Re: [MBZ] Ethanol from the WSJ

[David Brodbeck]

Jeff Zedic wrote:
> I often wonder why the US is always so upset with OPEC when you get most 
> of your imported oil from Canada...?? Yes, Canada is the single largest 
> supplier of US oil.
>   

People still remember the 1970s, when OPEC was a big enough player to
manipulate the prices at will.  They still have *some* ability to game
the market, but they aren't the force they used to be.

Prices are high enough now that even OPEC is starting to worry.  Back
when they had more clout they would drop prices after a while, killing
the market for alternative fuels before it could really get started. 
They can't do that anymore, because they lack the pumping capacity, but
the fear of it has kept investment out of that sector for quite a while.

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol from the WSJ

[Jeff Zedic]

I often wonder why the US is always so upset with OPEC when you get most 
of your imported oil from Canada...?? Yes, Canada is the single largest 
supplier of US oil.


I wholeheartedly agree with the "space race" analogythat should have 
been going on for a decade now. All of this peak oil talk is nothing 
new. People sawthis coming a long time ago! Unfortunately, the lobbyists 
and special interest groups run the US, not the voters. I think it's 
going to take a real kick in the nuts to the US and some patriotic 
blather once that happens, before they do anything about it. It's sad to 
see that the concept of prevention of disasters has gone the way of the 
Dodo.


I think a potential "problem" could be a major new oil field being 
found! That would really throw a spanner in the works of moving forward 
to cleaner fuels.


Jeff Zedic
Toronto
87 300TD

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol from the WSJ

[ned kleinhenz]

I tried, but I just couldn't let this one alone...


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote that bio-ethanol is generally an impractical and
prohibitively expensive idea.  This sounds to me like prime propaganda from
the petroleum industry.



I am still questioning the real climatologic and environmental affects of
burning fossil fuels.  But I think it is not right for the next generation
to use up all of this one resource.  Just because no solution seems perfect,
we should do nothing about this problem?  The solution to living without
petroleum will probably include a number of new energy sources.  And
bio-ethanol, bio-butanol or bio-diesel are just pieces in the assortment of
technologies we need to develop.  No one is saying all petroleum based fuels
could be replaced by ethanol alone.



And the claim that it takes more petroleum energy to make a gallon of
ethanol than that ethanol contains is patently false.  Of course "The most
widely cited research on this subject comes from Cornell's David Pimental
and Berkeley's Ted Patzek."  These guys have great publicity machines.  Most
non-petroleum engineers in the fuels industry have dismissed the Pimental
and Patzek findings as a misuse of obsolete data.  Most people in the
bio-fuels industry reviewed and accept the USDA research that shows a 30 to
40% net gain between corn seed to gas tank by using ethanol from modern
agricultural, fermentation and distillation methods.  And this whole
comparison needs to be put into the context that it takes a lot of energy to
retrieve and convert a barrel of crude into petroleum products.   In fact,
the cost of making bio ethanol is very attractive compared to $70/barrel
crude.



Finally – I think we need something akin to the space race to develop
American based alternative energy sources.  All of the technologies our
economy prospered with in recent decades were developed in the space
race.  Let's
reload that scientific machine and do it again.  I believe Asia is already
doing this.  Dare we race them?  I would rather spend my tax dollars on
developing new technology than on the military might it will take to secure
enough petroleum for our future.  ( besides, wouldn't it be fun to tell OPEC
to go F*** themselves by making them obsolete?)



There are many other aspects I could go on about.  But I think I made my
point.

Down off the soap box and back to Mercedes specific technical discussions.



Thanks you,

Ned Kleinhenz

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[David Brodbeck]

Mitch Haley wrote:
> Can you imagine what would happen if the federal government restricted
> itself to the matters that the Constitution allows it to meddle in, and
> lowered overall taxes by 95%? They could get by on tariffs and excise taxes,
> and millions of former government workers would be out of work. I suspect
> the changeover would be highly painful.
>   

Especially since the current economic thinking is that tariffs are a Bad
Thing.

