Granted, when gas was <$2.00 / gal, it wasn't feasible. It may not even be now. But at some price point it will be. "
The main cost that keeps it from being feasible is the energy it takes to convert it into fuel. It would cost as much oil to convert it into ethenol then it would produce. Nuclear power plants in a few locations in the mid-west would solve this problem and power the mid-west and clear up California power problems. Note the multi-billion in tax-breaks and government loands to start building nuke plants as part of the energy bill...
I agree, nukes would be great - for this and other uses.
But re the "It takes more energy than it produces" argument: The figures I've seen are that it produces 1.35 times as much energy as is used to produce it.
There was some study a while back which DID claim it takes more energy than it makes, but that's since been debunked. Turns out the guy was using 25 yr old data for how much energy it took to produce a bushel of corn. Farmers have gotten a lot better over the years.