No, the ethanol slide also shows total energy in.
The word game being played is this slide does not count total energy, but only fossil energy. See the word choice in the upper left hand corner. For Ethanol, they show that energy going in for fuel as Solar, but since this is a biased report, they only count the fossil input for this particular number.
"Do you think slide 12 is a mistake? It is very clear the total energy needed for gasoline is mostly comprised of the fuel itself."
No, I think it is ambiguous, and can be interpreted either your way or my way.
No, it breaks it down exactly as I am saying. On the left the first group counts total fuel input, solar, fossil, electricity. In that group you can see the claim that Corn Ethanol process consumes ~3/4 of the energy the fuel contains. Gasoline consumes ~1/4 of the total. The dark and light shading are clearly indicated.
Go to the middle group and there are the numbers represented from the other graphic we are discussing. It is not total energy but only compares fossil energy. It is very clear that in this comparison gasolines number contains the energy in the fuel itself while the different ethanols do not.
Figure 2 in the Science article is much clearer.
Then let us look at that figure.
It SPECIFICALLY says energy USED to make the product (either ethanol or gasoline).
No it does not. The title on the graph is Petroleum Input. But the notes for figure 2 clear make my point.
Fig. 2. Alternative metrics for evaluating ethanol based on the intensity of primary energy inputs (MJ) per MJ of fuel and of net greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2-equivalent) per MJ of fuel. For gasoline, both petroleum feedstock and petroleum energy inputs are included.
It clearly states it is counting not only energy inputs but the product itself.
This is about energy USED to make product, not an "energy balance" calculation.
No, both studies specifically make the point either in the graphic with shading or in the description of the graphic, that they are also counting the product.