The reverse of UN's disastrous "oil for food" program: Ethanol uses 40% of US Corn Crop

220mph, “Simplistically put the cellulosic process is a souped up version of natural processes. There are MANY feedstocks suitable for ethanol and/or bio-fuel production … trees, switchgrasses, yard waste, garbage, and many more …. they are all RENEWABLE resources.”
Your magic energy sources all sound great! Let me know when they are economically viable without government subsidies, mandates and tariffs.

Eric (skeptic) says:
March 8, 2011 at 8:12 am
John Q. Galt, a little late to the thread, were you at an ethanol drinking party? I can tell by the glazed talking points. Please provide a bit of substance if possible.
Hey Eric, go eat some corn smut. You can’t handle substance. You ethanol-bashers are as qualified to discuss agronomics as the first semester college hippies with Huffington Post blogs are qualified to discuss the carbon cycle.
Poptech says:
March 8, 2011 at 9:11 am
His credentials are more than that
Uh, no they aren’t. How is a career in eco-nazi policy advocacy something a AGW skeptic suddenly gets hard nipples for?
Not to mention his paper had eight co-authors, such as
Ah yes, the best non-agronomics science taxpayer money can buy. You sound just like a standard eco-tard with your appeal to authority.
Facts:
Corn produces 7,571 lbs dry matter per acre on 33% of grain producing farmland
Soybeans produce 2,296 lbs dry matter per acre on 30% of grain producing farmland (less food)
Wheat produces 1,920 lbs dry matter per acre on 23% of grain producing farmland (less food)
Wheat is grown for various reasons none of which is due to efficient production of food.
Wheat is tasty.
Wheat makes tasty bread.
Wheat is a winter cover crop and a co-product of hay crops.
Wheat is a cool season crop to hedge against main season crops.
Can’t grow corn.
Soybeans are the miracle crop. Soybeans are 40% high-quality protein and 20% oil. Soybeans are more expensive by 300% relative to corn. Better be some damn high-quality protein.
Any time we can replace more expensive crops is a good time. Growing corn instead of soybeans or wheat and then converting that corn into ethanol and protein replaces the services both soybeans and wheat provide to the marketplace: balancing the high-yielding, high-starch corn. When distillers grains are fed to livestock other sources of protein and energy are not fed to the livestock. This is called replacement. Because these other feed sources are not fed to livestock they are not produced. This frees up land for the crop that will be fed to livestock: corn. Corn is a more efficient crop to produce. Soybeans and wheat incure opportunity costs which are obvious when average yields are compared to corn. Opportunity costs are nothingness. Use it or lose it. That large empty space below corn’s 7,500 lbs av. DM yield is what nothingness looks like. Because we live in an Idiocracy where retarded children grow up feeling good about themselves simply because teacher gave them a banana sticker when they fail yet another test, people think not creating something is better than creating something and using it in a way that doesn’t immediately assist some crying African baby.

[snip . . attack the problem not the person]

