Couple points/thoughts/perspectives:

• To me, "ethanol" and biofuels are a potential small piece of Silver Buckshot (at most ... a fragment).  There are situations/environments where some pursuit of them can truly make sense. This should be done, as much as possible, in conjunction with efforts for greater efficiency (as you write), but there are situations where they make sense.  Now, to me, these almost entirely move past corn ethanol to things like biofuels from waste or, perhaps, jatropha in Haiti for making biodiesel.  

• The one 'silver bullet' element of biofuels in the United States, to me, is the potential that gem-flex fuel PHEVs, using some biofuels in the mix, could be game changing in terms of US use of liquid fossil fuels.  If a PHEV creates a path for a 90% reduction in fossil fuel and, well, cellulosic ethanol (if it ever emerges) could be producing the equivalent of several percent of today's fuel requirements, this creates a vehicle with 500+ mpg equivalent for gasoline.

• As a query, there is an interesting systems of systems element.  I've not tracked back but have seen (David Sandalow, Freedom from Oil) that the savings in reduced farm subsidies are more than twice in value (now?) compared to the costs of the corn ethanol subsidy.   Interesting item to factor into the discussion.

    What BioD said!!!  Jia Yo!!!  (Means go on, you will here it as a chant a lot at next year's Olympics, might as well start getting used to it!!).

    I wish I had my QQ dancing walrus to send you!!

    Go!! Go!!  Jia Yo!!!

patrick in Beijing

But you are forgetting that biofuels are driving farmland rents up and I own farmland, so it ain't all bad.

For a farmer that doesn't outright own their land (Which is about half of all farmers) Their marginal returns are getting worse.

-David Ahlport

My opinion is ethanol has a place, in moderation.  It's not a replacement for oil, certainly not in the quantities we currently use, but as an additive it is positive.  People have cars today that will be on the road for another twenty, and they won't get more efficient, and they won't start being able to run off batteries, hydrogen, or (except for a few cases) E-85 or biodiesel.  But they all run on E-10 just fine.

In the future we hope more efficient cars will be produced, purchases and used to replace cars that have reached the end of their usable life.  We also hope many battery/electric cars, or at least plug-in hybrids will be produced to take more pressure off liquid fuel usage.

As this happens, one of the big arguments against ethanol and bio-diesels will disappear because less liquid fuel consumption will mean it will be plausible for these fuels to meet a bigger percentage of the liquid fuel demand without increases in production.

We also hope that production will become more efficient.  How much is hard to say, but some progress is certain.  

So, say 15 years from now 50% of our vehicle fleet is electric, 30% is standard petrol, 10% is diesel, and 10% is flex fuel.  Say, cellulosic has
increased production efficiency by 50%.  Today, ethanol is about about 6% of gasoline, so that would mean about 9% of today's usage.  The 30% petrol vehicles would use about 3% of ethanol produced as E-10, and the 5% E-85 would use about 4.25%.  Together they would reduce gasoline usage by 20% and use 20% less cropland than it does today.

It reminds one of the nuclear power and clean coal advocates.

How can obviously intelligent, articulate people like this fail to perceive and aknowledge the fatal flaws in their favorite schemes (scams)?

Because what is missing in all these studies and graphs is a simple presentation of the facts and how they fit together to provide enlightenment.  Overly complex argumentation containing mainly superfluous content makes self deception very easy.  

Without self deception, the internal integrity factor could have them looking for other work.  Jeremy Carl and Brooke have similar problems, if they aknowledge reality, there goes either their integrity or their pay check.

We need to keep the pressure on them to convert their POV and careers to a more realistic mode.  We need them in this battle..on our side.

Grist actually gets to the heart of these complex matters and exposes the simple decisions that need to be made.  If they aren't boiled down to simple decisions, forget gathering any kind of political will behind a real energy policy to stop GHG climate disaster, economic decline from ever rising energy prices, and endless wars over oil and nuclear proliferation.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

What I would like to see in rural America is a grove of trees of about 500 acres next to each town.  Put in 10 miles of trails for walking, hiking and Bicycling, some cabins maybe for vacationers, park areas.  That would give people some room to exercise and maybe reduce some health bills.  The grove can be harvested sustainably for firewood and eventually lumber.  But with expensive land, it could never be done.

Fence row to fence row crops strips towns of recreation and interesting things in a community.  We are after the money grab, but we forget some about the people.  Personally, I've never been impressed with expensive cars, personal property, give me recreation and something fun to do anyday.

One aspect of this whole debate that is increasingly coming to the fore is the issue of displacement. Until very recently, GHG emission comparisons made no allowance for carbon released as a result of land-use change. The life-cycle analyses examined by Alexander Farrell et al. in their much-cited article in Science, for example, ignored this effect. However, the importance of the displacement effect is being increasingly recognized.

A good illustration of this is the recent (August 2007) study by by Tom Beer, Tim Grant and Peter K Campbell of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO): The greenhouse and air quality emissions of biodiesel blends in
Australia, Report Number KS54C/1/F2.27. Here are the results of a comparison the authors made of the life-cycle emissions of different varieties of biodiesel compared with petroleum diesel, in grams of CO2-equivalent emissions per kilometer driven:

Ultra low-sulphur diesel ..............     834
Canola (rapeseed) .....................     433
Tallow (rendered animal fat) ........    209
Used cooking oil ..........................    109

Palm oil from existing plantation ....    175
Palm oil from rainforest ................  8,075
Palm oil from peat-swamp forest .. 18,108

Note that biodiesel made from palm oil produced on land that until recently was peat-swamp forest yields GHG emissions on a life-cycle basis that are more than 20 times greater than for petroleum diesel.

Of course, the comparison with biodiesel made from canola (rapeseed) assumes that the canola is farmed from land already under cultivation. But the same logic applies to canola as for palm oil (or for ethanol feedstocks). Ultimately, from the standpoint of GHG emissions, it matters less whether the feedstock comes from a particular farm that is no longer releasing carbon from the soil, but whether the diversion of that feedstock into biofuels leads to the conversion of grasslands or forests to agriculture elsewhere.

That is the fundamental flaw in the response of some environmental groups and European governments: "Don't worry, we'll ensure all of our biofuels are sourced from certified sustainably operated farms -- ones that were not created by chopping down forests or ploughing up grasslands."

