Calculations of the amount of energy ultimately produced range from negative to at most 34% more energy than ethanol consumes in its own production and delivery. And all of the 64% is fossil fuel. This equation alone renders ethanol a questionable propostion.

The 34%-at-best figure is for corn-based ethanol only. Sugar-based ethanol is a proven energy winner, containing about 8 times the energy needed to produce it.

And beware of those negative-energy estimates for corn ethanol -- lately, the only one advancing the scientific claim has been a guy by the name of David Pimentel, who believes that alternative energy is a distraction from what government's true goal should be, centralized population control.

The U.S. government should end the subsidies and the tariffs on foreign sugar-based ethanol. But with oil prices as high as they are now, and unlikely to drop too far back, its only a matter of time before one or more of the biofuel options out there gains a foothold in the market.

I'm not a big fan of government subsidies to begin with, though I think they can be of good use on a temporary basis -- the key word being temporary. While I like the idea of being able to "grow" new energy, I'd greatly prefer it not to be done using edible crops, because, as you might guess, it tends to make them more expensive for the people who want to eat them. I like corn.

If we're going to use plant-derived ethanol at all, I'd prefer we focus on using switchgrass instead, which is a remarkably efficient and environmentally friendly biofuel. No one eats switchgrass (except cows and other cattle). Unlike corn, switchgrass requires little or no fertilizer to thrive and can grow just about anywhere. At least according to some studies I've read, its a far more efficient source of ethanol than that derived from corn. Another big bonus of switchgrass is that it is perennial, meaning once you've planted it once, it will keep coming back year after year. For those unfamiliar with it, switchgrass is that stuff which covers most of the prairie area in the "fly over" area of the country.

In addition, I'm a big proponent of nuclear energy. If France can do it successfully, we can, too. We can also further develop clean coal technologies. We're sitting on so much coal, but we don't use it as much anymore. Of course, drilling in areas of our country which are currently off limits has to be on the table. A wide variety of energy sources is where the future of energy lies. As countries like China and India further develop, most likely, they will demand more oil-based fuels to fuel their economies. Even the liberals (except for those named Kennedy) can agree with us about increasing solar and wind power use locally. We are literally sitting on so many resources, if we'd only take advantage of them.

"The U.S. government should end the subsidies and the tariffs on foreign sugar-based ethanol."

But no objection to the subsidies on domestic corn and ethanol, Andrew?

And bigger picture/long term issues. We can set aside for the moment the question of whether pollution equity even makes it worthwhile to turn to ethanol/biodiesel. Isn't the biggest feasibility problem with ethanols and biodiesels the natural limit on arable land?