Reply #33: Wang's reply is much like his work, deceptive.

[kristopher]

Take the first point-counterpoint:
Point: "Searchinger et al. modeled a case in which U.S. corn ethanol production increased from 15 billion gallons a year to 30 billion gallons a year by 2015.

Counterpoint: However, in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Congress established an annual corn ethanol production cap of 15 billion gallons by 2015. Congress established the cap - based on its awareness of the resource limitations for corn ethanol production - to help prevent dramatic land use changes.

Thus, Searchinger et al. examined a corn ethanol production case that is not directly relevant to U.S. corn ethanol production in the next seven years.

My response: Here, as in his original claims, Wang gets the result he wants by playing with the boundaries. The basic question is not constrained to ethanol production over the next 7 years. The basic question is what is the potential of biofuels to relieve our dependence on (imported) fossil fuels in the transportation sector?

By trying to dismiss the outcome of Searchinger's in this manner, Wang confirms what was previously only a matter of speculation - he is willing to dissemble and prevaricate in order to support this failed policy.

The point again is simple: The (dubious) 67% gain for ethanol on energy invested IS NOT GOOD WHEN COMPARED TO A 2000% - to 5000% (and headed higher) GAIN with solar, wind or other renewables.

What is it about that point that you do not understand? 67% with fudged numbers, or 2000%-5000% and rising rapidly?

67% with fudged numbers, or 2000%-5000% and rising rapidly?

67% with fudged numbers, or 2000%-5000% and rising rapidly?

67% with fudged numbers, or 2000%-5000% and rising rapidly?

My what a difficult choice...