Poptech says:
March 8, 2011 at 7:32 pm
220mph, “There is no claim, never has been one, that ethanol will ever result in energy “independence” …. the claim is ethanol and other alternative energy fuels REDUCE our DEPENDENCE on foreign oils. They also reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.”
Who cares about reducing our use of economically viable foreign sources of energy? We are more depend on foreign countries for computer equipment manufacturing than oil and our modern economy will not work without computers anymore than it will oil. Who cares about reducing our reliance on the most economically viable source of transportation fuel (oil)?
Your position is our reliance on foreign oil is no problem whatsoever? Do you read the papers? Watch the news? Have you checked oil prices or bought gas lately? You don’t think the oil price spikes because of the unrest in the Middle East is anything of concern? Your position becomes increasingly silly the more you go on …
“Every gal of ethanol DOES reduce our use of foreign oil”
So does more people riding bikes and walking.
So notwithstanding your red herring and attempt at misdirection, you actually admit and AGREE that using ethanol reduces use of foreign oil
“Every gal of ethanol used DOES reduce our use of finite fossil fuels.”
All energy sources are “finite”, the Sun is “finite”, Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (Video) (5min) (ABC News)
No rational human being believe there is an infinite inexhaustable supply of fossil fuels on this planet. I do NOT think we are in imminent danger of running out, and I DO think such claims are over-exaggerated. I also absolutely think we should be drilling for our own oil.
That said to take the position we should ignore energy conservation and ignore alternate fuel options is simply ridiculous.
“Notwithstanding the soundly and thoroughly “dis-proven” (since I don’t want to continue the hair-splitting with poptech over “rebutted/refuted”) claims of Pimetel, Patzek and Searchinger – who are each outliers when compared to the multitude of other studies and reports – every gallon of ethanol used creates more energy than is consumed in making it.”
The papers I have presented do not have published criticisms where the author failed to respond or conceded. If the criticisms are valid they would be published.
ANY person who has researched the issue of net energy balance in even the least detail will know or find that Pimentel and Patzek have been the extreme virtually single outlier since the early 1990’s.
A large number of other scientific reports and studies have come to dramatically different conclusions – all remarkably similar. Pimetel and Patzek – and Searchinger as well – stand virtually alone in their findings – while a myriad of other reports and studies all find similar results – at the opposite end of the spectrum from the claims of P&P and Searchinger.
Additionally – there ARE a number of reports, reviews and the like that address the specific problems with P&P and Searchinger’s claims.
Just a few of them – note these are specific rebuttals – there are at least a dozen separate papers and studies published that perform the same analysis on net energy yields as P&P do – and virtually all come up with conslusions dramatically different than P&P – all that I am aware of find a positive net energy balance:
Michael S. Graboski of Colorado School of Mines and the National Corn Growers Association is one of the biggest challengers to Pimentel’s studies and conclusions:
“A Rebuttal to ‘Ethanol Fuels: Energy, Economics and Environmental Impacts’ by D. Pimentel”. Dr. Michael S. Graboski of the Colorado School of Mines and National Corn Growers Association – Says Pimentel’s findings are based on out-of-date statistics (22 year-old data) and are contradicted by a recent US Department of Agriculture (USDA) study.
“Comparison of USDA and Pimentel Net Energy Balances”. Dr. Michael S. Graboski Colorado School of Mines. Retrieved 9.30.07 — “The USDA analysis clearly shows, contrary to the Pimentel paper, that US farming and ethanol manufacture are very energy efficient, and that the energy content of ethanol delivered to the consumer is significantly larger than the total fossil energy inputs required to produce it. USDA estimates that ethanol facilities produce at least 1.23 units of energy as ethanol for every fossil BTU included considering all energy inputs related to corn farming, corn transport, ethanol production, and distribution and transport of finished ethanol.”
Michael Wang and Dan Santini have composed multiple studies rebutting Pimentel’s findings:
“Corn-Based Ethanol Does Indeed Achieve Energy Benefits”. Michael Wang and Dan Santini. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. August, 2001 – “Prof. David Pimentel’s 1998 assessment of corn ethanol concluded that corn ethanol achieved a negative energy balance (which is usually defined as the energy in a product minus energy used to produce the product). Unfortunately, his assessment lacked timeliness in that it relied on data appropriate to conditions of the 1970s and early 1980s, but clearly not the 1990s… With up-to-date information on corn farming and ethanol production and treating ethanol co-products fairly, we have concluded that corn-based ethanol now has a positive energy balance of about 20,000 Btu per gallon.”
Michael Wang and Dan Santini of the Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory composed analyses on energy and emission impacts of corn ethanol from 1997 through 1999, which was said by one source to have debunked Pimenel’s 1998 study.
They argue that Pimentel had been recycling his already-ancient data for at least 10 years.
“NCGA Refutes Claims of Energy Imbalance of Ethanol”. National Corn Growers Association. Retrieved 9.30.07 – “Pimentel clearly does not understand the economics of ethanol manufacture” — a full rebuttal, from the US National Corn Growers Association.

