George,

Robert Bryce's Washington Spectator article was the kind of piece we are all too often seeing these days. These authors look at the claims being made for the potential for ethanol and leap right to the weaknesses of "corn ethanol" to show how insightful are their analyses.

Bryce does this in spades. For starters, he derides the politicians who are jumping on the ethanol bandwagon, yet I find it hard to see why anyone wouldn't want to examine the potential of ethanol. As a renewable crop, on which there is plenty of land for it to grow, that will revitalize our rural areas, make farming profitable again and begin to wean us both from the dependence on foreign oil and the GHG pollution it creates: what's not to like?

Of course, no one expects us to make a dent in gasoline consumption unless we are serious about conservation and not just a paltry increase of CAFE standards to 35 mpg in the next 15 years. Bryce also mimics the very politicians he mocks by suggesting that we can turn the corner on global climate change with no sacrifice. Finally, the fundamental weakness of his whole approach is that he saves his most damning arguments for corn ethanol. Oh, did I mention that he gets his facts wrong, mixes up numbers he should know better, and seems completely oblivious to developments that would undermine his arguments?

Let's make one thing very clear: corn as a basis for an ethanol economy is very much a transitional crop. Simply, the energy equation for corn ethanol is too low: it yields but 25% more energy out than goes into its production. It also is unsustainable on the water parched Great Plains, requires too much nitrogen (over half the nitrogen used in the US today is imported), and should not be planted on marginal land.

His first corn-based screed deals with the subsidies that go to corn farming. I will not defend those subsidies. As to the tax benefits that go to the production of ethanol from corn, however, I think there is a good case. Has Mr. Bryce considered the subsidies that gasoline enjoys? Does anyone think that the war in Iraq is not about oil? A fair analysis of "subsidies" would include the more than $1 trillion Iraq will cost us. Last time I looked, no one has died to protect our access to ethanol.

Second, he claims that ethanol cannot displace a significant amount of gasoline anyway, so why bother? It is here that his figures bother me. A reasonable goal is one Bush has set -- 30 billion ethanol gallons per year by 2025. Using the right figures -- 9.5 million barrels per day of gasoline used currently (not the 21 million total petroleum which is what Bryce claims) would mean that cellulosic ethanol, where the feed stock is grown on the 30 million acres of Conservation Reserve Program land (with expected yields of 1000 gallons per acre), would meet the goal with no use of land now dedicated to food production.

Thirty Billion gallons per year would equal about 20% of today’s gasoline consumption. If we are serious about conservation, better land use and better mass transit where possible, that percentage figure could rise dramatically. I think it is well worth the effort.

Bryce dismisses cellulosic ethanol production as a hyped tooth fairy. Well, he ought to look at the private sector. The biggest corn ethanol producers are licensing cellulosic technology; DOE has invested in pilot plants around the country; and technology advances are announced every day. Major firms are making big bets on their own futures, and Americans will benefit.

Bryce slams ethanol for its contribution to air pollution, and on that he may be right - I am not an air pollution expert. He fails to mention, however, that EPA has required the use of ethanol in non-attainment areas since MBTE has gone out of favor. EPA must think that, on balance, ethanol blends are better than nothing. Also, how come Mr. Bryce mentions nothing about the contribution renewable fuels will make to controlling GHG's? What, by the way, does he suggest we do about any of the problems mentioned in my second paragraph for which ethanol could be a solution? Nothing, it seems.

Oh, isn't it about time we get past the whining about food prices? Americans spend less than any other nation - 10% -- on food. Maybe it is time for us to let farmers prosper while we pull in our belts a bit. Bryce should know that farmers get $.10 of the average $2.49 loaf of bread; $.95 of the $5.99 top sirloin; $1.31 of the $3.69 gallon of milk. Well, you get the picture.

Bryce claims that all the enthusiasm for ethanol is because of the Iowa caucuses, and maybe it is. Still, there is a future for ethanol in the entire country and the only difference is that, with corn ethanol and Iowa, the future is now.

Al Weed (Electronic mail, June 27, 2007)