Problems with ethanol explained

Robert Bryce thinks all this talk and action to use corn and other biomass components to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is hollow rhetoric that does more harm than good.

Bryce is the author of, “Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of ‘Energy Independence,’” and at Slate.com, offers this essay as to why ethanol is not the answer to cutting oil imports.

In the essay, Bryce calls into question the wisdom of a “vocal group of neoconservatives, agribusiness lobbyists, and politicians that claims that the best way to cut American oil imports, and thereby impoverish the petrostates (and, in theory, reduce terrorism), is to require automakers to manufacture ‘flex-fuel’ cars that can burn motor fuel containing 85 percent ethanol or methanol.”

He continues: “Their rhetoric is so attractive that several members of Congress have introduced legislation that would require automakers to produce flex-fuel cars.
Unfortunately, this idea betrays a near-complete ignorance of the world petroleum business. The ethanol producers and the flex-fuel-car advocates are wrong because their solution replaces only part of the crude-oil barrel and won’t reduce demand for that entire barrel in any meaningful way.”