Assume for a minute that all of the palm oil used to make biodiesel were to come from old, 19th-century plantations in Malaysia or Indonesia. Would the former consumers of that oil just shrug and say, OK, I guess I'll stop using palm oil? Probably not. The price for palm oil will rise (as it has in the last couple of years -- dramatically), and new plantations will be created. The effect on GHG emissions will be the same as if the palm oil had been sourced from those plantations instead and the original consumers had simply kept buying palm oil from the established plantations.

These are only my personal opinions.

As I read your response to Brooke Coleman's defense of corn-ethanol, what immediately jumps out at me is the higher corn prices you cite. Let me first say that while corn acreage has increased in the short term, the trend has never been consistent, and it is not now at a historical high.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, corn acreage planted in the U.S. in the 20th century peaked at 113 million acres in 1932. Since then it has trended down, and for the most part, fallen in a range of 70 to 95 million acres. In 2007, the total was 93.6 million acres or about 30% less acreage than the peak in 1932.

Additionally, surplus corn, or carryout, this year is projected at 1.9 billion (not million) bushels, a 45% increase over 2006. The surplus this year exceeds the 20-year average and is the fifth highest level in the last two decades.

The contention that the development of farmland for corn is destroying open space lands not used previously for farming is not true. The fact is land devoted to farming has been trending lower since 1932. All acreage under cultivation that year totaled 320.4 million acres compared to 278.1 million acres in 2007, or 13% less land used for farming this year.

Corn production per acre has increased five fold since 1932, which explains how we get more corn. The USDA and several other agencies agree that 170 million bushels and more can be achieved in the next decade.

Ok, this begs the obvious question. Why are corn prices so high? Actually, corn prices are not very high, but the sudden jump this past year is speculative in nature and not a result of actual market conditions. We've heard this before...in the oil markets. Speculation is rampant in the commodities, and corn speculation has increased ten-fold, based purely on the ethanol factor, while ignoring the fact that we have such a huge surplus.

Your mention of how hungry the world is getting, and you're hopeful that other countries will grow grain to replace that being burned in American gas tanks is both uninformed and baseless. The numbers tell the story. Just check with the DOA.  

On to ethanol. Henry Ford was the first to burn gasohol in his new engine, but in reality, the ethanol industry is in its infancy. As someone who has watched the technology advance in just three years, I have a hard time with those that close the book on ethanol because they do not see what's happening every day. Simply, the ethanol industry does not have the dollars to compete with Big Oil propaganda.

Just a couple of examples: Panda Ethanol will open its Hereford, TX plant in early 2008, which is located in West Texas--the king of cattle manure. The piles of cattle manure are 30 feet high, and produce enough methane gas to dwarf a large refinery's contribution to "bad" emissions. Panda will use this manure to power its plant and virtually eliminate the need to burn natural gas to fuel the plant, plus solve a local environmental problem.

POET, the country's largest ethanol producer is doubling the capacity of its Chancellor, SD plant, from 50 to 100 million gallons per year, without increasing fossil fuel use. They are building a solid-waste fuel boiler that will generate enough steam to produce more than half of the expanded plant's power needs. There is also much movement on water usage, which has been another criticism that has gained ground in recent months. Several plants have already reduced water consumption by 20 percent or more through recycling efforts. More efforts are on the way. But the fact is ethanol plants rank low on the industrial scale with respect to water usage.

I could go on and on, but I would be sitting here all day, and I do have football to watch. My main point here is traditional production of ethanol is evolving daily. In the next ten years, it will be an industry that you won't recognize. Self criticism is very apparent in this industry. They understand that if they get up in the morning and put on a green suit, they need to "walk the talk."  The people I have met in this industry believe in what they are doing, beyond just making a profit. That's far better than the oil industry that still denies global warming even exists. (And please don't believe those BP commercials about "green"...BP has been one of the worst violators of the public trust regarding environmental hazards created intentionally and unintentionally to save a buck.)

Yes I know, your bloggers write volumes about oil, but there is something that is never considered. You may have discussed this topic, and if I missed it I apologize. Much consideration should be given to the cost of oil. And I'm not talking about $90 per barrel. I'm talking somewhere in the $300 to $400 per barrel we the taxpayer is paying for oil. It's our defense budget. Our estimate of the Pentagon's budget attributable to keeping oil flowing around the world is somewhere around 75%. The first Iraq war was not really a defense of Kuwait, it was to make certain Saddam didn't invade Saudi Arabia and seize its oilfields. I'm still not certain about the current Iraq war, except to say that oil is without a doubt part of the equation, and I suspect a large part of the equation.

I have written extensively on this subject and would be happy to forward other articles that go into more detail.

It's easy to dismiss cellulosic ethanol as an unproven science, when in fact it is actually proven. It still needs to be proven commercially, but that is also close to a reality. Whether it's wood chips, corn  cobs, switchgrass or just plain old garbage, it is coming.

I noticed you took issue with E85, and the lack of fuel savings and you cited your source for the prices you quote. That site is completely dependent upon voluntary submissions, and is not at all reflective of the true picture.

E85 is a complicated product. First, it's at the mercy of those that sell gasoline traditionally. Many of these are wholesale jobbers that do not have restrictions placed on them by their suppliers--in many cases independent brands. These jobbers though set the profits for their retailers. Major oil company intimidation plays a major role in limiting the amount of E85 available today.

Retailers that install E85 pumps are not necessarily in a position to keep the prices down. Yes, the wholesale ethanol price is lower than gasoline (Currently about 30 cents per gallon lower), and of course there is the 51 cents per gallon blending credit. And who gets the blending credit? That would be the wholesaler (small to mid-sized oil company), and it's not reflected in savings to the consumer. They try to keep the E85 price about 20-25% lower than gasoline.

However, there are those that are selling E85 for much less, in some cases at $1.00 per gallon below unleaded regular. We recently did a survey to find out how E85 is priced, and we found that the majority of retailers are sticking to the 20-25% discount range, while the oil company swallows the blending credit, passing very little if any of it along.
Adkins Energy is an ethanol producer in Lena, IL and sells about 2 million gallons per year into the local E85 market. They told me that "the problem today is that the blender's credit is not passed along to the consumer, which was the intention." As a result, Adkins tries to keep retailer margins under control, insisting that a 15 cents per gallon retail margin is necessary to get the best price for the ethanol it produces. The result in that local market has been E85 that was priced below $2.00 per gallon for much of 2007. In our survey we found E85 prices as mush as 63 cents per gallon higher than in Lena, IL.

