[Mr. Lucky]

Would the University of Chicago's Argonne National Laboratory be OK with you?

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/349.pdf

[flashbunny]

Yeah, great. I love this line:

"Energy balance value for a given energy product alone is not meaningful in evaluating its benefit"

That's a classic liberal logic line: "Don't look at the results, look at our intentions!"

BTW, you know there's a big corn lobby in illinois too?

And the the department of energy, Which funds them, has what kind of bias on ethanol?

You can not claim bias on the part of one researcher and then ignore the bias of another - especially where it is so obvious.

[flashbunny]

one last thought, to cut through all the debate:

If ethanol is so great so efficient, why do we have to subsidize it?

Simple question. If it was a better product, people would be beating down the doors of ethanol producers to buy their product.

Instead, the ethanol producers and corn growers are constantly sticking their hands in our wallets telling us how they can't survine without our subsidies.

Can't be both. One or the other. Self-sufficient super product or taxpayer funded boondoggle.

Choose.

[spunkets]

"Would the University of Chicago's Argonne National Laboratory be OK with you?"

That paper in your link is not a scientific paper. It's a bunch of powerpoint plots. The whole thing is pure BS though. It starts out immediately with this on page 3:

"Energy balance value for fuel ethanol alone is not meaningful in evaluating it's benfits."

That's ridiculous, because that's the whole point of the topic and exercise. That's a lead in to the rest of their con.

Fig 6 shows a graph of "Fossil energy ratio". The def for that quantity is:

E content of fuel / Fossil Einput to make it.

The plot is clearly wrong, because it shows ERcorn as greater than ER gasoline. The whole paper is political and dishonest to the max. It appears to be written by a social worker also.