"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
Ooops, yourself. Bommer's authors in post 40 are Lorenz and Morris, NOT "Pimental, et al". A quick scan through Bommer's post shows no mention of Pimental.
And the fact that the study was written in 1995 invalidates the ENERGY BALANCES not at all. It might affect the economics, but a BTU in 1995 is still a BTU today.