For instance, the claim that ethanol is less "efficient" than gasoline. Ethanol has a lower BTU content than an equivalent volume of gasoline, but it burns more efficiently. That is, less of it remains unburned (which is why it is added as an oxygenate to gasoline). Perform your own little experiment , if you wish. The next time the little woman hosts a pot luck after church, empty the ethanol out of one of the burners under the warming tray and substitute gasoline to see if anybody notices.
Dr. Williams also assumes that corn used as ethanol feedstock is not available for feed; it is. While people don't eat the same grades of corn used for ethanol, livestock do and all of the nutrients contained in the corn originally, except for the starch, remain in the spent distillers grains.
Dr. Williams also assumes that the ethanol blenders' credit (which is paid to oil companies, not farmers or distillers) is a subsidy on top of crop production subsidies; it is not. The use of corn for ethanol has raised the price of corn above the target levels, eliminating direct subsidy payments (and actually reducing corn subsides from the levels paid prior to the ethanol boom - even if the payments to the oil companies are thought of as farm subsides).
Dr. Williams claims that it takes 1,700 gallons of water to grow a bushel of corn. I dunno, that may be right. But what Dr. Williams doesn't mention is that the water is called "rainfall". In my part of the mid-west, we get about a million gallons of rainfall per year per acre, whether we grow corn or not. What Dr. Williams should have mentioned is that it takes about 8 gallons of water to refine a gallon of gasoline, but only about 3 gallons to distill a gallon of ethanol.
It's that sort of stuff.
But what about the big question? Does it take more than one gallon of fossil fuel to plant, cultivate, harvest, truck distill, you know, the whole process. Does it take more than one gallon of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol? What is wrong with gasoline?