Talk:Ethanol fuel/Archive 3

message: The reference that begins "In 2005, United States gasoline consumption was ..." was removed as original research. 
When it was added back by revert, SillyBilly stated "those were facts, not original research". It is true that the reference
includes citations to verifiable facts. However, it cites those facts in order to support a conclusion - namely that 
"A sustainable bio-ethanol program for the United States could require 1.5 billion acres." As stated in the reference, this is the 
conclusion of the editor and not of a verifiable external source. No matter how well researched or well argued the conclusion is,
it still should not be included unless it can be attributed to a reliable external source. Quoting from Wikipedia:No_original_research
:'"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Ucanlookitup 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a reason to send the whole remark to /dev/null ? --hdante 16:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion it is. I choose an example to illustrate the point, but the entire reference is an original analysis to support a particular view that ethanol is not a viable replacement for oil. Ucanlookitup 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: http://www.sugre.info/tools.phtml?id=515# - not directly relevant
* Ethanol in Brazil  - not open to the public
* Ethanol Facts, provided by the National Corn Growers Association. - NPOV
^^^^Um... links aren't banned on NPOV grounds. Don't forget, we don't achieve NPOV by avoiding POV, we achieve it by including all notable POVs.WolfKeeper 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The section 'as a fuel' in ethanol grows and grows, while I think it is more appropriate in this page (it really should just be a single-paragraph section with only the bare minimum and a ).  I have added a mergeto/mergefrom to the section resp article.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help with the move.  That's why I advocated a move of all of the data to ethanol fuel, leaving only 1 paragraph and the .  It really should be enough.  Shall I try and make a single paragraph in ethanol which would give enough information to warrant no further additions to that section?  I merely put a mergefrom/to in the articles, because I don't feel confident editing ethanol fuel (not enough knowledge on these environmental issues etc.), but I did see a lot of overlap in ethanol.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll add an attempt to rewrite section on the talk-page of ethanol  --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! --Rifleman 82 20:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethanol as a fuel (section in [[Ethanol#As a fuel|ethanol]]) 

message: The NYT in August 2006 claims that California only has one E85 gas station selling to the public.69.87.204.65 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No E85 in California?

message: I live about half a mile from one ethanol station here in San Diego. And I put it in my flex fuel vehicle occasionally
--72.34.130.250 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: E85 Station in San Diego

message: : I have deleted that claim: cellulose-ethanol production research is underway, but is, as yet, still uneconomical. More efficient would be te use the switchgrass as a direct burning fuel in power plants. Sikkema 20:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: Is there any facility to make ethanol using cellulose as the feedstock other than the one research plant in Canada? If not, than this article should be corrected to remove the implication that ongoing production capacity exists to make ethanol from cellulose.
BTW corn stover is not a separate crop. Dan Pangburn 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cellulose research 

message: : Several reports have indeed analysed all the factors that you point out. Indeed, the destillation of the ethanol mixture is a very energy intensive process. Surprisingly, The production of artificial fertilizers is also exceedingly energy intensive. All these factors taken into account have led to the conclusion that the net energy efficiency for the production is negative, which means that you have to put in more energy than you get back. The DOE for example, subscribes to this. Unfortunately.Sikkema 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are in an early stage of the development of an ethanol fuel economy in the U.S. and it is primarily driven by government subsidy. In the long run price signals should drive the design of plants. Rising natural gas prices have already caused some new ethanol plant designs to be coal fired. A net carbon tax might result in different designs than the current direct per gallon subsidy. One hopes designers consider future fuel prices and make provision for future changes, but even if not one suspects change in fuel can be effected at less than the cost of a new plant.--agr 11:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy independence or not? 

message: I think this should really have a "criticisms" section where the criticism scatterd thoughout the article would be centeralized. 
Also I think this misrepresents Photosynthesis as magicly creating material.  Photosynthesis uses existing material, materials found in the topsoil for growing plants, and using plants for fuel is using topsoil as fuel. Oh well
:Not correct.  Plants are made largely from carbon dioxide and water.  If you grow a plant in a pot, the plant and pot together will gain weight. Man with two legs 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: Can someone explain (or correct) this line in Energy Balance: "Petroleum gasoline only returns 0.8 units of energy for each unit put into it, while corn ethanol returns 1.3 units. Therefore, corn ethanol is more energy friendly than gasoline. Biomass ethanol is several times greater than corn ethanol, many times greater than gasoline."
How can the energy balance of gasoline be 0.8? This makes no sense. If you get less gasoline out than you put in, then there would be no market for oil (which is clearly not the case). Even if this number can be justified somehow, I question whether the numbers 0.8 for gasoline and 1.3 for ethanol could represent the same sorts of measures. Other sources I've read state that 1 barrel of oil invested returns between 3-10 barrels. (Yes, I've read the energy balance page and this only furthered my concerns.) --24.8.143.78 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy Balance 

