I've always thought the numbers used to defeat corn as a fuel were bunk, but
I haven't had the personal experience to prove it. Thanks for your post.

Many times when I see an article claiming a net energy loss, they are using
figures required to make ethanol from corn. Those figures will include the
fuel cost to transport the corn to the elevator, the cost to auger it to a
train, dry the corn, then add water cause it's too dry, ship it off by
train, heat it to produce ethanol, make tires for the trucks and tractors,
asphalt for the roads, and let's not forget the petroleum based soap the
farmer used last week to wash the corn dust from his face.

Exactly. But try to use the same argument for/against
oil/wood/whatever. "Oh, well that isn't relevant/important". ?????
Interesting double standard.

The reports for ethanol are generally based on old data and skew
towards the bottom of the effeciency scales. There have been major
advancements in the yields of ethanol per bushel. There has also been
development in "producer" variants of field corn that are higher in
starch so yield higher levels of fermentables and accordingly higher
yields of ethanol.

This is an area I've got a significant interest in. I unfortunately
don't have the time to do real research into the area, but alternative
uses for field corn are something that the US needs to research. The
US used to have over 80% of the world export market. That has shrunk
to 61%, and will continue to shrink as South America continues to
develop it's ag industry and China begins to develop it's. We need to
either quit growing it or find another use for it. Those that say quit
growing it have no idea the implications of doing so.

I won't say that corn is the BEST alternative fuel source, but it
certainly has a lot of points in it's favor.

Of course I do have a bias on this topic and will openly admit it, but
I think I have an opinion based in more fact than most "media
educated".

JW