Mac - I totally agree there is a sea of misinformation floating around, but the net energy loss is a big myth too. The Cornell Study that everyone cites written by Dr. Pimental is proven to be wrong, but it just keep popping up in main stream media. Pimental published the ONLY study that claims ethanol is a net energy loss.
Here is a more current (accurate) study.
Argonne National Lab Study 3.28.05
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PD...NatlLabEthanol...
Also Corn is the LEAST efficent method of producing Ethanol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some criticism of Pimentals Study:
Renewable fuel standard relies on outdated data by David Pimental to refute the positive (net energy) effects of corn and are inaccurate, irresponsible and ill-informed.
Pimental, an entomologist, is the only scientist to conclude corn ethanol is a net energy loser. He's done so by perverting established scientific methods and torturing the data.
For example, Pimental's corn yields date from 1992. He assumes corn is irrigated. Only 16% of corn is irrigated and almost none of that is converted to ethanol. Pimental's research ignores life cycle analysis standards, yet respected publications such as yours continue to recycle this misinformation.
Most important, a USDA life cycle analysis of ethanol production — from the field to the car — found ethanol has a large and growing positive fossil energy balance. In fact, ethanol yields 34% more fossil energy than is used to grow and harvest corn and process it into ethanol.
In addition, your commentary fails to consider critical ethanol facts involving tax treatment for ethanol and co-products.
Gasoline is taxed by the federal government at 18.4˘/gal., but gasoline blended with ethanol is only taxed at 13.1˘/gal. It should stand corrected that the ethanol tax credit is credited to gasoline refiners and blenders, not the ethanol industry. The program is designed to encourage these entities to blend ethanol. Not a penny goes to any ethanol company.
Furthermore, the tax credit is actually a reduction in taxes paid. While reducing government revenues, it isn't at the “expense of taxpayers.” They're not paying the higher tax.
Removing the ethanol tax credit would have the effect of raising gas taxes by 5.3˘/gal. on more than 15% of gasoline sold in the U.S. And let's not forget that more than 50% of U.S. ethanol production is owned by farmers, not big agribusiness.
You should also know ethanol producers use the same corn plant to produce feed and fuel. While ethanol plants utilize one-third of the plant to process cornstarch into ethanol, the co-product distillers dried grains with solubles uses another third as a high-value feed for livestock.
It should be noted that there is no shortage of corn. Of the projected U.S. corn harvest of 10-billion bu., ethanol production will consume only about 1 billion. There's still plenty of room to grow the ethanol market without limiting corn availability.
. . . . has done its readers a disservice by using scare tactics and false, outdated data to smear a technology that's proven to be a viable way to help sustain U.S. energy security.
Fred Yoder
Plain City, OH
Past President
National Corn Growers Association
Good Ethanol Article