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[Peter Frederick]

I strongly suspect the Founding Fathers were quite well aware that 
adjustments would need to be made to the Constitution -- it was, after 
all, quite a novel experiment.


In those days, there was no mass transportation of anything, period.  
All economics were pretty much local except for highly valuable luxury 
goods (tobacco, silk, tea, and so forth), and even money was a problem 
outside a local area.  The Constitution (and the Federal State) were a 
results of the near collapse of the USA over the Delaware Canal (I 
think that was the name) -- several states nearly declared war on each 
other over it and the Founding Father's decided (rightly) that a 
Confederation of States with no central Federal Government would result 
in 13 battling mini-countries.  Point proven by the Civil War, where 
the South foundered on the inability to raise revenue (no taxing 
authority, and no Southern State ever provided more than a token amount 
of cash, if any, to the Confederate Government).


Even so, the Founding Fathers were quite well aware of the necessity of 
Inter-State Commerce, and most Federal regulations stem from that 
clause of the Constitution.


A blunt point -- if anyone really thinks no government is a good thing, 
they need to go live "on the economy" in Iraq for a couple years.  
Should make my point.


Peter

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[Mitch Haley]

Jim Cathey wrote:
> 
> > Makes a person wonder when anyone would champion "no government" or
> > "market driven economies".  I guess all the experienced voices have
> > retired
> 
> They're wonderful.  The part that needs forcible restraint is that
> which allows for decreasing competition.  When the economy is comprised
> of many competitors we all benefit.  But if 'efficiency' causes them
> to all coalesce that's when we will (eventually) lose big.  It's a
> difficult balancing act.
> 

And often, when a big company wants gov't regulation, it's to prevent
small companies from becoming competitive. With WalMart paying retail
workers $9 an hour or so, with little health insurance expense, it's
no wonder they favor raising the minimum wage from $5.15 but not making
health coverage mandatory. GM, which has net operating losses and pays
no taxes for the forseeable future, pays a fortune for health insurance.
Is it any wonder GM favors taxpayer financed health coverage?

Can you imagine what would happen if the federal government restricted
itself to the matters that the Constitution allows it to meddle in, and
lowered overall taxes by 95%? They could get by on tariffs and excise taxes,
and millions of former government workers would be out of work. I suspect
the changeover would be highly painful.

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[Jim Cathey]

Makes a person wonder when anyone would champion "no government" or
"market driven economies".  I guess all the experienced voices have
retired


They're wonderful.  The part that needs forcible restraint is that
which allows for decreasing competition.  When the economy is comprised
of many competitors we all benefit.  But if 'efficiency' causes them
to all coalesce that's when we will (eventually) lose big.  It's a
difficult balancing act.

-- Jim

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[Peter Frederick]

Monopolies strangle trade, that's why they were either broken up or 
regulated heavily in the late 1920's -- even JP Morgan and other 
"Robber Barons" supported income taxes and government regulation of 
business, after the gleaming example of what happens when government 
doesn't (e.i. the Great Depression).


The '29 crash wasn't actually much more spectacular than the previous 
six or seven, but the economy had become fully industrialized rather 
than industry supported by independent agriculture, and the economy 
couldn't recover via a decent crop like it had in the past..  It took a 
world war and twenty years of grinding poverty and general hard times 
to dig out from the "hole" unregulated business and trading dug for us.


Makes a person wonder when anyone would champion "no government" or 
"market driven economies".  I guess all the experienced voices have 
retired  Certainly most of the safeguards have been lifted, and 
corporate profits and CEO salaries and benefits are approaching the 
levels of the late 20s, if stock prices haven't soared as much.


ADM has enjoyed an illegal monopoly on purchasing agricultural products 
for decades, and has been (along with the owners in person) convicted 
of market manipulation and price fixing twice that I know of.


Boy are we in for one hell of a party..!

