OK, so I read your response to my post and the graph made sense (after I found the legend). Then I read the exchange between you and riored and some of the reference material he provided. Now, I’m a fairly smart guy but I quickly realize that I can’t get a handle on this thing unless I do a LOT of reading. Frankly, I don’t want to do that. I just want a simple answer to a simple question. Both of you guys seem well read on the subject so I’m hoping that your exchanges create an agreement that I can buy and bypass the need to become a self-educated expert on the matter.
Keeping in mind that it won’t change my mind about it being stupid to use food for fuel, it would be nice to have a logical, scientific answer.
Thanks.
Would it help at all if someone pointed out that the use of corn for fuel removes only the starch, that all other nutrients remain and that the principal by-product (distillers’ dry or wet grains) is more easily digested by livestock than the corn was to begin with?
In my opinion, this graph shows it fairly well.
Keep in mind the source of this study was a report promoting ethanol. In my opinion, I think the gasoline figure is too high, but I also think the ethanol figure is too high. And their are quite a few contradicting studies on the energy required to produce ethanol.
On a purely energy input measure, I don't think anyone can make convincing argument that it takes more energy to produce gasoline.
There are however, more benefit from ethanol than pure energy inputs. DDGs, balance of trade, domestic resources, etc. My biggest gripe with ethanol in the US is the targeted subsidy. If that was applied across the board to all domestic transportation fuels and our resources were opened up for development, this country could be energy independent.