The corn deal is so egregious as to be criminal. Farm subsidies to grow it. Fuel dealer subsidies to sell it, through a govt program that makes them the vehicle for kickbacks to the producers, who then get tax rebates. It was an insider deal painted green, but this winter's weather has peeled some of the paint, and the Bud Tugley deal is coming into view.

We should also note that NAFTA killed small farm corn growing in Mexico, because it became much cheaper to buy it from the US. Now that corn is through the roof in price, Mexico now has to subsidize tortilla production and prices. Unaffordable food is just one more reason for Jose and Hose B to jump the river, fence, whatever. So the Green Desire has myriad unintended consequences, and the critter they demanded be created now cannot be killed. GMO public policy. Once it spreads, you can't eradicate it. wonderful.

So here on the left coast we now find that the mandated 10% ethanol in our gas has reduced gas mileage substantially. Enough that the efficient autos are not so anymore. The percentage loss in mpg is the same, no matter what engine you have powering the family flivver. So the high milers are losing the most. Add to that the now known fact that ethanol has a propensity to attract and hold water which in turns raises hell with injectors and seals, and cars and boaters are now finding themselves with a non-starter. Both in bad places. The issue is that to use these fuels, OEM should now be required to have water separators and people with common sense should be fitting their gas engines with them in the after market. Or find themselves stranded.

Of course, the water is going to raise cain with any ferrous tanking, and fuel leaks will become much more common. All to jump into a technology before the risk-reward, cost-benefit issues might be addressed by calmer minds and deep thinkers. But that Green vote the legislating manques' deem essential to their pursuit of well being and spot on the gravey train gives us this kind of legislation. And will, time and again.

People will talk about switch grass, algae, all kinds of sources of clean ethanol or biodiesel. But the truth remains that the free market will have to drive the process of risk/reward to make it work. Government subsidies are just another form of graft and fraud against the larger population. Corn based ethanol is one such deal. The cost/benefit is not there in the big picture, but the Greenies seem to be more about an exercise in their power than they are in common sense improvement in how the world works on its grandest scales.

This whole deal is just like the new GAO audit of Federal wildland fire fighting. Lots of conclusions on how to not fight fire, save money on suppression costs, prevention costs, but no mention, anywhere, of the risk/reward, cost/benefit side of the situation. Evidently the US Govt has no asset values destroyed by fire. If you or I take an extra Christmas tree, they can find a value right now to charge you three times the worth of that tree or load of logs. But when they burn their own structures, trees, wildlife, habitat, they have no value to assign in an audit. The whole of fire suppression is, to them, about cost, and how the private land Federal fires end up on should not have structures, should have private suppression efforts, and evidently they are of no value. Somehow in my tiny little brain, I could see the Feds spending a $Billion to fight fires or build New Orleans levees, and have a number as to the value of resources and assets protected and saved, to show that a program is worth its expense or not. But not our Govt. Nope. Can't get that job done. So I do not trust their numbers or judgement. Nor should my congressperson.

I have a problem with a government that cannot assign value to anything, but can take from the public to pay bills, all based on some cost that is valid. The military, the land management agencies, the requirers of standards and activities, all done without a cost/benfit analysis. Just like this corn to ethanol or biodiesel deal. No financial analysis of intended results, of consequences, here and abroad. Just do it to make Mr. Green Sleeves happy so his cadre of voters will support me in this fight against the evils of the other side. It is just terrible to be collateral damage in the enviro wars, to be the victim of Green friendly fire, to be gouged by AgriBusiness Green Jihadists, all in the cause of being victim for a nicer, friendlier, kinder Party's attempts at governance. I long for another Harry Truman, a President even his own party did not like.

It was pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that from the very start the whole corn for ethanol thing was just a big boondoggle to give corporate welfare to Archers Midland and factory farms. There were reports out years ago about how ethanol from cash crops didn't solve any problems. This whole chapter, and the similar "hydrogen economy" boondoggle, was merely a lucrative smokescreen thrown up to slow down things that really work to save energy and get us off foreign oil, things like increased efficiency in products, mass transportation (and related "livable" city planning), and wind and solar.

