Actually, yes, there is a way. It is simply a question of technology efficiencies and time. Oil has been used universally for over a century, yet ethanol has only been dappled in for a fraction of that time. Harvesting corn and processing it many times to get ethanol has significant energy implications. However, most of the people I've worked with at Georgia Tech feel that, with significant technology leaps, corn will be the next transportation fuel, not hydrogen, because we're so much closer to the technological breakthrough required for wide implementation. I don't have any personal feelings about either fuel, but I do think that using corn to power our cars would only serve to piss off more of the world in which several million go hungry each day.

That was my point with depreciation. It can only cost that much less because it's been around for 100 years and most of the investment is already sunk cost that's been depreciated. I disagree that corn made ethanol is a viable alternative, even as a stepping stone to other technologies. Ethanol has serious implications that make it undesirable, most of which are detailed in the articles. The one true benefit of pursuing it, as you mention, is that it would serve notice that the US doesn't need any help with its energy needs. China would undoubtedly have to change strategies.

My original post was to highlight the fact that if you're going to attack ethanol, use a line of reasoning that isn't full of complete bullshit. There's plenty of good reasons to not use ethanol. Why resort to stupidity?

RE: The ethanol subsidy is worse than you can imagine.