Cornfed, not corn fueled, is the way to go

Why shouldn’t we try to replace a major part of our oil imports with domestically produced corn-derived ethanol?

Why shouldn’t we try to replace a major part of our oil imports with domestically produced corn-derived ethanol?
Let me count the reasons:
First, to me it makes little sense to use a key food crop to drive our SUVs and other motor vehicles, and I have to wonder if it is moral.
Rising demand for corn for ethanol production has greatly reduced U.S. corn exports and contributed to a worldwide increase in corn prices. For example, on Jan. 30 this year, corn was selling for just over $4 a bushel, up from $2.55 on Sept. 15, 2006.
In parts of Latin and South America, and in parts of Africa, corn is a staple in the diets of the poor. The rise in the price of corn around the world already is causing difficulties for poor people. In Mexico, the rising price of corn tortillas is causing concern about potential political unrest. The cost of raising chickens and eggs, other foods grown by the poor, also has increased in many countries because of the higher cost of corn.
According to a 2001 study by David Pimintel of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., the average U.S. automobile would need about 852 gallons of pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) to travel 10,000 miles.
That much ethanol would require 11 acres of corn to produce, the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.
No doubt ethanol production has become more efficient in the past six years, but the figures give an idea of the agricultural demands of corn-based ethanol production.
As it is, ethanol production took 20% of the U.S. corn crop in 2006.
If all the corn grown in the United States in 2006 had been used for ethanol production, it would have replaced just 12% of U.S. gasoline consumption.
Second, the diversion of corn into ethanol production also has begun to affect food prices in the United States. The higher prices for corn have rubbed off on wheat, and Kellogg Co., the Battle Creek, Mich., breakfast cereal manufacturer, reported lower profits last week, in part because of higher corn and wheat prices.
Likewise, the higher corn prices are making themselves felt in the production of beef, chicken, eggs and milk in this country. It also has begun to affect the prices of products that use high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
Third, the conversion of corn into ethanol requires lots of energy, mostly natural gas, so natural gas prices also are sure to rise as the stream of ethanol plants in gas production continues to rise.
Fourth, corn is a relatively inefficient source of ethanol compared with some other crops, such as sugar cane and even potatoes.
Almost 900 gallons of ethanol can be produced from an acre of sugarcane in Hawaii, and 555 gallons from an acre in Louisiana. Approximately 300 gallons can be produced from an acre of potatoes compared with 214 gallons from an acre of corn.
Sugar cane is a far less critical food than corn. Why not encourage the growth of more sugar cane in Hawaii and the Southern states as a source of ethanol?
Fifth, the demand for corn for ethanol is likely to swing many farmers away from the production of other crops, such as soy beans and even cotton — raising the prices of those crops.
In addition, corn farmers are likely to take land out of the Conservation Reserve Program, designed to help stem erosion of vulnerable land, to put it into the production of corn.
Clearly, we must reduce our reliance on foreign oil — if only for security reasons. But we should not put so many eggs into the corn-based-ethanol basket.
Perhaps some of the subsidies that have been used to stimulate the corn-based-ethanol industry should be directed to other sources of ethanol, and other sources of energy, such as nuclear, solar and wind power.
Maybe I’m way off base, but I just don’t see corn-based ethanol as the primary solution to our energy dilemma.