“And every gallon of ethanol produced and used decreases emissions and carbon footprint.”
False, as I have shown repeatedly. BTW most people here really don’t care about the ridiculous notion of their “carbon footprint”.
No you have not shown any such thing. Once again – you show a SINGLE paper – Searchinger – which is not supported by any other similar work I am aware of – while, as with net energy balance – there is a large body of work by many reputable sources – that clearly shows a reduction in emissions including GHG’s … which show ethanol benefits the environment in many significant ways.
And these studies also show that the positive environmental benefits are dramatically increased, as is the net energy balane, when cellulosic ethanol is the process
“The complaints over the subsidies are in the big picture really quite ridiculous. The people who complain about them have not bothered in my opinion to understand them – or place them in context.”
What is ridiculous is those who defend government welfare for corn farmers, government protectionism for the inefficient Ethanol industry and preventing consumer choice. Ethanol proponents do not want consumers to have the freedom to choose what fuel they can buy. It is green energy fascism.
No – it is a decision made after weighing all the evidence by a government of duly elected representatives. If you do not like it there is a simple solution. Vote the buggers out. Us conservatives just did that – and in a big way. And we are seeing the results of that public vote – with newly elected politicians stepping up and some making hard choices and taking unpopular hard positions.
“The 54 cent TARIFF is a TAX – which generates revenue for the US – regardless it has all but been eliminated … ”
Taxes are bad for the economy and bad for the consumer. The government gets plenty of revenue they don’t need anymore.
How simplistically silly. Its like arguing with a rock. Taxes are NOT inherently good or bad. You clearly do not understand the purpose of the tariff in the first place.
“Brazil exported almost no ethanol to the US in 2010, and is now importing ethanol themselves. The majority of the small amount of ethanol we import pays NO tariff thru exemptions in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the CAFTA agreements.”
No kidding Brazil did not export any ethanol because they cannot afford to with the tariff! If we import almost no ethanol and the ethanol we do import does not pay the tariff how is the tariff generating any revenue? You are like a perpetual contradiction.
another grossly uninformed statement – yet it doesn’t stop you from rushing to your preconceived judgment. To claim Brazil didn’t export because they cannot afford to do so because of the tariff’s is, sorry … just laughable. First, the tariff costs Brazil virtually nothing – they paid 54 cents per gallon to the US but were paid the blenders credit which offset the tariff.
Second – Brazil does not export because they do not HAVE ethanol available to export. They are current IMPORTING ethanol to meet their own needs.
And had you bothered (or cared it seems) to try and understand, or done a little research on you own, you would have learned why the ethanol we do import pays no tariff (CBI and CAFTA exempts Carribbean and Central American country’s) and that indeed I made the point (see below) the tariff is NOT collecting hardly any money. It may still be on the books but it is not coming into play as there is little ethanol exported to US by country’s subject to the tariff.
“We consumers paid virtually nothing in import tariffs this year or last.”
Yes we did!!! They paid higher prices for gasoline and E85 because of cheaper ethanol that was NOT imported. Do you even understand economics?
Once again totally false. First there was little or no ethanol available for export from country’s subject to the tariff. There was no cheaper ethanol supply available.
More importantly – the claim of cheaper ethanol is effectively a fallacy. It is not simply true. Which I have already explained above. You have been clear you want ALL subsidies and tariffs eliminated. When you do that – if you eliminate 54 cent tariff paid to US by Brazil and eliminate 45 cent VEETC blenders credit paid to Brazil by the US – then Brazilian ethanol – even IF there was some available for export – would be almost exactly the same price as US ethanol…. there is NO “cheap” ethanol in Brazil
“Seems a very small price to pay for the benefits received.”
No one except your fellow green energy fascist friends care about your emotional reasoning.
And that shows your true self. You cannot intelligently refute or rebut. So you call names. To call me a green fascist is so gigantically wrong all I can do is laugh.

