And from Indiana:

"Indiana corn farmers are seeing higher earnings with the increasing demand for corn as a feedstock for the state's ethanol plants, said Corinne Alexander, assistant professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University. But rising corn prices adversely affect the state's hog and poultry farmers who are being hit by higher feed costs, she said."

"The demand for ethanol production increased the price of corn 67 cents a bushel between Oct. 12 and Nov. 3, Alexander said. At a projected yield of 167 bushels an acre, the 67 cent increase means an additional $112 an acre. With Indiana's full-time farmers having 1,000 acres of corn and 1,000 acres of soybeans in production, the price hike means an extra $112,000, which is "a huge, huge income increase," she said."

"Soybean prices have gone up 50 cents a bushel in recent weeks, she said. The extra money is important because farmers have seen huge increases in the price of energy, seed, fertilizer, Alexander said."

And from Texas (your old stomping grounds no less):

"Anticipation is growing in rural communities across the state as the biofuels industry takes flight. Its growth can strengthen crop prices because the industry depends on commodities like corn, grain sorghum and soybean to convert into fuel, and it can bring new wealth to communities through the construction activity and jobs it generates.

Robert Wood, assistant commissioner for rural economic development at the Texas Department of Agriculture, said the 30 to 60 jobs a typical ethanol plant creates may not mean much to a big city like Houston, but it would have a real impact on a town of 2,500.

A Texas A&M University study said an 80 million-gallon ethanol plant could produce 1,400 associated jobs over time. The overall economic boost provided by that size of a plant could reach $400 million, including $41 million in increased household income annually once the plant begins operation.

There are no certain remedies for the problems facing rural areas, but ethanol and biodiesel plants can be "a huge cornerstone for us to build on," Wood said."

And oh ALAN! ALAN! ALAN! from Iowa:

"About 75 percent of the nation's annual production of 4.3 billion gallons of ethanol a year is moved by rail, with the remaining 25 percent transported by truck, according to the Renewable Fuels Association.

Infrastructure is growing across the country, the association said in an annual industry report released in February.

Spokesmen for major rail companies, including the nation's largest freight hauler, Union Pacific, said they are investing in track improvements near ethanol plants."

So lets see...

Jobs galore, new rail development, increased land prices, increased grain prices, increased rural incomes, strengthened rural communities, increased skill and labor set, positive (albeit minimal) environmental/GHG impact, net decrease in petroleum usage...

I could literally post stories all day long from the likes of the Wichita Eagle to the Vulcan Advocate re: ethanol and the positive impact it's having for farmers and rural folk across the continent.  

Ethanol producers (like any business) are going to have to adapt to the market just like everyone else - some will make it, some won't.

Peak Oil = high prices for everything and that includes the price of corn.

Jobs galore, new rail development, increased land prices, increased grain prices, increased rural incomes, strengthened rural communities, increased skill and labor set, positive (albeit minimal) environmental/GHG impact, net decrease in petroleum usage...

So, you support this fiasco? I thought you were a gasification guy. Let's run some numbers. Right now, we are making around 4.3 billion gallons per year of ethanol. At an energy return of 1.3, that means we only net 0.3 BTUs of output for 1 BTU of input. Therefore, you consumed 3.3 billion gallons worth of ethanol to produce 4.3 billion gallons. So, the net of the 4.3 billion gallons is only 1 billion gallons. Of course that net includes massive amounts of animal feed co-product, which you can't burn in a car. In reality, the fossil fuel input is almost equal to the ethanol output. That's per the USDA's most recent estimates.

But I am going to give the benefit of the doubt and give you 1 billion gallons of net ethanol. Since ethanol has 65% of the BTU content of gasoline, the energy equivalent number is 650 million gallons of gasoline. We use about 140 billion gallons of gasoline, so the gasoline displacement is only 0.46%. Apply that only to our oil imports, and the displacement is down around 0.3%.

But wait, there's more. We paid a $0.51/gal direct subsidy on the ethanol. Not the net, mind you, but the gross which is mostly recycled fossil fuels. So the direct ethanol subsidy, from taxpayer pockets, is $2.2 billion dollars a year. Of course we also have a multi-billion dollar per year corn subsidy. To be extremely generous, we are paying taxpayer costs of $3 billion a year to displace less than half a percent of our gasoline usage. That's about $3.60 in federal subsidies (of course most corn states throw in their own subsidies) for each gallon of gasoline displaced.

But you get bonuses: Like depleted water tables, increased pesticide and herbicide runoff (responsible for a large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico), increased soil erosion (wait til we have a drought - Can you say "Dust Bowl"?), and the kicker: Higher food prices for everyone and reduced corn exports. (Hope nobody needs extra corn this year). All of this to displace 0.46% of our gasoline consumption and line the pockets of some farmers, ethanol producers, and ag conglomerates! And that's presuming you could burn animal feed in your car.

For that kind of money spent and those kinds of externalities, I would sure hope some jobs have been created.  

And people wonder why I get worked up over this boondoggle.

Correction: Oil imports should be oil consumption.
Indeed, if the US were serious about ethanol, it would import Brasilian ethanol.  And probably there are other Carribean Islands (Cuba comes to mind) where the sugar cane could be easily converted into ethanol.

It's a 'clean politics, dirty energy' type strategy.

(we have many such in Europe, especially regarding anything to do with agriculture).

Such have convinced me, pretty much, that what the US needs is a carbon tax (or an auctioned system of carbon permits) not subsidisation of new energy resources except where the latter is to develop new technology (analogy to the launch of the civilian nuclear power industry in the 60s, which was driven by the government).

If the US brought in such a system, I would wager plug-in hybrid electric vehicles would very rapidly become widely available.  Conservation is the cheapest fuel there is.

Of course I'm the gasification guy, however, in order to take EtOH to market, we must start with what is doable now and work our way to optimal efficiency i.e. mating said process to the existing fermentation/cellulosic infrastructure.

Take the tar sands for example.  Without the existing infrastructure put in place by conventional O&G production paths, the tar sands would not have gotten off the ground.  In other words, the conceivable will not materialize without the practicable.

As for my post above, I was responding to this line, "This corn ethanol business is shaping up to be a national disaster. Well, unless you are a corn farmer or ethanol producer."  which is disingenuous.

Furthermore, since I noted that this year's reading list included Kunstler (as did mine) you and I should both recognize that the forthcoming nouveau ruralism must evolve around a new economic dimension - energy production from biomass.