Scientists want more ethanol research (AP)

I never really thought about the food/ fuel balance before. That is a new concept to me. This article sure can raise alot of important questions. Thanks for passing it along.

I am very surprised that there was no mention in the article of the work being done to produce ethanol using feedstocks other than corn, e.g. other grains, straw, wood waste, and biomass in general. To me, this is a better area on which to focus research, since there is a practical limit to the amount of ethanol that can be obtained from corn, regardless of efficiency improvements, and there are other current uses of corn that need to be considered.

To what extent does corn deplete the soil? About 10 or 20 years ago, there was a lot of concern over the propsect of a second "dust bowl" in the American Midwest due to agricultural overproduction and the draining of underground aquifers.

Another question revolves around the huge government subsidies corn growers receive to keep adequate production capability levels up and food prices low. Corn can be grown almost anywhere, it was always a low value crop in the past, as are all grain crops. But energy markets will increase values, will the market still be subsidized? Should we narrow the subsidies to those producer that maintain the food market, and negate subsidies to those producing for the ethanol market.

The bigger question I keep posting, every time I get the chance, is WHY?

Why spend a dime on producing ethanol from the corn, while ignoring the ethanol that could be produced from the STALK. Or from STRAW. Or from WOOD or other leftover biomass from industry. Or from purpose-grown crops of SWITCHGRASS, which was identified as nearly an order of magnitude more productive than corn by our own U of I study here in Illinois, heart of corn-growing and Archer-Daniels Midland, which will again benefit from state subsidies to build ethanol plants based on corn.

Oh, and the corn is grown at mass farms that are part of this wonderful subsidy system we have here in the US...

Oh yeah, and we're still paying land owners and holding companies that 'own' the land for the benefit of remote stock holders (many of which are the same lawyers sitting in our legislature)...NOT to farm corn. That's right, to keep the price "high enough" for those who are growning corn, we are paying money to others to NOT farm their land, as long as they plant grass instead and mow it.

Wouldn't it be just great to find out the grass they are being paid to plant instead of corn just happened to be switchgrass, which could be sold down the road to make ethanol? ha!

SPEND THE MONEY ON BIOMASS ETHANOL RESEARCH and stop forcing competition that is unecessary between food stocks and fuel.

Not to mention the tariff on Brazilian ethanol to keep our market price high. Similar to the tariff on sugar which forced companies to use corn syrup in everything which kills the taste. Not to mention the health concerns of the artificial sweeteners. Sugar beets and sugar cane would be more productive to derive ethanol from than corn. But with a massive infrastructure geared to corn production don't look for anything to change.

It looks like instead of $5 a gallon fuel, we will have $6 a box corn flakes. Food costs will skyrocket.

If land is taken out of food production to grow some other plant to produce ethanol that will have the same effect as using more of the food crop to produce ethanol. Using 'waste' biomass such as stalks might help. But there would need to be a means of collecting the material as it is generated in the field. Which could be another function added onto combines or another machine that would be operated after combining. With a second harvesting process you run into more fuel costs for gathering the product, more fuel costs transporting it. Also more pollution. Hmm 'cheap' energy production turns out to be quite the pandora's box.