> Bob Eld wrote:
> > That is simply not true, it's old data pushed by David Pimental and others.
> > A more modern number shows a net positive energy balance of 167%. This
> > includes all inputs and outputs including transportation, fertilizer,
> > farming, distilation, etc. It results in a net energy INCREASE for corn
> > ethanol of approxametely 33,000 BTU's per gallon. Source: Hosein, USDA,
> > 2001.
> Markets weigh in on this debate, for which the Universities such as
> Iowa State, Univ of Nebraska and all the other aggie schools have been
> A bushel of corn yields about 2 gallons of ethanol. The price of a
> gallon of diesel/gasoline is about $3.00 a gallon.
> So, if Pimental is correct that we lose energy by petrol-farming to
> make ethanol then the price of a bushel of corn would be about $2.50 a
> On the other hand, if Hosein is correct, then since in his estimation
> of 167% that the price of a bushel of corn on today's commodity market
> would be that of 2 X $3.00 which equals $6.00 per bushel. It has been a
> very long time since I saw corn at 6 dollars a bushel.
A key to your argument is the 2 gallons / bushel. Is this figure correct ?
You've aslo ignored any subsidies.