It won't be carbon neutral until we have totally eliminated all other energy sources during the production, which won't happen until very very far down the road if ever.

The problem there are the carbon sinks (forests) that are being plowed under to grow corn, not the carbon yield of the ethanol itself.

Equating hunger to corn usage is a bit of a misnomer. Field corn which is used for ethanol production isnt generally eaten by humans. Unless you're suggesting either:

1. The field corn should be used as feed to produce more livestock for human consumption

or

2. The field corn shouldnt be planted at all and instead should be sweet corn for human consumption.

This raises further issues though, ethanol plants only buy field corn at floor price, so the farmers only sell to them if they are subsidized or the price is legit that low. Forcing farmers to sell their corn in a certain place or forcing them to plant sweet corn (which sells for much less profit given the difficult to gather sweet corn vs. dried field corn) hurts their profits. It could essentially kill the small family farm as one of the only tools they have left over corporate farms are a lack of big contracts to fulfill giving them independence in crop choice based on markets. Last year we planted 200 acres of popcorn, this year its all beans as corn price is shit. Big corporate farms cant always do this as they have monster contracts to fulfill regardless of prices.

Corn ethanol is incredibly inefficient. We probably need to remove the legislated price floor on sugar then use that or more efficient crops like beets or cane.



Cogeneration of biofuel and electricity is plausible in the next geneeation with gasification and high yield crops.

Well it obviously shouldn't be livestock as meat is probably the most inefficient and worse way to deliver nutrients

Big agriculture has already killed the family farm....the are irrelevant outside of farmer's markets. It is all big mono-culturing now, which is a disastrous recipe.

The farther west you head the more true that is. Not everywhere though. The core midwest still have alot of family farms, these will still exist in 50 years but of course the number will decrease even more.

I think you're completely retarded and misinformed.

The mileage dropoff isn't 25%, it's closer to 33%. The cost factor is seriously off. Corn ethanol (sugar isn't going to cut it in the US climate) is extremely heavily subsidized already. The unsubsidized price at the pump of E85 has to be at least 33% better than the same price of straight gasoline (the US currently mandates E10 blend, and some states already mandate E20 in all gasoline). E85 is not environmentally safer than straight gasoline.

Oil is expected to drop to $30/barrel - who needs to find a carbon solution anymore? 8 cylinder cars for everyone!

They are a long way from making electric vehicles viable for everyone. The batteries in a Tesla that make their range semi-decent are extremely expensive and the technology really isn't there to make them smaller or less expensive. Not yet. Fossil fuel driven vehicles aren't going anywhere, at least not for awhile. They've already taken great lengths to make ICEs a lot more fuel efficient.

You're even more retarded and misinformed if you think petroleum isn't subsidized.