Peter

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[Peter Frederick]

What, DECENTRALIZATION  HERESY!!!  BUILD THE BONFIRES BURN THE 
HERETICS!  DEFEND THE ORTHODOXY


Centralization of production rather than distributed production (of 
anything) is one of the reasons we consume so much oil.  Shipping oosts 
then dictate all sorts of stupid waste (one use bottles, mountains of 
packaging materials, and so forth), to say nothing of the necessifty 
for millions of tons of concrete and asphalt, etc.


One way out of the energy crunch is to return to the systems we had 50 
or more years ago -- many small local manufacturers, much more limited 
distribution, much more local character, etc.


Unfortunately, this also means considerably less profit for the big 
guys (mostly subsidized by low wages and tax inputs -- roads, 
subsidies, incentives, etc), and since money buys political power these 
days, I don't foresee any changes until things get MUCH worse.


Mankind has been operating on the assumption that there is an infinite 
supply of everything and it's all free for the taking for quite a while 
now, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.  We are literally on 
the edge of eating the planet brown (no green in the summer on satilite 
photos of China!), and the pollution rolling out of China and India can 
indeed make the US pre-72 look pretty benign.


We still wash millions of tons of feedlot manure into rivers each year 
-- no way to "economically" recycle it.  However, if all that beef and 
pork were produced on small farms, it would all go right back into the 
ground as fertilizer instead.


Peter

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[Peter Frederick]

Unless we change our farming practices, I suspect there is more energy 
consumed in the production of crops than there is BTU in the finished 
fuel (particularly ethanol, due to the distillation required).  
Biofuels can help quite a bit, especially using waste oils as diesel or 
biodiesel, but we cannot continue to consume fuel for transporation and 
electricity at the current rate and not face very high prices and 
shortages.


We all need to do some serious re-thinking of our lifestyles, 
particularly the suburban sprawl part -- it's plain silly to live so 
far from where we work -- imagine how much money we would all have if 
we only drove for pleasure!


Peter

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[Mike Canfield]

Of course it does the way they figure it.  They figure crops produced 
strictly for fuel purposes and all of the costs associated including 
trucking such crops. What are they doing with the waste parts of the soybean 
plant and/or the mash from distilling the E?  Are they considering selling 
that product to local farmers as a base feedstock for dairy cows?  NO, they 
consider it waste and have to find a way to dispose of it.More Dinosaurs 
burnt in the production.  There ARE ways to offset their findings on both 
Ethanol and BioD.  Consider localized growing and production to eliminate 
the trucking part.  At least until it's fuel.  How about running the 
equipment from the fuel produced?  As the technology advances all of the 
processes will become more efficient.
 I live not far from CornellMoney sometimes tends to buy the 
results that are desired if you know what I mean.


Mike
- Original Message - 
From: "David Brodbeck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Mercedes Discussion List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Sorry. The most widely cited research on this subject comes from 
Cornell's
David Pimental and Berkeley's Ted Patzek. They've found that it takes 
more than

a gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol -- 29% more.


Before we start feeling too smug, it's worth noting that the same pair
studied biodiesel and found it had a negative energy balance, as well.

___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com 

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[Robert & Tara Ludwick]

Gee, if those teensy weensy subsidies are all that would get paid to the 
corn folks, we'd better jump on it. That's nothing compared to all the 
direct and indirect subsidies that we shell out to the oil companies.
A couple of years ago the estimates for what a gal of gas really costs 
in the us ( but the price is hidden because of all the subsidies, costs 
of military support around the world for  oil co business, etc ad 
nausium ) was between $8-12 a gal...and that was before Katrina and  
all  the latest batch of oil co handouts.
Hey, if we're going to be paying sideways  for fuel  through taxes 
anyway, might as well be paying US farmers, instead of sending all the 
cash elsewhere.