E85 is going to have a tough road ahead. However, consider that ethanol has displaced about 4.5 to 4.7 percent of gasoline sold in the U.S. this year, and saved consumers a lot of money in the process. I live in New Jersey, and we have almost 100% compliance on E10 as an unleaded regular grade blend. We reduced gasoline consumption by 10% in 2007, and we have had the lowest retail prices in the nation this year. I found that incredible because New Jersey never has the lowest price for anything.

I won't get into details about the study you cite regarding emissions, headed by a Nobel Laureate, but it's based on computer models and not actual data, and funded in large part by Big Oil, as are other studies that skew the data to offer one message... "oil is good, ethanol is bad."

Just one glance at the "fossil fuel" results, I have to laugh. I'm certain that the study did not include transport of the fuels, because in the U.S. we import better than 60% of our crude oil, which is shipped via tanker from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria, Kuwait, and elsewhere. Most Canadian crude travels via pipeline. But the significant amount of crude oil that must travel the oceans of the world burn bunker fuel, a high sulfur dastardly concoction of heavy oil. And those tankers do not get very good mileage.

Also I'm certain they never considered the actual cost of energy consumed to refine a barrel of oil. Ever wonder what the electric bill of a refinery might be? And how much coal is burned to produce that electricity? They never did. To suggest that ethanol's emissions contribution is worse than fossil fuel is naïve at best, and disingenuous at worst. Frankly, in E10 regions, air quality has improved dramatically. These are EPA findings, not computer modeling.

Food prices rise because oil prices, or specifically diesel prices, rise. This is a fact. On every occasion where there has been "food inflation," without exception, our data has shown that oil prices have been the major factor.

Finally, regarding your reference to consumers not clamoring for ethanol. First, oil companies control the price of E85 in most cases. There have even been lawsuits from oil companies to stop retailers from selling E85 at severe discounts to unleaded regular grade gasoline.  Typical consumers are not going to clamor for anything that is not cost effective. Frankly, I admire your ability to reduce the amount of gasoline you consume, and I agree that electric cars would be nirvana, except that the cost of pollution due to recharging batteries that in large part comes from electricity that is produced from coal offsets much of the gain. We need the perfect recharging battery.

But ethanol offers a bridge to somewhere. It is far better than doing nothing at all. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, especially from the Persian Gulf and perhaps Venezuela, is a critical necessity because our dependence is the No. 1 national security threat we face. If we do nothing, we are doomed to a presence militarily in the Middle East for decades to come, and we continue to support the very terrorism we claim to fight. Our presence also guarantees that the number of enemies we face will multiply.

The biggest mistake Bush has made is telling everyone to go shopping instead of contributing to the effort to make us safe. I agree with you that the one sure way is to reduce oil consumption, and personal sacrifice is the way. Unfortunately, most Americans are spoiled, and don't want to make changes, until the next attack on America.

But don't underestimate ethanol and how it can contribute to the ultimate goal. It's not a perfect solution, but it is part of the solution. And ethanol is not starving or polluting the world.  However, I'm certain that you and many of your bloggers have already developed conclusions about the viability of ethanol...I only hope you keep an open mind and once the pipeline of misinformation slows down, give it another look.

Another Tom

People keep saying that ethanol is about 85% as gasoline. That is true in a gasoline engine but if you stick gasoline in an ethanol engine the numbers are reversed. It has to do with the expansion characteristics of the gas.

There was a study that got buried in the bureaucracy  about a car that runes on a mixture of ethanol and water(~30%), the normally wasted resistance heat from the combustion process vaporises the water generating more expansion pressure. You can't do this gas because it isn't miscible with water.

In other words you can't compare ethanol efficacy to gas energy without considering gasoline in an ethanol engine would be a fraction of that efficiency.

Not to mention this study(http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library1/catalog/reports/2000/06j ...)
showing a ethanol turbo injection system in which
The consumer cost payback time shows a 4:1 improvement over turbo-diesel and a 5:1 improvement over hybrid. In addition, the problems of water absorption into pre-mixed gasoline (causing phase separation), supply issues of multiple mix ratios and cold-weather starting are avoided.

You can't compare ethanol prices to gas  
prices without considering peak oil meaning 5-10 years from the comparison will quite different.

Ethanol makes good sense from an economic standpoint.

I'm glad you reduced you're usage by 80% you're really walking the walk. I'd be great if the American meat consumed dropped by 50%(thus saving the rainforest's from beef farms) too but a-lot of consumption habits are based on economic ability not conscious decisions. Look at china for example.

Much like the nuclear power debate we have people on one side dreaming of an ideal world and others more worried about the best option for  tomorrow, the optimists and the pessimists I suppose.

Sure reducing how much energy we use is important but we have to start bringing in more too.
I haven't mortgaged my home on cellulosic but it's odds are alot better than oil.

By exposing every possible pro-ethanol argument to Gristmill scrutiny it might get enough attention to kill this boondoggle for good.  We might even change her mind?  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

But here's a dirty little secret:  oxygenates such as ethanol are required by the Federal Clean Air Act. Given that MTBE was found to be fouling our water supplied as a toxic, and that TAME and other ethers were very expensive, ethanol won the day.  Thus it is required in wintertime areas having carbon monoxide and in summertime areas having ozone exceedances (reformulated gasoline). The blending rate is usually 5-10% to gasoline, metered at the terminal rack or splash blended in large tanks.

Interesting, in pursuing the oxygenate mandate the EPA knew that ethanol contributed to additional vapors that could form ozone (refueling, vapor leaks in gas tanks, car fittings, etc.). This is called the "Ethanol Waiver." Most experts would agree that the improvement in carbon monoxide levels due to ethanol-in-gasoline was one of the finest achievements of the EPA air programs.

But there are questions about pushing a market - using our tax money in the form of subsidies - towards higher blending rates such as E85. For all the good intentions, the number of "flex fuel" vehicles and refueling stations just isn't there, which is putting a damper on the corn-ethanol market. If the past experience with government requirements for their fleets to use "bi-fuel" propane or natural gas, one would expect most of these vehicles to run on gasoline most of the time, anyway.  

So the real danger is that all these incentives will lead to a glut of tanked ethanol that can't be sold as quickly, thus depressing prices during what could become a recessionary economy in a double whammy. It's ludicrous and idiotic! That's our leaders for ya!

