Mike "Mish" Shedlock is uninformed about the production of ethanol, the use of corn as a food source, the net benefit of corn ethanol to the US energy profile, the reduction of pollution as result of using ethanol, and government subsidies to the ethanol and oil based fuel industries. And Governor Rick Scott by the stroke of his pen is destroying viable competition to big oil and OPEC. How stupid is that! And all because the people do not understand the proper use of ethanol, are basing their decision from a standpoint of fear of their food supply, and don't know how to make their fuel purchase decisions. 1. If one is to go head to head competition with big oil then one must obtain subsidies just like big oil gets subsidies. Whether you call them depletion allowance tax credits or highway excise tax credits they are subsidies all the same. 2. Small million dollar startups businesses never do well against $100 billion corporations whether they be in the fuel sector or the solid state microprocessor sector. 3. One can always claim that people are starving because of this or that and get the bleeding heart liberal vote when the facts say the complete opposite. 4. oil prices have come down considerably since 2008 oil price spike in part due to the supply of ethanol fuel. 5. The oil industry has received the benefits of oil related government subsidized research and we pay for more research every time we fill up. All costs of oil and ethanol industry has to be externalized. The US government spent (did not collect taxes on) $3 billion in 2005 on oil research. TANSTAAFL 6. The US corn exports and livestock allocations have increased every year since 2000 except for last year when the trend flattened due to low yields arising from floods and droughts. 7. A partnership between the State of Nebraska and the corn farmers has resulted in a positive net increase in the replenishment of the Ogallala Aquifer despite the increased production of corn for ethanol. 8. Ethanol produces less CO, NOx, and CO2 pollution than gasoline. In fact if you ran with 100% ethanol you would not need $3000 platinum based catalytic convertors in your automobiles exhaust system. 9. Ethanol when used in diesel ICE's is only 8% less efficient than diesel while the cost of ethanol is 30% less. 10. The wise consumers make their fuel purchase decision based upon miles per dollar not miles per gallon.

You failed the pop quiz! You are comparing apples and oranges. Yes the energy content of ethanol is lower than gasoline on a per gallon basis but volums of fuel is irrelevant to the discussion of CO2 But you were close CO2 is calculated based upon the BTU's In an attempt to create understanding within you about 35,000 BTU in ethanol is energy that was in Natural Gas the other 35% is from the sugars in the corn that are produced from photosynthesis. The corn plant removes CO2 from the air and combustion of ethanol returns that CO2 to the air for a net 0 increase in CO2 for that portion of corns embodied energy. Now if we replaced the energy in the sugars with 35,000 BTU's of gasoline there would be a net increase in CO2 of about 5 pounds. And again you do not make your purchase decisions on MPG but rather on miles per dollar. That is why there should be a law which requires fueling stations to publish prices as normalized dollars per mile rather than dollars per gallon. Put competition back in the fuel market.

The amount of foreign aid given by the US to Syria, Egypt, Mexico and Algeria, 4 large importers of corn, far outweighs the cost of corn exported to those countries. 68% of the corn crop is feed for cattle, swine, and poultry. while only 7% is directly consumed by people. In terms of corn to protein conversion efficiency, cattle is the worst while poultry is the most efficient. Japan is the largest and most consistent importer of corn in the world. The United States satisfies nearly all of Japan's demand. 30% of the corn exported by the US is imported by Japan. Japan uses the imported corn primarily as livestock feed. We could support more people on Earth for a given area of land farmed if we ate lower on the food chain -- if we ate primary producers instead of eating herbivores (corn instead of beef). These consequences of a change in our diets result from the basic thermodynamic principles eating higher in the food chain requires more energy and thus less is delivered to the building of your bodies proteins and to provider energy to your muscles. In other words if we ate no beef the world could support another billion or two of population but they choose to"Eat Beef, its whats for dinner" And that works because total exports of corn was valued at $12.9 billion in 2012

Nobody is starving worldwide because of corn use in the production of ethanol. Land has been taken out the the conservation reserve program to plant the extra corn needed to supply the demand for ethanol. The total number of bushels of corn exported and delivered to feed livestock has increased since 2000. It has only been the last two years that trend has flattened due to the drought and floods in the cornbelt.

Wrong, Except for that portion of ethanol's embodied energy derived from the natural gas to heat the corn mash the remaining energy in ethanol is from the sun and photosynthesis converting CO2 to plant sugars. There is a net reduction of CO2 emissions over pure gasoline equal to the amount of gasoline that would have been burned instead of the energy in the sugars.

Wrong, there is a fuel shortage! For constant demand as supplies diminish there will be a price increase. Case on point, if one plotted oil prices versus oil consumption categories one would see that the cause of the price spike in 2008 was due to the fact that the US for the first time began importing oil to satisfy its demand in the industrial sector. The price abated because ethanol /gasoline blending increased throughout the country freeing up oil for use in industry. But it has to be said that a slow or recessive economy puts the damper on oil consumption as well.

Thank you, There is a lot of whining over old corrected problems associated with 1 gallon per month of E10 use in small gasoline engines as compared to reduced pollution from +50 gallon per month in a motor car. Two solutions: 1. add fuel cutoff valve to small engine and run the engine until the carburetor is dry. 2. convert your small engines to run on propane. http://www.propanecarbs.com/small_engines.html 3. Purchase high cost but ethanol free premium gasoline.

Ethanol replaced MTBE as oxygenate to reduce ground water pollution. MTBE or ethanol is required to to increase the octane rating to prevent premature ignition of gasoline which results in carbon monoxide pollution. The whole point of ethanol is to eliminate the ground water pollution arising from the use of MTBE. And the fact you cite is testimony that ethanol is as good as MTBE in reducing air pollution whose purpose it was to prevent exhaust of unburned hydro carbons. Chalk up two for ethanol.

Rant on Bubba. You have no citations to back up your emotional claims and you are more likely the troll here who wishes the socialization of food production in America to the demise of the conservative base. Only the uneducated use MPG is the gauging factor in their choice of fuel. It is miles per dollar that one must to consider. The US exported $397 billion to pay for imported oil in 2012. The 10% ethanol mandate replaced $44 billion of oil not imported in 2012. So that is $44 billion that stayed in America and employed Americans. Ethanol is made in America using American farmer raised American corn and made in America natural gas. It has been said that purchasing US made products has a threefold effect on the economy. I would rather spend that $44 billion on US products rather than sending it to OPEC!

Townhall is dead they are in the pockets of their GMC advertiser.

You do not understand the difference between net energy balance and MPG. These are two completely different technical specifications.