--Robert

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 An Energy Field of Dreams
June 17, 2006; Page A10

 "Be like Brazil" have never been words to live by except perhaps in soccer 
or samba. But suddenly Americans are being told we should imitate Brazil in its 
expensive devotion to driving cars that run on ethanol. VeraSun Energy, the 
second-largest U.S. ethanol producer, was the talk of Wall Street this week 
with its IPO. Wal-Mart wants to install pumps to cater to cars that run on a 
largely ethanol blend. Even Rudy Giuliani was plumping for the stuff this week, a 
sign that an Iowa campaign stop may be in his future.
 We'd say the world had gone mad, except that this is a fairly typical case 
study in how political meddling distorts energy markets. Weary of high gas 
prices, drivers can be forgiven for desiring a "miracle" fuel that is allegedly 
cheap and clean. But the corn farmers, ethanol producers, politicians and 
environmentalists who have promoted the new ethanol mania have no excuse for 
peddling misinformation.

 1

 Can Ethanol Solve the Nation's Energy Problems?2

 We have nothing against corn-based ethanol per se, assuming it competes in 
the market on the same basis as other fuels. Ethanol's problem is that it is 
expensive to make and provides far fewer miles per gallon than gasoline. So its 
supporters have worked the political system to subsidize ethanol, and more 
recently to force Americans to buy it.
 U.S. taxpayers today pay twice for ethanol: once in crop subsidies to corn 
farmers and again in a 51-cent subsidy for every gallon of ethanol. Without 
such a subsidy, ethanol simply wouldn't be cost competitive with gasoline. Then 
last year, Congress went further and passed a new ethanol mandate, requiring 
drivers to use at least 7.5 billion gallons annually by 2012.
 The immediate consequence of this new mandate was higher gasoline prices 
this spring, since the ethanol industry was ill-equipped to meet the new demand. 
Ethanol must also be carried by truck or rail, rather than through pipelines, 
and it requires special blending facilities. All this has both raised prices 
and created gas shortages around the country. But rather than blame their new 
mandate for the higher prices, the Members of Congress blamed, of course, Big 
Oil.
 Ah, but what about the other alleged virtues of ethanol? One favorite is 
that every gallon of ethanol will supplant a gallon of gasoline imported from 
tyrannical Mideast oil regimes. Thus, a la Brazil, ethanol can help the U.S. 
achieve the miracle of "energy independence."
 Sorry. The most widely cited research on this subject comes from Cornell's 
David Pimental and Berkeley's Ted Patzek. They've found that it takes more than 
a gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol -- 29% more. That's 
because it takes enormous amounts of fossil-fuel energy to grow corn (using 
fertilizer and irrigation), to transport the crops and then to turn that corn into 
ethanol. The Saudis ought to love the stuff.
 As for Brazil, few in ethanol's cheering section admit that the country's 
ethanol infrastructure required huge taxpayer subsidies over decades. And the 
U.S. already produces more ethanol than Brazil because the American automobile 
market is about 23 times larger. To produce enough ethanol for the entire U.S. 
car market would mean planting over much more of the country than Iowa.
 Ethanol is also said to be vital for reducing smog. This fiction is even 
written into the Clean Air Act, which mandates the use of "oxygenates" -- of 
which ethanol is the leading type. But studies from the National Academy of 
Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency's own Blue Ribbon Panel have shown 
that oxygenates don't do much to clear up hazy air. That's especially the case 
now with ever more clean-burning engines.
 Alas, none of these facts seem to count for much in the current U.S. energy 
debate. Ethanol has powerful promoters in the farm states especially, and its 
lobbyists have skillfully marketed their product as the answer to dirty air, 
global warming and even military deployments in the Middle East. The share 
price of America's largest ethanol producer, Archer Daniels Midland, has climbed 
by 80% in the last year alone, though you won't find anyone in Washington

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[Christopher McCann]

but now we have nanoDiesel!
 
 Chris

David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  Sorry. The most widely cited research on this subject comes from Cornell's 
> David Pimental and Berkeley's Ted Patzek. They've found that it takes more 
> than 
> a gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol -- 29% more.

Before we start feeling too smug, it's worth noting that the same pair
studied biodiesel and found it had a negative energy balance, as well.

