|
1) The studies that had the worse return on investment if you will of 2x energy input as the output... Have been largely discredited because they included the BTU equivelant input...of the sun. Which is the whole goal. 2) Of the use of btu's worth of petroleum to grow Corn the farm, 1/2 of it is nitrogen fertilizer. Anyone heard of these things called Legumes? While we might have to accept lower yields, and more fuel usage for tillage, HOWEVER, the net BTU generated can be dramatically tipped by moving to less synthetic fertilizer dependent methods. 3) Corn is probably not the ideal fuel. Actually, it probably simply plays a role in a rotation with other crops and the development of improved systems like celloustic ethanol. 4) Nope, we won't replace our entire petroleum use for fuel. The U.S. produces 35% of our petroleum today, and that rate could be maintained in the future as oil offshore of Florida, Virginia, and New England is eventually opened up. Add to the mix 20% from bio fuels -- both diesel and alcohol -- which isn't unrealistic without severe impact on our environment And work to tweak out 10-20% more efficiency to reduce demands... Suddenly our vulnerability to imports is drastically altered. Petroleum is highly fungible, and highly marginal -- as we've seen, price rises of $1.50 or more has only reduced consumption by a few points...at the same time, a few points more supply could cause prices to drop like a rock...so you don't need a lot of bio-fuel to have big impacts.
| 
