I don't have a whole lot resources right now. Basically corn is one the least efficient methods of creating ethanol as far as amount of raw material needed. The problem was that we are just now getting the technology to break down the cellulose enough for it to be productive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

Look at the Efficiency of common crops sections.


I think the most practical petroleum replacement is bio-fuels. Getting a cost effective replacement is the problem.

lol obviously corn isn't the least efficient method or else they wouldn't use it. I mean, if you could power your car with dirt, why would you pay for ethanol? wiki isn't the most reliable source, but w/e.

I don't think you read my post. I said corn is one of the least efficient methods of getting Ethanol not energy. There is a difference. The reason corn is used is because of it's availability and ease of processing, why do you think Brazil uses sugar cane? You must not have actually visited the page because it's cited. But here's another.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ls-interactive
This is more interactive, but you have to trust NG as a source.

lol has it occurred to you that I don't care?

The science for creating ethanol has been around since the 1920's.

Without subsidies, it is not profitable. With grain prices rising it becomes even less profitable. It is illogical to use so much energy to create energy. It is scientifically inefficient to burn so much fuel, tilling, planting, fertilizing, harvesting, hauling, and processing into fuel just to create more fuel. As this demand for corn causes the price of corn to rise, the price of other foods rises due to more land being allocated for corn. With every increase of ethanol use, these prices rise; making ethanol even more inefficient and unprofitable and requiring more of our tax dollars. We're in a hole already, stop digging.

If you want to read the truth about ethanol or current energy.... I suggest this journalist:
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wall...ry/504307.html
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wall...ry/541726.html
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wall...ry/541726.html
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/

and just for the fun of it: http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wall...ry/433165.html
Ed Wallace is cool. ^-^

That isn't a corn grower. That's a fertilizer business that uses up very much energy with their products.

I have a feeling the same rich people are going to be owning these ethanol plants as well as investing in corn farming. Even with subsidies the market is still risky for these plants. Only someone with enough money are building them. Land prices have been steadily rising pushing out the family farmer. Big Oil will likely control every energy source.

Oil supply is high as ever yet we aren't refining it fast enough. Not only do environmentalists not support new refineries, oil companies don't want them either since that would lower their profits.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

Your argument is still irrelevant because this thread assumes that either oil prices will rise or that ethanol will some how becomes better. It doesn't matter that it's unethical now, and it doesn't matter that there are subsidies now, what ever. The point of the thread is that IF oil ever became so scares that it passed the point of being efficient, which source of energy would we use? My answer is ethanol, for the reasons listed.

It absolutely does matter whether it's ethical or to what degree it's subsidized; now and in the future. At this point in order to replace oil, the world would have to more than double the amount of land used for agriculture. Impossible. Even with technological improvements to ethanol it would probably require more than we could handle. We surely would not be able to afford food at that point. The subsidies would only rise drastically if we become dependent on ethanol. It's a socialist scheme IMO. Nuclear and hydrogen energies are far more efficient and would cost us less to research.

I also forgot to mention in my previous post about water. In addition to the large amount of fuel used to produce ethanol fuel; water is also needed. In many corn growing areas there is not enough rainfall to grow the crop. Underground aquifers are used to irrigate. This type of fresh water really is not renewable and these aquifers will go dry someday. Even if fuel is basic need, water is more important and this is just another reason why ethanol is extremely inefficient. Corn requires more water than most crops grown in the US.

We are nowhere close to running out of oil. THE problem is refining it into gas. The price would drop if we expanded our ability to refine. Instead these idiotic officials will be writing in more energy subsidies into our next farm bill.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

I guess the point of this thead is to not look at facts and just to use emotion based undereduccated thought. What a waste of my first few post.

Why are you making the privet sector out to be idiots? If it is profitable, people will do it. Therefore, you have no argument because this thread assumes that if making ethanol ever became more productive and cheaper, then it would be the best fuel source for America.

Your whole water debate is excellent, and it may be a serious problem in the future. However, assuming that it is a cost of production, it would simply be included in the premise that gas must either go up or ethanol must get cheaper. The under lining point of this thread was that it would create more jobs. Obviously transporting and filtering water would create even more jobs. There would be twice as many farms you say? Lovely. Twice as many farms means twice as many farmers, means twice as much domestic production opposed to international importing.