STEVE of BERKLEY, MA DAVID PIMENTAL WRITES ABOUT A VERY IMPORTANT AND MULTI FACETED PROBLEM. UNFORTUNATLEY HE CHOOSES BUT TWO OF THE THOUGHTS OUT THERE TO MAKE HIS CASE. THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY STUDY AND THE REMARKS FROM A PERSON AT THE U.N.

GUESS WHAT, ALL THE NAYSAYERS TO BIO FUELS THINK THE STATUS QUO IS BETTER ! THEY OFFER NO SOLUTIONS. DAVID PIMENTAL STATES PEAK OIL IS A FACT , (WHICH IT IS NOT ,IT IS JUST A THEORY) BUT ASSUMING PEAK OIL WAS TRUE HE WANT'S TO ESSENTIALLY DO NOTHING ABOUT REPLACING OUR DEPENDENCY OF FOSSIL FUELS.

WE FACE AND ENORMOUS CHALLENGE TO MOVE BEYOND THE FOSSIL FUEL ECONOMY WE ARE NOW WED TO. GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND POLICY THAT HAS BEEN MISSING IS NOW IN PLACE. THIS IS THE FIRST GENERATION OF BIOFUELS, NO ONE, EVEN THE ETHANOL
LOBBY SAYS THAT CORN BASED ETHANOL IS THE FINAL ANSWER IN AND OF ITSELF. IT IS BUT ONE COMPONET
IN WHAT MUST BE A BROAD BASED STRATEGY TO ENERGY INDEPEDENCE AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS.

THE OTHER SIDE SAYS ETHANOL RETURNS 1.3 UNITS OF ENERGY FOR EVERY UNIT OF ENERGY USED IN IT'S PRODUCTION.

BIODIESEL, THE SMALLER LESS KNOWN COUSIN OF ETHANOL HAS A RATIO OF 1 TO 3.5 UNITS OF ENERGY
A GAIN OF 2.5 UNITS OF ENERGY.

WITH THE PRICE OF OIL SEEMINGLY IN THE 100.00 RANGE FOR THE LONG TERM. INESTMENT AND RAND D IS CONTIUNING LET'S NOT MAKE SCARE TACTICS A WEAPON IN THIS DEBATE.report abuse

dinAlt of Fairbanks, AK Converting our food to ethanol is a really bad idea. Part of the problem that corn ethanol is highly subsidized. If we took away the subsidies, there would no longer be any incentive for this foolishness.

Converting agricultural waste into fuel may have some merits, although I don't see why they are so obsessed with cellulistic ethanol. The same technology for converting coal to liquids can be used on any biomass. This would allow conversion of agricultural waste directly into synthetic diesel.
---
Re: jm of Augusta, ME

The reduced millage seen when burning ethanol as compared to gasoline is a result of ethanol containing less energy per gallon than gasoline. The reduction in millage is not a result of reduced efficiency, as implied by your post.

As for the EPA fuel efficiency rating, this test is based on burning pure gasoline, although it can easy be corrected for the lower energy content of gasoline/ethanol blends.

Re: David Graf
While the internal combustion engine is very inefficient, approximately 15% for spark ignition vs. 30% for diesel, there are no viable alternatives for replacing our vehicle fleets at present.

Fuel cells require platinum and/or palladium. There is not enough of these metals in the entire world to replace a significant fraction of the world's vehicle fleets. This may change in the future if a new type of fuel cell is invented which does not depend of these exotic metals.

Batteries are a bit more promising, but the technology still has a long way to go.report abuse

jm of Augusta, ME The SAME energy bill that MANDATES an increased use of ethanol in gasoline ALSO MANDATES increased fuel standards for automobiles.

Don't those geniuses in Washington realize that adding ethanol to gasoline REDUCES gas milage?????????

In one bill, the maroons in Congress have managed to increase your fuel prices AND your food prices, while making it MORE difficult to get better gas milage.

Brilliant!report abuse

David Graf of Watertown, NY David Pimentel is missing the point: We do not have a liquid fuel crisis. we are trying to sustain obsolete internal combustion engine
technology. The ICE engine is inefficient. It
needs to be outlawed. Next: When do we stop being responsible for those irresponsibly and repetitively fornicating? They have a food problem we do not have a moral problem. We have
reverted the laws of nature carrying all the dead
weight.report abuse