UC scientist says ethanol uses more energy than it makes

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 27, 2005 | Elizabeth Svoboda,

[Fudd]

I heard this years ago from someone I know in the energy industry.

[DManA]

Pretty complex subject. If you include the by products in the analysis, it starts to look better. The real test (the only test ) is can it stand up in the marketplace without subsidies.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The feel-good environmental quacks ain't gonna believe anything except what they want to believe.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The real test (the only test ) is can it stand up in the marketplace without subsidies.

Answer: NO

[cripplecreek]

No matter what the energy source there will always be someone with a reason why it's no good.

[from occupied ga]

This has long been known. I first read about the perverse economics of using ethanol as a motor fuel in Science in the early '70s More recently Cornell Professor David Pimental did an analysis of it here But of course, when have environazis and liberal politicians ever let facts stand in their way?

[Blood of Tyrants]

There is a very good reason that the only places that produce it are subsidized by the government. There would probably be much more money in collecting used vegetable oil for use as a diesel substitute.

[Publius6961]

Well, when the country is allowed to be run by the bottom of the gene pool, both as bureaucrats and as activists, what can you expect?

[Obadiah]

Ethanol - one of the bigger scams out there. Costs more to produce, and you get the added benefit of getting worse gas mileage from it as it has less energy content than a gallon of gas.

[Publius6961]

No matter what the energy source there will always be someone with a reason why it's no good.

It's not rocket science.

No one is claiming that it's "no good".
The only assertion is that its use is a net loss in energy. Even a third grader should be able to undestand that.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Hardly news. The point is, burning natural gas to make ethanol is a loser but burning coal, which is a low rank fuel we have plenty of, is a good thing.

[Waco]

Wonder how many "No ShitSherlock" awards this guy has now?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

LOL

Duh.

[jackbenimble]

But of course, when have environazis and liberal politicians ever let facts stand in their way?

Unfortunately, a lot of these liberal politicians who are you are talking about who are wasting our tax dollars on subsidies for this boondoggle are Republicans from the Midwest corn belt. Bob Dole used to be know as "Mr. Ethanol".

[DManA]

The scam is revealed when you throw CAFTA into the conversation. NO NO NO!!! We'll be inundated with cheap ethanol!!!

[cripplecreek]

Gasoline isn't magic. I don't see anyone giving a rundown of the cost of producing gasoline.

[dennisw]

Good one on the ethanol fantasy/scam. The real purpose of ethanol is to take surplus corn off the markets. To make farmers happy. The energy inputs are greater than the energy ethanol produces, I doubt it's 6 times greater as the author contends.

[B Knotts]

I'd like to see a similar study done on the "hyrdrogen economy."

Algae-produced biodiesel is the way to go, IMO.

[stboz]

...burning coal, which is a low rank fuel we have plenty of, is a good thing.

Yes, on top of which, we can (by now, I hope it's competitive) convert coal to gas and gasoline. Add biodiesel to that and the Saudis can go pound sand.