I find it so ironic that the Democrats, who theoretically champion the poor, are at cross-purposes when they subsidize ethanol production from corn. I don't make much. I am a janitor. But I love corn and it irritates me that the price of corn has gone up so much that I can no longer find a 64 ounce bag of frozen corn on the supermarket shelf. And from what I read, there is hardly any gain in energy from it.

Democrats try to get ahead of the fuel supply curve by encouraging sales of alternative fuels by subsidizing them. But oil companies, who are running low on sources of oil, are now seriously researching alternatives. It's a profit thing. The price of oil is up as the price of the dollar is down. Research is now in full swing by Shell, Chevron and PetroSun on the development of oil from algae. Did the Democrats cause this? Did Al Gore scream and shout about it? Of course not!

Our organization has been funding and developing new technology for over 35 years. Currently we have developed a system to grow algae in wastewater treatment facilities to reduce their costs of operation and chemical useage and also have a valuable by-product, algae, an excellent feedstock for algea/biodiesel fuel.
I would be glad to discuss this with possible joint venture group.

Bill:

It's not exactly a news flash that politicians of all stripes with corn-growing Ag business constituents like the idea of subsidies, and yes, Democrats have a conflict in principle in playing along. But your response suggests you might be thinking this is a Democrat initiative?

Not hardly. See for example
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602230007

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Democrats were originally for subsidizing small amounts of ethanol as a gas additive to replace MBTE, an anti smog additive which is also a nasty groundwater pollutant.
When people started looking into alt. energy, corporate farms, ag chemical companies, and midwestern politicians of all stripes saw their chance to tout ethanol as some sort of miracle fuel instead of as a simple blending material. Of course once it was established that there was some sweet welfare to be had from ethanol subsidies and little real world benefit except to replace MBTE, ethanol appeared to become more of a Republican thing.
Do you think a big Chemical co. like Archers Daniels (who gets most of the subsidies) donates more money to Republicans or Democrats?

Uh, Bill, the sweet corn you eat and the field corn used for ethanol (and beef production and corn syrup etc) are 2 different things. If I were you I wouldn't eat field corn.

There is a story today in the Salem Statesman-Journal about a coastal farmer who is restructuring how he dairies now that corn prices have almost broken him financially. He is going to try to do it mostly on green pasture forage, which is possible about 8 or 9 months of the year on the coast. The Ferndale, CA, dairymen on the coast dry their cows up for three months in the middle of winter, put them on maintenance feed, and when they begin to freshen, turn them out on the new grass now growing in that area as the days get longer. The same will work on the Oregon coast, if floods, displaced elk, and crane flies (the "leatherback" larvae) don't get the grass first.

"The new Energy Independence and Security Act, passed in December, has a renewable fuels mandate callling for more ethanol and more biofuels, with corn playing an important role.

The total ethanol mandate is to increase ethanol from 7 Billion gallons to 36 Billion gallons by 2022, 15 billion of which are expected to come from corn-based fuel.

I would expect meat eating will go to pork as the primary source, as a pig can produce three times the flesh and fat from a bushel of corn as a cow will. And grass fed beef will mean more pressure on grazing, not less.

Our dependence on cheap oil now having flown the coop, we are mitigating by making food more expensive. Essentially, the US is playing its cheap food card in the energy poker game. I have to wonder how thoughtful that really is. Each extra dollar that goes to food will not be spent on consumer goods, energy, or shelter. Farmers are not going to get rich, as their cost escalation is the reason behind the dramatic rise in food prices. Great pressure in land prices, fuel, fertilizer, chemicals, and increased government regulation put more and more of the farm production onto mega farms seeking subsidies and tax credits. There is no intent on feeding America in that process. It is about being paid by government to do what millions of small farmers of diverse crops do not get paid by government to do: produce a crop. We are rewarding the people who hurt us and punishing the people who really do feed us. Strange world we are creating. And wonderful what money can buy in our democracy. A few hundred thousand spread here and there in the halls of Congress, and you, too, can get billions in subsidies and tax credits. Big Green and Big Business, hand in hand, will save us from global climate change, or at least make a lot of money trying to. And I have to vote for the lesser of the two weevils (Master and Commander thing).

