I apologize for not tracking the whole discussion, so this may be redundant.
My understanding is that the amount of fossil fuel (used to make fertilizer, to cultivate and harvest and process the corn and distill the ethanol) is a significant fraction of the energy content of the ethanol (like 60%?). My understanding is that it is only vaguely "economical" in the context of existing subsidy structures... that if using photosynthesis to convert sunlight into internal-combustion fuels is our goal there are a number of more truly efficient ways to do it, that do not involve corn as the crop. I can't even begin to weigh in on the complexities of an implied obligation to use every square meter of arable land and every drop of water, etc. to feed every human being that could possibly be born on this planet. We threw some natural balances way out of whack long ago... and keep on pushing it every which way. Shipping calories all over the globe seems like it can only make things worse. Shipping energy all over the place is not much better... but that seems to be what we are all about. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
