Misc. Ramblings

Anyone who's been following the ethanol for fuel debate probably already know this but it's nonetheless important to note that this study shows that it takes more energy to produce the ethanol than you save by using it in place of oil.

Let me repeat the obvious, it takes more energy to produce ethanol as a fuel for vehicles than is saved by substituting it for gasoline. Note, this is just the cost of producing the ethanol (not including the three billion that U.S. big agriculture receive in subsidies from the US tax payers).

The other loss is that ethanol has less energy per unit burned. This mean you have to burn more of it to go the same distance for a given unit of gasoline. Which, of course, means you have to buy more of it to go the same distance you would otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I believe our dependence on oil is a strategic risk and a not so hidden cost. In addition, burning gasoline has many negative environmental effects. That said, it is difficult to make a rational case that substituting ethanol for a portion of gasoline makes sense -- economic, environmental, or otherwise.

Let's be clear, the whole point of switching to ethanol is a way of transferring money from tax payers to agriculture interests. Big agricultural interests. The kind that buy and sell politicians.

There is even an effort here to force people to buy ethanol laced gasoline so that the failing agriculture businesses here can prolong the inevitable.