message: Paragraph was restored by Anlace with reason that important information had been deleted. Note that all of the info is included in the second paragraph following the restored one including adding a requested citation for the higher energy return of sugarcane compared to corn. Switchgrass is still in the future since there is not yet a production plant using switchgrass as feedstock. Dan Pangburn 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production (paragraph that was restored 10/7/06) 

message: Persenoly, I think corn ethanol currently is viable. But while the short term remanes debateble. I realy have to disagre about the long term. Corn Ethanol will become a viable and energy eficant comodity in the future. 
Currently it takes  about 1 unit of petroleum to growe and process 1.5 units of corn ethanol but I’m pretty sure that with the 
# Advent and promotion of cheaper non-petroleum fertilizers and herbicides.
# Increased corn acreage from new methods of farming. 
# Farming equipment and machinery that runs on E85.
# Renewable sources of electricity for power. 
# New more efficient and coast effective production processes and manufacturing methods being developed.
# The discovery of new and better Enzymes for chemical processing, 
The creation of corn ethanol will become a much more energy efficant and coast effective process leaving a greatly reduced environmental footprint. 
All these technologies are curently being developed and progressing, and corn ethanol will become a much more viable product, and a great boon to our economy, our environment and our society. 
With all these technologies under development, in just 30 years it will take just 1 unit of petroleum to growe and process at least 5 units of corn ethanol. 
Making corn ethanol in the furture a truley enviermentoly frendly and energy efficant alternitive to petrolium and gasolien, and turning corn ethanol into truley an energy sorce and not just an alternitive means of procecing or storing oil energy. 
Besides it beets being a pupet to the oil comanies.
--J intela 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, but you may not.  Personally I would not like to bet the Earth on it. Man with two legs 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future developments 

message: As wikipedia is an international dictionary, and should strive to noe use words which are imprecise and context dependent. It seems to me to be inappropriate to use words like domestic and foreign (referring without specifying to US domestic and US foreign) in an article about ethanol fuel in general. These passages should be changed to US and non-US, or something to that effect. And a sentence like "Only about 5% of the fossil energy required to produce bioethanol from corn is obtained from foreign oil" should be rewritten completely since it does not specify and US context at all. The discussion about US conditions in this article is highly relevant since it is one of the major ethanol producers and users, but it should be done in a more precise manner.
Superbjorn2000 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language (use of words like domestic / foreign etc.) 

message: I removed the following paragraph due to its advertisement-like qualities, lack of sources, poor grammar, abyssmal punctuation and many typos:
:"However, Corn Ethanol may verry well become a viable and energy eficant comodity in the future. With the advent and promotion of cheaper non-petroleum fertilizers and herbicides. Increased corn acreage and conservation from new techniques of farming. Farming equipment and machinery that runs on E85. Renewable sources of electricity for power and transport. The discovery of new and better Enzymes for chemical processing. New more efficient and coast effective production processes and manufacturing methods being developed with higher yields. The creation of Corn Ethanol could verry well become a much more energy efficant and coast effective process and leaving lesser environmental footprint. These technologies are under development and progressing, and could together easily increase the energy balance of corn Ethanol to 500%. " Kitarra 03:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it propaganda, and how do I know you’re not working for the oil company’s? --J intela 06:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Propaganda

message: * Miami Herald: U.S., Brazil should lead biofuel plan (OPINION)
* Carbon News and Info: US, Brazil plan biofuel alliance
* Washington Post: Latin America -- the 'Persian Gulf' of Biofuels?
--Pinnecco 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some recent articles Feb/07 which might be worth to read 

