Reader comments
Walter E. Williams: Ethanol is a cruel hoax on the American consumer

Ethanol from Corn is not Good | 12:38 a.m. March 12, 2008

One of the few times I agree with Walter Williams. Ethanol from corn is incredibly inefficient. It takes 2 gallons of oil to create the 3 gallons of ethanol. In the process the price of food goes way up.

Brazil does this much more efficiently and we should be importing this from countries who have the ability do do this efficiently until we also develop the ability to do it efficiently.

Casey | 5:47 a.m. March 12, 2008

What we want in this country is to feel good about ourselves (its all about us). Results of our feeling good are not important. We see this in our education system and in many of our government programs. Ethanol is another example. It is a "feel good" fuel, but in the end not worth the cost. There are better ways.

Mahershalalhashbaz | 6:32 a.m. March 12, 2008

Walter Williams is the greatest mind in the news business in our time. No doubt about it. Genius!

Comments continue below

Timj | 6:51 a.m. March 12, 2008

Wow.
Can't believe this guy is actually making sense.
Ethanol is just a bad way to get votes in corn country.
There are better ways.

Marky | 6:55 a.m. March 12, 2008

Just an isolated anecdotal incident, but a 20 lb bag of wheat that was purchased just last year for about $4 is now $20. If Ethanol gets any more subsidized, hold on to your wallets.

lowonoil | 6:58 a.m. March 12, 2008

Attempting to trade away our food to save our cars just means we are in the "bargaining" phase of grief.

"As we stumble into the future of a permanent global energy crisis, an interesting delusional theme has taken shape among the public and virtually all our leaders in politics, business, and even science: the obsessive notion that it's all about keeping our cars running by other means, at all costs. This is very unfortunate because it will be a colossal act of futility." -James Howard Kunstler

Himself | 7:53 a.m. March 12, 2008

Agreed, given the choice of a tank of subsidized inefficient ethanol vs. a tank of gasoline the economically correct choice is the former.

Next up: the choice between a tank of ethanol and an empty tank.

Ron Draper | 8:03 a.m. March 12, 2008

This well written article laid out the case for stopping our subsidy of ethanol. We need to reduce fuel consumption, not substitute an ultimately more expensive alternative. We all need change our fuel consumption mindset.

Dave | 8:21 a.m. March 12, 2008

Unfortunatly none of the presidential candidates will do anything but make it worse.

Lew Jeppson | 8:51 a.m. March 12, 2008

Williams is right on. But, he and his fellow conservatives fail to understand that we are in this mess because of government's abandonment of the transportation market (which had supported private enterprise rail systems) in favor of massive subsidies to build roads. We won't corral global warming and energy dependence until we get back to a free market in transportation.

The Free Market | 10:14 a.m. March 12, 2008

Doesn't exist. The so-called "Free Market" is a myth, manipulated by the rich, for the rich. Utah's road-building legislature is so entangled with big contractors and developers that you might as well replace the Beehive with a Big Money Developer as the symbol of Utah. Just take a look at their "conflict of interest" statements sometime. Brazen.

wrz | 11:48 a.m. March 12, 2008

We need electric cars and photovoltaic panels to plug them in to. Electric cars can get forty miles on a charge... enough to get to work and back.

Kita Kazoo | 11:45 a.m. March 12, 2008

Considering the cost of war, how much does the oil from the middle east really cost?

Why are we waiting for the government to make changes? We need to be proactive.

For instance for a year now I walk to do my shopping (if it is within a mile of home) and I am capable of carrying it. I shop 2 or 3 times a week, so I can carry my groceries home.

But I only fill my gas tank once a month now.

I am now going to expand my limits to a mile and half and I am going to get a cart to pull.

We can make our own changes.

Remember to turn the thermostat down - Heating and cooling are about 80% of our nations total energy consumption.

