On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:33:50 -0500, James Robinson wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
than it actually produces,

There is a certain amount of healthy debate on that issue.

A couple of professors from Cornell and Berkeley have been making that
argument, but the Dept. of Energy has come out with the "definitive"
analysis that concludes you get something like 25 or 30% more energy out,
when corn is used as the base. A higher level of return is projected for
other sources, like switchgrass.

I seriously question their results. Pretty much every other study shows,
with current technology, that's pretty much impossible. On top of that,
countries which are currently using agro to produce eneregy have long
since moved from crappy corn to crops that make more sense: sugar cane,
sugar beats, and hemp. Even with these crops, obtaining a return was
difficult.

Beyond that, every study I've read which indicated a return from corn were
torn to bits by other papers, rightfully so, because they ignored huge
segments of the process which chewed up energy to obtain the energy from
corn.

I have to agree, trying to obtain energy from corn is stupid when far
better crops readily exist. Trying to make it work with corn only
translates into higher prices at the end of the day.

Greg