The problem with corn ethanol is that creating it requires about as much energy as it generates. Were it not for government subsidies, it would fail. Instead government mandates its expansion.Farming corn requires only 35% of the production energy total; refining 65%. In terms of EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested), the most efficient U.S. refinery produces 1.18 output for 1.00 input. In the attached table, Minnesota's 1.14 (EROIRG, in the last column) is the most efficient. In other words, for 7.5 gallons of ethanol produced, 6.5 gallons or their energy equivalent are consumed in growing and refining. In states such as Texas and Missouri, ethanol production requires more energy input than output. In the table, the next-to-last column (EROIPG) relates the efficiency of farm production.
Overall, the average efficiency is approximately 1.05 to 1.00, one gallon net for every 20 gallons consumed, less than 5% efficiency. Compared to gasoline, one gallon is consumed for every ten gallons produced, or a 90% efficiency. Even Canadian tar sands or oil shale outdistance ethanol, easily, and this is before considering ethanol has only 62% of the energy of gasoline.
Ethanol production stands on the government's subsidy of 51-cents per gallon, combined with a protective tariff of 54-cents per gallon. Otherwise sugar-cane ethanol from Brazil could compete with subsidized corn-based ethanol. Unsubsidized corn-base ethanol cannot compete with its own costs of production, and this doesn't consider soil or aquifer depletion. It's a boondoggle keeping the price of corn up, bio-refiners in business, Midwestern congressmen in office, and food prices higher the world over.Ethanol produced in oak barrels, by comparison, provides profits to its producers, $16 per gallon taxes to the Federal government, 6-10% sales tax to state governments, products for export, and contributes to the pursuit of happiness for its consumers.
