Your Opinion
In defense of ethanol

" Keep your fuel out of my food:
www (DOT) unh (DOT) edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge (DOT) html

Ethanol is a poor substitute when compared to other bio-fuel possibilities. If a switch is to be made, we need to think nationally. We need to think in terms of disconnecting from the global oil supply. I don't think there is enough viable real estate available to grow enough corn to ween us off oil. the ONLY reason ethanol is getting press as a "good" option is that it will run in current gas automobiles. At least in a mixed state. Even though there is a performance drop because of it. "

" It also seems odd to me that we supposedly have all these companies and scientists working on alternative fuels but they claim not to be able to develop viable alternatives. Yet we have joe mechanics creating vechicles in their garages that can accomplish what millions/billions in research claims to not be able to. Last year or so there was a dude in CA that created a 100mpg electric-based car for about $3000 in parts. If anyone thinks the oil companies won't be buying up these patents/ideas/rights before it hits the market then they have no idea of how the real world works. "

" Mr. Hilgedick is the only one that says ethanol production has little effect on our food supply..and he might be correct, if he's talking ONLY about supply. However, the growth of ethanol plants is directly related to the increase in many food prices due to the higher cost of corn. It is less efficient and it also will only replace a fraction of the oil we use.
To be fair with remarks about the subsidies though, do you think we aren't subsidizing the oil companies? What about the $15 billion dollars in tax breaks they get while earning $123 BILLION in RECORD PROFITS, while we pay record gas prices? I'd rather the $$ go to farmers than oil companies. "

" ago151, you are so right. I also don't like the fact that corn fuel is being forced on me. I don't have an option. I noticed until MO decided to sell ethanol in all gas blends, that ethanol blends were less than pure fuel. What Terry Hilgedick fails to mention is, that ethanol yields lower MPG. So, I pay less, but I get less. Well, If I don't want to get lower MPG now, too bad. I don't have an option, thanks to our narrow minded, look-out-for-my-pocket-first politicians and their special interest group buddies. I don't object to them selling ethanol blends, but LET THE MARKET DECIDE. If the blends don't sell well, then they aren't wanted. "

" The letter to the editor is written by someone with alot to gain from ethanol. The letter fails to mention the author's ties to a large grain producing farm in the Missouri River bottoms. Anyone producing grain (not only corn) is very pleased with the growth of ethaol...who wouldn't like to see an over 100% increase in the price of commodities they sell. "

" What happen to FREEDOM OF CHOICE. If I want to buy regular unleaded gas, let me. If I want to buy gas with 10% ethanol, let me. Do not make me buy 10% just so your family can get richer while you are stealing dollars from me by making my car get worse gas milage. "

" Now that Missouri has to have at least 10% of ethanol in its gas, who do think is making the money? Follow the money!!!! Blunt gets the legislation passd while family members sit as lobbiests and own major shares in Missouri ethanol plants.
I do not care about global warming!!!! I care about paying $3.20 for a gallon of gas, my car getting 2 mpg less since 10% ethanol has been added, and politicians getting rich off of it. "

" Also, ethanol will destroy two-cycle engines like chainsaws, weedeaters, blowers, lawnboy mowers, etc. The ethanol is very hydroscopic and absorbs water from the air. This water will not mix with the dissolved lubrication oil in the 2-cycle premix, and when the premix without lubrication hits the engine, the cylinder walls and bearings will be toast. "

" Dang, I cannot believe I might actually agree with Byron on something. I fully expect a lightning bolt to come out of the sky anytime now... "

" Someone here is very confused. It takes MORE ENERGY to manufacture ethanol than the ethanol provides.

Then, when the ethanol is burned, it provides less energy than gasoline does when it is burned.

Ethanol loses twice: during the production of it and then during the use of it. To make matters worse, we taxpayers have to pay the producers another $0.50 a gallon in subsidies to make the stuff.

see WWW (dot) tinyurl.com/2t6ja5

"

" Quote: If you think about what it takes to produce one gallon of gasoline (drilling, refining, shipping from overseas), ethanol wins every time.

If that is the case why does ethanol have to be subsdized to compete?
"

" Mike wrote I'm constantly amazed at the continuing support for environmentally dirty, US economy wrecking, foreign oil. "

Sounds to me you are the one that is biased.
"

" Just using this as an example of not using just one study to base decisions on.

The problem I have with ethanol is that if it was as good as stated by the ethanol lobby, why is it subsidized and mandated?

I can't speak for anyone else, but if it was cheaper and/or better (or equal to) gasoline I would run everything that I own (except of course watercraft which it is not recommended). "

" Ethanol bashers love to quote the Pimentel/Paztec study that claims ethanol isn't energy efficient. This study has been thoroughly discredited and anyone that uses it automatically diplays their bias. Every other study done shows a strong positive energy balance. Even a new one done by UCBerkley, Paztecs university, discredits his study.

Did you know that the Pimentel/Paztec study uses the value of the suns energy falling on corn fields? And did you know that gasoline has a negative energy balance?

I'm constantly amazed at the continuing support for environmentally dirty, US economy wrecking, foreign oil. "

" Exactly, you should not base decisions on one study.

David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley have found making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains. "