>>>but will the pro-ethanol morons get a clue?
We have a clue. Several in fact. It's the rest of you who need a clue or two. I'll get you started in clues: Corn for ethanol is not a food OR fuel choice - it's food AND fuel. Here's another: no one expects ethanol to be a total replacement for petroleum - it can be, and is, a viable means of reducing the need for imported oil. Every barrel of oil we don't have to import from people who want all of us infidels dead is a good thing.
Good on you, Keith.
It also keeps the price of my corn and milo up to where it ought to be in the first place.
"Corn for ethanol is not a food OR fuel choice"
But doesn't it become that, if you ask the question:
For which, would you rather deplete the topsoil?
flashbunny,
The same corn cannot be used for food and fuel. The demand added by the SUBSIDIZED Ethanol industry WILL drive up the price of corn. Did you know that ethanol is both less efficient than gasoline and pollutes more? As long as we are burning Middle Eastern and South American oil our own oil is waiting safely in the ground for future use. Why burn ours when we can buy theirs? Yes, we could stop burning their oil but wouldn't that piss them off even more?
Use some ethanol, and start chipping the oil-filled rocks in Utah, and we're two steps closer to telling the Muslims to f*** off.
ah, thanks, keith in the corn state that benefits from ethanol subsidies.
It's a crappy, dirty, inefficient fuel. Move the iowa presidential primary to be the last in the country and watch ethanol support dry up.
Ethanol sucks as a motor fuel. Period. End of story.
As a blended fuel, ethanol is very good. 10% of ethanol would reduce the oil imports, provide support for farmers, and actually improve engine wear.