"replacing fifty percent of our current gasoline consumption with cellulosic ethanol would consume thirteen percent of the land in the United States - about seven times the land currently utilized for corn production."

This isn't as dire as it sounds, although perhaps I'm an optimist.

First, lets assume that we can reduce the amount of fuel used in cars/trucks by half. This through mass investment in electrical transit systems (commuter/regional trains, subways, trams, High Speed Rail, even maglev), moving freight onto rail off highways, CAFE 40+, plug in hybrids (nuclear powered), high road tolls, etc.

Second, lets assume you use E75, not E100. The other 25% can be gasoline or CTL with CCS.

Thirdly, recognize that much of the land capable of growing cellulosic crops is not of a high enough quality to grow corn or many other food crops.

Fourthly, much of the land already farmed has untapped resources in the form of agricultural waste. Corn stalks etc.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I wouldn't be so hasty to drive in those coffin nails.

Maybe Ethanol isn't the perfect solution but there is still much room to improve the efficiency of how it's made and how vehicles run on it.

Before anyone starts having the debate on how this isn't a scaleable answer lets at least get to the point where we are not subsidizing farmers to leave fields empty because we don't want to drive the prices down.

We can double our corn production over the next 10 years without significantly raising the price of corn.

Shouldn't we at least utilize what we have in front of us instead of writing it off and waiting for a better solution.

If people ate less meat, there would be more crops to go around...

One pound of beef takes 5 pounds of corn and/or soy.

It is true that we must act on whatever we can do immediately to get off "the sauce" but seems as if the ethanol debate is more for political issues rather than environmental concerns. I believe that if all the $$s for subsidies and infrastructure required for MORE CORN, those $$s can be better spent on hybrid subsidies, battery R&D, and electric car / clean energy infrastructure (less coal). From what I said before, combustion is dirty because current combustion tech sucks. Lets limit the amount we burn - not WHAT we burn. Let's face it, we will never see that as it eats directly away at most of the $$s from special interest groups - and we couldn't let THAT happen... it's time we get back our government or take matters into our own hands by making the right decisions rather than the gov't persuading us in making the wrong decisions.

The biggest problem that i have with ethanol is that the consumer has no choice in the matter, in many states including mine, Maryland, every gas station has only E10 which gives poorer gas mileage than strait gasoline, and generally makes more pollution despite what they say. Also ethanol will never really have much of a dent on the amount of oil that is imported.

Jeff Goodell’s commentary in the recent issue of Rolling Stone on ethanol could not be farther from the complete truth and conveniently lacks context and perspective on many of the issues he raised. It is yet another dangerously mis-guided anti-ethanol campaign missile that could help achieve the oil industry’s goal to stifle further technological innovation/competition. In a broad sweeping stroke, Goodell dismissed the scientifically proven benefits of ethanol and its significant contribution, and potential contribution, as an alternative fuel and swallowed the bait of the oil opposition. There is a growing consensus in the United States that ethanol has transformed into a very valuable commodity – all things considered. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ethanol blends are likely to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in vehicles by between 10 to 30 percent. The American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago credits ethanol-blended fuel with reducing smog-forming emission by 25 percent since 1990. The U.S. Department of Energy states that adding ethanol to gasoline has lowered the price of oil to consumers by $2.50 per barrel.

Ethanol is the only fuel which has successfully replaced gasoline at commercial scale levels in one hundred years. It provides great benefits by offering consumers a cost-effective choice at the pump, supporting the livelihood of America’s farmers and decreasing our nasty $1 billion dollar a day foreign oil addiction habit. New exciting technologies are on the horizon that will make ethanol production even cheaper and easier for consumers to use. We should not temper this enthusiasm and promise with unfounded attacks like the one written by Mr. Goodell. Ethanol is clearly right for America, right for the environment and right for our fuel tanks. Ethanol is the next right thing to do. To be fair and objective, I suggest Mr. Goodell devote some research time to “the real cost of oil” which would give his readers some much needed context, perspective and enthusiasm to the find all possible alternatives to gasoline, not just ethanol.

Burl Haigwood

Director of Program Development

Clean Fuels Development Coalition

The US is mainly corn ethanol but there is great potential in the south and i hawaii for ethanol from sugarcane and molasses. Yet there is no one who looks at this. It is more energy efficient than corn, less capital intensive and during season the entire energy cost can be met with the biomass(bagasse) provided by the crop.