These studies have been overwhelmingly showing that ethanol is a net energy loser on top of the heavy toll it takes on the environment through water usuage, loss of crop land and crop diversity, and high energy requirements for refinement and shipping.

It is key to note that the reason these programs have been promoted by Reaganeque Republicans like Pawlenty is essentially to spur rural economies. Now these same politicians are resisting more economically sound -- although unpleasant -- economic stategies promoted by the Obama administration. Politics have to get out of our economic stategy in this country.

It's very clear that corn-based ethanol is the wrong way to go. If it wasn't for MY TAX DOLLARS subsidizing the industry it would be broke. Countless studies show that switchgrass is the correct use of this technology. This is just another one of countless terrible investments of my tax dollars.

And get our power from the sun and the wind.

This Hamerlinck guy sounds like an arrogant and utter a**hole who resorts to making snide remarks to defend his harmful industry because he knows all the evidence is stacked against him. I honestly can't believe he would go on the record saying such things against the university, which is only telling the truth in this case. Corn ethanol is much worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels, plain and simple -- this has been undeniable fact for years. If the U came out with a study that said anything else I would be greatly disappointed. Hopefully corn ethanol can be fazed out sooner rather than later.

Look at the second-to-last paragraph. The researcher appears to be admitting his study is biased against corn ethanol? Good grief!

I've read studies that show for every 1 unit of energy put in to making ethanol, you get a max of 1.1 units out. That is assuming all goes well from planting to putting it in the gas tank. Conversely, Biodiesel gets 3.3 units of energy for every 1 unit spent. Why can't people realize biodiesel is a better alternative? Yes we need to find a way to make it more usable in cold climates, but the fact that diesel is more energy efficient to make, and yields better MPG than does ethanol seems like it would make it a no brainer. Still for my money, I will choose electric vehicles powered by solar and wind. The technology is getting very sound, and I think the future is soon, if not now.

follow the money. It pollutes more, contains less energy, ruins engines, depletes the water table and on and on. We chose to use gasoline over ethanol for a reason. Anyway with gas under 2 bucks, our energy problems are solved (just like 1981). As a gen x-er, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you boomers and older generations for really sticking it too us. Thanks!!!

i knew ethanol wasn't the right thing. BioDiesel from soybeans though... That is great. To bad we only get 30-60 bushels an acre from soybeans rather than 160-200+ for corn. Also soybeans are used in so many other products. It is the ultimate seed. The true great product will actually come from the corn stock. If they can harness this energy we'll be looking at i think if i'm correct upwards of 100 units per 1. Also switch grass is going to be just as good. I'm probably wrong on the 100 but i do know it is really good. Just still in the new phases.

you just import fuel to make your domestic "source" of fuel. You use a gallon of imported gasoiline to make 1.1 gallons of "domestic fuel", which you can then add to more foreign fuel to make more domestic fuel. Thank heavens Homer Simpson had enough time at the power plant to think up corn-based ethanol fuel. The last thing the energy industry needs now is "research" and that crazy math-based scipherin'. Ivory tower eggheads. This data has been available since the late 80s, as I personally recall discussing this topic with the same conclusions in various agronomy and agricultural economics courses at that time. The only difference then was the prospect of "technological advances" which would double or triple the efficiency of plant based energy production, which has not been realized or seem imminent. A poor investment in what was known to be very poor technology (with a strong lobby backing). To mention nothing of the ethical aspects of diverting grain to ethanol production while world's malnutrition and hunger concerns worsen and commodity prices rise.

Without actually reading the study, it is difficult to determine if it is biased or not. Some red flags to me though is the reference to burning plant wastes to help power the cellulosic option while the study assumes electicity is purchased to power the corn based ethanol production.... like a cheaper source of power couldn't be found for that option? Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Also, what are the assumptions on oil production? Some oil sources are easier (cheaper) to extract than others. The cheap sources are running out... that is a big part of the problem. What really concerns me about the cellulosic option is the probability that they are suggesting the use of "marginal" agricultural land to grow it. By my definition, that probably means wildlife lands. All in all, the ethanol option by any method means tieing up vast amounts of land for energy production. I have the same reservations about wind power. How many people actually want to live next to these monstrosities? I know that Ted Kennedy, for one, does not... based on his unwillingness to see them from his Nantucket beach house. We need to be careful what we wish for... we just may get it. If you ask me, nuclear power is something that is relatively unobtrusive. I know that option has its share of detractors, but they really do need to just get over it.