If you refuse to research the validity of this 'study' and then say
automatically that another is invalid because 'yours' has numbers you
want to believe, then that's your choice. Google is a great search tool,
as are others, look up a few other studies and do some reading before
acting like I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Your
anti-alternative fuel stance is getting rather tiresome.

Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open. Yes, we are
done, good bye. Don't bother writing, you're now in the trashcan.

Karl

Mike S wrote:
> At 03:31 PM 6/26/2007, Karl Mullendore wrote...
>> Who the hell is talking about corn? Biodiesel production does not use
>> corn oil. Now this on top of what I said earlier?
>>
>> "Corn ethanol is one of the worst ways to produce ethanol, not only in
>> yield but in production costs."
>>
>> PLEASE, READ what is written before blindly responding.
>
> Only if you do the same. Again, no authoritative citations to support
> your claims.
>
> The ethanol paper and article was cited primarily to meet your objection
> - that some studies found net energy gains. The citation specifically
> addressed that - "Patzek said that studies showing energy gain do not
> take into account the amount of energy stored in the corn." The paper
> gave an idea of the scale of that accounting.
>
> The ethanol/biodiesel paper which I earlier cited was from the same
> author, based on the same methodology, and reached a similar conclusion
> for biodiesel in addition to ethanol. The earlier ethanol only paper had
> the advantage of being freely downloadable. If you want a link to the
> ethanol/biodiesel paper, I can give you one, but it costs $ (it's from a
> Springer published journal).
>
> On the other hand, if you just want to continue throwing out red
> herrings, we're done here.
>
>