I have tried to make my arguements about renewable versus petroleum not necessarily about corn ethanol.  Brazil powers their transportation economy from sugarcane ethanol.  Europe is years ahead of the US in the production and use of biodiesel.  Why?  Because those governments have mandated and subsudized renewable fuel.  We're finally catching up.  I don't have references off-hand, but maybe an independent reporter could do the leg work on that.

Lets' disect this famous “fact”.  Get your calculator. “The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year.”

A modern ethanol plant makes about 2.9 gal/bu corn.  25 gallons divided by 2.9 gal/bu equals 8.6 bu.  Corn weighs 56 lb/bu.  So, 482 lb/ food vs fuel?  No, not there yet, but I bet you that's where this line came from.  Only 60% of the corn kernel is fermentable starch (the rest is DDG feeding livestock adding to protien available to humanity).  How much does a person eat in a year?  Again, I need an investigative reporter.  But that doesn't even tell a fraction of the story.  Without the ethanol corn demand, much of that corn would not have been grown.  The economic engine for acres, yeild and efficiency would not be there.  An arguement can be made that we're adding to the food supply with DDG that would not have been grown without ethanol demand.

The “feed a person for a year” is hype.  It insults the complexities of agricultural and fuel markets.  It distracts from the real question of what is the world going to do about dimishing global oil supplies.

When ethanol becomes more than a SUPPLEMENT to gasoline, your argument might start to make sense.

Until then, we will continue to import oil from Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Ecuador, etc.

It's not just the Persian Gulf.

—

We should be talking more about growing crops of bio-diesel which gets more energy and might come close(r) to sustainable.

But you won't hear about that in IOWA, cause we're the corn state.

Besides the “USDA January 2008 report” (which I have not found yet), do you have any references?

I shouldn't trust petroleum co.s and right-wing think-tanks, but the ethanol industry is fool-proof?

Aren't they in bed with big oil anyway?

Should I bother “quoting” facts and providing references?

Like this one:

“The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year.”

But you probably know who said that already right?

How about this one:

“Because U.S. corn accounts for some 40% of global production, increased demand for U.S. corn as feedstock for fuel impacts global markets for corn as food.”

The right-wing think tanks and the petroluem companies that pay those salaries HATE the RFS.  It's not hunger, or environment or American food prices driving these “studies” and ethanol bashing.  It's energy dollar market share.  Let's see the big numbers on how much it costs Americans for gasoline and direct/indirect taxes.  How many soliders do we need to guard our corn fields versus Persian Gulf oil fields?

Quoting “facts” from CounterPunch kind of proves my point.  Have they found the Iraqi WMD yet?…I digress.

On April 7, Thomas Elam, an Indianapolis-based agricultural economist, released the report … estimates that the biofuels mandates passed by Congress will cost the U.S. economy more than $100 billion from 2006 to 2009. And it said that it is “inevitable that these costs will be passed along to consumers.”

from http://www.counterpu...

I am not defending corn ethanol as much pointing-out the falsehood of some of the attacks.

Renewable fuel production cost per gallon whether corn or cellulosic or algae…it will always be cheaper to dig-up fuel, plastics, lubricants, etc. rather than to grow those hydrocarbon resources.  However, there are society costs to using the fossil resources which aren't currently accounted at the pump or the grocery store and those fossil resources are finite.  The best way to level the playing field is a btu tax on the real global warming culprit, fossil fuels.  Given the political reality of that, Congress has leveled the playing field with other incentives and mandates specifically road-use tax credits and the RFS.

Ethanol can be transported by pipeline and there is consideration to build a pipeline from the mid-west to the east coast.  Ethanol just can't share old, corroded pipelines with gasoline.

The world is going to have to get used to the fact that we're going to have to grow our hydrocarbon resources rather than dig them up.  Everyone hates this, Left and Right, but we're going to have to put more land into production and push plant genetics (GMOs) to maximize yeild and usefulness of those crops.  We can choose to work on these things in our generation or pass the buck to future generations.

Corn ethanol may or may not be the future, but I have no doubt renewable hydrocarbon resources is the future.  The sooner society works on it, the less the ultimate transition pain.

“…biofuels may not be as environmentally friendly as originally thought, sparked a letter from 10 United States' ecologists and environmental biologists to Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking them to consider reforming biofuel policies.

Due to the effort to meet high demand for ethanol production, largely with corn and soybeans, some environmentalists have argued the increased land used for these crops, along with processing,  has offset any perceived benefit in the reduction of carbon emissions.

Craig Cox, executive director of the Soil and Water Conservation Society in Ankeny, Iowa, said these recent studies have shown we need to revisit the increased use of biofuels.

“Evidence is pretty clear that corn-based ethanol is not the future,” Cox said.

But there are other things to look at besides the bottom-line corn surplus.

“According to a 2005 report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, corn ethanol costs an average of $2.53 a gallon to produce, or several times what it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline.

Furthermore, ethanol cannot be transported through pipelines. It must be transported by truck, barge or train, all of which are more expensive than pipelines. The increase in transportation needs has likely contributed to the rise in gas prices.”

“…there is also nearly universal agreement that better alternatives to corn include algae, plant waste and switchgrass, among others.

“We believe that [corn ethanol] is a transitional fuel until commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol can be developed. It has marginal greenhouse gas benefits. It has marginal energy balance benefits,” says Charles Kubert, a senior environmental business specialist at the Environmental Law & Policy Center, a Chicago-based environmental advocacy group.”

I still believe that corn ethanol is a boon for corn farmers but a boondoggle for the rest of us.

Increased ethanol production has not kept gas prices down and the massive subsidy pay-outs to farmers costs taxpayers.

World hunger isn't a joke.  It has many causes.  Lack of corn is not one of them.

Food and energy price inflation in the US also has many causes.  Cheifly, very bad fiscal and monetary policy by current leadership.  Massive government debt and falling international value of the US dollar.

Find another boogie-man to write about.  We have got to find a way to supply the massive appetite for liquid hydroncarbons of modern society with something other than petroleum.  If not corn ethanol, than what else?  Be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.