I am someone who is environmentally aware and I do what I can in my own way to minimize my environmental footprint. But I see ethanol as a red herring that a lot of folks won't flock to under the currently proposed schemes.

Why? Consumers are not going to pay more -- or even the same price -- for an inferior product. Remember your basic determinants of demand from Econ 101? These are -- income, tastes, and the cost of alternatives.

The calculus of ethanol is that it just plain costs more, a lot more in fact, in terms of how we use motor fuels. My vehicle gets about 20 MPG on premium fuel, and it has to have the premium -- I have experimented with that. So let's just say that I spent $2.80 a gallon for gas -- yield a running cost of $.14 per mile for fuel. OK so far?

When I switch to an ethanol blend and you know what happens? While it is not supposed to, the mileage on the car goes down by about 10-15%, as the specific energy content of ethanol is lower than gasoline. So where does my cost per mile go -- straight up!! I now end up spending about $.156 per mile, an 11% increase. Or as I see it, I end up spending the equivalent of $3.11 per gallon in to use ethanol on a cost per mile-normalized basis.

Why would I want to do that? I will become a dedicated ethanol user as soon as it is 10% cheaper than standard gasoline, that is, when it is an economically neutral proposition.

I am not the only person who has figured this out, which is why the government has to mandate ethanol use and subsidize it in order to get it into the market.

Burk Kalweit
The Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America

Great boost for Ethanol and the benefits, that are not quite realized. You state that with Government support Ethanol could be better and cheaper. There is a reality factor here, and that is the price should not be quoted per gallon, but rather by BTU content per gallon. Gasoline per gallon has a higher BTU content, so the comparison is not an "apples to apples" basis. This means you will consume more Ethanol to cover the equivalent gasoline mileage.

Septimus van der Linden

If we are to reach the goals that bio-fuels could provide 30 percent of the global energy demand by 2030 of oil giant BP, upgrading the infrastructure is certain. I continue to hear the primary reason for developing biofuels is to gain independence from foreign oil from geopolitically unstable regions. While that goal may be in the horizon, one of the primary building blocks in the process of corn production (nitrogen fertilizer) is moving the opposite direction. Consider the following information:

1) The United States Government has invested substantial resources and time into developing alternative sources of energy based in the U.S. In order to facilitate changes in our supply and demand portfolio, the United States Government created significant tax incentives for the biofuels (ethanol) industry.

2) One of the primary policy goals is to be energy independent from the Middle East, geopolitically one of the most unstable regions in the world.

3) Doane's Agricultural Report Planting Survey estimates the ethanol industry could put into production an additional 11.5 million acres of corn in the 2006 -- 2007 production years. The production of corn consumes 46% of the total nitrogen consumed in agricultural production. Depending on the specific nitrogen, 70 -- 85 percent of the cash operating cost in the production of nitrogen fertilizer is from the cost of natural gas.

4) Since 1999, exploding energy prices reduced the North American ammonia production capacity from 18 million tons to 9.25 million tons in 2006 -- this gap in production is now filled with 9.5 million tons on nitrogen imports representing 50% of our domestic fertilizer supply.

5) Industry estimates by 2010, that 70% or our Urea fertilizer will be imported from the Middle East. Since 2000, urea prices more than tripled from $100 per ton to a current cost of $370 per ton Fob NOLA.

One must question the common wisdom and ask, "Are we becoming energy independent from one of the most geopolitically unstable regions in the world?" Unless you are blinded by a sand storm, the answer is no! What would a disruption in fertilizer supply have on our domestic food and fiber production? Would a disruption in fertilizer supply have an effect on our biofuels production? Could instability in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of our primary import countries, significantly compress nitrogen imports?

Nitrogen fertilizers are essential in the production of food and fiber. Our domestic policy for the safety and welfare of our citizens should not be dependant on one of the most geopolitically unstable regions in the world for one of the most basic building blocks in production agriculture. The U.S. government may need to consider long term tax incentives for rebuilding our domestic fertilizer industry in order to assure our citizens continue to have the least expensive per capita, safest, most abundant food supply in the world, and provide the necessary infrastructure to produce corn for ethanol production.

Would the common citizen approve of a situation where our 70% genetically modified seeds to produce food and fiber were produced in the country of Iran and imported into the U.S. for production agriculture?

