jw wrote:

FWIW; I tend to disagree about the corn. It is renewable,
but generally only with the expense of a large amount of
non-renewable resources. Corn takes oil to cultivate and plow,

Yes it does. I calculated it out. From last years numbers (personal),
it took me a whopping 0.14 gallons of diesel per bushel. Add to that
0.04 gallons of LP. Hardly significant. That accounts for ~27000
BTUs of the potential ~392,000 in a bushel. Leaves 365000 BTU
per bushel net. A gallon of fuel is only 140,000 BTU. That means
we have around the equivalent of 2.5 gallons of diesel fuel left yet.

What matters is what is used to grow other renewable heating fuels.

fertilize and apply pesticides (generally
they are petroleum-based as well).

Fertilizer is generally petroleum based. Pesticides are not.

Wrong.

I don't know the exact chemistry and conversion process

That's obvious. Where do you claim the pesticide starting materials come from ?

so I can't say how much net fuel would have been yielded
otherwise. FWIW - net cost of fertilizer is ~$0.345/bu.

And is a lot lower than that with other renewable heating fuels.

I sstrongly suspect that there is a net energy loss in the use of corn as a
fuel.

Not really. It is primarily a conversion of the energy
captured from the sun in a highly dense format.

Yes, and corn is a particularly poor renewable heating fuel.

Essentially because there is so much wasted green matter discarded.

Like I said, I dont' know how much fuel could have
been generated in lieu of fertilizer, but I doubt it
would account for the balance mentioned previously.

Archer-Daniels-Midland seems to be the biggest
pusher of corn for non-food uses; but that's the
business they are in. Very heavily subsidized.

The reports of how heavily subsidized
agriculture is, are generally overblown.

Nope.

I won't dispute that certain segments do recieve disproportionate
subsidies. However, most reports are so ridiculously erroneous
/deceptive they could just as well have been printed in the
Enquirer/Star/etc. Last year, the local printed the list of the
highest reciepients of the LDP checks. The #1 on the list was ADM.
While true, this was very misleading. The reason ADM is the highest
is that they had acted as a clearing house for many producers and
handled all of the volume certifications and paperwork. The
producers recieved the check indirectly through ADM. ADM did not
actually keep the checks.

Doesnt alter the fact that corn production is heavily subsidised.

FWIW - net costs to produce a bushel of corn(for me)
are ~$1.38/bu. This is just production cost(including land
cost). Not taking into account interest/capital expense/etc.

Now granted I may be somewhat biased, but burning corn
seems like a reasonable alternative to liquid/gas fuels.

What matters is the other grown heating fuels.

Biodiesel would certainly be an alternative as well. Rapeseed would
be a good source for that. Soybeans are not. The oil capacity is just
not really there. Another alternative might be ethanol from sugarcane.
These are all dependent on the local infrastructure.

And there is the tiny matter of wood.

Perfectly feasible to chip it to make it as easy to handle as corn too.

The use of corn as a heating fuel is a complete and utter environmental
obscenity.