I've never been very thrilled with the idea of converting food to fuel. This article explains why:

President Bush has set a target of replacing 15 percent of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) during the next 10 years, which would require almost a fivefold increase in mandatory biofuel use, to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative. However, achieving the 15 percent goal would require the entire current US corn crop, which represents a whopping 40 percent of the world's corn supply. This would do more than create mere market distortions; the irresistible pressure to divert corn from food to fuel would create unprecedented turmoil.

Thus, it is no surprise that the price of corn has doubled in the past year – from $2 to $4 a bushel. We are already seeing upward pressure on food prices as the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn. Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60 percent of the annual US corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs, and chickens or used in food or beverages. Thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts. In Mexico, where corn is a staple food, the price of tortillas has skyrocketed because US corn has been diverted to ethanol production.

Though, come to think of it, given that rising tortilla prices is one more cause for Mexicans to flee north, maybe, for the Bush administration, it's not an unintended consequence.

Just kidding.

I think.

The Brazlians use sugar but we have sugar issues because of Cuba. There has been some talk of using the non-edible part of the corn to create ethanol, that's worth exploration. Still I'm a fan of biodiesel, especially the kind made out of the used (and cleaned up) cooking oil.

Let's turn our fast food fetish into energy independence.

I'm not at all sure increased corn ethanol will increase food prices. First, food prices are mostly not due to the cost of grain, but processing costs. Second, producing ethanol from corn also produces a byproduct, dried distillers grain, that is a nutrious animal feed. The Economist recently had an article claiming the availability of the latter would actually drive the cost of meat down vs. the situation where ethanol is not subsidized.

Rand, now it is my turn to agree with you. Ethanol is a scam.

Anyway, I saw an episode of "Mad Money" with Jim Cramer several months ago while stuck in a hotel while traveling and he said to buy fertilizer stock.

Why? The Iowa Presidential caucuses. Politicians of every flavor (Dem, GOP, Indie) will be pushing ethanol to pander to the Iowa farmers and if the Iowa farmers wish to increase corn yields they will need to buy more fertilizer.

Made me smile.

"With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative"

That quote doesn't strike me as particularily true and that's me being polite about it since I think CSM (& NRO which had a similar sounding article recently) in general do good reporting (but not always).

It doesn't need to be food:
- example one is cow manure and I would guess this is still running although note that the cow manure is being used as an energy source (methane) to run a plant that makes fuel from corn...
- example two is garbage and turkey guts and as far as I know their biorefinery in Carthage, Missouri is still running and no it doesn't actually smell even though residents tried selling that story simply to get rid of the plant (at least that's the impression I was ultimately left with)

Since these examples utilizes waste that would otherwise induce a cost upon the waste producer I would guess and hope it can outcompete food. There are other examples as well especially in regard to biodiesel.

And even if the above weren't the case or for some reason fails to be truly successful over time then the US could simply allow a free(r) flow of sugar imports (it's not like Cuba and Venezuela are the only providers). Free trade anyone?

In addition the US (and the EU for that matter) should use the prospect of growing biofuel as a reason to remove any and all farm subsidies (I'm pretty sure this would more than offset any new biofuel price subsidy; not all farmers are going to switch to producing fuel).

My 2 cents:

Corn based ethanol, AS AN ENDSTATE, is a scam.

I can accept it as a bridge between the status quo and cellulose-based alcohol creation -- the storage and distribution networks are essential elements. And, yes, the subsidy stuff makes the development of this infrastructure (much?) more expensive. The benefit is a modest acceleration of the infrastructure development over a non-subsidy policy.

In principle, biodiesel is achievable from algae, fed by sunlight and CO2 from coal / natural gas plants.

And, if memory serves, the corn used for ethanol is silage corn (animal bound), not the type for corn tortillas.

Silage corn is NOT a substitute for human consumption. Unless there is a diversion of human-edible corn to feeding animals, then I don't see why this should affect Mexican tortilla prices.

