Bendheim, Don't Break 'Em

However, I was a bit concerned by the suggestion that ethanol has a net energy deficit. One study suggests there is an energy deficit, while many studies show there is a net energy balance of 25 percent-35 percent. I don't know about you, but if I could put $1 in and get $1.25 to $1.35 out every year, I would be ecstatic. In addition, most of this corn would be raised anyway, so counting the energy to raise it seems inappropriate to me. Ethanol largely just creates an additional market that raises prices for farmers.

Some criticism is justified. We are all investing in ethanol's future through tax subsidies, and E85 does result in lower fuel efficiencies. We are subsidizing normal gas as well. We consume 160 billion gallons of gas per year in the United States and have spent $300 billion in Iraq so far. That works out to just less than $2 per gallon. For now, a subsidy is a requirement as we facilitate the adoption of big oil, which would rather just sell their refined product. Ethanol will provide as much as 5 percent of our fuel needs within 18 to 24 months as plants continue to come on-line. Five percent is not a solution, but it is a first step. We will not eliminate the need for oil, but we can position ourselves to lighten the blow of an energy shortage.

Unless you are against everything, you have to support something. Marc Paulson,
Overland Park

As a sports-car guy who uses premium for the octane, I really hope Kansas steers clear of Missouri's decision to add ethanol to all fuels in the state. I actually heard a representative from Missouri say, "Why not get rid of the premium pump in favor of E85?" Because some of us need the octane for our performance vehicles, that's why! Jim Graven,
Olathe