Ethanol byproducts have a number of possible uses …. the distillers dried grains are used a a high energy, high quality animal feed … a very large quantity of DDGs is created with ethanol manufacturing process …. using these DDGs byproducts is generally considered superior to feed cattle corn – which they are physiologically ill suited to process.
Feeding DDGs also reduces significantly the farm lands required to grow animal feed.
Additionally studies have shown hown that DDGs have potential as an organic fertilizer and for weed control
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080712143153.htm
Yet another study shows DDGs could be used as a non-petroleum-based filler in plastics – DDGS have a high fiber content and a molecular structure suitable for binding—two attributes that make it a candidate as a filler in plastics
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080629075630.htm
Another study also shows that DDGs could be used for food – The new foods could include cookies, breads and pastas that are low in calories and carbohydrates, but high in protein and fiber. The cookies are smaller than those made with all-wheat flour because the high-protein/low-starch combination keeps the cookie batter from spreading as easily as batter made with 100 percent wheat. But the batter bakes consistently. The main problem right now is appeal. The fermentation process used to make ethanol often imparts a bitter off-flavor and odor to distiller’s grains. But DDGs flour is often more nutritious than regular flour, because ethanol processing tends to concentrate the grain’s protein and fiber three- to nine-fold.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625221440.htm
Used of this byproduct could well alleviate the claims about land use – expansion of acreage – and about ethanol replacing food … as of today it appears the primary issue stopping use for food is taste. Starving people each a lotta things it seems that don’t taste that good … but I also suspect intelligent people can overcome the taste issue with a little effort.
NONE of my comments are intended to imply I’m a significant supporter of corn ethanol. I am not. I DO believe it is, within limits, a good interim PARTIAL solution … but I also believe that cellulosic ethanol along with various other biofuels from things like waste, algae etc will be a much more significant solution

Tony,
Biodiesel receives a $1.00/gallon tax credit–and this credit goes directly to the producer. I do not know of any alternative energy research, development, operations that do not receive some form of grant, subsidy, tax credit, or mandate at the state/federal level.

Oops! Hydrolysis.

Vince,
I really don’t mean to be specious here–but I am very glad to be corrected that the Navy, DOD, DOE, and the 2009 economic stimulus act are not a part of the Federal government.
Otherwise, I am glad that you mentioned this project–I vaguely remembered reading something about it several years ago–but you prompted me to look it up—Thanks!

