A study by Consumer Reports ("The Ethanol Myth" October 2006) used a new Chevy Tahoe, an FFV (flexible-fuel vehicle) designed to burn either regular gasoline, or a blend containing 85 percent ethanol. First, the Tahoe's tank was filled with gasoline and driven out of fuel at 440 miles. Then, the same vehicle traveled an identical route at the same speed - but with E85. It sputtered dry at 300 miles. Using high school algebra, I figured E85 to be 32 percent inferior to gasoline. (Consumer Reports was more optimistic, citing a drop of 27 percent)

The same math shows that the E10 we buy now delivers 3.8 percent less power than gasoline. That means if your car gets 25 mpg on straight gasoline, you'll get 24 mpg using E10. Many drivers won't notice the difference, but performance-wise, E10 should be selling for about 8 cents less per gallon than gasoline at current prices. Take note.

E10 is advertised at 89 octane (versus 87 for regular). Sounds impressive, but higher octane doesn't mean more power. Octane is a measure of ignitability under pressure. High compression engines using low-octane gasoline are prone to pre-ignition, which causes the classic "pinging." Unless your engine specifically requires higher octane, there's no advantage to it.

There's the promise of extra-high compression engines that burn E85 more efficiently, but converting an older engine to burn E85 is not cost-effective. Consider now the 200 million plus older vehicles in the U.S. Most Americans, including me, aren't ready to junk old Bessie and shell out money for a brand new FFV.

Some experts even contend it takes more energy to make ethanol than it delivers. Others (particularly those in the ethanol business) disagree. Estimates vary based on what raw materials and technologies are used, what's counted or not counted as input energy - and likely who stands to make big money. However that shakes out, it's not the only issue. A lot of carbon dioxide results from ethanol production and the impact on global warming also needs clarification.

For my own area in western Kansas, the problem of the declining Ogalalla Aquifer may be even more critical. Depending on whose word you take, the manufacturing process uses from 3 to 5 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol produced. Kansas ethanol plants have an average production capacity of 26 million gallons annually - and consume 100 million gallons of water in doing it. Russell and Phillipsburg are larger-than-average capacity plants, at 48 million and 40 million gallons, respectively.(source: Kansas Ethanol)

In a small community, the extra load on municipal water supply (leaving aside the impact of our ongoing drought) is significant. Residents of Russell learned that this past year. Kanopolis Reservoir, at first deemed adequate to supply Russell's projected demands, was later found to be inadequate. My suspicion is that the other seven Kansas towns with hopes of ethanol prosperity will face problems of municipal water supply, or will hasten the decline of the aquifer, or both.

The water used at the manufacturing plant itself is comparatively meager. To produce corn (a present favorite) to make one gallon of ethanol requires an estimated 1,700 gallons of water, according to David Pimentel at Cornell University. As ethanol production increases, we can expect more corn or other water intensive crops to be planted, the price of those crops for competing uses to rise accordingly - and the pressure on the Ogallala to intensify.

Yes, we surely need to kick our addiction to foreign oil. Likewise, we need to kick our addiction to mining the Ogallala, trading a sustainable future for a boom and bust present. We need to stop drying up hydrologically connected rivers, creeks, lakes, seeps and springs which are vital to wildlife and add to the beauty of our semi-arid plains.

Let us hope a frantic push for energy independence and the lure of quick bucks does not simply add more participants in the gang rape of a truly life-sustaining resource.

(First published in the Hays Daily News)