New study: Ethanol is worst form of renewable energy

Still, that might work better than swinging by the neighborhood geyser to refuel your GeoThermalMetro. And how do you fuel your tidal powered car when Oceans of Fun's wave pool is closed for the season?

What did the Jetsons use? Those things were clean and quiet - lets get them on the list, too

I think the Starship Enterprise was powered by Dylithium Crystals. How come it wasn't on the list? And they used their phazors to heat the rocks, too. They are just a viable as geo-thermal powered cars.

Ethanol best REAL renewable energy

If the list in this column was made up of ACTUAL cars that EXIST in the real world, where would the "corn E85 vehicles" end up?

Numero Uno.

I was encouraged to see that no gasoline powered vehicles made the list, and a little surprised to see no gas/electric hybrids were on the list, either. It was a bit curious about corn ethanol beating out cellulosic ethanol, too. Strange that a "journalist" would miss those rather obvious facts.

Interesting, too, is the fact that this study is the latest from a very well known ethanol critic - another fact missed by the KC Star's so-called "journalist." Strange that the article wouldn't point out that the "researcher" probably would like to get his hands on a pile of government money to study the ten make-believe cars on the top of his list.

The great think about freedom of speech is that people like Mr. Abouhalkah - who just hates ethanol, period - can write crap like this to actually PROVE there isn't an objective bone in his body, or an unbiased thought in his brain.

It would be nice if my car would run from the energy of my soul, too. But until then, I'm going to fill up with E85.

Thanks for the pointless distinction. End of the day, in addition to corn producers' subsidies, it's our tax dollars that are subsidizing the production of ethanol fuel to the tune of 51 cents per gallon, so we should definitely ask what we're getting for our buck.

"In 2006 ethanol blenders were handed $2,500 million in subsidies while the Department of Energy awarded $385 million spread over four to six years to help build cellulose ethanol plants."

http://zfacts.com/p/63.html

End of the day, the question still remains: If we're going to subsidize alternative energy, why not subsidize development of renewables (e.g., wind and solar) that don't have such high pollution costs as ethanol?

There is no government money being "pumped" into ethanol producer's pockets. The subsidy which you're referring to is a blending credit - meaning that the person who blends the ethanol with gasoline receives it, not the ethanol producer.

You list non-viable, non-available renewables, then place a real world alternative at the bottom of the list. Really, you should have listed "perpetual-motion machine" as the number 1 renewable energy.

Why aren't you as offended that wind and solar energy couldn't exist without subsidies?

Sure, I wish ethanol was more energy efficient and cleaner. But it is already more energy efficient and cleaner than gasoline or any other readily available alternative. Look up the facts from credible sources such as government and universities with unbiased research.

By the way, have you looked at the carbon footprint from tar-sand oil and other new sources that are needed to replace diminishing oil supplies?

I could better understand this editorial if today was April 1 (April Fools Day). This simply has to be a joke!

From the article synopsis:

"The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste."

All of those criteria have definable economic impacts, in the sense that we pay for the messes that are made, whether it be in cleanup of chemical waste or addressing health effects from air and water pollution. Couple these combined negative impacts with the fact that the only thing making the ethanol industry "profitable" is the government subsidy (i.e., our tax dollars) we're pumping into ethanol producers' pockets, then it's hard to see how ethanol is a sustainable or sensible solution to our energy needs.

All the environmental considerations are nice, but there is no mention of cost! Do you have any idea how much this stuff costs? It is not even close today. How can you make an argument to dismantle the ethanol industry off a report that does not study the economic requirements and viability for such initiatives? Of course wind power is cleaner! Of course we'd rather sequester/recapture carbon emissions. Who is gonna pay the bill? It is enormous!

I'd also be interested to know what the baseline energy systems (ie current coal/hydrocarbon-based) rank on Mr. Jacobson's list.

Your arguments against ethanol continue to fall short of containing any real analytical weight. Yet you continue to be published...

Another biased viewpoint on ethanol from Mr. Abouhalkah. We're up to over a dozen articles in which he has mentioned that ethanol is "idiotic", "wasteful", or the "worst."

Tell me though, of the technologies listed above - which are all better than ethanol - how many are a viable source of energy TODAY? How many geothermal-powered cars are available for purchase or being used?

Before condemning ethanol (again), why don't you first offer up a viable solution to our energy problem (i.e. one where the technology is available, being used today, can be mass produced at a lower cost than corn-based ethanol, and is a renewable fuel).