Looks like there are legitimate problems with Ethanol and Small Engines,
Is There A Killer In Your Boat? (Boating Magazine)
“To ascertain ethanol’s effect on performance, we ran separate tests of a 2008 Boston Whaler 180 Dauntless with the 150 hp Verado, once on E10 and again on ethanol-free gasoline. The ethanol-powered motor showed a slight fall-off in our performance tests. At maximum throttle, the engine running on ethanol dropped only 10 rpm from when it ran on gasoline. Acceleration time from a standstill to 30 mph was off by a 10th of a second — about 2 percent.
Our fuel-flow numbers resulted in a similar gap between ethanol and straight gas. Economy fell off with E10 at a rate of a half-gallon per hour difference at 3,000 rpm, or $2 for every cruising hour.
Mercury engineers weren’t surprised at our performance or fuel economy results. The company’s engines are tuned to hit horsepower, torque and fuel-burn targets with either E10 or unblended gasoline. “We’re actually calibrating our engines slightly richer to protect the customer who burns E10,” says Tim Reid, director of engine design and development for both Mercury and MerCruiser. This protection is needed because E10 contains oxygen molecules not present in straight gasoline. For a preset ratio of air and fuel, E10 burns leaner, increasing cylinder and exhaust temperatures. Adding a bit more fuel to richen the mix cools things down with E10, but wastes a bit of fuel when burning straight gasoline. […]
Many problems have arisen because ethanol is a polar solvent — electrically charged to make or break chemical bonds much the way magnets repel or attract each other. Gasoline is comprised of mostly nonpolar compounds.
“I think it’s the interaction that’s causing the problems,” says Frank Kelley, Mercury marine’s fuels and lubricants specialist. This interaction strips years of gasoline varnish from the inside of fuel tanks, rapidly clogging fuel filters. It also rankles engineers who for decades assumed strong polar solvents like ethanol wouldn’t find their way into fuel. High-end builders, for example, preferred fiberglass fuel tanks, since they would — and did — outlast aluminum tanks many times over. But ethanol breaks down polyester resins, destroying tanks built in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and ruining attached engines in just weeks. […]
Ethanol does have innocent victims. My brother-in-law filled his 10-year-old 30-foot center console with E10 and then ran to his slip. A few days later my wife and I ran the boat barely two miles before deteriorated hoses choked its 225 Optimax outboards to a sputter. While the boat shouldn’t have fallen victim to ethanol, our Florida Keys vacation was a fatality. The inner liner of the fuel hose simply fell apart, clogging the fuel system. Jim Lawrence of J&B marine in Tavernier, Florida, had seen it before. “I found particles and pieces in the [fuel] filter,” Lawrence says. “Particles from the fuel tank should be flat, but these had a radius to them. When I pulled the hose off, it was pretty obvious.” In fact, rubber hose deteriorations are plaguing Floridians on boats only three years old.
So why does ethanol attack supposedly resistant hoses? “Ethanol changes the chemical environment,” Kelley says. Years of soaking in ordinary gasoline and exposure to heat, cold and sun also affect hose chemistry unpredictably. “It would be awfully difficult to replicate [those conditions in a laboratory],” Kelley says. Still, he doesn’t see this as the likely cause for hose problems in South Florida. Instead, he blames phase separation, which occurs because polarized water molecules bond with polarized ethanol. In small quantities, the two stay suspended in gasoline, but add too much water and the mixture separates and settles. “We’ve always had phase separation. When you don’t have ethanol, it can take a few parts per million to get phase separation,” Kelley explains, meaning water in the bottom of gasoline tanks years ago also contained polar compounds from the gasoline. “With E10, instead of a few hundred parts per million of something coming out of the gasoline, it’s more like 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 parts per million. There’s no place for that amount of material to hide.”
Kelley says the resulting cocktail expands anywhere from two to eight times beyond the original volume of water. “It gets sucked up into the engine. It doesn’t burn, and the combination of water and ethanol is extremely corrosive.”
Phase separation might explain the geographic or sporadic nature of some problems. Two years ago on Long Island, for example, boats that had been running E10 for years suddenly had hose problems identical to those in the Keys. That also happened to be a particularly rainy summer. South Florida is certainly prime territory for water in fuel, but problems occurred even when tanks seemed fine. The key might be that phase separation is temperature dependent. Lake water and seawater buffer temperatures in fuel tanks, but fuel in hoses, filters, carburetors, fuel pumps and vapor separator tanks may phase-separate when temperatures drop — these are costly components that are inexplicably failing on boats using E10. “You’re getting a concentration of all things that damage polymers,” Kelley says. […]
South Florida also has long had problems with water in fuel. “My phone has been ringing off the hook for 35 years. Ethanol just made it ring more,” says Skip Trent, whose business is removing contaminants from gas and diesel tanks from Miami through the Florida Keys. […]
Unfortunately, when E10 phase-separates, it loses one or two octane points, so it has to be discarded. “With [unblended] gasoline, I could clean your fuel and tanks and return the good fuel. You’d lose maybe 10 gallons,” Trent says. “Now, if I test it and it [contains] ethanol, I’m going to dispose of [all] this material.”“