And thanks for the side comment that like most transportation fuels, ethanol is not sold for what it is truly worth. You'll have to talk with the pit and program traders at CIBOT and NYMEX for those answers ...

Onward through the fog

trock,

We happily accepted the useless $3000 government handout when we bought our Prius. Who in their right mind hands money back to the government? So, take advantage of the good fortune, just don't let it convince you that corn ethanol is good for the planet.

Siegel, nedruod

I agree. Some kind of biofuel may well be used in whatever vastly more efficient vehicles we will be using in the future. If so, the market, guided by good government policy (carbon prices) should pick which fuel, not the lobbyists and well-meaning but misinformed renewable energy enthusiasts. And we sure don't need it today, especially when you consider that putting it in a flex fuel SUV is tantamount to pouring it down a toilet.

The reduction in farm subsidies resulting from the high price of corn can hardly be hailed as a success story. In a free market it is the consumer who is supposed to be king, not business owners. That reduction in subsidies has been offset by the higher prices consumers here and all around the world are paying for other corn products. It is a misleading statistic. The only Americans who have benefited are those who grow corn and produce ethanol and of course the politicians and lobbyists, which would be fine if there were no penalty to the rest of us for improving that group's lot.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Indeed, we get this paragraph from "Another Tom":

Yes I know, your bloggers write volumes about oil, but there is something that is never considered. You may have discussed this topic, and if I missed it I apologize. Much consideration should be given to the cost of oil. And I'm not talking about $90 per barrel. I'm talking somewhere in the $300 to $400 per barrel we the taxpayer is paying for oil. It's our defense budget. Our estimate of the Pentagon's budget attributable to keeping oil flowing around the world is somewhere around 75%. The first Iraq war was not really a defense of Kuwait, it was to make certain Saddam didn't invade Saudi Arabia and seize its oilfields. I'm still not certain about the current Iraq war, except to say that oil is without a doubt part of the equation, and I suspect a large part of the equation.

Tom, the author of the Iraq calamity has not just been a reflexive booster of ethanol; he's been it's biggest White House booster ever. Look at who his main ag advisor is.

So we have a contradiction: a president willing to wage war for oil throws billions at an "alternative" to oil. How to evplain it?  Here's a shot: ethanol is a good way to generate rents for a few corporate friends, gain some votes in the midwest where farmers have been hammered by ruinous corm prices for decades, grab green cred (evidently) from the gullible ... all without challenging the primacy of big oil an iota.

Meanwhile, the stunning surge an ag productivity you cite has been accompanies by cascades of artificial fertilizers and pesticides,while relying on gigantic fuel-guzzling contraptions called combines. This is our answer to the depredations of the oil industry?

Couldn't we just start investing in mass transit and drive less? Invest in local-ag infrastructure and eat closer to home?

Victual Reality

Obviously, we're not at the level we were before the car and suburban sprawl became popular, nor are we anywhere close to say, European standards, but we are movin' forward on those fronts.

Many cities are expanding their mass transit projects, and I know of several cities that are implementing light rail and other systems, and there is growing support for region and nation-wide mass transit.

I've also noticed a large increase in local farmers markets and home gardens.

There's also increased interest in new urbanism and urban infill and urabn village developments.  Just a decade or two ago, there were hardly any, now there are hundreds in various stages of development.

I think we're movin' that way, it may be a little slow at times, but I think it's pickin' up speed.

Nineteen-thirty-two was the beginning of the dust bowl, following years of over-production and poor rotation practices. As Timothy Egan describes it in his book, The Worst Hard Time (p. 113):

What was happening to the land in the early 1930s was nearly unnoticed at first. Still, it was a different world, off balance, and ill. So when the winds blew in the winter of 1932, they picked up the soil with little resistance and sent it skyward.

In a word, the U.S. farming system in 1932 was unsustainable. Even while farmland was turning to dust in the high plains, corn was being planted up to the crests of ridges in the Appalachians, encouraging massive erosion. No, I don't think we want to return to those days.

These are only my personal opinions.

I won't get into details about the study you cite regarding emissions, headed by a Nobel Laureate, but it's based on computer models and not actual data, and funded in large part by Big Oil, as are other studies that skew the data to offer one message... "oil is good, ethanol is bad."

Is he talking about Paul J. Crutzen, the guy behind the Ozone hole theory?
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png

Or Mark A. Delluchi, a well researcher at the Institute of Transportation University California Davis?
http://greyfalcon.net/lca.png

Or Mark Z. Jacobson a nationally acrediced astrophysist operating off of a NASA funded research grant
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/04/vinod-khosla-and- ...
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/05/mark-jacobson-res ...

Also is that even relevant, since the USDA/DOE studies admit that they do not include land use, soil carbon sinks or nitrogen fixation in their models.
While these studies do.  (Although even they still don't give a full impact)
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
http://greyfalcon.net/landuse

Ad hominem is a rather poor substitute for a real argument.

Frankly, I admire your ability to reduce the amount of gasoline you consume, and I agree that electric cars would be nirvana, except that the cost of pollution due to recharging batteries that in large part comes from electricity that is produced from coal offsets much of the gain. We need the perfect recharging battery.

No it doesn't.
I've never heard of any study that comes to that conclusion.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3
http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html

And we don't need a "perfect" battery for plugin hybrids.
Lead acid will do, Nickel Metal Hydride is better, Lithium better, Lithium Polymer best.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
Even the old EV1 could pull some decent recharge speeds if you weren't drained all the way to zero.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge

But ethanol offers a bridge to somewhere. It is far better than doing nothing at all. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, especially from the Persian Gulf and perhaps Venezuela, is a critical necessity because our dependence is the No. 1 national security threat we face. If we do nothing, we are doomed to a presence militarily in the Middle East for decades to come, and we continue to support the very terrorism we claim to fight. Our presence also guarantees that the number of enemies we face will multiply.

But the alternative isn't "nothing at all".
So thats a rather crass assumption to make.
Instead we're making it artificially more competative with more realistic solutions.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/02/gm-responds-to-us ...
http://greyfalcon.net/oregon

Also the concept that we are ever going to become "Energy Independant" with biofuels;
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
Or that thats really even going to make a difference on the Geopolitical scale is rather laughable.
As long as humans place a high value on liquid fuels, the oil will continue to be sold.  Maybe not to the US. But it will certainly continue to be sold.  And acting like it won't be is just wrong.
http://greyfalcon.net/dilbert2.png

-David Ahlport

I won't get into details about the study you cite regarding emissions, headed by a Nobel Laureate, but it's based on computer models and not actual data, and funded in large part by Big Oil, as are other studies that skew the data to offer one message... "oil is good, ethanol is bad."

