I can't help myself from responding to this thread, so I'll apologize in advance.
As stated plainly before, ethanol is a Red Herring in the energy source discussion. Like other "alternative fuels" (e.g. Hydrogen, biodiesel, etc) none of them appear naturally in large enough quantities to be useful in supporting a major element of our modern civilized infrastructure (e,g, transportation and electrical power production).
As such, all of these fuels must be manufactured by some means. Until such time as someone figures out how to suspend the Second Law of Thermodynamics (and makes perpetual motion machinery possible; which is another thread) it will always take more energy to produce these fuels than they can possibly yield when used.
There may be a few niche examples, like making biodiesel from waste french frying oil, or ethanol from food processing wastes, that get close to coming out ahead, but none of these miniscule sources could ever begin to displace our current consumption of energy.
You can't burn food as fuel and come out ahead; even if you distill it into a nice tax-supported liquid. I suppose next someone will want to switch their cars to burning wood (as the Germans did in WWII) to reduce oil dependence?
If we can get our minds right and build a nuclear power plant in every county in the U.*., then we might have enough cheap energy to cook switchgrass into ethanol, convert coal into diesel, and keep our lights on when the sun is down and our solar panels go dead or the wind stops and our wind power takes the day off.
When I was in about the 5th grade I submitted a science project showing an electric motor driving a generator that powered the electric motor plus an electric light bulb. I got a low grade on that assignment and couldn't understand why until I learned better.
By my observation, an uncomfortably important segment of our population is still submitting the same ideas and cannot (or will not) learn any better.