220mph, “Your position is our reliance on foreign oil is no problem whatsoever? Do you read the papers? Watch the news? Have you checked oil prices or bought gas lately? You don’t think the oil price spikes because of the unrest in the Middle East is anything of concern? Your position becomes increasingly silly the more you go on …”
No, I have no problem with using economically viable foreign sources of energy. Why would I want to pay more for energy? Do you even know where our oil comes from?
– The largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Canada (EIA)
– The second largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Mexico (EIA)
– Only 14% of U.S. oil imports come from the Middle East (EIA)
“So notwithstanding your red herring and attempt at misdirection, you actually admit and AGREE that using ethanol reduces use of foreign oil”
Your argument is so absurdly ridiculous. Yes using a more expensive gallon of ethanol that reduces fuel economy, has to be subsidized, mandated and protected by tariffs reduces the use of a gallon of economically viable foreign oil.
Using any other fuel besides foreign oil would reduce the use of foreign oil, that does not mean it makes sense or is economically viable. Why not just ban foreign oil all together? That would REALLY reduce our use!
“That said to take the position we should ignore energy conservation and ignore alternate fuel options is simply ridiculous.”
Who is ignoring them? What part of economically viable do you not understand? I take it you never heard of Jevons Paradox?
The Efficiency Paradox (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)
The Jevons Paradox (CounterPunch)
“ANY person who has researched the issue of net energy balance in even the least detail will know or find that Pimentel and Patzek have been the extreme virtually single outlier since the early 1990′s.”
Incorrect,
A Comprehensive Energy and Economic Assessment of Biofuels: When “Green” Is Not Enough
(Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, Volume 20, Number 1, pp. 71-106, January-February 2001)
– Sergio Ulgiati
“I conclude that the biofuel option on a large scale is not a viable alternative based on economic, energy and eMergy (amount of available energy [exergy] of one form [usually solar] that is directly or indirectly required to provide a given flow or storage of exergy or matter) analyses of the case study data and estimated possible improvement of yield and efficiency. This is true for developed countries due to their huge energy demand compared with what biofuel options are able to supply as well as for developing countries due to the low yield of their agriculture and competition for land and water for food production.”
“Additionally – there ARE a number of reports, reviews and the like that address the specific problems with P&P and Searchinger’s claims.”
They are either not peer-reviewed or are not published criticisms of the papers I presented. If their criticisms were valid they should have submitted them to the journal so the authors had a chance to respond to them.
“No you have not shown any such thing. Once again – you show a SINGLE paper – Searchinger – which is not supported by any other similar work I am aware of – while, as with net energy balance – there is a large body of work by many reputable sources – that clearly shows a reduction in emissions including GHG’s … which show ethanol benefits the environment in many significant ways.”
Incorrect,
Effects of US Maize Ethanol on Global Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Estimating Market-mediated Responses
(BioScience, Volume 60, Number 3, pp. 223-231, March 2010)
– Thomas W. Hertel et al.
“Releases of greenhouse gases (GHG) from indirect land-use change triggered by crop-based biofuels have taken center stage in the debate over the role of biofuels in climate policy and energy security. This article analyzes these releases for maize ethanol produced in the United States. Factoring market-mediated responses and by-product use into our analysis reduces cropland conversion by 72% from the land used for the ethanol feedstock. Consequently, the associated GHG release estimated in our framework is 800 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule (MJ); 27 grams per MJ per year, over 30 years of ethanol production, or roughly a quarter of the only other published estimate of releases attributable to changes in indirect land use. Nonetheless, 800 grams are enough to cancel out the benefits that corn ethanol has on global warming, thereby limiting its potential contribution in the context of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard.”
What is ridiculous is those who defend government welfare for corn farmers, government protectionism for the inefficient Ethanol industry and preventing consumer choice. Ethanol proponents do not want consumers to have the freedom to choose what fuel they can buy. It is green energy fascism.
“No – it is a decision made after weighing all the evidence by a government of duly elected representatives. If you do not like it there is a simple solution. Vote the buggers out. Us conservatives just did that – and in a big way. And we are seeing the results of that public vote – with newly elected politicians stepping up and some making hard choices and taking unpopular hard positions.”
It is not “conservative” to support socialist economic policies, subsidies, mandates and tariffs are economically illiterate populist and progressive ideas.
“How simplistically silly. Its like arguing with a rock. Taxes are NOT inherently good or bad. You clearly do not understand the purpose of the tariff in the first place.”
Taxes are always bad for whomever in the economy is taxed. They are only good for the government. They are thus always negative towards economic growth. I understand tariffs incredibly well. They are a protectionist measure to protect inefficient businesses from competition with more efficient ones. I do not support protecting inefficient businesses from competition nor do I support the result which is increased consumer prices for the product that the tariff is applied to.
“another grossly uninformed statement – yet it doesn’t stop you from rushing to your preconceived judgment. To claim Brazil didn’t export because they cannot afford to do so because of the tariff’s is, sorry … just laughable. First, the tariff costs Brazil virtually nothing – they paid 54 cents per gallon to the US but were paid the blenders credit which offset the tariff.”
What are you talking about? Receiving the 45 cent blenders credit does not offset a 99 cent advantage to U.S. Ethanol producers who are not paying the 54 cent tariff. Brazilian ethanol producers are at a 54 cent disadvantage to U.S. ethanol producers due to the tariff.
“First there was little or no ethanol available for export from country’s subject to the tariff. There was no cheaper ethanol supply available.”
Of course no one would invest in increasing exports when the tariff makes that venture not economically viable. Don’t you understand that any such tariff discourages investment in exports to a country for the product a tariff is applied to?
“More importantly – the claim of cheaper ethanol is effectively a fallacy. It is not simply true. ”
Then there would be no need for the tariff.