Of course, any study that is not favorable to ethanol MUST be funded by Big Oil. (BioD, did you forget to mention that you got a grant from Exxon to write this blog?) Tom, could you please point to us where in the Crutzen et al. (2007) article to which BioD refers, it mentions how the research was funded?

By the way, Tom, are we talking about the same Big Oil that is funding research into biofuels at U. of California, Berkeley? That has announced it is to become the leading marketer of biofuels in Australia? That is investing in ethanol capacity in Brazil and Canada?

Should we really expect that oil companies would outright reject liquid fuels that can be blended with petroleum products, given that the availability of such fuels increases the attractiveness of owning an internal-cumbustion engine, which is the type of propulsion system that best suits their main product?

In reference to life-cycle analyses of GHG emissions, Tom writes:

I'm certain that the study did not include transport of the fuels, because in the U.S. we import better than 60% of our crude oil, which is shipped via tanker from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria, Kuwait, and elsewhere. ... And those tankers do not get very good mileage.

Also I'm certain they never considered the actual cost of energy consumed to refine a barrel of oil.

Certain, eh? These studies are not called "well to wheel analyses" for nothing. (See also this study.) They try to compare like with like. And they most certainly take into account the energy consumed in refining crude oil into its constituent products.

As for GHG emissions associated with shipping crude oil by tankers, I presume they are taken into account in the LCAs; but even if not, the emissions are not as large as people think: perhaps 4% of the carbon released by the fuel they are shipping. Partially offsetting the higher transport-related CO2 emissions on the front end of the petroleum cycle, of course, are the higher transport-related CO2 emissions on the back end of the ethanol cycle (transporting it from plant to final user), since ethanol cannot be transported by existing pipelines in the United States, and must be hauled by rail or tanker truck.

These are only my personal opinions.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/researcher-desc.h ...

-David Ahlport

   Let me first say that while corn acreage has increased in the short term, the trend has never been consistent, and it is not now at a historical high.

I am aware of this, Tom. I also don't see how that fact is relevant. I have never suggested that we have run out of land to be plowed under. That marginal, difficult and expensive-to-farm "environmentally sensitive" land has become wildlife habitat and carbon sinks thanks to the Conservation Reserve program. Didn't I say that already in my post?

Additionally, surplus corn, or carryout, this year is projected at 1.9 billion (not million) bushels, a 45% increase over 2006. The surplus this year exceeds the 20-year average and is the fifth highest level in the last two decades.

From the National Corn Growers site: http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2007/november/112907.asp

"Surplus corn, or carryout, for the 2007 season is projected at 1.9 billion bushels, a 45 percent increase over 2006. This surplus is well above the 20-year average and is the fifth-highest level in the last two decades."

First, let's define "corn carryout."

"Corn Carryout means the amount of bushels of corn that are currently forecasted to be on hand or in supply that have not been spoken for in trade, or usage. Usage usually consists of corn being used for cattle feed, seed, or ethanol production."

To put this into perspective, according to this site, a billion bushels is only equal to a 30-day supply here in the US. So 1.9 billion bushels is enough for sixty days. Interestingly enough, I found two sources that contradict yours, er, the one I found that you lifted the sentence from: http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templa ...

For 2006/2007, McCambridge expects the USDA to estimate corn carryout at 1.4-1.6 billion bushels. That compares to USDA's April 2005/2006 corn carryout of 2.301 billion bushels.

And http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2007/november/112907.asp

When the USDA released their report on October 12th the current marketing year (2005-06) had a corn carryout of 1.971 billion bushels. The prediction for corn carryout for the next marketing year 2006-07 was reduced to 996 million bushels.

Confusing isn't it? When most people hear the word crop surplus they envision food being sent to a landfill. A crop surplus is good. It is essential to any farming industry. My family is presently drawing down on our 2007 crop surplus. We have bags of dried cherries, bowls of tomatoes, eggs in the fridge and just finished the last of the zucchini bread. All of the grain produced in the United States gets sold to somebody somewhere in the world. The world is flat. If one limits one's vision to the boundaries of the continental United States as you corn ethanol proponents all seem to do, you have a narrow viewpoint--the perspective of a horse with blinders on. In the end it all comes down to how much profit was garnered. Nothing gets sent to the landfill.

The contention that the development of farmland for corn is destroying open space lands not used previously for farming is not true. The fact is land devoted to farming has been trending lower since 1932

It sure isn't true. But that statement is also a huge strawman so I am going to discard it now that I have pointed that out. Re-read the posts. Nobody claimed we are destroying open space in the US not previously used for farming. We have pointed out that putting this grain in gas tanks does destroy open space lands not used previously for farming in other parts of the world.

Your mention of how hungry the world is getting, and you're hopeful that other countries will grow grain to replace that being burned in American gas tanks is both uninformed and baseless. The numbers tell the story. Just check with the DOA

Hmm, my statement was backed up by a link to a source that led to other links and other sources. Your statement is not backed up by anything but a vague allusion to the DOA. So, who's statement is uninformed and baseless?

I could go on and on, but I would be sitting here all day, and I do have football to watch. My main point here is traditional production of ethanol is evolving daily

Translation: they are finding more profitable ways to turn corn into ethanol, as one would expect in any market with competitors. What this means is that more of the planet will have to go under the plow if that increase in profit leads to an increase in volume.

The people I have met in this industry believe in what they are doing, beyond just making a profit

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It makes no difference if someone "believes in what they are doing" if what they are doing turns out to be a bad idea. This is not a moral issue. As for this endless attempt to play off big oil, I'll defer to Philpott's response. Unlike you, I am not in the habit of painting companies who do damage to the environment as being populated by evil, greedy, monsters. They are just people rationalizing away unpleasant facts to keep the paycheck coming in, as ethanol proponents are also now doing.

