1. Corn production does not have to be as damaging as it currently is.  Given, square-miles of monocultres of any sort present an ecological threat, but the current practices could be reformed incrementally to greatly reduce their impact.  And when the crops are to processed into fuel, there is the possibility that polycultures could be developed that would be more productive, less harmful, and yeild as much energy as corn alone.  Processing would, of course, be a challenge here.

2. The corn oil byproduct could also be used as fuel for transportation.

But if present farm subsidies were simply dumped into the auto fuels market, how would that not massively distort that market (as badly as the ag market is now distorted)?

And what chance would we ever have of reducing personal transportation in general if "America's farmers" were depending on us to burn their products?

grist.org

A solar and wind powered algae based biofuel system can produce a lot more fuel and actually recycle waste and reduce CO2 from power plants doing it.  Will these projects get the 1 dollar per gallon subsidy?

If not, why not?  And shouldn't biodiesel from waste or algae get that same subsidy?

Level the playing field and agri-bizz might be beaten in the market place with  ultra low cost biofuel production from waste using solar and wind power.  With clean water and green electric power as  byproducts.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Fusion folks are still trying to figure out how to produce energy for longer than a tiny fraction of a second.

Even with the dramatic reduction in cost, enzymes for cellulose conversion to ethanol are still several times more expensive than those for the production of starch-based ethanol.

Keep in mind that these will be facilities to test commercial viability, they may not prove viable.

I don't' view the potential for cellulosic ethanol in the same light that I view biodiesel grown with soybeans or in cleared rainforests. Although the jury is still out. The enthusiasm for this is similar though. Try doing a Google search to verify that biodiesel releases ten times more smog forming nitrogen oxides into the air than gasoline cars (suggesting another reason that trading a gasoline car for a biodiesel one may not be too smart). It is illegal to sell diesel cars in some states because of smog forming pollutants. Try doing the same to verify that using biodiesel will stuff 11.6 football fields worth of soybeans into your gas tank annually. We are acting like a bunch of sheep, running wildly in one direction, then another. In this instance the stampede was started by Bush's speech. This research has been going on for a quarter of a century.

Will a new enzyme breakthrough completely destroy the biodiesel industry that is now enthusiastically using billions of dollars of government money to build an infrastructure? Will the farmers who invested in biodiesel refineries go bankrupt if enough (they won't all do so) diesel consumers switch to a cleaner, cheaper ethanol fuel? What will all of my friends and neighbors who ran out to buy diesel Jettas to save the planet do with their cars then? The same thing might happen to cellulosic fuels if battery technology (or something else) comes along to give cars an equivalent gas mileage of 120 MPG.

Personally, I'm betting on a viable hybrid electric car, and I intend to back that bet up with a purchase.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

(You guys who ride in snow already trump me.)

Cellulosic ethanol, not so great.  Conservation lands put into monocrop switchgrass that needs oil based chemical fertilizer, herbicides, and farming energy  is not a good solution to transportation energy problems.

Furthermore the processing energy will come from fossil or nuclear power.

And as Lester Brown points out water is the big problem with energy farming, it is the limiting factor.  When fuel crops raise the price of food because of water shortage it will be too late, society will already be dependent on fuel farming.

When burned ethanol is only slightly cleaner than gasoline, still producing plenty of greenhouse gases.

Isn't global climate change most of the problem we now have?  Imported energy that entails constant war is a close second, but the main problem must be solved along with the secondary problem.  Switchgrass won't do that, and it drains precious capital from the real effort.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin