Our energy problem is only with liquid fuels --- > OIL. Ethanol is the BEST alternative to start reducing our oil imports today ... while the engineers Build new technologies to solve the problem in the future .. or the political pressure gives in and we start drilling oil in Alaska. The governments' money policy is the primary reason for inflation .. the dropping dollar .. not ethanol. The farmers are reducing their corn crop to make more money with other crops. Ethanol or not, food prices are going to continue to rise all around the world as natural disasters and droughts continue to increase.

Philip

Less driving is not going to lower the cost of oil or reduce imports, because international demand will continue to climb. Less driving will happen as prices in the US continue higher, but only by a small amount.

Coal and nuclear are great for keeping the lights on, but not for powering automobiles. Coal or nuclear power cannot be turned into liquid fuels. Battery powered cars are still very expensive. Ethanol is not a great solution, but its better than no solution and it's the beginning of an industry to find alternatives to importing oil and sending money to our enemies.

A much better solution is to drill our own oil in Alaska.

The corn prices are a huge problem. Why corn is being used instead of sugar cane, I do not understand. Ethanol can be produced more cheaply from other biomass.

But then again, all food prices are huge problem for the reasons mentioned above: rising energy and food demand across the globe is putting upward pressure on food prices (through cost of the actual food as well as transportation).

In my eyes, the solution isn't driving less it's hybrid systems, biofuel mixes, and mass production of better batteries. Hydrogen is a pipe dream at this point.

Another fantastic way to cut down is shop locally. There are farmer's markets all over this area where you can get locally produced beef, vegetables, fruits, and herbs.

I'm in central Indiana and there's soybean and corn fields to the left and right of me wherever I go.

Also, there's plenty of oil to go around for at least another 100 years. It won't always be cheaper than a gallon of milk but there's plenty of oil. Besides Alaska, there's Siberia and the oil sands of Canada. A realy big problem is the government, energy companies, and auto manufacturers know this and have little incentive to do much to switch us to a healthier economy.

Did I have a point? Sorry the call of "lunch is here" just distracted me. I'll be back if an epiphany occurs.

As the husband of Ms. Linsey Knerl I (Sam) normally don't make comments. Mostly because she's the writer and I'm not. However, I couldn't help my self this time! I have worked in and out of the ethanol/plastic production industry, been part of a farming family, as well as spent much of my last semester in college researching and writing on this topic. That said, answering "why corn and not sugar cane" and "it takes more energy to produce than it produces" are both answered quite simply. In all production (except items dirived naturally through the input of the sun) the output is equal or less than its input. It is more about the "value" of the output that emphasis should be placed. "why corn"? We value ethanol, by-products of the factory process, plastics that are biodegradable, and the feed end-product (such as Cargils Sweet Feed. Nearly nothing "valuable" is wasted in the process. It is not just about the ethanol. Those plants will not last because it is not profitable without the by-products. That is "why corn". Why are farmers not planting as much corn this year than last year has less to do with the farmers' desire, but rather, the agricultural fact that they can't get away with planting corn on corn on corn, year after year. You can get away with a couple years, then you have to choose something else or you will have yield issues. (disease, pests, devalue of ground) This is why as expected soy beans will increase this year and hopefully wheat will be planted more the following year. (soy beans adds nitrogen naturally to the soil). Thanks Phillip! Nice topic!

More transmission problems but still drivable. I said the heck with it and called the local Salvation Army rehab program. Very simple business, you sign the back of your title, they send someone with a tow truck and off it goes. Doubt I could have sold it as is and gotten much more than I hope to be able to write off. It's been painless so far (2 weeks). I'm amazed how far I can go on our bus system here and how crowded the bus was on Sunday when I went to my church (an old union hall downtown). There are 3 different routes very near my house. I'm not sorry, feels kind of like a weight lifted. My family think I've lost it but it's great.

Much to the chagrin of some, and only some, in the environmental movement, it seems as though 'alternative' energy is harmful to both the environment & the economy. Of course, because of cognitive dissonance, most refuse to see the obvious - it's too painful to their underlying beliefs.

As I pointed out in a previous post, the ethanol boondoggle is the most egregious example. The total energy input to produce a unit of ethanol energy falls short of the energy required to produce that unit. Think of all the oil required for the tractors, trucks, fertilizer, herbicides, etc. That's the economic picture. If you look at the environmental damage done, it should convince you it's a bad idea. Put millions of additional farm acreage into production using mono genetically designed crops. Then spray tons of pesticides and herbicides onto the fields.

Ethanol is just one example of what happens when you combine scientific naivety with politics. Another is wind power. 1st, no one wants those multi-storied windmills in their back yard, they're noisy and unsightly. Think of the famous liberal Ted Kennedy. When a windfarm was proposed offshore, but within sight of the famous Kennedy Cape Cod compound, he quickly found ways to scuttle the project. (Perhaps using such a hypocrite is a poor choice to prove my point.) Additionally, without governmental subsidies, the windmill farms could not be built.

I'm not saying we shouldn't search for alternative energy, we should. But we should let market forces drive the search, not 'command & centralized' governmental bureaucracies do it. Two quick 'alternatives': search for more oil & coal in the U.S. & start building new (and much safer) Nuclear plants.

The market typically solves the problem in an elegant way. When a commodity's price rises enough, it curtails both it's use and encourages exploration of alternatives. Those who rely on the geniuses in government to solve the problem have no understanding of history nor human nature.

Have "Science Education," and its resultant industrial and technical revolutions, brought (or bought) our lives more meaning, joy, happiness, simplicity or peace?