This repeated attempt to paint biofuels as the answer to human conflict is naïve in the extreme. Picture a future when all transport is driven by biofuels and Indonesia becomes our main biodiesel supplier. One day, Malaysia decides to invade them. You don't think we wouldn't go to war to protect our foreign source of oil? Please, spare me. If the Middle East were to suddenly refuse to sell any oil to us tomorrow do you really think ethanol would make a measurable difference? Not a chance. We are at war because the red states (read Corn Belt) voted an imbecile into office twice--period.

It's easy to dismiss cellulosic ethanol as an unproven science, when in fact it is actually proven. It still needs to be proven commercially, but that is also close to a reality. Whether it's wood chips, corn cobs, switchgrass or just plain old garbage, it is coming

You do know what a strawman argument is? I didn't say it is an unproven science. You tell us it is close to a reality, when half a dozen links in the comments suggest otherwise. Personally, I'm going with the experts. It is a moot argument in any case. The debate is about corn ethanol. You can't debate the pros and cons of something that does not exist. That debate will have to wait.

Like the rest of your comment, the above is just a string of unsubstantiated words. Again, you have been provided links to links to links, and you provide nothing but unsubstantiated words. They just don't hold as much punch as links to unbiased experts. Go look at those links.

But what is really important is that your above remark was slammed good by the original post and in comments. When I find that I'm repeating myself, it means my opponent has quit listening or isn't bothering to read posts.

I noticed you took issue with E85, and the lack of fuel savings and you cited your source for the prices you quote. That site is completely dependent upon voluntary submissions, and is not at all reflective of the true picture.

Where is your link? I picked that site because it showed the highest prices for ethanol. Want to see the other links I found?

However, there are those that are selling E85 for much less, in some cases at $1.00 per gallon below unleaded regular

Link please? You are not referring to stations who are selling below profit margin as a lost leader for some special? The E85 in my spreadsheet is selling for an average of $2.39 against the gas price of $3.04 but when adjusted for the lower mileage is still more expensive (I used the mileage data from the Consumer report link in my OP).

Major oil company intimidation plays a major role in limiting the amount of E85 available today.

Gossip and hearsay are poor substitutes for reasoned argument backed with credible sources. Your arguments, although repetitive and common are not logical. If there is more profit in E85 why would any company, oil or otherwise, throw that profit away? They wouldn't. Oil companies, or companies indistinguishable from them will one day own all biofuel production.

However, consider that ethanol has displaced about 4.5 to 4.7 percent of gasoline sold in the U.S. this year, and saved consumers a lot of money in the process.

Exactly how has this use of ethanol provided a net savings for all Americans? No more unsubstantiated opinion please, give me hard numbers backed up with unbiased reliable sources. This is getting tiresome.

I live in New Jersey, and we have almost 100% compliance on E10 as an unleaded regular grade blend. We reduced gasoline consumption by 10% in 2007, and we have had the lowest retail prices in the nation this year.

Did I miss something? New Jersey has used less gas this year, and how does this support your pro-ethanol argument? You have hard numbers proving that ethanol was behind the reduction or is this just your personal assumption?

I won't get into details about the study you cite regarding emissions, headed by a Nobel Laureate, but it's based on computer models and not actual data, and funded in large part by Big Oil, as are other studies that skew the data to offer one message... "oil is good, ethanol is bad."

You have yet to provided a single link or calculation to back up anything you have said. Almost nothing you have said to date is verifiable and where I have checked, it hasn't checked out. So, my confidence level in the accuracy of your statements is real low.

Just one glance at the "fossil fuel" results, I have to laugh. I'm certain that the study did not include transport of the fuels, because in the U.S. we import better than 60% of our crude oil, which is shipped via tanker from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria, Kuwait, and elsewhere. Most Canadian crude travels via pipeline. But the significant amount of crude oil that must travel the oceans of the world burn bunker fuel, a high sulfur dastardly concoction of heavy oil. And those tankers do not get very good mileage.

...Also I'm certain they never considered the actual cost of energy consumed to refine a barrel of oil. Ever wonder what the electric bill of a refinery might be? And how much coal is burned to produce that electricity? They never did.

Ah, you seem to have gotten little off track at this point.

To suggest that ethanol's emissions contribution is worse than fossil fuel is naïve at best, and disingenuous at worst. Frankly, in E10 regions, air quality has improved dramatically. These are EPA findings, not computer modeling.

At this point I'm not sure if you are referring to the Swiss study, the study in Science, or the one in the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. I think the latter. If so, that study does not deal at all with tail pipe emissions. It has simply found that on a lifecycle assessment, previous research has underestimated nitrous oxide emissions. It is about GHG, not local tailpipe pollution.

But ethanol offers a bridge to somewhere. It is far better than doing nothing at all.

Read the original post again. It points out why I think both of these comments are false.

I agree with you that the one sure way is to reduce oil consumption, and personal sacrifice is the way. Unfortunately, most Americans are spoiled, and don't want to make changes, until the next attack on America.

We made no sacrifices to drop our consumption 80%. We simply traded a 24 MPG car for a 48 MPG car and I started running most in-city single occupant errands on my hybrid electric bike instead of in my old Cherokee. Our new car is better than our old car. Riding this hybrid bike is a blast. People envy our car and my bike. What sacrifice? We save money, get exercise, have fun.

You are essentially saying that because Americans are too stupid to give up their trucks and SUVs, they must be duped into subsidizing corn ethanol and then forced to buy that same fuel back regardless of price (as a mandatory blend) in the name of national security. You may be right, but I'm not sure not one of them.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

I am attaching a very interesting post that supports what many of us have been saying about the wisdom of using food as an oil replacement:

"Ethanol and food price volatility
If this is what we get in a good year, what will happen when we have a bad crop?

American consumers are starting to see some of the consequences of our ill -fated ethanol policy in the prices of everything from meat to ice cream. While well-fed Americans may gripe, the implications for those in sub-Saharan Africa are quite alarming.

All of these concerns arise from the higher average price of corn that necessarily results from an increase in the use of the corn crop for ethanol production. But another issue well worth considering is the effect on the volatility of corn prices.

Food prices naturally are quite volatile because unpredictable and uncontrollable variation in weather can produce a bumper crop one year and a big shortfall the next. Usually consumers are able to mitigate somewhat the consequences of the volatility of supply by switching between foods depending on what is most cheap or expensive at the moment. However, whereas the demand for food is relatively price elastic, the demand for gasoline is quite inelastic. If the quantity of ethanol demanded does not fall much when there is a bad crop, the quantity of corn used for all other purposes must make an even bigger proportional adjustment. For example, if 1/2 of our corn crop were devoted to ethanol production and ethanol demand were completely price inelastic, a 10% reduction in corn production would require a 20% reduction in use of corn for other purposes.

