As I've stated elsewhere, the main problem is the supply constraint, and it's always a trade-off with food production. It means E85 is still expensive, and hasn't shown promise to scale to become cheaper. And the only way it can scale is to use more land, which must come from somewhere. Even if you don't care for the loss of biodiversity, the destruction of carbon sinks may nullify the purported carbon reduction of switching fuels.
Hybrid vehicles with regenerative braking don't require infrastructure changes and reduce carbon output, all while the consumer spends less on fuel.
I'm a huge fan of forests, wetlands, bushlands, heathlands, prairies, and other wild landscapes. If land use in agriculture dropped, my preference would be to see that land go back to the trees, wild-flowers, and the many creatures that live with them.
We've not forgotten that the impetus for this thread is a 600-hp engine designed for the next Koenigsegg supercar, right?
The Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model 3 are here today and are already practical cars, and are down-right affordable compared to a Koenigsegg. If you take purchase price out of the equation, the other Tesla cars are also practical in terms of range and electricity costs.
I hope those buying a new ICE car in 2020 who could afford otherwise have taken a credible look at buying an electric car instead.
If moving from gasoline to ethanol ultimately reduces pollution, it's going to be faster to achieve. We don't have to swap out everything at the consumer level, especially since many cars can run on E85 already.
Continuing to push electric cars is great, but it'll take a lot longer and require a high infrastructure investment to make it truly practical.