Homestead mailing list

["Don Bowen" <don.bowen AT earthlink.net>]

> Not what you were asking, really, but interesting and in the same
> vein. I don't know if it's accurate.

It is true.  Given all the inputs, the best case gain for every BTU invested
in ethanol is about 1.34 BTUs returned.  It is also very easy to make it a
negative gain.  Farmers are planting marginal ground with corn and using
extra inputs of nitrogen and more Diesel fuel to work the ground.

It take Diesel to till (even no till requires at least one pass to knock
back growth), plant, tend, and harvest the corn.  Diesel to grow and deliver
the seed corn and deliver the harvested corn plus propane or natural gas to
dry the corn.  Nitrogen uses natural gas in its manufacture and the other
chemical inputs are crude derived.  Process heat in the ethanol process is
often coal.  

With the increasing prices of corn farmers are planting less productive land
that requires heavier applications of fertilizer and pesticides and more
Diesel to work the soil moving the ethanol equation into the negative.
Increased use of crude oil derived herbicides is also occurring to gain
maximum yields.

Another problem of working less productive soil is the increase in CO2
released so ethanol is CO2 positive.

With the $.50+ per gallon taxpayer sourced subsidy, increased energy
consumption, increased use of chemicals, green house gas production, and
competition for food crop production, ethanol is bad for all concerned.

Don Bowen  KI6DIU
http://www.braingarage.com/Dons/Travels/journal/Journal.html