Bloom comes off ethanol subsidies

Remember when ethanol was considered the fuel of the future, how it would be a boon to corn-producing regions — such as the Texas Panhandle?

Something has happened to that euphoric feeling. We’ve learned that it costs a lot of money to produce ethanol, once touted as a “green” alternative to fossil fuels used to produce gasoline. Accordingly, the subsidies that paid ethanol producers also proved to be a significant strain on the federal budget. Federal budget crunchers put the price tag at $20 billion at the end of 2011, including $6 billion in the past year alone.

The subsidies have expired, effective Dec. 31, thanks to Congress’ decision to do nothing to renew them. And it’s just as well.

The Congressional Budget Office determined that it costs $1.78 to replace one gallon of gasoline with one gallon of ethanol, which is a big chunk of the current retail price of fuel.

And consider, too, the related costs of producing corn used in the manufacture of ethanol. Corn remains an incredibly thirsty crop. It consumes a lot of water. No doubt you’ve heard that water is becoming even more valuable in the Panhandle, which is in dire need of more water to replace the dwindling Ogallala Aquifer, not to mention the surface water lakes and reservoirs that have been suffering from a punishing drought that is showing little sign of easing up any time soon.

Ethanol is still being produced. It remains an environmentally friendly fuel, even though it does consume a lot of fossil fuel in its production. But it will continue to fill our vehicle fuel tanks without federal government subsidy.

Meanwhile, it is long past time to figure out a way to grow the corn needed to make ethanol without consuming so much water — the value of which goes way beyond measure.