I like to read the Trib because its stated aim is to report the facts. After reading the editorial “The ethanol ruse: Will a damning report be the final nail in its coffin?” (Nov. 16 and TribLIVE.com), its statement that federal ethanol mandates “divert more than 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop” needs to be updated. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated on Nov. 8 that the 2013 domestic corn crop will total around 14 billion bushels and that ethanol production will consume approximately 4.6 billion bushels ( usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf) or 33 percent.
Of those 4.6 billion bushels, one-third or 1.5 billion bushels will be a residual product, distillers dried grain, sold as feed for cows and pigs. Subtracting those 1.5 billion bushels from the 4.6 billion bushels leaves 3.1 billion bushels of corn consumed — 22 percent of the 14-billion-bushel 2013 corn crop or almost half of the editorial's “40 percent.” In addition, a gallon of ethanol is also lower cost than gasoline.
The per-gallon futures prices in the Nov. 16 Business section were $1.77 for ethanol, $2.66 for unleaded gas — an 89-cent difference. In the Pittsburgh area, this translates to prices for E85 fuel (85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline) 30 to 50 cents lower versus regular gasoline. In the Midwest, where E85 is more readily available, the savings can be as much as $1!
As an E85 user, my auto-fuel expenditures are supporting domestic agriculture, helping reduce the U.S. trade balance and importation of foreign oil, contributing to a cleaner atmosphere and keeping the internals of my engine pristine.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.