Does the process used to create Ethanol use more fossil fuels then the Ethanol actualy displaces?

Question

I heard this on TV a few times a few years ago. They said things like the fertilizer used to grow the corn, and the diesel in the tractors and the actually fermenting process itself used far more fossil fuels then the resulting Ethanol replaced. They said the entire thing was just a bondogle to help funnel tax money to Midwest farmers. This makes sense to me but is it true?

Answer 1

No it isn't. You see there is one study group with ties to the oil industry that says that. There are a dozen major studies in the past 5 years that say ethanol comes out ahead. Most of them independant. Most of them give ethanol comming out only under 50% better than what is used, but they are positive.

The difference is that the studies you are referring to make the expectation that most or all corn is irrigated, only 16% is. They also claim fertilizer to take more energy than it acually does by a little by claiming world adverages instead of US adverages. They do a number of things that are just a little high.

But think of it this way, why does it matter? Even if ethanol uses more energy to make than what is produce, about 70% to 90% of that energy comes from a source other than petroleum. The majority of the energy is coal or natural gas used at the production plant. So it is transformation of fuel from one source to another. Thus making this whole debate pointless.

Answer 2

It depends on which "EXPERT" you hear. The final word on this hasn't been said yet. The farmers do make more money, but it's the ethanol producers that get the big tax money. Every gallon is subsidized so you pay tax money to some company to make it and pay again at the pump to buy it.