___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com



Christopher McCann, Squier Park, Kansas City, Missouri
-1985 300SD, 214K, "Wulf"
-1982 300D, 116K 
-1971 Case 222 Hydrive, "One Banger"

-
Do you Yahoo!?
 Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jun 24 05:06:08 2006
Received: from ihug-mail.icp-qv1-irony5.iinet.net.au ([203.59.1.199]
helo=mail-ihug.icp-qv1-irony5.iinet.net.au)
by server8.arterytc8.net with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fu0LQ-0001md-95
for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 05:06:08 +
Received: from 203-173-32-241.dyn.iinet.net.au (HELO yourwxrsc38umf)
([203.173.32.241])
by mail-ihug.icp-qv1-irony5.iinet.net.au with SMTP;
24 Jun 2006 13:05:58 +0800
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,170,1149436800"; 
d="scan'208"; a="813247907:sNHT17786568"
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Hendrik Riessen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mercedes Discussion List" 
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:35:54 +0930
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus
Subject: Re: [MBZ] I get a wierd feeling about this car
X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.7.cp2
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List 
List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 

List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 

X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 05:06:09 -

I like the part about re-introducing the air bag, I think he meant to say 
that they finally figured out how to make it so it doesn't blow up in your 
face while going down the road at a 100 miles an hour.

Hendrik
no air bags but fun bags on the missus

- Original Message - 
From: "Luther Gulseth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mercedes Discussion List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] I get a wierd feeling about this car


>I think that's ramblings about the things MB pioneered in the 126 class.
>
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:16:55 -0500, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>
>> probably to cover up the rust.  Later one he is rambling something about
>> it has climate control for the drivers and passenger side.
>>
>> Luther Gulseth wrote:
>>
>>> haha.  BS on the mileage, BS on "SD means sedan diesel", and why was it 
>>> repainted?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:52:09 -0500, Kaleb C. Striplin 
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mercedes-Benz-300-Series-S-Class-Trbo-1985-Mercedes-300SD-Turbo-Diesel-ROCK-SOLID-30MPG-RARE_W0QQitemZ15856840QQihZ005QQcategoryZ6330QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Luther   KB5QHU
> Alma, Ark
> '83 300SD (236 kmi)
> '82 300CD (160 kmi)
> '82 300D  (74 kmi) needs MAJOR work
>
> ___
> http://www.okiebenz.com
> For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
> For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 20/06/2006
> 

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[David Brodbeck]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  Sorry. The most widely cited research on this subject comes from Cornell's 
> David Pimental and Berkeley's Ted Patzek. They've found that it takes more 
> than 
> a gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol -- 29% more.

Before we start feeling too smug, it's worth noting that the same pair
studied biodiesel and found it had a negative energy balance, as well.

Re: [MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[Fmiser]

At some time fairly close to Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:06:55 EDT,
rumor has it that [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>  Can Ethanol Solve the Nation's Energy Problems?2
  
>  URL for this article:
> 
>  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115049715522182863.html

Maybe biodiesel can. But not from soybeans!

I must confess that I am a fan of biodiesel, so it should be no
surprise that I thing biodiesel is a better choice. *smile*

So let the the average automobile use gasoline/ethenol. The trains,
planes, ships, and trucks can get their fuel from alge.

For more info, see:

 http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

--Philip, not making my own - yet.

[MBZ] Ethanol/from the WSJ

[RELNGSON]

 An Energy Field of Dreams
June 17, 2006; Page A10

 "Be like Brazil" have never been words to live by except perhaps in soccer 
or samba. But suddenly Americans are being told we should imitate Brazil in its 
expensive devotion to driving cars that run on ethanol. VeraSun Energy, the 
second-largest U.S. ethanol producer, was the talk of Wall Street this week 
with its IPO. Wal-Mart wants to install pumps to cater to cars that run on a 
largely ethanol blend. Even Rudy Giuliani was plumping for the stuff this week, 
a 
sign that an Iowa campaign stop may be in his future.
 We'd say the world had gone mad, except that this is a fairly typical case 
study in how political meddling distorts energy markets. Weary of high gas 
prices, drivers can be forgiven for desiring a "miracle" fuel that is allegedly 
cheap and clean. But the corn farmers, ethanol producers, politicians and 
environmentalists who have promoted the new ethanol mania have no excuse for 
peddling misinformation.
 1

