David Pimentel Responds: ethanol debate..

[4dsc]

http://gog2g.com/2006/07/24/david-pimentel-responds-to-fellow-blogger-c-scott-miller-3.aspx

In a recent post, Dr. Pimentel invited viewers to comment on his controversial 2005 Ethanol paper co-written alongside Tad Patzek. Blogger, C. Scott Miller of the BioConversion Blog was able to give an in-depth evaluation and response. Dr. Pimentel is back to respond…

David Pimentel:


"1) Our ethanol paper was reviewed by 4 Cornell Professors and 5 scientists outside of Cornell University. One of the outside reviewers is a chemical engineer who received the Presidential Medal of Science. In addition, all our papers have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals.


2) I am surprised that Scott picked Dr. Wang's paper as the best paper on the science of ethanol production. Dr. Wang omits the following data in his analysis: farm machinery, processing machinery, farm labor, hybrid corn, to mention a few. He also gives way too much credit for the distiller's grain by product. Of course, all these omissions and credits help the ethanol balance. It is also interesting that no one else in the world uses Wang's broad ethanol model?


3) An economist at Iowa State University just reported that the economics of ethanol production does not add up. He indicated that someone with a little math, some logic, and biology could figure out that ethanol production is not a benefit to the United States.

[brokensymmetry]

1. Thank you!

This is essential info as we discuss alternatives.

[ixion]

2. Yes, Mr. Wang, what with Peak Grain coming up close behind Peak Oil

moving to a grain-based fuel doesn't make much sense as we made need said grain for, like, you know, food.