Figured you'd be the one to lay it all out there. And I'm not in disagreement at all with what you said, nor does it surprise me. The only thing I didn't know was that we're just not able to process the cellulose based fuels like we are simple corn sugars, which makes perfect sense. If cellulose was easy to get a better yield than corn sugars rye whiskey would still be the leader and corn based whiskey would be a gimmick instead of the other way around. Though I do suspect subsidies had a hand in that one, as I understand rye whiskey is still popular in Canada but not in the US. I could be wrong on that one.
Since it's at least related to beverages, I will need to correct you on this point. Rye (or barley or wheat) can have a very good fermentable yield per acre, though still not as good as corn. The reason rye and malted barley whiskeys aren't as popular as corn based is that corn overall is cheaper to produce. Rye is more popular in certain areas because it's what they got used to a long time ago and they'd just rather not change. Kind of like why I prefer ketchup over mustard.
Cellulosic EtOH has nothing to do with it. The sugars for whiskey come from the kernels, whereas cellulosic carbohydrates come from the stalks, leaves, and other parts not otherwise suitable for making beverage EtOH from.
Where I'd like to see energy go is the same place you do: Nuclear. It's carbon neutral, safe, and sustainable. Do it right and we could have cheap power. Use that stuff for the mundane daily things like powering up EV cars and such.
After that we just use ethanol or biodiesel for niche things that aren't used all that frequently. Lawn equipment, tractors, ATVs, boats, etc. Ideally grown locally, harvested using some of last year's fuel generated from the same field, and sold to locals for the non-critical stuff we're still using combustion engines for.
Ideally I'd like to see small systems suitable for home use. Personally I run through maybe 20-30 gallons of fuel for lawn gear in a year. If I could get that fuel by dedicating 0.05 acres of my yard to miscanthus giganteus and feeding it to a Mr. Ethanol in my garage that'd be pretty sweet. Sure, it won't make a dent in global consumption, but it's a start.
GAAA! NO, NO, NO. On so many levels. Lawn equipment, boats, ATV's, etc are particularly susceptible to damage from EtOH, and no matter the source it is not a good substitute for gasoline. It's only a good idea if it can be produced on site and transport of gasoline to that site is impracticle or prohibitively expensive.
As far as EV's go, Google (or Bing or whatever) "It's time to kill the electric car, drive a steak through its heart, and burn the corpse." It will explain the problems with EV's (battery powered ones anyway) far better than I ever could.
Your intentions are good. But the path you advocate is not.
If you want to reduce carbon emmissions (a dubiously valuable goal) the only solution I see given the current state of the industry is fuel cell vehicles to replace IC powered vehicles. Use the nukular plants you want (and I do too), and run them at a level load 24/7/365. Whatever power is not demanded by the general grid use gets diverted to making H2 or whatever fuel is made standard for fuel cells.
A better argument for reducing our use of gasoline/diesel than "carbon" and AGW is that those chemicals are useful for a lot of industrial purposes that would be more valuable that moving steel cages from Point A to Point B. Or that we'd be better off without the economic disruptions from oil price shocks.
