Pimentel is an entomologist, a field that does not qualify one as an expert in ETOH energetics. Here is Pimentel’s description of his program: The research spans the field of basic population ecology, genetics, ecological and economic aspects of pest control, biological control, energy use and conservation, genetic engineering, sustainable agriculture, soil and water conservation, and natural resource management and environmental policy.
There are many scientists in the field of energy and ag production of crops for ETOH that would heartily disagree with Pimentel. There is about a 20-25% net energy gain with ETOH produced at 400 gallons/acre of corn. And again, all of those vilifying ETOH production conveniently leave out the high protein feed that remains for livestock plus the organic matter from the cornstalks adding carbon to the soil. It isn’t just ETOH that is produced.
I am not helping the other side—the other side is part of the fight against ETOH and the by-products. Please tell me about this cleaner fuel you refer to in a generic sense—I don’t know what you are talking about.
Yes, and has produced studies jointly with those who have the expertise he lacks.
The ethanol boondoggle does help the other side, has not produced an iota of energy independence and is not practical in this country.
Look up Bill Talbert’s patent on E II gasoline. In tests it has been shown to produce zero pollution of THC, NOx, and CO.
It appears it may be developed to produce no more CO2 than is in the ambient air. Because it burns almost completely in the chamber it enormously reduces engine wear. The mileage gain from it was first tested, under EPA hot city driving conditions in 2000 at 7%. It now appears that the outer limit of mileage gain is 40% and that that can be further increased by combining its use with other technology. Because it is a far simpler fuel it can be produced in commercial quantities far cheaper than present gasoline. However it does not have any significant lobby behind it and we have not spent millions in subsidies and tax breaks upon it. So the choice is clear, we can either engage in subsidizing a farm lobby or we can win the war.
Moreover, it can be used as cars as is, although some improvement could be made in knock sensor technology to optimize its use, which would not be expensive. It transports as well as any other gasoline and does not corrode like ethanol or harm engines like ethanol. But hey we wouldn’t want to win the war when we could subsidize ADM and boondoggles, would we?