[Wonder Warthog]

"But if coal is cheap, and even better if there is a giant subsidy, then by your arguments for ethanol cracking coal would be a great place to throw away money. You haven't been arguing for lower energy usage, you've just been arguing for replacement of Arab oil at any cost."

I see you don't actually understand the topic . We're talking about ways to replace GASOLINE and DIESEL FUEL--(i.e. transportation fuels), NOT "Arab Oil" (or at least not directly). Simple distillation of ethanol using coal energy is certain to be far less expensive than converting coal to gasoline.

And I assume you didn't read Bommer's posting with an alternative set of economics that shows "ethanol only" (i.e. no usage of coal) "IS" an "energy positive" alternative.

And no--I'm NOT (and never have been) "arguing for lower energy usage". I'm all in favor of a "high-energy future", by whatever means prove out. Going back and living in caves, and eating nuts and berries (as the eco-terrorists would have us do) is NOT particularly attractive. My own favorite long-term solution is "nuclear plus solar".

I won't comment on the rest of your asinine remarks about "tar sands".

[FastCoyote]

"And I assume you didn't read Bommer's posting with an alternative set of economics that shows "ethanol only" (i.e. no usage of coal) "IS" an "energy positive" alternative."

And I assume you didn't read the date of the study Bommer cites, 1995, by Pimental et. al., the same authors of the new study showing a loss of energy to the ethanol cycle. ooooops