MORE POWER TO THE MICE

But quite seriously: There is essentially nothing wrong with mouse power that is not also wrong with any other form of "soft" energy. And what is essentially wrong with all of these forms is their low energy density.

Mouse power will transform agricultural products storing solar energy into electric power, possibly with a somewhat lower efficiency, but certainly at a lower temperature, than any of the biomass schemes pushed by bogus physicist Lovins. In biomass power, the agricultural products are burned in boilers rather than (chemically) in niece, but that is not an essential difference. What makes burning coal or uranium essentially different from biomass or mouse power is an energy density of two to eight orders (100 to 100 million times) higher.(*)

Yes, you can replace America's capacity of some 500,000 MW with 250,000 windmills, each with 300-ft blades, just as you can with 7.5 trillion mice; and "renewable energy economics basically consists of calculator-arithmetic proving that America has enough land to produce the food for 7.5 trillion mice, or enough wind for all those windmills. And there is nothing wrong with the arithmetic.

But what these scholars overlook is the effect of a difference of up to eight orders on cost, reliability, safety, efficiency, and the rest of the bother. For example, 300 tons of mouse droppings for an ounce of nuclear waste.

Another "soft" energy fallacy is the calculation of the date by which conventional fuels will be exhausted, but plenty of sun, wind and mice will remain.

This is, first of all, kindergarten economics. A resource does not come out of a bottle whose last drop ends the supply. Its price rises as it gets scarcer, possibly making another resource more economical, but it is never exhausted.

But in the case of uranium, the argument is infantile. Uranium (and thorium!) is almost everywhere, though, of course, it is mined only where high concentrations make it economical. If you are desperate enough to go to energy sources as dilute as mouse power, you can get uranium more economically from almost any rock (such as granite) and probably even from the sea.

There is nevertheless a good reason why mouse power is not being pushed by Lovins and other kindergarten economists. You can dupe people about the economy of electric power produced from sun, wind and biomass; but even Jane Fonda might grow hesitant about energy from the droppings of a trillion mice.