Meanwhile, a holiday once distinctive in its recognition of Washington and Lincoln having birthdays in February, Presidents Day is now just another Federal and State 4 day weekend (the person you wanted to see on friday was on personal leave, of course), paid, and mom and dad have to find a sitter for the kids not in school, which makes working today a zero sum deal in the blue collar world. Having the day include Nixon, Harding, Clinton, the windy/quickly dead Harrison, and other less than stellar holders of the office, including the present occupant perhaps, in the context of sullying the company in the ranks of Lincolns, Washingtons, Jeffersons, Adams, Roosevelts, sort of makes this an icky day, but with really great weather this year....

Per delivered MMBtu, producing corn ethanol results in less cumulative CO2 than gasoline or diesel with ~.74 fossil energy inputs for one output. Gasoline = ~1.23 energy inputs for one output.

All else being equal, corn is better and cleaner than gasoline. Cellulosic ethanol is the cleanest.

According to the authors, clearing land to grow corn, ie land use change, has a higher negative cumulative impact than simply using gasoline. However, it's a pretty big assumption that land use change of that scale will occur simply because corn prices get short-run elevation.

And that assumption is appropriately debatable.

The Oregon Experience, or The Hose is Not Always at the Gas Station.....There are Hoses in Wind Power.....

Oregon and the Feds have lavish green energy subsidies and tax breaks. It is the responsible thing to do. If Green Power is not financially feasible in the market place, then forgive taxes, provide subsidy, and have the Green Benefit. And for Cod's sake, do your part for global cooling. Oregon is getting wind turbines by the several trucks full every day. Vesta, the Danish firm, builds them in Viet Nam and China, ships them to Portland, and you see these huge, long white blades going up the Gorge every time you are on that freeway. It takes a truck and flag cars fore and aft to haul each of three blades, and each of several pedastal segments require the same, and there is a turbine and nose cone. All this because government has mandated that a percentage of power must come from sources other than fossil fuels. Hydro is out, because siting is now impossible. But the transmission lines that service existing hydro are close enough to windy ridges that thousands of wind turbines have been placed and are turning out power. Wheat ranchers are leasing land, and even CRP is going out to site wind turbines. It is a wonderful deal......except for the Oregon taxpayer.

It is Oregon that gives all the State tax relief to the wind power industry at the State level. And then we find out, sort of slow and silent like a fart in church, that the power is being sold to California power distribution companies, and leaves Oregon. We get none of it!!! We forgive taxes, lose the best of wind power sites, all to make Caleeeeforneeeeea Green? The place that has dewatered two great watersheds to fill swimming pools and irrigate golf courses, grow government subsidized cotton and corn? All the posturing, and celebrating, and back pounding in the legislature, the Congress, about what wonderful things we are doing to be Green in Oregon, and the power hose goes straight to Caleeeeeforneeeea. Do not stop! Please Pass Go---Directly to Caleeeeeforneeea. This old fat boy is now no longer a fan of wind power. Oregon has been used by Greenies for a Green house of ill repute. Or, as the girls used to say "You used me."

The moral of this story is for your State NOT to be in the Green Power business to enrich others in far away places. Don't be Green Whores for far away urban pimps in Congress and the Lobbyists that own the members. They get the dog and you get the plastic bag, full. This thinking globally and acting locally is just dandy, if you get any benefit from it. But if your Governor is in full war paint against any natural gas pipelines or storage, fighting for dam removals, and the replacement green power is sold out of State, your car now mandated to burn "E10" regular gas (10% ethanol), and your gas mileage has dropped significantly, all that has happened is a Green Democrat Governor gets to dance at the Trustafarian Ball, and the hoi poloi buy the tickets, rent the ballroom, pay the band. I think the saying when I was a kid went "screwed, blued, and tattooed."