A recent analysis by University of Illinois Professors Darrel Good and Scott Irwin notes that over the last half-century, corn-production shortfalls as big as 30% are not that uncommon. Very inelastic demand means that having a stable, reliable source for fuel is a very high priority for consumers. Having the supply for such a commodity depend on something as volatile as U.S. corn production does not seem like such a brilliant idea."

from:  http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/07/ethanol_and_f ...

While the stated goal of promoting FFVs is to increase the demand for E85 and subsequently reduce our dependence on oil, I believe that the real consequences have been to increase the consumption of oil.  

How?  By facilitating the production of very low mileage vehicles that are allowed to pass the CAFE standards as being very economical vehicles via the FFV loopholes in the NHTSA's CAFE rules. This merely allows more crappy mileage vehicles to get a pass under the fleet average.  Ironically, as part of our ethanol policies, this is probably offsetting all the stated reductions in oil consumption by increasing ethanol sales.  

Ethanol guzzlers are making us more dependent on oil!  When the ethanol proponents lobby Congress to get rid of the FFV loophole, I'll start believing more of their arguments.    

Does anybody know of any studies of using corn for heat in corn furnaces and then using the saved fuel oil that would have been used for heating used as a vehicle fuel?  

But, I have to tell you, as I started to read BioD's "article" (herein), I started looking for my asbestos jumpsuit.  The flaminess of his arguments was off-putting and trumped what probably were solid points, IMO. I finally stopped reading, seemingly just in time...before the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument unfolded.  And, you wanna talk about ad hominem:

Seriously, go read the link provided by greyflcn. Read a few more of his links while you are at it. You seem to be a little behind the learning curve. You seem to think that because gamblers wanting to get richer have plowed dough into cellulosic it must be a sure bet. Have you mortgaged your home and put it all into cellulosic?

Then, I read "Another Tom's" response - a stark contrast. Without judging the individual facts: well crafted, cogent argument, without the insults.  It will be left for me to sort out all of the facts from studies and reports of reference.  But, for those people who don't take the time to do so, gravitas is a big seller.

Next year, people will vote for a U.S. president, in much the same way. How a candidate carries himself/herself might well win out over substance.

I applaud BioD's passion, but I think that Grist does a disservice to the "general public" audience 'just tuning in' by giving him, or anyone else, such a prominent forum for such an emotionally combative approach. I might expect it in the discussion sections, but not as a feature.  And, yes, it is a GristMill Blog section, but that is not necessarily clear from the home page link. It appears as other items that seem to be features. Others, less familiar with Grist, certainly might make that mistake.

NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

Rather than feeling Grist chastised as a community, I thought the discussion attached to Tom Philpott's post in which Brooke's comments appreared was very useful and thoughtful. I don't blame him if he declines to join this particular flame war.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

Since when is it ad hominem to point out someone's apparent lack of information?  That's not a personal attack.

The same old talling points come up over and over again and are just as deceptive and invalid as they were when some energy industry think tank consultant, Limbaugh producer, or rovian political hack dreamt them up.

I know I get a bit sarcastic as a way to deal with this, once it is clear that the opposition intends to pursue the talking point irregardless of any information to the contrary.  It's not as polite as a debating society around here.  

But it's a lot more interesting.  We are fighting massive lobbying and media campaigns on corn ethanol and other energy issues.  Heat is generated along with some illumination.  We try to be as efficient as CFLs, but sometimes fall short and become incandescent.  LED efficient debate might put everyone to sleep.

Bio-d tends to use a lot of factual content that more than offsets any sarcasm.  In the age of "Colbert" some sarcasm has to be expected.  Who else can you think of who "walks the walk" like he does?  Did you see his articles on his  hybrid bike?  He built it himself.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Always feel free to comment here. Differences of opinion are not only welcome, they are essential. You can't debate the pros and cons of an issue if everyone agrees. Ethanol proponents obviously feel free to come here to express their opinions as they should. There are no winners or losers in a debate. There are only arguments that stand or fall on their merits. Of course, emotions and feelings enter in because we are emotional, feeling beings. Most of us feel their way through life. Reason and logic usually play a distant second fiddle.

Find any room with more than one person in it and you will find differences of opinion. I have on rare occasion dropped into biodiesel enthusiast sites to discuss the downsides of biofuels. These sites do not want debate. They exist solely to promote biofuels. That is not what this blog is about. Grist blog contributors routinely disagree and debate each other all the time. Eric's comment above is a timely example.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

While the stated goal of promoting FFVs is to increase the demand for E85 and subsequently reduce our dependence on oil, I believe that the real consequences have been to increase the consumption of oil.  

How?  By facilitating the production of very low mileage vehicles that are allowed to pass the CAFE standards as being very economical vehicles via the FFV loopholes in the NHTSA's CAFE rules. This merely allows more crappy mileage vehicles to get a pass under the fleet average.  Ironically, as part of our ethanol policies, this is probably offsetting all the stated reductions in oil consumption by increasing ethanol sales.

Yep, those are pretty much in line with the findings of the US Government Accountability Office's report.

An increase of 9 billion gallons of oil consumed due to the CAFE loophole.  

And that almost all flex fuel vehicles manufacturered get relatively horrible mileage, because the prioriety of the manufacturers is to leverage that loophole for all it's worth.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07713.pdf

-David Ahlport

Thanks for the welcoming message. Why this response is not in the other thread, I don't know. I will bite and respond, because this thread seems to have received a lot of attention.

You seem to think that anything is better than oil. But believe it or not, in the real world, we sometimes have to pick between the lesser of two evils, at least until something better comes along.

No, I do not think anything is better than oil. I do think ethanol is better than oil, and could be much better than oil. BTW, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists, and other well-respected environmental groups have published reports in support of biofuels. No, they don't think biofuels should be produced in the wrong way, but they recognize the benefits.

Plowing under the world's remaining grasslands and forests to grow industrial agrofuels dwarfs the damage done by oil spills. What happens when you take grain off the world food market and stuff it into American gas tanks? I'll tell you. Someone somewhere on this planet takes advantage of the high prices to plant more of it to fill the hole in the human food chain. Where is the arable land they need to do that? It is under an existing carbon sink or has another crop on it already.

