LIke I said if the net energy gain is 35% of 67% like some of the conr growers articles claimsed, then it should be easy to produce a demo plant that runs its entire operation on the energy from the ethanol itself. From the planting to the fertilizing, harvesting, fermenting and distilling. I'll remain skeptical until I see that, but if I do I'll convert. I have a lot more faith in Fischer Tropsh synfuel from coal's ability to meet future energy needs than ethanol.
Such an argument would say that it would be more efficient for all of us to plant all our vegetables, raise our cattle and pigs and build our automobiles and TV's in the workshop out back.
I do as well. In the long term Oil Shale and Methane Hydrates along with coal and nuclear will provide a lot of energy for this country. In the short term we need to produce our present day resources like drilling for oil and gas and mining uranium and coal instead of letting environmentalists shut us down.
But the Pimental study is horrible. Just look at the basics of the energy content of ethanol (the finished product, not the net) and corn yields he used. It is so blatant that he cherry-picked numbers to push his claim. They do not come near typical values.