When are you people going to get over this net energy loss arguement? The facts state otherwise. One other note on this. The corn will be grown whether or not there is an ethanol industry. Is there still a net energy loss? If these poor people need food then they can pay me for the corn. Besides most of the corn is used for feeding animals and you still have feed as a by product after you make ethanol. Farmers are not paid to not farm. Set aside acres went out with the last farm bill.
When it's shown to be false by facts.
I recognize that ethanol isn't an end all solution but it is a start. When the first oil was pumped in Pa. the cost was equal to about $700 a barrel price adjusted to today's pricing. Back then, only about 20% of a barrel of oil could be converted into gasoline. Today more than 80% can be converted into gasoline.
The simple fact of the matter is that necessity truly is the mother of invention and the need exists.
Yes of course. And the de-ethanoled feed is better for the livestock. That still doesn't make Ethanol a fuel sans subsidy - it just makes the subsidy cheaper.
If you want to reduce fuel dependance: drill in ANWR and double refining capacity. Subsidising ethanol - subsidising ANYTHING - cannot be the answer to America's fuel requirements.