message: While this data seems reasonable, it is attributed to globalpetroleumclub.com and they have essentially zero relevant information.  There is a similar table to this one in the Biodiesel article.  I've posted a question about that table there as well.  Can anyone confirm these data?  It seems reasonable to me, but the reference screams bogus to me.  What do you think? --random 14:02, 28 February 2007 (CST)
"Ethanol consumption in an engine is approximately 34% higher than that of gasoline (the BTUs per gallon are 34% lower)" --- shouldn't the calculation be 1/0.66 to get that ethanol consumption is actually 51% higher than that of gasoline for the same energy? (And I myself wouldn't phrase it as "the BTUs per gallon are 34% lower".) 89.0.152.191
It really doesn't matter unless you own a FFV and fuel up with E85 to see the real world difference.  My Tahoe goes from 15 mpg highway on gasoline to 13 mpg highway on E85 (near 15% lower, not 34%, ceratinly not 51%).  That is quickly made up for in lower E85 fuel prices, Illinois state tax rebate of $450, and the other intangible, though valuable, benefits.
Nothing has been changed... anyone can provide information on the whereabouts of this particular table? www.globalpetroleumclub.com has no information on this.
I have tried to track down the numbers for this, and I can't find anything to prove it. While there are a few government sites that cite the numbers, I suspect they copied Wikipedia (the reports were by individuals, not official government reports). I am going to recomend that we delete all the lines from the table that are uncited, encouraging others to track down information in the future.SarcasticDwarf 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crop Yield Data Questionable

message: A common cliché; "there's nuthin' new under the Sun", thou for the topic of producing Ethanol it's perhaps much closer to a truism.
--
"Ethanol from algae"
"In 2006-11-14, US Patent Office approved Patent 7135308, a process for the production of ethanol by harvesting (starch-accumulating filament-forming or colony-forming) algae to form a biomass, (initiating cellular decay of the biomass in a dark and anaerobic environment), (fermenting the biomass in the presence of a yeast), and the isolating the ethanol produced."
--
Forgive my lack of verbosity, but "harvesting algae, letting it rot, then ferment, to produce ethanol (alcohol)" doesn't seem a terribly new invention to me. Things tend to rot in dark places without airflow seems a no-brainer. And as far as my scientific understanding goes, all fermentation producing alcohol requires yeast.
So what exactly is new here besides brewing up a batch of algae?
{ note: US Patent law requires an invention to be "novel (new), useful, and nonobvious" ..ammended to; "sufficiently useful and important" }
Does this "21st century discovery" patent carry any relevance outside of (a patently mad) US legal system?
~A Kidoo (from downunder)
:From what I have heard, you can get a US patent on absolutely anything unless someone bothers to challenge it in court. It does not have to be new and it does not have to work. Man with two legs 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Relevance? 

message: The following lines should be removed, they are the original research (maybe not even that?) and opinions of whoever wrote them:
E-85 fuel distribution's fate rests mainly with the Big Oil interests, as they control the majority of fuel stations. Why would they want to substitute their own product for someone else's (farmers and investors)? They prefer to allow ethanol blended in small amounts with gasoline, for the longevity of their own product, and to denigrate the validity of E-85 fuel.
The whole paragraph is just silly to be quite honest.
24.15.1.153 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Encyclopedia Worthy

message: I made a number of edits to fix references, add fact tags, remove improper sources and unsourced statements as well as remove redundant info. --Chuck Sirloin 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you did. At least know I know that you and 69.113.11.193 are the same person. --Chuck Sirloin 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: March 2007 Edits

message: So "TIME" thinks the number one way to reduce greenhouse gases is to burn ethanol in our cars rather than petroleum. Other than the fuel burned by the oil tanker in the Atlantic, how can this possibly help? Burning any organic compound results in CO2. It would be great if this article could make it clear how (or how not) switching to ethanol can help reduce CO2 emissions. ---Ransom (--69.106.64.201 05:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Magazine Trumpets Ethanol 

message: I have had my mention an copyright free picture deleted by an overjealous user.
With over 23,000 article on google mentioning the bio-ethanol test car, I believe it should be mentione here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariegriffiths (talk • contribs).
: If this is the addition you are talking about, it was removed because you did not provide a citation (number of articles in google is not a citation either) and the sentence was just randomly added to a section. If you have a verifiable citation for its use as a test vehicle and would like to write a suitable paragraph about it, feel free to add it back! If you like, post a citation and I can write a paragraph or two with you. --Chuck Sirloin 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lotus Exige 265E" 

