link to argonne lab,
look at,top-right graph on page two,
liquid energy needed to produce ethanol,
one-tenth of product, or something like that
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf#search='ethanol%20btu'
copy-paste, not sure if working right, use the whole link
You should actually try reading the link you posted.
As you can see, the fossil energy input per unit of ethanol is lower0.74 million Btu fossil energy consumed for each 1 million Btu of ethanol delivered
Also the information contained in the link about gasoline is incorrect.
The website is that of the National Corngrowers Association. The somewhat edited version of the ANL presentation material has significant flaws, as does the original material. The gasoline energy balance includes the primary energy of all fossil material inputs in addition to the energy required to refine and produce the final product.
The ethanol balance uses only the energy of the finished energy input materials. This is absurd. One of these things is not like the other. Note that the commonly-accepted energy return for gasoline is a 10-1 ratio.
Also omitted from the ethanol balance is a large energy credit taken for a non-energy co-product, DDGS ("dried distillers grains with solubles"). Without this credit, the original USDA paper reports a 6% positive energy balance.
More fatal is the universally-ignored impact on net productivity. One must divide the gross ethanol production by 16.7 to get the incremental energy production. When one considers that U.S. annual gasoline consumption is 143.9 billion gallons (10/27/2006), or the equivalent energy of 219.7 billion gallons of ethanol, one can see the limitations of an ethanol energy economy.
There is not enough arable land in the U.S. to supply even an E10 transportation economy, assuming we were willing to forego food production. The current lust for fuel ethanol would vanish without the 51 cent per gallon subsidy.