Here's a summary of what I've learned about ethanol, these last several months:
There is a profit of about a buck a gallon, if corn is at some $2 per bushel. At $4 per bushel, it's $0.09 per gallon, which won't cover the ROI needed for a viable operation.
It takes about 7 ethanol-gallons' worth of energy in to get ten gallons of ethanol out. Brazil, using sugar cane, is 1 in for 10 out.
There are tax incentives for ethanol plants, and corn is subsidied (think ADM). So, even bicycle riders and hikers are paying for auto fuel.
The increased (and marginal) acreage reduces wildlife habitat, notably affecting deer, antelope and pheasant hunters.
Much of this new planting is irrigated from the Ogalalla Aquifer. The aquifer is already over-used, and is slow to recharge. (It underlies the Greap Plains, from the Rockies to nearly the Mississippi; south into Texas.)
Farmers are not rotating crops as they should, which depletes soil nutrients--and increases bug problems and disease problems. If they try to make it up from additional fertilizer, well, fertilizer requires a lot of electric energy in the process. (Look up the ramifications of what happened to Egypt with the Aswan Dam. No more natural fertilizing from Nile floods. The electricity had to go to fertilizer plants instead of the intended use in cities.)
The diversion of corn into fuels rather than food has already started to raise the cost of meats as well as eggs, Post Toasties and Fritos. (Hen scratch is up 40%.; $10 for a 50-pound bag instead of $7.) Also, any foods which use corn syrup, such as most Hershey products--and hundreds of others.
Had enough?
Corn requires some 2.5 to 3 feet of water per acre. Sugar cane requires six--which limits where you can grow it without irrigation.
IN summary, "gasohol" is one of the worst ideas to come down the pike in many a year.
Art