Frederic | 12:10 p.m. March 12, 2008

>>"Remember to turn the thermostat down - Heating and cooling are about 80% of our nations total energy consumption."<<

Good suggestion. House shouldn't be over 68 degrees, if that, in the winter. Wear a sweater or heavy shirt if needed. No sense heating the entire house if all you need is the heat just around your body to keep you happy.

Gus | 12:24 p.m. March 12, 2008

What about hydrogen fuel cells? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. Honda just came out with a hydrogen powered car that is supposed to be great. Anybody know about these?

Mahonri | 12:53 p.m. March 12, 2008

I live in an area where 40 below zero happens often in winter and the 10% mixture of ethanol we fuel our vehicles with has NO freeze up problems at all. Efficient or not, the stuff does work well.

Worst part of the hoax | 1:38 p.m. March 12, 2008

The worst part is not that those in government are falling for this hoax and pushing it in their campaign speaches... it's that the government is BEHIND the hoax and they are the ones who can force it to happen (by making so many restrictions and taxes on everthing else that this is about the only option left).

Matthew | 2:14 p.m. March 12, 2008

Fuel cells have two problems right now. The first is safely storing enough hydrogen to keep going for a while. The second is the fact that there is no hydrogen just sitting around. It's not the most abundant element in the atmosphere, but one of the very least (<0.01%). You can create hydrogen from fossil fuels (doesn't bother me), or you can split water molecules with electricity. You still have to get that electricity from somewhere, and you'll never get back out all the energy you put in.

Get Active | 3:33 p.m. March 12, 2008

We all need to get active and stop the Federal government from subsidizing and promoting ethanol! It's an environmental and economic disaster, and it's in the Washington fast lane.

Write your congressman today.

wrz | 3:49 p.m. March 12, 2008

>>What about hydrogen fuel cells? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. Honda just came out with a hydrogen powered car that is supposed to be great. Anybody know about these?<< - Gus

The issue can be researched on the internet. But it's my understanding that it takes alotta energy to make hydrogen. Back to square one.

darwin from dixie | 3:52 p.m. March 12, 2008

It is a hoax. I've observed cars being ruined in Brazil by ethanol. Hybrid is a much better way to go.

l | 4:38 p.m. March 12, 2008

Make cars that don't weigh as much so it won't take as much energy to move them

re darwin from dixie | 3:52 p.m | 5:12 p.m. March 12, 2008

Cars can be ruined by ethanol only if they are not designed to use it. Todays cars built in America can use a 80% ethanol to 20% gasoline mix with no harm done to them.

That said, to put ethanol into gasoline made from corn is stupid. It is not efficient to produce either economically or energy wise. Until we can find an efficient way to do this we should be using ethanol from countries who can do it at a reasonable cost.

No only is it not efficient at the pump. It causes the cost of food to go up considerably.

bang for the buck | 5:30 p.m. March 12, 2008

This reminds me of the 1.00 of production I get for every 2.00 I pay in taxes. Ethanol is only slightly less efficient than the Federal bureaucracy

wrz | 8:50 p.m. March 12, 2008

>>Make cars that don't weigh as much so it won't take as much energy to move them<<

Utahns need big cars. Big families (more than two kids) can't fit into a four seater because all kids need to be in child seats which gobbles up the room. In the good old days when car seats were not required one could load several kids in a small car (sit on mom's lap, crowd in the back, etc). Hence the proliferation of big gas guzzling vans, SUVs, and the like to accommodate mandated car seats.

Anon | 9:41 p.m. March 12, 2008

The logical conclusion to your interventionist beliefs is the end of public electricity and cars, mandatory exercise programs, enforced caloric intake limits, along with the imposition of a 1-child-per-family law similar to china's.

Gary Brown | 9:11 a.m. March 13, 2008

And here is a quote from page 88 of the April 30, 2007, issue of Fortune Magazine: "The darling of the moment, ethanol is nowhere near economically competitive with gasoline (and may not be better enviromentally, because is a fuel and land-intensive to produce)".

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.