message: The notes section contains several articles promoting ethanol and a few articles about the science of ethanol. Although there are links with criticisms about ethanol scattered throughout the article, there are none of theses criticisms in the notes, and the content about the issues concerning ethanol are confusing in general. I propose two different sections consisting of arguments for and against using ethanol as an energy source. A section with sources concerning the politics of ethanol is needed as well. This article requires further research from scholarly sources. --Gwjones2 12:05, 12 April 2007
: I agree.  Go for it! --Chuck Sirloin 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes Section 

message: All of the claims in this section need citations.  Everytime I add fact tags, 164.107.166.123/164.107.166.159 has removed them and added unsourced information about home brewing ethanol which has no place in this section.  I am not going to edit war over this, but these are the types of things that keep creeping into this article and make it a mess.  Please engage in discussion here before adding this type of information or reverting fact tags. --Chuck Sirloin 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Process 

message: I think this page is too long, it is hard to read in its current form and it should be sliced up
to several shorter articles. 
The article 'Ethanol fuel' should focus on how ethanol works as fuel, and not on how it is fermented and distilled. 
I don't think I am qualified to do this edit, but it should be done. --84.3.195.60 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long page

message: I will defer to the knowledge of other people on this, but have the majority of recent studies shown that overall, ethanol adds LESS CO2 to the atmosphere than gasoline during its entire lifetime? A study or two is not sufficient evidence (regardless of the source). In this case two different articles by the same author are cited as evidence. Again, I am not sure, that is why I did not just revert it.
SarcasticDwarf 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of CO2 balance points by Ooga131booga

message: The part about corn prices increasing by 50% should be explained better or removed. Many people think this is actually a good thing, since it has been widely speculated that low corn prices are a major reason why Mexican farmers migrate north and into the U.S. illegally. --Toadaron 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism: Environment: Mexico 

message: The reference that begins "In 2005, United States gasoline consumption was ..." was removed as original research. 
When it was added back by revert, SillyBilly stated "those were facts, not original research". It is true that the reference
includes citations to verifiable facts. However, it cites those facts in order to support a conclusion - namely that 
"A sustainable bio-ethanol program for the United States could require 1.5 billion acres." As stated in the reference, this is the 
conclusion of the editor and not of a verifiable external source. No matter how well researched or well argued the conclusion is,
it still should not be included unless it can be attributed to a reliable external source. Quoting from Wikipedia:No_original_research
:'"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Ucanlookitup 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a reason to send the whole remark to /dev/null ? --hdante 16:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion it is. I choose an example to illustrate the point, but the entire reference is an original analysis to support a particular view that ethanol is not a viable replacement for oil. Ucanlookitup 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: The section 'as a fuel' in ethanol grows and grows, while I think it is more appropriate in this page (it really should just be a single-paragraph section with only the bare minimum and a ).  I have added a mergeto/mergefrom to the section resp article.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help with the move.  That's why I advocated a move of all of the data to ethanol fuel, leaving only 1 paragraph and the .  It really should be enough.  Shall I try and make a single paragraph in ethanol which would give enough information to warrant no further additions to that section?  I merely put a mergefrom/to in the articles, because I don't feel confident editing ethanol fuel (not enough knowledge on these environmental issues etc.), but I did see a lot of overlap in ethanol.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll add an attempt to rewrite section on the talk-page of ethanol  --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! --Rifleman 82 20:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethanol as a fuel (section in [[Ethanol#As a fuel|ethanol]]) 

message: The NYT in August 2006 claims that California only has one E85 gas station selling to the public.69.87.204.65 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No E85 in California?

message: I live about half a mile from one ethanol station here in San Diego. And I put it in my flex fuel vehicle occasionally
--72.34.130.250 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: E85 Station in San Diego