Anyone have more insight on this last bit?

Darn that Rove and hiis henchpuppet Bush.

He's found a way to use biofuel - a Green movement touchstone - as a way to line the pockets of greedy evil corporate pig-dog kleptocrats in Korporate Amerika.

Is there not stopping him? The poor and downtrodden cry out for mercy!

My preferred bio-fuel is gene-modified hemp.

Modify the plant DNA to exclude cannabis drug production (I would prefer we became more sensible in our foolish "War on Drugs" -- but one battle at a time)

THC-free hemp is a prolific grower creating bio-mass very fast even on marginal lands and through pyrolysis can be made into methanol rather easily. I recall reading that Henry Ford was convinced methanol would be the auto fuel of choice and invested heavily in hemp production studies.

Grow gene-mod THC free hemp on the medians of our interstate highways, for example. The new kudzu, as it were, and perhaps rename it the "freedom vine" to celebrate our energy independence from the mad mullahs.

"With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative" [from the article]

This is like saying, "with current technology, almost all launch to orbit would have to be on existing rockets".

There are numerous cellulose-based technologies in the works, and many of them are better demonstrated than the technologies from alt.space ventures that you like to tout. For example, Bluefire Ethanol's Arkenol process. This has worked at a pilot scale for years, and is being scaled up now in California.

What the current ethanol boom is doing is causing a large amount of sugar fermentation capacity to be installed. In addition to adding the equivalent of scarce 'refining capacity' (the shortage of which is causing the current gasoline spike, not just the price of oil), this will all be a target for retrofit with cellulose-based front ends when that becomes fully available.

The wide availability of ethanol is also shaking out downstream problems. For example, it is causing retailers to ensure they can handle ethanol-laden mixes in their pumps, car makers to add E85 capability, and pipeline/storage companies to ensure ethanol will not dissolve varnishes from the walls of their systems.

The best criticism of ethanol is not that corn isn't suitable, but that cellulose, if and when it takes off as a competitive feedstock, could be an ecological nightmare. The demand for joules of fuel energy is almost unlimited, unlike joules of food, so there's nothing stopping the conversion of essentially all the world's wild terrestrial ecosystems to fuel plantations.

I think I'm going to invent a handheld device that sends electrical impulses to the brain to satiate our desire for food. I might as well throw in MP3 capability just for the heck of it.

For those who don't remember the "gas crisis" of the 70s, this is indeed deja vu all over again. If history repeats, the alternate fuel market will ramp up to the point where it is just about to make a dent in our energy dependence and OPEC will then simply increase production, lower prices and stamp them out. Of course since the default AGW response was designed to be a bonanza of government largess, I expect that when/if OPEC does lower the price that the difference will just disappear into the tax roles.

Another very familiar aspect is the "new studies show . . . " routine. Naturally, alternative fuels research in going to be booming and there's a lot of people looking for investors. Subsequently you're going to get big headlines for Podunk U's new process to turn cow manure into 91 octane gold. The fact that it's only a gleam in a grant hungry professor's eye is never really brought out until the subject disappears never to be heard from again.

What this really verifies, in any case, is that the dogs of AGW have been well and truly unleashed. Solar power satellites, anyone?

If history repeats, the alternate fuel market will ramp up to the point where it is just about to make a dent in our energy dependence and OPEC will then simply increase production,

History doesn't repeat itself, historians just repeat each other.

This time around, Saudi production may be peaking. They may not be able to increase production, or even prevent it from declining. There's serious concern they've been overstating their reserves, too.

To make ethanol work, it appears two things need to occur.

1) Drop sugar tariffs, which will allow sugar from south america in.

2) Dump all the whacko agricultural controls and subsidies.
Stop paying farmers to not grow, and instead buy their
products to make ethanol

The two northmost production areas of Ghawar already are in decline, have been for about a year and a half. Also, despite record oil prices, Iran has also let most of their infrastructure collapse. Other than Iraq, I know of no country in the region that has spare capacity that can be brought on line.