The discussion about biofuel potential of corn seems to be wholly missing the point. It would be a mistake to assume that because as much energy must be used in producing the corn as it can provide on consumption, it is not reducing the carbon footprint associated with fuel sources. An analysis of the energy corn can provide on combustion would be more appropriate for a start, followed by some sort of analysis as to the ratio of carbon dioxide consumed in photosynthesis by the corn, to that produced over its life-cycle as an energy source.
(Reply to above) The point was that if, as the (reputable) source claims, it takes more than the equivalent amount of fossil fuel to produce biofuel because of the fuel input needed to grow corn industrially, we are neither reducing fossil fuel consumption nor reducing the carbon footprint. You cannot just look at the energy corn can provide on combustion and the carbon dioxide the corn takes in without looking at the broader picture of the production, running and maintenance of machinery to produce the corn and the energy that goes into its transport and processing. At the moment, the interest in biofuel is such that the government and the market are both offering incentives to farmers to go down this road, and it is not clear that such a road is sustainable in the long term.