Interesting Note:
I’ve discovered another major reason for the surge in popularity for cellulosic ethanol. From Wikipedia’s Ethanol fuel in the United States entry, “Tax Credits” section (needs some updating, bold added):

Blenders of transportation fuels receive a US$0.45 tax credit for each gallon of ethanol that is blended with gasoline, regardless of the feedstock; small producers receive an additional US$0.10 on the first 15 million gallons produced; and producers of cellulosic ethanol receive credits up to US$1.01. Tax credits to promote the production and consumption of biofuels date back to the 1970s, and the current credits are based on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, and are due to expire on December 31, 2010.[29]

Reference 29: “Using Biofuel Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and Environmental Policy Goals”, Congressional Budget Office, July 2010 (link to pdf).
Those numbers are found in Table 1, on pdf pg 12, document pg 2. Some clarifications found there:

A supplemental credit of 10 cents per gallon is currently available on the first 15 million gallons of ethanol made by “small producers” (those with a total annual productive capacity not in excess of 60 million gallons).

and

The cellulosic biofuel credit is $1.01 per gallon except that for cellulosic ethanol, the credit is reduced by the credits in effect for the mixture of ethanol with gasoline and for small producers. Accordingly, producers of cellulosic ethanol get the reduced cellulosic biofuel credit but are also eligible for the ethanol tax credit of $0.45 and may also qualify for the $0.10 credit for small producers.

How does this all add up? From document pg VIII, pdf pg 10, among “CBO’s main conclusions”:

After adjustments for the different energy contents of the various biofuels and the petroleum fuel used to produce them, producers of ethanol made from corn receive 73 cents to provide an amount of biofuel with the energy equivalent to that in one gallon of gasoline. On a similar basis, producers of cellulosic ethanol receive $1.62, and producers of biodiesel receive $1.08.

But that $1.62 for a gallon gasoline equivalent isn’t the whole story.

The costs to taxpayers of using a biofuel to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon are $1.78 for ethanol made from corn and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol.

From here, in case you were wondering, is mention that the cellulosic ethanol tax credit was also extended to 2012. (BTW, the USDA is providing loan guarantees for cellulosic ethanol developers, for loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars. With loan providers thusly shielded from losses due to loan defaults, speculative lending increases.)
Thus it is noted:
1. Cellulosic ethanol receives about 2 1/4 times the subsidy of corn-based ethanol. That alone is a major incentive to develop and produce cellulosic ethanol.
2. If a US taxpayer at the pump could decide between using gasoline or cellulosic ethanol, not only would they be paying $3 for every gallon of gasoline they decide to not buy, they’d still be also paying for the cellulosic ethanol they buy. That’s a pretty hefty cost for something the CBO concluded still isn’t commercially viable even with the $1.01/gallon tax credit.