Ethanol is not much more than Yet Another Farm Program that not only 'burns' food for fuel (stooopid) but is draining the aquifers at rates unheard of.

Better to use scrap celluose and sawgrass grown on otherwise fallow farm fields than to 'invest' seed, ag chemicals, and costly fuel (all derived from petroleum, BTW) in Ethanol.

In the greater scheme of things, when an already heavily subsidized industry like corporate farming comes around with a Good Idea that requires tax and production subsidies to be viable, the idea really isn't viable. The market works, let it work.

Wrong, Joe. There is not a single commercial cellulosic ethanol plant in the US right now. Why? Because cellulosic ethanol is MUCH more difficult and complicated to brew, and would cost -- conservatively -- four times as much as corn ethanol does now (for the exact same end product). Potential? Yes. Reality? Not really. I support cellulosic ethanol research, it just isn't ready to replace corn anytime soon.

The market IS working for E85 in Minnesota. Minnesota drivers -- by choice, not mandate -- choose to buy more than 18 million gallons of E85 last year, much more than in any other state.

Bob Moffitt
Communications Director
Clean Fuels & Vehicle Technologies Program
American Lung Association of Upper Midwest

David Morris writes in to clarify his viewpoint on ethanol plants:

"You are
right that I support corn derived ethanol, but my main focus is on
locally owned biorefineries, as well as locally owned almost
everything else. That is what the Institute for Local Self-Reliance
works on. So from my perspective, I am OPPOSED to the 4 100 million
gallon, absentee owned corn derived ethanol plants that are now under
construction in Minnesota. And I would be opposed to absentee owned
cellulosic ethanol facilities as well. There was a time, 10 and
perhaps even 5 years ago, where scale and ownership and support of
ethanol in Minnesota were virtually identical. But that is no longer
the case."

Hey, why not just buy this ethanol from 3rd world countries in Central and South America? Brazil, for instance, is the world's number one producer of sugar cane, and, since the 1970s, have had a great experience on ethanol fuel. Cars here run mostly on sugar-cane ethanol AND less and less on gasoline engines. They've developed engines which run on both fuels...

Bob, it's all well and good that you support Ethanol, but it's the source feedstock and the resulting environmental damage it causes that is the issue.

And don't pretend that E85 isn't heavily subsidized at all stages of the supply chain; production, delivery, and sale. How much of that E85 is used by government vehicles by mandate when compared to 'free market' drivers actually choosing to buy it?

18 million gallson. :woot: That's less than 1/2 of 1 percent (%0.5) of the yearly total of gasoline (not to mention diesel) sold in Minnesota over the course of a year.

Ethanol, when produces from waste including 'surplus' food crops' is likely a fine, short term stopgap fuel. But when the farms start producing cultivation-intensive biomass (corn, etc) specifically for Ethanol and stockpiles of corn are diverted away from hungry mouths to the Ethanol plants, all at heavily subsidized rates, well that starts to smell an awful lot like a personal enrighment program for the individuals involved in the 'industry'.

Just because US companies haven't invented and own more appropriate Ethanol technology doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It exists and works well in Brazil. But low and behold, Brazil uses sugar cane, that highly-capable competitor to King Corn. The Brazilians have developed no-cultivation methods of growing it and refining processes that use the whole plant. But US Farm interests have all but banned (via friendly legislation) the large-scale cultivation of sugar cane in the US.

As with most controversial government programs, Follow the Money. In the case of Ethanol it all leads back to corporate farms and tax/subsidy parasites.

anyone with two eyes and a brain sees the shortfalls with ethanol. look at supermarket prices. most of the corn grown for ethanol was grown for feed. this has caused a price-spike of nearly all livestock products: meat, cheese, milk, etc, etc, etc. I left this country in May and came back in September to find milk costing $4.00/gallon, bread at $2.50 and cheese out of this world! And gas is STILL cheaper (by far) than bottled water!

Get a grip people. The cost of things nowadays has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their actual value. Ethanol is a black hole. It requires more to produce than it yields, plus it takes from an area that cannot give (see: food).

As long as we remain addicted to personal transportation the only affordable (when not subsidized) form is electric transportation.

Bryce,

There are several studies out there that put to bed the notion that increased food prices are the result of corn being diverted to ethanol production. The price of food has gone up because of the price of gasoline.

As for ethanol requiring more energy in than you get out, you are right. However, the first law of thermodynamics also applies to petroleum. As for water usage, gasoline isn't "water-free". Lastly food vs. fuel. The food vs. fuel advocates need to come to terms with the types of food corn finds its way into. Folks like to craft these visions of corn being diverted from starving third world mouths, when in reality, plenty of our corn crop is currently used to make soda pop. The food vs. fuel debate is a straw man.