<VV> RE: VirtualVairs Digest, Vol 13, Issue 78

[airvair]

As of 2000 it STILL did take more energy to produce ethanol than you
could get out of it. (So said the article, written by Walter Youngquist,
which is in the book I mentioned.) He states that "corn to ethanol is an
energy negative. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than is
obtained from it. Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it
from being used as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the
land. In US corn production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil
is formed." "Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as
advocates would believe. [Professor of environmental studies David]
Pimentel states: Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline,
but it produces just as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition,
ethanol adds aldehydes and alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are
carcinogenic. When all air pollutants associated with the entire ethanol
system are measured, ethanol production is found to contribute to major
pollution problems."

So I'd say that the "fair and balanced" political model of splitting the
difference between two sides doesn't work when it comes to science.
Either you're right or you're wrong. There is no halfway point.

-Mark

"Steven R. Marti" wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> It's my understanding and I'm no expert that it takes 1 BTU of energy to
> make 1 BTU of ethanol, by the time you grow the corn, haul it to the still
> and then get it to the tank farm.  You can ship petro all the way around the
> world and have a net gain in energy.
> 
> dp
> <snip>
> 
> I read somewhere recently that the more energy in than out model was based
> on some obsolete assumptions.  The truth is probably somewhere between two
> extreme opinions.
> 
> Steve
>