I Say C2H6O; You Say C2H5OH

I take umbrage at the idea that I’m addicted to oil. I’m not. My SUV is the addict. But even with peak oil and Iran going nuclear, don’t you get a little nervous when politicians roll out tired energy schemes and pretend they’re the solution?

Take ethanol, which doesn’t sell without huge taxpayer subsidies, and can't spur private investment even with its avowed blue-sky potential. Unless you believe studies that play shell games with the system boundaries, it isn't economical, and won’t be in six years, if ever. But, hey, voters don’t know that.

There should be more articles like this:

Touting ethanol is certainly good politics - particularly in Midwestern corn-growing states that already welcome significant taxpayer subsidies for ethanol. But ethanol isn't necessarily good economics.

Researchers from Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley analyzed energy input-yield ratios and reported last July that producing ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more energy than can be derived from the resulting fuel - the switch grass and wood chips ratios are worse (45 percent and 57 percent.)

An energy source can be promising without positive net energy, but to use politician-speak, we can do better.