I am not sure what pointing out that its not perfect, and that one companys wildly optimistic claims[claiming production numbers 3 times larger than the theorhetical realistic maximum] are false has anything to do with the discussion.
Your link claims that under "real optimimistic"[as opposed to really optimistic] conditions we could supply the U.S. with oil using 2.3% of the current land used for agriculture in the U.S.
If we are off by 10 times that is still a bagain.[Because we have plenty of food, and because meat production consumes so much of U.S. agricultural land]
The majority of the ethanol issues are not due to problems with ethanol, but due to corn, sugar, their subsidies and tarrifs.
I dont think anyone rational is claiming its a miracle cure, but we are claiming its beneficial to U.S. interests abroad, and that much of the costs are offset through externality reductions.
Such comments as "Ethanol sucks" with a link to John "crazy fucking libertarian without a clue what he is talking about" Stossel are worthy of derision and correction.
no subject
Your link claims that under "real optimimistic"[as opposed to really optimistic] conditions we could supply the U.S. with oil using 2.3% of the current land used for agriculture in the U.S.
If we are off by 10 times that is still a bagain.[Because we have plenty of food, and because meat production consumes so much of U.S. agricultural land]
The majority of the ethanol issues are not due to problems with ethanol, but due to corn, sugar, their subsidies and tarrifs.
I dont think anyone rational is claiming its a miracle cure, but we are claiming its beneficial to U.S. interests abroad, and that much of the costs are offset through externality reductions.
Such comments as "Ethanol sucks" with a link to John "crazy fucking libertarian without a clue what he is talking about" Stossel are worthy of derision and correction.