Doesn't people on this site get it?

Corn ethanol derived from corn grown in the USA are an incredibly inefficient source of energy --- by the time you subtract the energy inputs required to make and distribute it (diesel fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) the net energy return on investment is marginally positive.

Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane, on the other hand, have a pretty good positive energy return on investment.

The only reason we bother with ethanol was, once upon a time, it was a good way to stitch up a political constituency with farmers faced with depressed prices for corn, and wacky arguments that it is "renewable".

A more recent argument in favor of it is that it is useful as a diluent in place of MMT, which got phased out because it contaminated water supplies. Diluents are used to lower the combustion temperature of, mostly summer gasoline, in order to reduce pollution.

Otherwise, the use of ethanol --- a low grade, corrosive fuel that attracts water --- is decidely bad for most gasoline engines.

Now, if we are in Brazil, it is a pretty good deal. But, in the USA, corn based ethanol is not even a very good renewable --- not when you use fossil fuels and inputs to make it.

Let's get rid of this pig.

The above quoted study is a slick propaganda piece that is put out to scam politicians by the lobbyists who will reap billions of dollars from the subsidies they receive from Washington.