Pimental and Patzek have taken a stand - researchers funded by pro-ethanol groups have taken theirs as well- the countervailing studies show a slightly positive EROI for corn-ethanol. But so what? Even at a VERY generous 2-1, what are we supposed to do 5 years after peak with 5% decline rates? Gross up the worlds energy balance sheet and use 1/2 of the annual fossil fuels to create 2x of ethanol, meanwhile displacing most of the food crops of the planet?

I agree that celluslosic ethanol has its place, as does sugar cane and a few of the biodiesels, but all of these solutions only go so far, and leave me with the following impressions:
1)The latent power in crude oil compared to alternatives is awesome. Until I really dug into this research and looked at the scale of alternatives, I didnt internalize how ginormous our energy subsidy really is...

2. Politics will ensure that persuasive, influential people will succeed in society pursuing large scale energy alternatives that are bottoms up profitable (at least at first) but are net long term losers for the planet. Research is the only thing that can prevent this - but look at the research on something as simple as ethanol - no one can even agree on the basic framework on what to use as inputs

3. Increasingly, tradeoffs between energy, food and the environment will take place, and I fear society will value them in that order, for better or worse.

4. the only long term solution is on the demand side. Change our own HRoEI (Happiness Returned on Energy Invested)