Hmmm, should I believe Dave Zeller or UCAL Berkeley...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/uc_berkeley_stu.html

"The UC Berkeley study, published in this issue of Science, deconstructed six separate high-profile—and contradictory—studies of ethanol. They assessed the studies’ assumptions and then reanalyzed each after correcting errors, inconsistencies and outdated information regarding the amount of energy used to grow corn and make ethanol, and the energy output in the form of fuel and corn byproducts.

It is better to use various inputs to grow corn and make ethanol and use that in your cars than it is to use the gasoline and fossil fuels directly. The people who are saying ethanol is bad are just plain wrong."

Hmmm......., have the Gee-Whiz Folks at UCAL Berkeley ACTUALLY built a pilot plant from which at the end of the day they have announced to the whole world,"We have produced a therm's worth of ethanol at a cost of 95% of a therm's worth of gasoline, and here it is!"

Yep, that's what I thought. For that matter, the State of California would NEVER allow a new chemical plant to be built within their state boundaries. When was the last time a new chemical plant was built there? Thirty-five or forty years ago?

Plus, there is a really bad problem with ethanol. It must remain an anhydrous product in excess of 97% pure alcohol (195 proof plus) in order to work in a spark ignition engine. Brief exposure to any moisture including vapor tends to result in absorption of water until the proof drops to around 180(only 90% pure alcohol)which will not work, resulting in poor drivability and damage to fuel system components.

In the late '70's and early 80's, Ashland Oil mixed large quantities of this goop in their gasolines in the Southern Ohio, Eastern Kentucky, and also West Virginia regions of their market and believe me, you couldn't drive any car without experiencing spark knock, and the carburetors used at that time usually had to be completely rebuilt about once every 6 to 8 months. I can only imagine how well the modern, very precisely made fuel-injection systems of modern cars would hold up under similar circumstances.

$14B in subsidies to "big oil"? That's just propaganda. It's not a subsidy unless the government is actually writing checks directly to the company to keep it afloat. Oil companies pay taxes just like everyone else, in fact the U.S. has one of the highest corporate income tax rates among OECD nations. If you want to read about companies that are subsidized try Archer Daniels Midland.

I agree with Dave that free markets are better than mandates, as mandates can often encourage waste. Government funding should go to research to make ethanol naturally competitive, otherwise we'll just end up with more "feel good" solutions.

What's all the fuss about ethanol? I operate and manage a triple biofuels station in Santa Fe, New Mexico. We sell about 50,000 gallons of E10, E85 and B20 each month, and have yet to experience a single complaint. We have 3 pumps selling Regular Unleaded and 2 pumps selling E10, but the E10 easily outsells the Unleaded, even though the two fuels are priced about the same. Our customers really like the E10 and some make their own custom blends by mixing the E85 and E10 together. My Honda Accord really likes an E20 blend which makes my 4 cylinder engine perform like a 6 cylinder. I've been running ethanol blends in it for almost three years now, and it runs better than ever at 200,000 plus miles. I also use the E10 in my '65 Ford Pickup, and it performs fine in 100 degree summer temperatures or 10 degree winter weather.

In New Mexico we make 30 million gallons/yr of ethanol from dry-land grown sorghum, but this year plans are afoot to begin construction on waste to ethanol plants that will use manures, woodwaste and municipal solid waste.