Comment: I appreciate you researching the data

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Busting the Ethanol Myths (see in situ)

I appreciate you researching the data

But only some of what you quote is actual fact. Much of it comes from proponents that have an agenda. I tend to agree with your debunking of myths #3 & 4 but the first two are simply fudging the numbers. #5 misses so much of the big picture that it can't be debunked. The 'broken window fallacy' is not a valid argument to overspend on something non-economic. Not sure why you avoided #6.

#1 Oil does not have a negative EROEI. That's spin talk. It started out at 100:1 and has progressed down to 10:1 with the 'tight' sources (tar sands, shale) dipping into the 3-5:1 range lately. If you don't like Pimental's 1.29:1 for ethanol (since you railed hard on that below), maybe you would rather use Shapouri's 1.34:1 which is MUCH MORE researched. Either way, it's not even close to 2, let alone the ludicrous 200:1. (That's a tale I've GOT to read, LOL. Sources please.) Either way, no one is saying that ethanol is negative.

The 8:1 ratio you quote is for sugar cane ethanol, which can't be grown here in the US. The OP topic is current ethanol, not hypothetical new crops or methods that are unproven. The current fact is that the current system is a scam through and through. Even if you use the newest Fischer-Tropsche synthesis with cobalt, you can't get it over 1.8:1 and using iron and much higher temps can only get it to around 1.6:1. Lots of increased capital expense for not much gain, is it?

#2 Land use. You don't spend much time on farms, do you? You can't just decree that more land be used for farming. The harvested acres is only around 300M per year because the land is changing and the wetland regs are changing. If farmers could plant more, they would because otherwise, they're leaving profit on the table.

The land for all corn is about 85M acres now. It used to be 70M 30 years ago and farmers have only been able to increase it by 15M. Either way, the consumption before counting ethanol's needs doubled due to food, exports and cattle feed. Now, we're taking 20% of that away in a 5 year period. That means that the only way to make it up without impacting prices is to increase the land use by 20%. There's no other way around it.

So your quoted math is off a tad. At 20% of 85M, the ethanol corn land needed is 12,941 gallons per acre. That's slightly higher than 368.5.

The nutshell is that us end users get hit twice to pay for something that uses too much fresh water, too much land and produces an entire infrastructure that ends up using almost as much energy as it provides to our existing fossil fuel industry... which, by the way, it also maintains their continued monopoly over.

Your copy and paste didn't cover the engine/energy problems I discussed below. I wonder if you could weigh in on those too?