Immense federal subsidies are given to the ethanol industry. No big
mystery there.

Every reliable source I have seen says it takes 1.5 gallons of oil to
make 1 gallon of ethanol.  Only an idiot would suggest this is good.

It shouldn't be.  There is a reason why no one used ethanol until it
became heavily subsidized by YOUR taxes.

Here's info from the study...

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid
fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at
Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."

Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental
engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy
input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and
wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and
sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources
Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol
production, the study found that:

-- corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
-- switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel
produced; and
-- wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel
produced.

In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel
production, the study found that:

-- soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel
produced, and
-- sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the
fuel produced.

In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the
energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides
and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and
transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from
the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal
and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs
associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures
were not included in the analysis.

"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil
in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or
biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you
use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the
combustion of these products."

Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce
thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of
biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a
year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net
energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an
economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air,
water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points
out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but
to large ethanol-producing corporations.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's
energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says
Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and
therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S.
deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on
producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and
burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.

Source: Cornell University

Here in the US if you want a Saab with decent power (over 250 horses) you
need to spend over 30 grand. And even then, there are lots of much cheaper
cars that are faster--Pontiacs and Chevrolets for example.

Can't tell you anyting about Brazil.  Do you know how much Brasilia
subsidizes it as an automotive fule substitute?