We need a level playing field where the costs per btu of oil is matched with the costs per btu of the entire corn plant. You will find that corn wins everytime unless the cost of the U.S. military is stationed in Iowa protecting corn fields. You just cannot beat corn. The oil industry fears corn ethanol and will successfully kill it as did JD Rockefellar did with the support of Prohibition. I think Americans are smarter than the anti-ethanol brigade. But time will tell. Everytime Americans diss their farmers they get in heaps of trouble. And now is the time for Americans to demand choice – choice at the pump. Place a blender pump at all fuel stations and require e-85 compatible vehicles and let Americans decide their own fate. Lets see who wins. Drop all subsidies on both oil and ethanol and lets see who wins. Corn everytime and Big Oil knows it. Big Oil will fight farmers until the end of time. We need a Prohibition of crude oil and then things will turn around. What is fair is fair. Time to turn off oil like they did with ethanol during Prohibition. We’ll adapt just like we did without ethanol in the 20′s.

But this study relies on certain assumptions. For example a complete replacement of gasoline by corn ethanol which would mean byproducts cannot be absorbed by the market.
to quote a Science article:
“Two of the studies stand out from the others
because they report negative net energy values
and imply relatively high GHG emissions and
petroleum inputs (11, 12). The close evaluation
required to replicate the net energy results showed
that these two studies also stand apart from the
others by incorrectly assuming that ethanol
coproducts (materials inevitably generated when
ethanol is made, such as dried distiller grains with
solubles, corn gluten feed, and corn oil) should
not be credited with any of the input energy and
by including some input data that are old and
unrepresentative of current processes, or so
poorly documented that their quality cannot be
evaluated (tables S2 and S3). “
http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/EBAMM/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf

The above article clearly shows that both GHG and petroleum used are less, a fair amount less in the case of petroleum used.

So unless you can show a different study that uses right assumptions about the energy balance, i would say that view is antiquated.
If this is worth the subsidies is another discussion but at least one should do away with “corn ethanol has a negative energy balance”.

I do agree that we should go forward to second and third generation biofuels and those only as a transition. But at the moment, corn ethanol is a viable alternative. In countries with higher gas taxes (maybe a way for the US as well?) it can also survive without subsidizing it.

To expand ethanol, all tariffs need to be eliminated. Cheaper questionable farming practices from other countries will have unintended consequences & at some point needs to flood the U.S. ethanol market. Markets would need a fuel flex system and any sustainable, or organic practices would need to be eliminated to reduce price.

Ethanol would need to move away from land based crops. Algae or some other form that requires less land needs to be produced (that is on a mass scale). This is where people fail to connect the dots with oil because land crops for fuel if expanded on a mass scale will only produce geopolitical problems, possible authoritative governments, environmental problems, oppressed women rights, price shocks from weather patterns, and expensive military & diplomacy operations to secure the fuel. Oh does that sound somewhat familiar?

Look, be realistic about fuel schemes it would be one thing to say Walmart should have 90% of their products produced and made in the U.S. but we all know that’s a joke. Instead of creating new problems just to try to solve the petro one lets be smart and think long-term instead of reacting to the events of the day…..

Besides, currently the first plants for secon generation ethanol are opening up lowering the impacts on corn as production is ramped up.
If price of food is a concern, stop eating beef. That is by far a greater contributor to prices of corn(worldwide, not only US). Also, corn used for ethanol can still be used as feedstock. Maybe farmers could also start to plan on those fields that have gone out of production since the 70′s?

As for subsedise, maybe it would be worthwhile to look up what the US has saved in subsides due to higher corn prices that it pays to corn farmers. sadly i can#t find my source for the numbers anymore.

We need to keep ethanol flowing as research progresses for better production, and for better biofuels. Unfortunately, both (useage & research) require funding in order to get us down the road – pun intended. The destination is worth the trip.