message: The Sources section lists switchgrass as though it were being extensively used to produce ethanol. Research is ongoing  but no economically viable mass production plants exist at present to get ethanol from switchgrass or any other biomass. Political expediency has resulted in corn as the primary feedstock for ethanol production in America in spite of its poor fuel energy return of 1.34 . Some misleading reports have been exposed by Rapier . Has anyone considered the energy efficiency if oil is squeezed out of corn first to make biodiesel and then the sugar (converted from starch by enzymes) fermented to make ethanol? 
Sugar cane is 8 times better than corn , energy return wise, but requires a tropical climate. Sugar beets are used in France and may be more energy efficient (estimated energy return 1.9) than corn  in the U.S.  but less cost effective since 2006 feed stock cost per gallon of ethanol produced is $1.58 for beet sugar but only $.40 for corn.
“…a crop such as switchgrass and processing it for less money than it costs to pump oil and refine it into gasoline.” This is POV nonsense. The cost of pumping oil and refining it into gasoline is very low. Legitimate reasons to encourage ethanol (and biodiesel) are concern for premature climate change and reduced dependence on foreign oil. Dan Pangburn 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: Is there any facility to make ethanol using cellulose as the feedstock other than the one research plant in Canada? If not, than this article should be corrected to remove the implication that ongoing production capacity exists to make ethanol from cellulose.
BTW corn stover is not a separate crop. Dan Pangburn 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cellulose research 

message: Finding a bargain available for purchase using your existing bank balance to fund it can be a good thing, but if you have no possibility of earning replacement funds to replenish that bank account, you had best measure the need for that bargain very carefully.
That means that the production of any item using the available supply of any resource should be considered with respect to the advisability of preserving its future availability for its best possible utility. That would be considered as good business to me.
How much real study has been given to the bottom-line use of natural gas to heat the needed processes to create ethanol from corn? Sure, the consumption of natural gas can be easily measured and its current cost calculated with very little effort. It is all available on the invoice that reaches the accounting desk every month. But, is that the only real cost that should be considered?
That does little to measure the effect on the current extra cost to the home owner for the increasing price of natural gas needed to keep that home warm enough to sustain life with enough funding left to then purchase human life sustaining internal fuel as well. 
Is this factor being lost in the ROI of the ethanol project and promotion?
The situation in Brazil is a somewhat different matter in that the sugar cane used as the feedstock serves a dual purpose, as both the source of the basic needs of alcohol production and as the source of heat to fuel the process itself.
How much investment waste is being created by the design of plant processes restricted to the use of natural gas as the heating fuel of choice? How much thought is being given to the design of dual-fuel processing facilities? 
Perhaps some of the researchers who have posted their thoughts here, each of whom have walked all around this factor would like to take a look at these thoughts and keep their implications in mind as they chip away at the issues involved with the energy independent portion of this problem?
Jerry Buerge, an old guy from Minnesota
:We are in an early stage of the development of an ethanol fuel economy in the U.S. and it is primarily driven by government subsidy. In the long run price signals should drive the design of plants. Rising natural gas prices have already caused some new ethanol plant designs to be coal fired. A net carbon tax might result in different designs than the current direct per gallon subsidy. One hopes designers consider future fuel prices and make provision for future changes, but even if not one suspects change in fuel can be effected at less than the cost of a new plant.--agr 11:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy independence or not? 

message: I think this should really have a "criticisms" section where the criticism scatterd thoughout the article would be centeralized. 
Also I think this misrepresents Photosynthesis as magicly creating material.  Photosynthesis uses existing material, materials found in the topsoil for growing plants, and using plants for fuel is using topsoil as fuel. Oh well
:Not correct.  Plants are made largely from carbon dioxide and water.  If you grow a plant in a pot, the plant and pot together will gain weight. Man with two legs 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: Can someone explain (or correct) this line in Energy Balance: "Petroleum gasoline only returns 0.8 units of energy for each unit put into it, while corn ethanol returns 1.3 units. Therefore, corn ethanol is more energy friendly than gasoline. Biomass ethanol is several times greater than corn ethanol, many times greater than gasoline."
How can the energy balance of gasoline be 0.8? This makes no sense. If you get less gasoline out than you put in, then there would be no market for oil (which is clearly not the case). Even if this number can be justified somehow, I question whether the numbers 0.8 for gasoline and 1.3 for ethanol could represent the same sorts of measures. Other sources I've read state that 1 barrel of oil invested returns between 3-10 barrels. (Yes, I've read the energy balance page and this only furthered my concerns.) --24.8.143.78 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy Balance 

message: Paragraph was restored by Anlace with reason that important information had been deleted. Note that all of the info is included in the second paragraph following the restored one including adding a requested citation for the higher energy return of sugarcane compared to corn. Switchgrass is still in the future since there is not yet a production plant using switchgrass as feedstock. Dan Pangburn 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production (paragraph that was restored 10/7/06) 

