Reply #30: That's not a "debunking"

[GliderGuider]

That's a disagreement over assumptions, that happens all the time in science. They assert that P&P's decision to discount DDG was incorrect, but don't present any supporting argument - in this paper it's simply their assertion. I happen to agree with Pimentel that DDG should not be counted, but hey, that's just my opinion.

Whether or not the exclusion of DDG is correct is not the core issue, though. The fact that determining whether the net energy of the process is negative or positive hinges on this one factor means that the net energy is borderline to begin with. We should not be considering borderline energy processes - certainly not for large scale applications like transportation fuel. This isn't AA batteries we're talking about here.

And the subsidy is certainly an issue for the farmers, even if they don't benefit directly. The subsidy creates a guaranteed demand and provides a price support for their corn, resulting in a preference to take other crops out of production in favour of corn - as has already been observed and reported by another poster.