Toby M. Hlavinka

I believe one of the various methods available to reduce the USA's dependence on foreign oil is definitely Ethanol produced locally in the USA. Ethanol is of course not the only stop gap measure needed to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. If the US government will stop paying farmers subsidies for not growing crops there might be enough corn and other crops grown for animal feed, human consumption as well as for Ethanol production. Corn is obviously not the only organic crop that Ethanol can be produced from. More R&D into alternate sources for Ethanol production might also prove helpful and take some pressure of corn production.

In addition, there are alternates that can be employed by both the government and the consumer. Government subsidies for development of alternate energy sources as well as tax credits to consumers for using alternate energy. Since the bulk of the oil consumption is by the transportation sector (our cars and trucks) more attention needs to be made to reduce gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. We are still driving too many large SUV's and pick-up trucks with gasoline mileage at best between 15 and 20 mpg. The American mindset for automobiles is larger is better. Well that is not very good when you are trying to conserve gasoline consumption. Overall there needs to be less large SUV's and pick-up trucks on the roads and more smaller fuel efficient automobiles on the roads. Bumper height for ALL vehicles must be enforced. When was the last time you saw a large pick-up truck raised up 12 inches above normal with the bumper at least 36 inches above the ground driving toward you?? That kind of modification of vehicles must be stopped in order for small car drivers to at least feel some security driving around with large SUV and pick-up trucks which are not modified.

Electric cars would become an acceptable alternate if technology would advance allowing for achievement of 200 to even 400 miles before an overnight recharge is necessary. Battery technology is improving but still has a way to go in order to achieve reduction of battery weight (weight relates directly to horsepower needed to drive the vehicle), increase in battery life and reduction of initial and replacement cost for battery pack for an automobile. Alternatively the hydrogen vehicle could be commercialized if there were enough consumer interest. Manufacturers are not generally willing to embark on an exploratory R&D program to build a commercial hydrogen vehicle when there is realistically no infrastructure in place to service hydrogen powered vehicles. There needs to be in place upon commercialization of the hydrogen car at lease a limited number of fuel stations and repair stations so the consumer can use the vehicle.

Dave Pittinger
Indian River Bay Associates, LLC

In your editorial, you state:

"Critics also note that in 2005, 13 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used to make ethanol, which has created shortages and pushed up the price of every product that uses corn as a feedstock."

Please note, those critics above don't do a lot of research into their erroneous comments. I have personally done my own research and write the following:

The National Corn Growers Association's website contains a report titled "US Corn Growers: Producing Food AND Fuel" published in November of 2006. The report contains bar graphs, tables and charts made by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that illustrate increased corn demands by ethanol will be met by exceedingly higher corn yields per acre each year. It graphs year-by-year, export and livestock feed corn uses remaining flat since 1997. It anticipates farmers will grow more corn in place of other crops.

The Food and Fuel report includes USDA pie charts that illustrate the percent of corn ingredients relative to farm production costs for chicken and pork. The corn diet portion represents less than 20% of farm production costs for chicken. Similarly, corn costs are less than 5% of total farm production costs for feeder pigs. The USDA further illustrates year-by-year since 1995, pork farm production costs averages are only 30% of pork retail prices. In other words, corn ingredient costs impact little when compared to retail prices for pork and chicken.

Further, an important co-product from ethanol production is DDGS or dried distillers grain and solubles. This by-product is fiber, protein and fat left from corn after the starch is used for ethanol production. DDGS can supplement livestock feed and costs half that of bushel corn.

Aside from pork, beef and poultry sold in stores, the financial impact of dent corn in products is so small it hardly measures. For example, corn used in corn flakes or high fructose syrup for soda amounts to less than 5% of the retail price of soda or corn flakes. The cost of corn inside corn flakes is about 10 cents. If corn bushel prices double again, the corn cost inside the box goes up say 15 or 20 cents. I think consumers can pay a dime more for a $3.50 box of cereal.

Sweet corn for summer produce, frozen food and canned corn, grows on approximately 130,000 acres across the USA. Compare that to 71 million acres for field or dent corn that only ethanol uses, and no sweet corn shortage is projected.

Ross Draper
Application Engineer
Fluid Process Equipment

Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.