Blast, it's interesting that you mention this. I was just reading an interesting article on the topic: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=000DFF5E-9E57-1446-9A6283414B7F0000

There is some debate about the relative efficiency with some saying it's negative and others positive - I'm pretty sure the producers say it's not net negative. One thing that is for sure is that it's not going to produce enough to cover everyone (at least not with corn). And not everywhere can grow sugar.

New processes will continue to improve cellulose-to-ethanol, but like any distilling process it stinks and nobody wants it around them. While I agree that some research implies that it takes more energy to make ethanol, it also means a better environment, more money for farmers, and less money leaving the country to prop up lovely regimes in sandy places. One reason it might not be favored by oil companies is that they have such momentum with their multi-trillion dollar infrastructure and no real incentive to change. I know I wouldn't mind making 7% on a fairly guaranteed basis... and those folks who lost there jobs when oil was cheap weren't the hi-level ones, you can bet money on that.

BTW, where did you get that info on oil profits? There's a huge difference between "income" and "profit" at least from what I remember at school. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> You either post a profit or a loss, and that statement includes cost of producing the profit. Are you saying that the media is trying to get people to believe that income=profit where it concerns the oil companies? I'm *sure* that our media wouldn't sensationalize a story just to drive an agenda or ad revenue! <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />