[flashbunny]

but will the pro-ethanol morons get a clue?

[Keith in Iowa]

>>>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.

[b4its2late]

I'd rather use ethanol and pay a farmer in the midwest that grows it for that purpose than send cash to the Saudi's who want us all dead. Hopefully the ethanol blend would put a dent in oil imports.

[Wonder Warthog]

"but will the pro-ethanol morons get a clue?"

Actually, it's the knee-jerk anti-ethanol morons who need the clue. This "price rise" is a barely noticeable statistical fluctuation in the historical price of corn.

[Salgak]

Nothing WRONG with ethanol. . .but corn is by no means the most efficient means of growing ethanol feedstock. There are better alternatives. . .rapegrass/rapeseed comes to mind.

As does processing oil and tar sands for petroleum: we have several generations' worth of all the petroleum we'll need tied up there.

The bottom line on alternative energy sources is twofold:

1. They ARE less efficient than using petroleum: if they weren't they wouldn't BE alternatives, they'd be primary sources.

2. With lower efficency, comes lower cost-efficiency. As a result, alternatives are far more subject to price and supply fluctuations in both supply and price. . .