If this is the "Change" that Obama eludes to from his empty box, or Hillary's "35 years of being a doer, a fighter, a champion.." or McCain's tired rhetoric in a soto voce voice, while the background and in-the-know sources say he is a tyrannical yeller, cusser, and put down artist, I guess we will get what we deserve. Voting is going to be a lot like Christmas. What we get comes in a pretty package, but can turn out to be anything but what we either needed or wanted. Case in Point: the last 7 years. I certainly did not want to have spinning gihugous turbines across the horizon Caleeeeforneeecating the countryside so that the power could go south. Nope. I am not that generous. Nor did I want to raise land prices, food prices, to make corporate subsidy farms add riches to the public pension funds, lose CRP lands that were protecting wildlife, to grow corn, all in the name of making piss poor gasoline that raises my cost of living further.

There will be a backlash in November. "All politics is local" as the Sage of the Hill said. Screwing with a person's car is very local. Messing with the electrical bill is local. Crying for a tax increase while paying companies to make electricity to send elsewhere is local. There will be surprises.

Yes, by all means, let's stop those damned electrical transmission lines from crossing state borders.

And those trucks coming north with all the produce in them. I hear some of that stuff is genetically modified. Better turn them around and keep them from escaping Caleeeeeforneeeea too.

"Green, but hungry once in a while."

When an off the shelf steak or chicken breast costs $20, a six pack of average American beer costs $16, and a gallon of milk costs $7--Joe Public will finally have figured out the true cost of food to fuel.

No need to understand Life Cycle Analysis or that the amount of energy, birth to death, to make bio-fuels (YES, all of them) consumes more energy and puts more CO2 (with CO2 as a measured byproduct of the use of energy to make anything) than pumping oil out of the ground and refining it into a variety of usable fuels. The cost of the average grocery basket here, and all over the world, will rise in response to this poorly thought out "alternative energy solution" feeding corporate farming and corporate coffers. Not for the children, not for the future, not for the environment. It is about money.

A friend recently sent this article to me after I told him we will burn hydrocarbon based fuels until they are gone... along with anything else we can use as energy.
http://www.itulip.com/energyandmoney.htm
It is an interesting article about why we use certain fuels, and what is required to make a fundamental change to something else.

For me, it is simple. 6 billion people 2007-->9 billion people 2050. We will need more energy. And we will get it from the most economical and efficient sources. Alternatives will be available and used, but electricity will be produced by *maybe* more nukes, but in the end, mostly coal (hopefully much cleaner in regards to heavy metal emissions, due to advanced scrubbers and regulatory pressure--but still emitting CO2 and water as pollutants--carbon sequestration is decades away as a commercialized and widely available technology). More CO2 will be emitted. There is no going back to some lower emission standard or baseline CO2 concentration. It just is not going to happen.

Hopefully, we can start to think about energy as something that should not be wasted, along with the pesky intellectual exercise of going beyond such statements as, "burning hydrogen produces only water", by asking "how is that made?". That simple question could drive efficiency, and lower pollution, and ultimately provide unexpected answers along with more questions.

E-85 will die when you buy a tank of it, and get 20% less MPG out of it. Why would you buy E-85 at the same price per gallon and get lower mileage per tank from it? And the recent mandate stating that all future ethanol will be 20% more energy than gasoline? Hello? Anyone take any chemistry out there? Physics? Engineering? There are not enough carbon-hydrogen or carbon-carbon bonds in ethanol to provide the thermodynamic result of 20% more energy. It is simply outside the laws of thermodynamics.

I guess I could go talk to a wall--but it is refreshing to see some level of agreement on this article from the commentary.

Ethanol is for drinking not driving!