The effort, time, and money our country is wasting in the attempt to refine the process of Ethanol production from fruits (corn, wheat, soybean, artichoke, etc.) is ridiculous. If Ethanol has a future it's going to come from cellulosic sources, and how much federal aid is going that way? Even so I don't see how Ethanol hysteria serves to promote the obvious need to move towards a sustainable society, rather I view Ethanol as a mechanism to prop up the status quo for a few more years.

Gotcha. Obviously corn is just short-sighted BS from politicians who need the agricultural vote and the campaign contributions from the agri-chemical corporations.

Still, regardless of crop source, ETOH is not going to be a major player in solving energy or global warming problems, for the many reasons listed in this thread and especially in the OP-linked article. Not now, not ever, IMO.

Give the man a Havana! I swear that 90% of what goes down in this country is nothing but politics, which is run by money. As long as they can make a buck off of it they will regardless of the consequences or if it is even feasible. Just like the big push for hydrogen, why all you do is fill your car up with water:rolleyes: :D

Aaron:)

The effort, time, and money our country is wasting in the attempt to refine the process of Ethanol production from fruits (corn, wheat, soybean, artichoke, etc.) is ridiculous. If Ethanol has a future it's going to come from cellulosic sources, and how much federal aid is going that way? Even so I don't see how Ethanol hysteria serves to promote the obvious need to move towards a sustainable society, rather I view Ethanol as a mechanism to prop up the status quo for a few more years.

The problem with cellulosic sources is recycling, 95% of a corn plant is stock, roots and cob, at the end of the season, after the combine has gone through, the stock,roots and often the cob, is left in the field, where it is can be plowed under, this returns the nutrients from the majority of the plant back to the soil, next years crop then requires a small amount of fertilizers to create a new corn plant. Cellulosic sources, take the entire plant, so you need a lot more chemical soil enhancement to get next years crop.

The problem with cellulosic sources is recycling, 95% of a corn plant is stock, roots and cob, at the end of the season, after the combine has gone through, the stock,roots and often the cob, is left in the field, where it is can be plowed under, this returns the nutrients from the majority of the plant back to the soil, next years crop then requires a small amount of fertilizers to create a new corn plant. Cellulosic sources, take the entire plant, so you need a lot more chemical soil enhancement to get next years crop.

The hottest candidate that I can think of is switchgrass. This is a domestic plant that requires no fertilization year after year. If memory serves, yields are something in excess of tenfold over corn. Doesn't change the equation much nor my original point.

The hottest candidate that I can think of is switchgrass. This is a domestic plant that requires no fertilization year after year. If memory serves, yields are something in excess of tenfold over corn. Doesn't change the equation much nor my original point.

Every plant takes some nutrients from the soil, which is why traditional farming often used animal dung to enhance fields, and you wouldn't plant the same thing in the same field, two years in a row, and why often a field would be given a rest every so many years. Organic farmers still do it this way, and why they often have a larger variety of stuff at the farmers market.

Back to point, planting large amounts of switchgrass for years on end, will simply wear out the soil, and gather a lot of pests, so they need petroleum based chemical fertilizers and pesticides to make it work, even though it's a native plant. Ethanol doesn't solve the problem, that the low efficiency of the automobile creates.