 Can Ethanol Solve the Nation's Energy Problems?2

 We have nothing against corn-based ethanol per se, assuming it competes in 
the market on the same basis as other fuels. Ethanol's problem is that it is 
expensive to make and provides far fewer miles per gallon than gasoline. So its 
supporters have worked the political system to subsidize ethanol, and more 
recently to force Americans to buy it.
 U.S. taxpayers today pay twice for ethanol: once in crop subsidies to corn 
farmers and again in a 51-cent subsidy for every gallon of ethanol. Without 
such a subsidy, ethanol simply wouldn't be cost competitive with gasoline. Then 
last year, Congress went further and passed a new ethanol mandate, requiring 
drivers to use at least 7.5 billion gallons annually by 2012.
 The immediate consequence of this new mandate was higher gasoline prices 
this spring, since the ethanol industry was ill-equipped to meet the new 
demand. 
Ethanol must also be carried by truck or rail, rather than through pipelines, 
and it requires special blending facilities. All this has both raised prices 
and created gas shortages around the country. But rather than blame their new 
mandate for the higher prices, the Members of Congress blamed, of course, Big 
Oil.
 Ah, but what about the other alleged virtues of ethanol? One favorite is 
that every gallon of ethanol will supplant a gallon of gasoline imported from 
tyrannical Mideast oil regimes. Thus, a la Brazil, ethanol can help the U.S. 
achieve the miracle of "energy independence."
 Sorry. The most widely cited research on this subject comes from Cornell's 
David Pimental and Berkeley's Ted Patzek. They've found that it takes more than 
a gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol -- 29% more. That's 
because it takes enormous amounts of fossil-fuel energy to grow corn (using 
fertilizer and irrigation), to transport the crops and then to turn that corn 
into 
ethanol. The Saudis ought to love the stuff.
 As for Brazil, few in ethanol's cheering section admit that the country's 
ethanol infrastructure required huge taxpayer subsidies over decades. And the 
U.S. already produces more ethanol than Brazil because the American automobile 
market is about 23 times larger. To produce enough ethanol for the entire U.S. 
car market would mean planting over much more of the country than Iowa.
 Ethanol is also said to be vital for reducing smog. This fiction is even 
written into the Clean Air Act, which mandates the use of "oxygenates" -- of 
which ethanol is the leading type. But studies from the National Academy of 
Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency's own Blue Ribbon Panel have 
shown 
that oxygenates don't do much to clear up hazy air. That's especially the case 
now with ever more clean-burning engines.
 Alas, none of these facts seem to count for much in the current U.S. energy 
debate. Ethanol has powerful promoters in the farm states especially, and its 
lobbyists have skillfully marketed their product as the answer to dirty air, 
global warming and even military deployments in the Middle East. The share 
price of America's largest ethanol producer, Archer Daniels Midland, has 
climbed 
by 80% in the last year alone, though you won't find anyone in Washington 
lamenting that windfall profit.
 Meanwhile, Congress is discussing the prospect of ginning up a subsidy for 
sugarcane ethanol as part of its next farm bill -- as if U.S. sugar growers 
need more aid and protection from the government. President Bush, for his part, 
has been promoting research in "cellulosic" ethanol, produced from things like 
switch grass or wood chips. A scientific breakthrough is said to be just 
around the corner, which may or may not be true but is the kind of thing we've 
been 
hearing since Jimmy Carter's day.
 Perhaps all of this will prove to be the political investment of the 
century. Perhaps the subsidies and mandates will lead to new private 
investments, 
which will lead to new scientific breakt