Waste of energy?

Perhaps worse, last November's issue of BioScience reported that the various inputs required to convert maize to ethanol consume 29% more energy than is contained in the ethanol produced.
Ethanol from cellulosic biomass requires 50% more energy than the final product can deliver; and each gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons (6,400 litres) of water and produces 6-12 gallons (23-26 litres) of noxious organic effluent.
Of course, this is just the first generation of just one type of biofuel, and greater investments in second and third generations may greatly improve the picture.
Having said that, I do recognise that bioethanol is simply one of numerous energy options. Biodiesel is undoubtedly a better alternative, and lignocellulosic energy may be even better. And there are more options on the table: methanol, solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear power.
So while my article raised some warning flags about moving ahead too quickly on bioethanol without considering the full costs and benefits, I also believe that a thoughtful consideration of the costs and benefits of all of the energy options are well justified.
This is not anti-capitalist, but the straight-forward application of the precautionary principle, ensuring that we have given careful consideration to the full implications of our investments before we rush ahead to spend them.
Moving ahead too quickly without considering the options is, to use an extreme example, like invading Iraq without thinking about the future implications.
Most energy experts will agree that our first line of response should be improved energy efficiency and conservation. Banning cars would certainly be unpopular but, with appropriate incentives, the use of alternative forms of transport, ranging from walking and cycling to improved public transport systems, would all be relevant in reducing energy demand.