corn ethanol is better for drinking than driving (with). while the subsidies and the price supports and the tax advantages to growing corn has made several of my farmer relatives very very wealthy, the articles mostly don't enumerate some of the other costs that aren't as readily apparent. for one, federally subsidized crop insurance. even if any of several calamaties happen, they are guaranteed a profitable year. corporate welfare at its finest (most of them are welfare-despising republicans who badmouth "freeloading moochers" at family events... although the most vocal of them received 1.1 million in subsidies in the past few years, there is a website that publishes those facts)
the main unseen cost not in those articles is the cost to the aquifers of those on the edge of the growing range. when wheat was farmed there, it was dryland farming. growing corn in arid areas takes huge amounts of water, and that is a finite resource. the other is the cost on the soil resource. corn, because it produces so much biomass per acre, depletes soil fertility at a very rapid rate. it is not replenished organically, it is replaced by natural gas-based fertilizers and supplements. Using things like anhydrous ammonia in large quantities kills the soil invertebrates like earthworms, indeed, overuse takes away the soils ability to break down organic material and to rejuvenate itself. long-term, once you start using that stuff, you are locked into using it, as stopping and letting the soil replenish for a few years would be a major economic loss. and there is not enough cattle manure in the U.S. to fertilize even a fraction of the corn belt.
while i know that alternative energy is a necessity, i also believe it is not ethanol from corn that is a wise alternative. perhaps switchgrass or better yet, hydrogen from electrolysis done with solar electricity to fuel mobile vehicles.
