In an earlier post, I raised the question about world petroleum depletion:

"Why aren't people terrified by this?"

Scott Evil responded:

"Because there are already economicly viable alternatives such as ethanol and soy-diesel."

I would argue that ethanol is "in the noise" in terms of replacing crude oil. Refer to:

http://www.consumerfed.org/cfaethanol050505.pdf

On page 6 you'll find the following:

"On a montly basis, production of ehtanol reached an all-time high of 245,000 barrels per day in February"

However in an earlier post I quoted:

The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million barrels/day of oil during the first ten months of 2004, up from 20.0 million barrels/day in 2003, refer to:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html#oil

At current production levels, ethanol replaces a little more than 1% of our current crude oil consumption. Like most alternative energy concepts, ethanol really does not compare well against petroleum as an energy source. There is a hidden gotcha with ethanol which is the energy cost of producing it. Ethanol from corn does not come purely from solar radiation. The soil for the corn has to be fertilized. Manufacturing nitrate fertilizer like urea or ammonium nitrate is an energy intensive process. Also the corn has to be harvested, processed and distilled. This also requires energy. After the smoke clears and the dust settles, you may find that a fair amount of crude oil is burned in the process of producing ethanol. This is typical of solar energy based alternative energy schemes. For example, until recently it required more energy to manufacture a solar volatic panel than the panel produced over its designed life time.

It's tough to beat petroleum, coal and nukes when it comes to energy density and cost per kilowatt-hour. That is the root of our problem. There are lots of energy sources out there but unfortunately our whole economy is based upon CHEAP energy which is soon to run out.

Gary