Ethanol: virtue or vice?

Since the State of the Union, due to the President's call to reduce foreign oil dependence, there has been a lot of discussion of ethanol. Whenever I've heard or read about ethanol, I've heard the proponents claim that it is cleaner and reduces fossil fuel usage (and therefore pollution), and I've heard the critics claim that the process of creating and refining ethanol actually increases fossil fuel usage overall. They go back and forth, back and forth. In fact, just today, NPR's Morning Edition had a segment about a Berkeley professor's campaign against ethanol on the basis that ethanol is a net loss when it comes to pollution and energy independence.

Now, I have very little idea which side is right. The Berkeley professor sure seemed to know what he was talking about, but how can anyone, outside of the industry and the people who study the industry, have any real opinion on the matter?

But, it seems to me that this is a very easily answered question. If the industry wants to prove that ethanol is so great and reduces pollution and gives us energy independence and a chicken in every pot, etc. etc.--if they really want to prove all that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then all they'd need to do, is to remove fossil fuels from the refining process, and replace it with ethanol. What better way to show how great it is than to actually use it?

So, to all the ethanol industry folks who read furiousBlog, please end this debate. Show us that ethanol can replace (or at least reduce dramatically) fossil fuel usage. Do that, and you'll become fantastically wealthy making the world a much better place. But, if you can't, then please stop wasting our time and energies that should be used to develop a different way to accomplish our goals.