My primary criticism of the community here is many of them seem to live in the abstract; in fact, they seem to indulge in these abstract, over simplified statements. It is true that this planet can support only so much biofuels production. Instead of recognizing this reality, and advocating for careful policy, you seem to be screaming bad! just like most everyone else here. If biofuels are simply bad, just say so, because I would think that reasonable people would conclude that we can support some biofuels production. NRDC, for example, has taken a position. So has UCS. What's yours? Zero? If so, fine, but understand that more oil will be burned as a result. To be honest, you seem to get this. But others in this green community may not be so thrilled about that position. They seem to think that they can replace a gallon of ethanol with a Prius. Fuel diversification and better efficiency are two different challenges, especially politically.

The second leading cause of global warming is deforestation. How hard is that concept to understand? Global warming is global. What we do here screws everybody.

Pretty obvious statement, like your other one. The question is how to protect them. Screaming about biofuels is not a rainforest protection strategy. In other words, we need to do a better job of protecting rainforests in addition to being careful about energy policies that could threaten them. Ranting will not help, nor does it particularly fortify your anti-biofuels stance. Rainforest protection is mostly a governance issue. If enviro groups want to use biofuels to raise awareness for rainforest degradation, that might be smart of them in the long run and within their limited mission statement. But let's not overdo the real cause/effect going on here.

Using less oil is not the same as replacing it with ethanol. Using less oil is a better strategy than replacing it, because corn ethanol is worse than oil for the environment.My family has reduced its use of liquid transport fuel about 80% in the last few years while improving our standard of living. Simplistic, myopic viewpoints do not cut the mustard in today's world.

Except for the silly last line, I congratulate you and agree. More families should be like yours, and if they were, we might not need biofuels. In fact, I will agree that not burning oil is always better than burning a different liquid fuel. But I would disagree that we can just conserve our way out of this problem we have. Either way, they are two different political challenges; the pols protecting oil interests are different than those protecting auto interests. How do you propose we get a more aggressive CAFÉ standard passed? Because the current one, while a step in the right direction, will not get us where we need to go on its own. I think I have made clear that our position is we need to conserve and diversify fuel markets. Both.

Corn ethanol is a horrifically wasteful use of natural resources, tax dollars, energy, and effort, just to reduce oil consumption a fraction of a percent. You could obtain the same goal by simply using less oil. Last time I looked, the Prius fleet alone saves more gas annually than all the ethanol produced in 2001.

This is your classic "false choice" statement. Biofuels are a fuel diversification strategy. I said before, and now again, that conservation is absolutely critical. We need to burn less fuel, whether from Iraq or Iowa. But we also need to burn better fuel. You think oil is better than ethanol. I respectfully disagree. But maybe a vehicle that gets 100 MPG on ethanol is a good thing.

Instead of lobbying the government to stop subsidizing competing energy schemes, one group after another lobbies the government to support their favored energy scheme -- corn ethanol, cellulosic, soy biodiesel, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, and on and on it goes.

These groups have to survive in the subsidy world. I think I have made clear that the right position is leveling the playing field. Yes, people ask for subsidies when their competitors get them. I actually think that energy subsidy reform is probably the single most important thing for green groups to rally around (in addition to complaining about it on blogs). But if you are implying that energy companies that have to compete in this jungle of subsidies should advocate for less subsidies for their sector, no wonder nothing has changed in fifty years. Not going to happen. This is a consumer issue needing a louder voice. All for it.

A) Corn ethanol has been sucking from the government teat for how many decades now, Brooke?
B) If it doesn't need to be bailed out, why do you support the bailout? Of course it needs to be bailed out by legislation. If the subsidies stopped tomorrow, corn ethanol would disappear about two days later, as it should. There is no real market for this fuel. It is mostly going into gas tanks as an additive, by government fiat. Consumers aren't clamoring for it now, and they certainly won't if the huge subsidies offered by fellow taxpayers' dry up.
C) Corn ethanol is a scam.

Actually not. I just Googled the cost of gas and E85 for this month and when adjusted for the lower gas mileage, E85 is still more expensive than gasoline (huge blending subsidy aside). Here is my source for the prices. I cut and pasted them into a spreadsheet. Let me know if you want a copy of the spreadsheet.

No offense, but good grief. Tom's original point (like yours) is that ethanol is a false market, which implies that it cannot compete. I told you that the WHOLESALE price of ethanol is cheaper than gasoline. And you go and google the retail prices to shoot the argument down!? Again, ethanol is cheaper at the distribution point and oil companies are not buying it. If the market worked, independents would gobble up ethanol and stick it to the majors (at the retail point) if the majors refused to buy it. But fuel energy markets don't work, largely because the oil companies have been allowed to integrate, gobble up distribution and retail points, and manipulate the market. So ethanol companies are forced to ask Congress to make oil companies blend it (that's the only market stimulus the oilies respond to). Yes, it would be better to bring the free market back to fuel markets. But ethanol folks have real business interests to protect, so they do what they believe they have to do (and in a rigged market, who can blame them? You?). One simply cannot talk about "real markets" in the fuels world with a straight face. Oil companies say, "stop giving ethanol a false market" in the halls on Congress all the time, while simultaneously refusing to buy the (cheaper) product. False markets?? That's a better description for the oil markets. But it's interesting that this "false market" thing is echoed here all the time.

Grist contributors have written millions of words on the problems with fossil fuels. This particular article was about the problems associated with corn ethanol. You can't seriously expect Tom to write a paragraph on the ills of oil to balance every paragraph he writes about the ills of corn ethanol. Tom has not misled anyone.

I am not moved by this defense of Tom. He was complaining about subsidies, so I think it would make sense to give people a better sense of energy subsidies instead of pretending that ethanol exists in a vacuum. And, based on what I have seen, the anti-biofuels crowd has given oil a free pass on the subsidy issue, generally. The uninformed will rise up in blogged anger when told about ethanol subsidies, but is the solution to oil dependence to isolate them and take them away? I am accusing this community of misplaced anger re: subsidies.

Consumers here and all around the world are dancing with glee that they have reduced the welfare to the American farm industry ($6 billion-3.5 billion) by paying higher prices for the corn they must purchase thanks to more government distortion of the market.
You rob Peter to pay Paul ... squeeze the cost of ethanol to the taxpayer from one