All the corn used for animal feed should be used to make ethanol first(currenly only 11% is)because it removes all starch from the corn and leaves a much higher quality animal feed. The starch in corn creates a lot of problems in the degestive tracts of animals, especially cows. Studies have shown that just 30 lbs of distillers grains produce 17% more meat in 30% less time and 40% more milk than every 100 of corn. So actully, ethanol is just a very valuable byproduct of producing high quality animal feed.

As for energy, you currently get 8 units of energy out for every 1 unit of energy in while making ethanol from corn and corn is not the most efficient crop to use. Compare this to gasolines negative 20% energy returned on energy invested.

As for cost, Brazil currently makes ethanol for 50 cents a gallon. We should learn from them. They are also operating a 4.6 million gallon/year pilot plant that makes ethanol from cellulose for 50 cents a gallon. In the US they tell us celluslosic ethanol is not quite a reality yet. Did you know that if you count all the taxpayer subsidies given to oil companies you have been paying between $5 and $15 a gallon for gas?

The U.S. gov't laws against imported agriculture (especially corn, but also peanuts, sugarcane, and so on) along with agriculture subsidies do far more to cause starvation in poor countries than using food for fuel.

IMO, the effect of food-for-fuel is so small in comparison, we should focus all our attention on ending agriculture import bans, tariffs, quotas, along with subsidies. These policies are relics from the past that need to end a.s.a.p. Politicians are unwilling to confront the issue however (like drug war reform) and every 5-10 years, another agriculture bill passes through congress with hardly any objection.

One of these bills passed not too many years ago, I remember watching cspan at the time, and included in the Ag. bill was funding for foot stamp programs and huge amounts of pork spending. So any politician that spoke up against the bill was labeled as opposing the food stamp program. *facepalm*

But I agree with Bob, the author should do more to offer her own analysis and opinion. I like corn ethanol, I think with imported corn it could drop to $0.50 per galleon. I don't buy the argument it is a net-energy loss. Maybe at first, but not anymore. Plus efficiency will likely continue to increase. (If we let the market-pricing do the job and stop subsidizing the whole process)

At the end of the article I hadn't learned anything.

I still think making food out of fuel raises the price of that food and causes starvation in countries that depend on a low price for that produce.

I still think that corn to ethanol uses too much energy to make it.

When I read something I like to learn something. In this article all I learned was that an organization that is paid for by the ethanol producers is defending the ethanol producers.

Did I learn that they had a point? No.

Did I learn that they didn't make a point? No.

I know the corn-ethanol producers don't like it when people say corn-ethanol is bad, but everyone knew that already.