I didn't mean to jump on a sentence. After all is said and done, my biggest interest is exactly how much energy it takes to make ethanol. This takes out the confusion. Only a fool (or a profiteer) would choose to make one form of energy from another one without an extremely good input to output ratio. This is even more so when greenhouse gases are concerned, because we have much more of those when we use 1/2 gallon of fossil fuel to make 1 gallon of ethanol (this assume it take 70,000 BTU to make 90 something).... then we have the greenhouse gases from the total 1 1/2 gallons!
Perhaps there are solutions to the problem of poor output vs. input. But until the numbers are nailed down, I'd rather burn the corn straight or eat/process it.
Pretty good article here showing both sides:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/05speeches/ethanol-oped.htm
Their summary pretty much matches my opinions:
Pimentel thinks we'd get more return on our energy investment by growing trees for woodstoves or other such uses. "Wood is an extremely valuable resource," he says. "We already get 3 percent of our energy from biomass – the same as we get from hydropower. But that's thermal energy, not liquid fuel."
Patzek thinks the U.S. needs a two-pronged approach, neither of which involves ethanol. First, he says, we need more efficient cars. Doubling the average car's fuel efficiency would cut gasoline needs in half, while converting all of the nation's corn production into ethanol would only satisfy 12 percent of current needs, he says.
Similarly, he says, we could reduce fuel needs by redesigning cities to be livable, rather than "drive-in deserts."
Secondly, he says, we need to remember that corn is merely a natural means of converting solar energy into chemical energy, and that it's not really all that efficient at doing so. Solar cells are much more efficient, and could be harnessed to make hydrogen fuel.
Rather than subsidizing ethanol production, Patzek says, we should invest in research designed to make it possible to produce these cells more efficiently.
-------------end quoted material......
Think of it that way - corn is just a way of collecting solar energy, but must be regrown every year, processed, pollutes the water, etc. etc. - What if that corn field was covered with a solar array? Or, better yet our roofs.
It's a similar argument that vegetarians like myself make. You can eat 1 lbs of wheat, corn or soybean protein. Or, you can feed 16 lbs of the same stuff to cows and get one pound of beef. The rest turns to farts, CO2, Manure, etc.
The material seems to show that efficiencies and yields are getting better - but IMHO they are not better enough. Maybe if one gallon of fossil fuel would make 3 gallons of ethanol, then it might be acceptable, but this does not even seem possible at this point.
So let them keep working on it, but prove that it makes sense before we buy it.