Hanley targeted, wrote a few negative articles about ethanol. I replied to him on multiple occasions and have elicited from him an admission that his anti-ethanol comments were premature and baseless. I was happy to see that his new study did not attack ethanol.

Driessen's study is right and wrong. He is right in condemning many of the aspects related to building electric cars and batteries. Manufacturing electric cars is not clean, and the mining of materials used to produce the batteries rely on what amounts to slave labor (often slave labor using children).

Although he doesn't mention that projections for any possible salvation from electric vehicles is decades away from reality (maybe a full century), he would be right if he did so. Internal combustion engines are great machines; there is no need to replace them. The only problem with typical internal combustion engines is the dirty filthy fuel that they mostly use (gasoline and diesel fuel). Internal combustion engines running on ethanol would allow them to remain our primary engines, and internal combustion engine vehicles running on ethanol are even cleaner than electric-powered vehicles.

Driessen demeans wind power and solar power. This is wrong because both are long proven sources of energy for powering vessels, stationary machines, and growing crops. Wind powered sailing vessels effectively moved millions of people, countless armies, and incalculable tons of cargo for several millennia. Windmills have been used for many century to process raw crops and materials, which were then both refined into food and products that humans couldn't have lived without. The sun's solar power is ultimately responsible for the creation of wind, and the same solar power is also required for the growing of all crops. Yes, I understand that this is the 21st century, and that machines powered by a fuel can be more efficient and economical, but that doesn't mean that we should discount the natural energy that is provided to us by wind and just means that we have to make better use and wind and solar by continuing to improve on the technologies and devices. By the way, I use the term "natural energy" for a reason, which I will return to shortly.

The fact is that solar panels used by home owners and businesses in many areas of the country and world to generate electricity do cut the cost of electricity provided by municipal utilities; and they can provide electricity during utility interruptions. Additionally, they can provide electricity in areas that are not reached by electric power lines. The same is true of wind generators. Some people will argue that the solar panels and wind generators are only economical because of government subsidies. This is largely true, however so-called 'fossil fuels' are only economical because of government subsidies, so the subsidy issue is moot.

Driessen's study is critical of health issues related to the use of petroleum oil fuels and coal. He is terribly wrong for doing this and minimizing the risks. Gasoline and diesel fuel are poison. They use other ingredients that are more poisonous (such as benzene, toluene and xylene). The fumes and pollution caused by the use of coal and petroleum oil fuels is poison. They are responsible for killing and disabling more humans than the Coronavirus ever will. This comment is not conjecture or based on spurious computer modeling, it is based on historical facts.

This brings me back to the term "natural energy." Fuels produced from crude oil are not "fossil fuels;" they (and coal) do not come from decaying fossil and living materials. They come from minerals. They are "abiotic fuels." The invention of the term "fossil fuels" was made by Standard Oil to try to give some romance and dignity to the abiotic fuels. All sides of the energy issue should stop using the term "fossil fuels" and they should say "abiotic fuels" instead.

Similarly, wind and solar power are not renewable energy sources. They do not renew themselves and humans can not do anything to help them to renew. Winds are caused by unequal heating from the sun. The sun is burning itself out (yes, we will probably never see this happen, nor will our grand children or great-great-great grandchildren - but it will happen). A much better all encompassing term for solar and wind energy is "NATURAL ENERGY." I don't know if anyone has even made this suggestion before, but there it is. I offer it to the world to be used for all eternity.

"Natural energy" should include water power and thermal power. The term "Renewable energy/fuels" should be reserved for fuels created by man that can be duplicated by man, such as ethanol, methanol, and hydrogen fuels. Natural energy and Renewable energy should be combined into the overall term "alternative energy (fuel)." Nuclear power is the odd duck because the base fuel materials are not regenerative, but it is alternative to traditional abiotic fuels. Tom Quinn, CEO of E-Fuel Corporation, reminded me that nuclear power generation uses uranium, plutonium or thorium as the raw material and these materials are abiotic.

Natural energy cannot replace the use of abiotic fuels. Any thoughts and ideas put forward by proponents of the Green New Deal that natural energy can do this are absolutely, positively wrong. It is simply a childish fantasy. Natural energy can supplement energy produced from abiotic fuels, but not replace them.

However, natural energy can also supplement the energy produced by alternative fuels and energy. The big difference is that alternative fuels and energy CAN entirely replace abiotic fuels...with the added benefit of ridding us of the poisons and pollution that are associated with the use of abiotic fuels.

The best part of all this is that alternative fuels (can be used immediately in place of petroleum oil fuels without any expensive re-tooling or engine conversions, and without damaging existing engines.

For more information regarding my statements please read the following:

Peter Ferrara's Big $6.3 Million Payday For Bashing Ethanol

Using E10 in Your Boat - A Lesson Learned

Ethanol is the SAVIOR of the Oil Industry, Convenience Store Industry, Automotive Supply Chain Industry and Much More!

U.S. DOE and EPA are Screwing America

Debunking the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming