And, from the same article:

So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than
it returns only gave us half the story:


Energy balance in the United States

One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a
negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an
ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent
studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it
consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel
and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more
energy than they yield. [9]

Hachiroku wrote:[color=blue]
> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than
> it returns only gave us half the story:
>
>
> Energy balance in the United States
>
> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a
> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
> ethanol from grain - including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an
> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
> alcohol - exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent
> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it
> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel
> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more
> energy than they yield. [9][/color]

Does this mean that after I eat my corn I can shove the corncob in my
gas tank?

TIA

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 05:24:06 -0700, Learning Richard wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Hachiroku wrote:[color=green]
>> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than
>> it returns only gave us half the story:
>>
>>
>> Energy balance in the United States
>>
>> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a
>> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
>> ethanol from grain - including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
>> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an
>> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
>> alcohol - exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent
>> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it
>> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
>> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel
>> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more
>> energy than they yield. [9][/color]
>
> Does this mean that after I eat my corn I can shove the corncob in my
> gas tank?
>
> TIA[/color]

Only if you have a REALLY good fuel filter and are planning on letting the
car sit for a looooong time...

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532@ae86.gts...[color=blue]
> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than
> it returns only gave us half the story:
>
>
> Energy balance in the United States
>
> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a
> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
> ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an
> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
> alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent
> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it
> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel
> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more
> energy than they yield. [9][/color]

Shocked?

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532@ae86.gts...[color=green]
>> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than
>> it returns only gave us half the story:
>>
>>
>> Energy balance in the United States
>>
>> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a
>> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
>> ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
>> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an
>> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
>> alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent
>> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it
>> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
>> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel
>> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more
>> energy than they yield. [9][/color]
>
> Shocked?[/color]

I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more
energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil fuels.

So, what's the holdup, then?

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.23.19.19.53.763523@ae86.gts...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> > "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532@ae86.gts...[color=darkred]
> >> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy[/color][/color][/color]
than[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> it returns only gave us half the story:
> >>
> >>
> >> Energy balance in the United States
> >>
> >> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would[/color][/color][/color]
have a[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
> >> ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
> >> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating[/color][/color][/color]
an[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
> >> alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all[/color][/color][/color]
subsequent[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than[/color][/color][/color]
it[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
> >> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation[/color][/color][/color]
(diesel[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20%[/color][/color][/color]
more[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> energy than they yield. [9][/color]
> >
> > Shocked?[/color]
>
> I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more
> energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil[/color]
fuels.[color=blue]
>
> So, what's the holdup, then?[/color]

Oil Cartel?

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:37:55 -0400, Josh wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.23.19.19.53.763523@ae86.gts...[color=green]
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532@ae86.gts...
>> >> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy[/color][/color]
> than[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> it returns only gave us half the story:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Energy balance in the United States
>> >>
>> >> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would[/color][/color]
> have a[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
>> >> ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
>> >> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating[/color][/color]
> an[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
>> >> alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all[/color][/color]
> subsequent[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than[/color][/color]
> it[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
>> >> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation[/color][/color]
> (diesel[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20%[/color][/color]
> more[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> energy than they yield. [9]
>> >
>> > Shocked?[/color]
>>
>> I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more
>> energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil[/color]
> fuels.[color=green]
>>
>> So, what's the holdup, then?[/color]
>
> Oil Cartel?[/color]


<Bugs Bunny voice> Mmmmmmm, Could be!

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.23.19.19.53.763523@ae86.gts...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532@ae86.gts...[color=darkred]
>>> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy
>>> than
>>> it returns only gave us half the story:
>>>
>>>
>>> Energy balance in the United States
>>>
>>> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have
>>> a
>>> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
>>> ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
>>> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating
>>> an
>>> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
>>> alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent
>>> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than
>>> it
>>> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
>>> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation
>>> (diesel
>>> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20%
>>> more
>>> energy than they yield. [9][/color]
>>
>> Shocked?[/color]
>
> I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more
> energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil
> fuels.
>
> So, what's the holdup, then?
>[/color]

There is no holdup. For the last year, we have been averaging the building
of 2 ethanol plants a year. By my house, you can buy e-85 for about 70 cents
less a gallon than regular gasoline.

I just wish Toyota would pull their heads out of their asses and make their
cars compatible with it.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:29:25 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.23.19.19.53.763523@ae86.gts...[color=green]
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532@ae86.gts...
>>>> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy
>>>> than
>>>> it returns only gave us half the story:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Energy balance in the United States
>>>>
>>>> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have
>>>> a
>>>> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
>>>> ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
>>>> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating
>>>> an
>>>> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
>>>> alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent
>>>> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than
>>>> it
>>>> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
>>>> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation
>>>> (diesel
>>>> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20%
>>>> more
>>>> energy than they yield. [9]
>>>
>>> Shocked?[/color]
>>
>> I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more
>> energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil
>> fuels.
>>
>> So, what's the holdup, then?
>>[/color]
>
> There is no holdup. For the last year, we have been averaging the building
> of 2 ethanol plants a year. By my house, you can buy e-85 for about 70 cents
> less a gallon than regular gasoline.
>
> I just wish Toyota would pull their heads out of their asses and make their
> cars compatible with it.[/color]

They do!

(see post Indy Rice League...)

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:29:25 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.23.19.19.53.763523@ae86.gts...[color=green]
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532@ae86.gts...
>>>> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy
>>>> than
>>>> it returns only gave us half the story:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Energy balance in the United States
>>>>
>>>> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have
>>>> a
>>>> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
>>>> ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
>>>> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating
>>>> an
>>>> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
>>>> alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent
>>>> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than
>>>> it
>>>> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
>>>> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation
>>>> (diesel
>>>> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20%
>>>> more
>>>> energy than they yield. [9]
>>>
>>> Shocked?[/color]
>>
>> I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more
>> energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil
>> fuels.
>>
>> So, what's the holdup, then?
>>[/color]
>
> There is no holdup. For the last year, we have been averaging the building
> of 2 ethanol plants a year. By my house, you can buy e-85 for about 70 cents
> less a gallon than regular gasoline.
>
> I just wish Toyota would pull their heads out of their asses and make their
> cars compatible with it.[/color]


Why isn't the car compatible with it? Mods are needed to run ethanol?

"Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:11lpodltnv4q045@news.supernews.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.23.19.19.53.763523@ae86.gts...[color=green]
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532@ae86.gts...
>>>> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy
>>>> than
>>>> it returns only gave us half the story:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Energy balance in the United States
>>>>
>>>> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would
>>>> have a
>>>> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce
>>>> ethanol from grain - including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm
>>>> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating
>>>> an
>>>> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
>>>> alcohol - exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all
>>>> subsequent
>>>> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than
>>>> it
>>>> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
>>>> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation
>>>> (diesel
>>>> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20%
>>>> more
>>>> energy than they yield. [9]
>>>
>>> Shocked?[/color]
>>
>> I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more
>> energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil
>> fuels.
>>
>> So, what's the holdup, then?
>>[/color]
>
> There is no holdup. For the last year, we have been averaging the building
> of 2 ethanol plants a year. By my house, you can buy e-85 for about 70
> cents less a gallon than regular gasoline.
>
> I just wish Toyota would pull their heads out of their asses and make
> their cars compatible with it.
>[/color]

I meant a month... not 2 new plants a year... but two new plants a month

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.24.13.44.21.784008@ae86.gts...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:29:25 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.10.23.19.19.53.763523@ae86.gts...[color=darkred]
>>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532@ae86.gts...
>>>>> So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy
>>>>> than
>>>>> it returns only gave us half the story:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Energy balance in the United States
>>>>>
>>>>> One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would
>>>>> have
>>>>> a
>>>>> negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to
>>>>> produce
>>>>> ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for
>>>>> farm
>>>>> tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and
>>>>> operating
>>>>> an
>>>>> ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into
>>>>> alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all
>>>>> subsequent
>>>>> studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than
>>>>> it
>>>>> consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one
>>>>> considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation
>>>>> (diesel
>>>>> and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20%
>>>>> more
>>>>> energy than they yield. [9]
>>>>
>>>> Shocked?
>>>
>>> I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took
>>> more
>>> energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil
>>> fuels.
>>>
>>> So, what's the holdup, then?
>>>[/color]
>>
>> There is no holdup. For the last year, we have been averaging the
>> building
>> of 2 ethanol plants a year. By my house, you can buy e-85 for about 70
>> cents
>> less a gallon than regular gasoline.
>>
>> I just wish Toyota would pull their heads out of their asses and make
>> their
>> cars compatible with it.[/color]
>
>
> Why isn't the car compatible with it? Mods are needed to run ethanol?[/color]

Yeah basically you need to get rid of anything in the fuel system that could
possibly rust. You also have to program the computer to work with the higher
octane and lower BTU of ethanol. A properly programmed car will only lose a
little less MPG.