SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: one_less who wrote (541113)2/16/2004 5:30:33 PM
From: E  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Hi, Jewel.

The fellow who posted the argument between the engineer who's a consultant for the National Corn Growers' Association and Pimentel about the energy-efficiency of ethanol production ended the page I linked to by making a similar, or at least related, point:

" (3) Given that ethanol production involves the conversion of massive amounts of energy from one form to another, the contention that the process is an efficient way to make fuel seems to fly in the face of basic physics--so much so that I'm inclined to regard the subsidy program, and the fact that it has survived for a quarter century, with something approaching awe. Money-wasting government schemes are hardly rare. But how many do you know of that flout the second law of thermodynamics?"



To: one_less who wrote (541113)2/16/2004 5:36:08 PM
From: Ish  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
<<I'm not an expert either but I suspect the 29% + argument uses at least a little of this type of logic; especially if they are factoring in, growing corn as part of the energy expense.>>

The article I read factored in everything and came out 39% more energy. BUT WHAT EVERYONE IS MISSING, 10% ETHANOL CUTS POLLUTION IN HALF!