As the Planet Gore flex-fuel debate continues into its second day, its terms seem to have shifted a bit. But thankfully, the slurring belligerence remains. It must be something in the atmosphere here — doubtless all the evaporated ethanol.

But to recap thus far: Cliff May, in responding to my dubiety about ethanol being economically competitive with gasoline, adduced Robert Zubrin’s book Energy Victory, which he said has “proven” the point. Robert’s been kind enough to send over a copy of his book, so we’ll take a closer look later at his arguments therein.

Granted, Cliff wasn’t only talking about corn ethanol, but other sugar and cellulose-derived forms, as well (though he has yet to offer any reaction to Peter Huber’s concerns about cellulosic ethanol) — and now Anne Korin offers methanol, as well.

While I share Anne’s distaste for Big Sugar, I find it odd to see it used to argue in favor of government intervention in other industries, to favor other commodities.

That said, the argument that investors see too much risk in developing energy infrastructure absent federal guarantees is a familiar one for fans of increased nuclear power. China can build 30 Hoover dams and 30 nuclear power plants because they are a totalitarian regime. After all, who’s going to sue them?

While we’ll have more on the economics of flex-fuel sources soon after we get a look at Robert’s book, here on Planet Gore, Robert seems to be suggesting that flex fuels’ direct economic competitiveness with petroleum fuels isn’t really his point. He’s more concerned with how OPEC profits allow America’s enemies to wage war against us — his is a national security argument. So perhaps the promised economic benefit of flex fuels is a kind of “peace dividend,” you might say.

To see if I can synthesize Anne and Robert’s points to stoke the fires a bit. . . . How can America, in our political context today, go about expanding our energy infrastructure? Free marketeers say the market should do it — and would be doing it now, without handouts, if they weren’t waiting for the subsidies, tax breaks, and mandates that Washington seems so willing to provide. That’s a logical argument, but it doesn’t deliver the additional megawatts and MPGs we need now, and it makes America’s enemies stronger. And as Robert has asked, friskily, “Who’s side are you on?”

But that argument rests on two facts not yet in evidence: 1) These non-petroleum sources will die on the vine without federal intervention (with Cliff willing to bet a bottle of scotch on the matter: I prefer Islay whiskies, Cliff–Lagavulin or Laphroig, particularly); and 2) despite that, they are still competitive enough to make the transition from petroleum relatively painless. As Marlo Lewis has noted, it’s hard to see how both of these can be right.

The debate will continue, no doubt. In the meantime, feel free to chime in with other threads.