message: Persenoly, I think corn ethanol currently is viable. But while the short term remanes debateble. I realy have to disagre about the long term. Corn Ethanol will become a viable and energy eficant comodity in the future. 
Currently it takes  about 1 unit of petroleum to growe and process 1.5 units of corn ethanol but I’m pretty sure that with the 
# Advent and promotion of cheaper non-petroleum fertilizers and herbicides.
# Increased corn acreage from new methods of farming. 
# Farming equipment and machinery that runs on E85.
# Renewable sources of electricity for power. 
# New more efficient and coast effective production processes and manufacturing methods being developed.
# The discovery of new and better Enzymes for chemical processing, 
The creation of corn ethanol will become a much more energy efficant and coast effective process leaving a greatly reduced environmental footprint. 
All these technologies are curently being developed and progressing, and corn ethanol will become a much more viable product, and a great boon to our economy, our environment and our society. 
With all these technologies under development, in just 30 years it will take just 1 unit of petroleum to growe and process at least 5 units of corn ethanol. 
Making corn ethanol in the furture a truley enviermentoly frendly and energy efficant alternitive to petrolium and gasolien, and turning corn ethanol into truley an energy sorce and not just an alternitive means of procecing or storing oil energy. 
Besides it beets being a pupet to the oil comanies.
--J intela 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, but you may not.  Personally I would not like to bet the Earth on it. Man with two legs 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future developments 

message: As wikipedia is an international dictionary, and should strive to noe use words which are imprecise and context dependent. It seems to me to be inappropriate to use words like domestic and foreign (referring without specifying to US domestic and US foreign) in an article about ethanol fuel in general. These passages should be changed to US and non-US, or something to that effect. And a sentence like "Only about 5% of the fossil energy required to produce bioethanol from corn is obtained from foreign oil" should be rewritten completely since it does not specify and US context at all. The discussion about US conditions in this article is highly relevant since it is one of the major ethanol producers and users, but it should be done in a more precise manner.
Superbjorn2000 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language (use of words like domestic / foreign etc.) 

message: The claim that "in Hungary ethanol is illegal to use as fuel" is totally bogus. As a matter of fact the government has a program to buy up grain for ethanol production (mainly to support grain prices and subsidize farmers). The legal reference purportedly supporting the claim that ethanol fuel is illegal in Hungary points to the text of a law on excise taxes. Ironically the only mention of ethanol fuel is in a passage that makes it tax-exempt. Unless there are serious objections, I will remove this section from the article.
Malatinszky 14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Concerns claim bogus

message: The science of Economics is generally defined as the study of scarcity management. Absent scarcity and alternative uses of available resources, there is no economic problem. As such, the subject of economics involves the study of choices as they are affected by incentives and resources.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics Since land and agriculture have historically served the world as utilities for the production of food, many believe the alternative use of agricultural resources for production of ethanol fuel imposes an artificial scarcity of food on a global scale.http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/reynolds200505270855.asp http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html http://www.dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=23581 http://www.cosmicparadigm.com/Newsletter_200050901_Special_Report_Oil.htm
 
It was when I read this paragraph that I realised a POV tag would need to be added to this article.  Apart from giving us a lesson in basic economics, David Kendall is clearly intent of pushing a POV, as illustrated by the four citations added to this point in the text. The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular.  This is clearly not happening here, or elsewhere as discussed in the section above.  
So I'm adding a POV tag to the article.  -- Johnfos 07:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Land and food scarcity issues, artificially imposed by ethanol fuel production, are conspicuously ommited from this article. Recent inclusion of them is intended to provide appropriate representation of these problems along with all the other information regarding ethanol fuel. "Artificial scarcity" is not a commonly understood term; hence the brief economics lesson -- in the "Economics" section -- assuming "education" is one of the primary functions of an encyclopedia. Several citations were included here, as references are a Wikipedia requirement, and so this "view" wouldn't appear to be an isolated "opinion". David Kendall 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding POV tag

message: Another section which is unbalanced is the Technology--problems section.  The difficulty is that it makes no mention of opportunities or benefits, yet these have been discussed in various sources. -- Johnfos 01:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: Thankfully someone has already removed the para on Air Cars.  Certainly I felt it didn't have a place here. -- Johnfos 04:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives