Corn and Ethanol.

I don't agree on taxing the heck out of it just to pay for other, non-viable programs. If these programs were viable, they wouldn't need help from MY tax dollars to be competitive .
Click to expand...

They only need help now to get started and up and going. Sure, five years ago the price of ethanol was higher than oil, and, as you say, it was "non-viable", but only because there wasn't the scale to produce the efficiencies that made it competive.

Ethanol is still really in it's infancy now as well. We get ethanol today mostly from corn, because that is a cheap way to get it. We COULD get if from other things as well. We COULD get it from wood chips. (There is one significant size wood-chip ethanol facility in Pennsylvania right now that is cost competitive with corn. But it's more expensive to build that kind of facility).

We COULD get ethanol from algae. In fact, there are small scale prototype plants working the bugs out now with that process. But it's not ready yet for industrial scale production. That may take another decade before Algae ethanol is cost competitive.

And we COULD get ethanol from other crops. Grasses (switch grass) has been discussed. There is a brand new barley ethanol plant in Virgina. There are a variety of second generation ethanol plants being built or in the planning stages.

But the key to all those, is that you have to have adiquate demand to start with. You have to have the infrastucture built in order to have the demand for ethanol, that makes the scale of production worthwhile and cost competitive with oil.

Today, corn ethanol is cheaper than gasoline. It wasn't five years ago.

But ethanol from wood chips, from garbage, from sugar cane, and switch grass, are all slightly more expensive to make, while the technology is young, and the industrial scale isn't there.

It will be, in good time. All in good time.

Provided, of course, that the Oil industry doesn't sabatage the development of competition.

Remeber this- the Model T Ford began as a flex-fuel car. It was designed to run on ethanol, and gasoline was an after-thought. But in the 1920's, with prohibition, alcohol became more expensive than gasoline, and the Model T turned into a gasoline powered car instead.

Henry Ford was right. Ethanol was the right fuel.
 
James48843 said:
RMI- No, I do not agree with oil subsidies. I think oil should be taxed heavily right now, with the proceeds used to help develop alternative energy infrastructure.

<deleted the ethanol commercial>

Instead, we have big oil paying millions (See Koch Brothers) to get one political view ot yell "Drill baby drill", and try and kill the competition.

Yep- I'm all for killing oil subsidies.

Tax the heck out of it.
Click to expand...

Sorry that I implied that you agree with oil subsidies; I see now how it read that way. You and I both agree on stopping oil subsidies; however, I don't agree on taxing the heck out of it just to pay for other, non-viable programs. If these programs were viable, they wouldn't need help from MY tax dollars to be competitive (hence the reason oil shouldn't be getting it either, or GM, or GE, et al).

Don't be innocent-like thinking that Democratic/Liberal policies don't receive millions (can you say Soros[maybe billions]) to push their agenda? I know you can't be that niave.

OBTW, nice slam on the Koch brothers. Maybe we should tax them out of business so their companies can collapse and all 50k+ employees can become government employees (either in the government, or in GM)... I am not a Koch-head like you might think; I am just pointing out how you had to get all OLM-like on it...

My political view has nothing to do with my point of view on oil. I actually know several Democrats who agree with me. It isn't political, it's about the economy AND about national security.

James48843 said:
P.S.- just for clarification- the Ethanol industry doesn't collect ANY subsidies.

The ethanol VEETC tax credit goes to the entity that BLENDS TOGETHER the ethanol and gasoline.

Today, that is done (95% + of the time) at an OIL COMPANY TERMINAL, by an oil company.

So it is the oil company that actually received that actual Ethanol tax credit.

Just trying to keep the record straight here.
Click to expand...

ok, stop the subsidies either way.

And, I will do more research to see, but I don't buy it...
 
P.S.- just for clarification- the Ethanol industry doesn't collect ANY subsidies.

The ethanol VEETC tax credit goes to the entity that BLENDS TOGETHER the ethanol and gasoline.

Today, that is done (95% + of the time) at an OIL COMPANY TERMINAL, by an oil company.

So it is the oil company that actually received that actual Ethanol tax credit.

Just trying to keep the record straight here.
 
RMI- No, I do not agree with oil subsidies. I think oil should be taxed heavily right now, with the proceeds used to help develop alternative energy infrastructure.

I'll give you an example- You say natural gas should be used. I totally agree that natural gas should also be supported for infrastructure development. But let's look at reality:


It costs only about $100 to make a car flex-fuel for ethanol. It costs about $3,000 more to make it CNG compatible. That's part of the reason I think we should support ethanol infrastucture- there are already 10 million cars out there that can use E85- and only a handful of CNG cars already built. It's a chicken'/egg thing. It's not expensive to equip a car for ethanol. It IS expensive to make it CNG capatible. Not REAL expensive, but 30 times more than it takes to make one ethanol compatible. Every dollar counts.

So, that's one area where we could tax gasoline, and use the money to help offset either ethanol development, or CNG car development. Maybe give car makers a $500 credit towards either flex-fueling a car with ethanol or CNG. That would help.

At the same time, the filling infrasturcture is costly too. It costs about an extra $5,000 to make a blender pump on a modern gas pump. (E10-E30-E50_E85 pump is about 25K, compared to just 20K for a modern regualr/Premium/Diesel 3-way pump).

But it costs about $100,000 for a CNG dispensor, AND the maintenence on a CNG pump is very , very expensive as well. that's part of the reason you don't see many CNG dispensors around. There IS some infrastructure in Las Vegas, who committed, as a city, to building some alternative fueling stations. But not a lot. I would be happy to see 50 cents a gallon gasoline tax, if the money was used to build CNG stations too.

Ethanol today is cheaper than gasoline. Five years ago, it was exactly the opposite. And although CNG is cheaper today than gasoline, that doesn't count the cost of maintenance of the pumps. If you pay $10,000 a year maintenace on a CNG pump (which is about right on the cost), you have to build that into the cost of the product. today they aren't putting that cost into the cost of the product. They are pricing it based only on natural gas costs delivered in a pipeline underground to your house.


In South Korea, there are almost as many CNG stations as gasoline stations. The government there decided years ago to support alternative fuels. Both CNG and gasoline is imported in South Korea. But the society there supports a diversiy of fuel measures, becuase they wanted choices. Government helped pay to build that diverse infrastucture. And it works well. CNG is now about 40% of all cars in South Korea.

And Brazil has almost as many ethanol selling stations as gasoline stations- Ethanol is the main fuel in the MAJORITY of cars in Brazil. Somewhere around 70% of cars sold in Brazil run on ethanol, not gasoline.

So why can't we do the same? Ethanol? check. CNG? Check. Electric? Check. All we need to do is get the mindset and the will to diversify the fuel supply, and we COULD do it.

Instead, we have big oil paying millions (See Koch Brothers) to get one political view ot yell "Drill baby drill", and try and kill the competition.

Yep- I'm all for killing oil subsidies.

Tax the heck out of it. And use the money for alternative development. 50 cents a gallon no problem . Maybe a buck a gallon on gasoline, if the price of gas falls below $4/gallon. Make it a nice easy $5 a gallon, and use that buck specifically to develop all the alternative infrastructure we can.
 
Last edited:
James48843 said:
This is the problem with the "Drill baby Drill" exclusive plan:

there simply ISN'T ENOUGH OIL HERE DOMESTICALLY to continue feeding the oil habit forever.

Sure, you can drill some more wells. And we will. And that will get us a little longer. And yes, the oil is in harder places to reach, so the price will go up. And yes, the oil in tar sands will use huge amounts of water to try and make useable oil from. Sure. We can do that. For a while.

But eventually we'll run OUT of oil. They just aren't making any more of it, you know?

So what will you do then?


There is no single, easy answer to replace oil.

But neither is "drill baby drill" going to solve our nation's needs for energy. It just isn't possible to drill our way into energy indepence. That worked in the 1940's and 1950's. It's over. The easy to reach oil IS GONE. So now it's a matter of finding and reaching the ever harder to find and recover oil. And destroy our land and our waters in the process of reaching that harder and harder to reach oil.



it's all about choices we make as a society.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem with not drilling (oh, btw, I never said exclusive):

There is not enough oil on the planet to support our habit, we know. We WILL run out of oil eventually. I agree...
We are at the whim of our enemies, we should remove that security issue by being dependant on ourselves for energy.
We need time to develop viable energy sources. Ethanol was a scam, not a viable, long-term energy source.
There are several sources of oil or natural gas (can we say fracking on this board?) domestically.

Just some quick thoughts. Now that the Senate has voted down ethanol subsidies, lets see if it really can stand on it's own. Now on to oil subsidies (which you obviously agree with)...
 
RealMoneyIssues said:
Interesting thoughts, but only that... If there isn't a need for corn, then they can grow something else, say cotton, soy beans... If they don't want to be farmers, maybe they can work at McD's since they are doing a lot of hiring...

So, that means we should drill our own oil; right?

My choice is to drill domestically, and a good choice it is too :D
Click to expand...


This is the problem with the "Drill baby Drill" exclusive plan:

there simply ISN'T ENOUGH OIL HERE DOMESTICALLY to continue feeding the oil habit forever.

Sure, you can drill some more wells. And we will. And that will get us a little longer. And yes, the oil is in harder places to reach, so the price will go up. And yes, the oil in tar sands will use huge amounts of water to try and make useable oil from. Sure. We can do that. For a while.

But eventually we'll run OUT of oil. They just aren't making any more of it, you know?

So what will you do then?


There is no single, easy answer to replace oil.

But neither is "drill baby drill" going to solve our nation's needs for energy. It just isn't possible to drill our way into energy indepence. That worked in the 1940's and 1950's. It's over. The easy to reach oil IS GONE. So now it's a matter of finding and reaching the ever harder to find and recover oil. And destroy our land and our waters in the process of reaching that harder and harder to reach oil.



it's all about choices we make as a society.
 
James48843 said:
Just 'food for thought':

When we didn't use corn for ethanol, corn was priced at $2.50 a bushel, and we paid farmers $5 billion a year in farm subsidies to keep them from abandoning farms. We produced about 7 to 8 billion bushels a year of corn as a nation.

Then we paid ethanol blending subsidies to help create a new alternative fuel infrastructure and market. At first, the price of ehtanol was above the price of gasoline, so we gave a tax credit to ethanol blenders to make the price cost competitive, and get farmers to sell their product to the ethanol industry.

The market reacted by growing BOTH corn for ethanol and corn for feeding farm animals. We STOPPED giving corn farmers those farm subsidies, because the price of corn went up from $2.50 a bushel to $7 a bushel. So we eliminated $5 billion in corn subsidies. By the way, we increased production from 7-8 billion bushes a year, to 12-13 bushels a year. All without increasing the amount of land we are using to grow on. We simply became much more productive and efficient, and produced a lot MORE corn then ever before. There was no shortage of corn in the USA, we still gave more to animal producers than ever before, without having to give ANY corn farm subsidies any more, AND we began an export of surplus "Dried Distiller's Grain", of DDG, as a by-product of corn ethanol production.


There is no shortage of corn. You are commenting on the PRICE of corn, not the ability to get it. If there is less use by ethanol, that very well could lead to reduced price, and reduced production, which would mean farmers who grow corn may lose their farms. And, yes, you'll give a lot more of that money to Arab shieks instead of American farmers, by having to import more foreign oil.

Your choice.
Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts, but only that... If there isn't a need for corn, then they can grow something else, say cotton, soy beans... If they don't want to be farmers, maybe they can work at McD's since they are doing a lot of hiring...

So, that means we should drill our own oil; right?

My choice is to drill domestically, and a good choice it is too :D
 
McCain: Ethanol lobby still calls the shots
By Ben Geman 06/17/11 09:03 AM ET

Don’t count Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) among those who see ethanol on the ropes politically, despite Thursday’s lopsided Senate vote to strip a multibillion-dollar tax break that benefits the industry.
While voting to end the ethanol blender’s credit and import tariff, the Senate rejected — 41-59 — McCain’s amendment to kill federal funds for installation of ethanol pumps and storage tanks at gas stations.

“It lost because of the influence of the ethanol lobby,” McCain said on Fox News Thursday, alleging ethanol “is probably the greatest rip-off that I've seen since P.T. Barnum. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/167039-mccain-ethanol-lobby-still-calls-the-shots
 
goforit said:
with out corn being used for ethanol this would leave more corn to be used for feed of our farm animals and of course that all important devil juice corn fructose which is in everything(almost) we eat. if more corn is available for farm feed it would cost farmers less to feed and MAYBE it would help keep food prices down or at least stable. this is just my thought. i am a small hobby farmer and feed prices have double since i started this ten years ago. i was paying about 170.00 for a ton of hog grower and 9-11.00 for chicken feed. now i am paying 341.00 a ton for hog grower and 22.00 for chicken feed. this is due to the increase use of corn for ethanol. again this is just my opinion with what little facts i presented.
Click to expand...


Just 'food for thought':

When we didn't use corn for ethanol, corn was priced at $2.50 a bushel, and we paid farmers $5 billion a year in farm subsidies to keep them from abandoning farms. We produced about 7 to 8 billion bushels a year of corn as a nation.

Then we paid ethanol blending subsidies to help create a new alternative fuel infrastructure and market. At first, the price of ehtanol was above the price of gasoline, so we gave a tax credit to ethanol blenders to make the price cost competitive, and get farmers to sell their product to the ethanol industry.

The market reacted by growing BOTH corn for ethanol and corn for feeding farm animals. We STOPPED giving corn farmers those farm subsidies, because the price of corn went up from $2.50 a bushel to $7 a bushel. So we eliminated $5 billion in corn subsidies. By the way, we increased production from 7-8 billion bushes a year, to 12-13 bushels a year. All without increasing the amount of land we are using to grow on. We simply became much more productive and efficient, and produced a lot MORE corn then ever before. There was no shortage of corn in the USA, we still gave more to animal producers than ever before, without having to give ANY corn farm subsidies any more, AND we began an export of surplus "Dried Distiller's Grain", of DDG, as a by-product of corn ethanol production.


There is no shortage of corn. You are commenting on the PRICE of corn, not the ability to get it. If there is less use by ethanol, that very well could lead to reduced price, and reduced production, which would mean farmers who grow corn may lose their farms. And, yes, you'll give a lot more of that money to Arab shieks instead of American farmers, by having to import more foreign oil.

Your choice.
 
with out corn being used for ethanol this would leave more corn to be used for feed of our farm animals and of course that all important devil juice corn fructose which is in everything(almost) we eat. if more corn is available for farm feed it would cost farmers less to feed and MAYBE it would help keep food prices down or at least stable. this is just my thought. i am a small hobby farmer and feed prices have double since i started this ten years ago. i was paying about 170.00 for a ton of hog grower and 9-11.00 for chicken feed. now i am paying 341.00 a ton for hog grower and 22.00 for chicken feed. this is due to the increase use of corn for ethanol. again this is just my opinion with what little facts i presented.
 
Let's stop subsidies to the oil companies and put all that money over to Government Motors (GM) so they can sell inexpensive electric cars.
 
If it cost more without Moonshine so be it, I'll pay it! That's Better than driving up the price of our food so the chosen few can make a killing and beside that lower taxes should make up the difference along with the better gas mileage we will get with REAL GAS> Biggest RIPOFF in 100 years now we should pay to have thousands of gas pumps and storage tanks installed, is that private industry? CROOKS BS!
 
James48843 said:
For a gallon of gasoline sold today (10% is ethanol, you know), the Oil companies current pay less than $2.60 a gallon, and then they also get a 45 cent blender's credit, making the cost of the ethanol really only $2.15 a gallon. The Oil company then buys 90% of it's product at about $3.00 a gallon (gas), and mixes in 10% at $2.15.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the mix you propose would "cost" $2.915
With local gas around $3.50 that isn't a huge profit margin

because...

James48843 said:
Then they sell it to YOU at a nice profit.
Click to expand...
oh yeah, you forgot a few steps:
Wholesaler
Distributor
Retailer

The profit margin is way overstated for the oil industry (pertaining to GAS sales only). Just my 2 cents.
 
Your opinion because you are into Ethanoil for your own gains...No proof anywhere of what you're saying


to quote you: "BUNK"
 
RealMoneyIssues said:
Other than being gouged... why?
Click to expand...

For a gallon of gasoline sold today (10% is ethanol, you know), the Oil companies current pay less than $2.60 a gallon, and then they also get a 45 cent blender's credit, making the cost of the ethanol really only $2.15 a gallon. The Oil company then buys 90% of it's product at about $3.00 a gallon (gas), and mixes in 10% at $2.15. Then they sell it to YOU at a nice profit.

With the ethanol blender's credit gone, the price of ethanol will tumble, and less of it will get blended into gasoline. That will mean a decrease in demand for ethanol, and an INCREASE in demand for gasoline. More gasoline imported means the price of gas will go UP, and the price of ethanol will go DOWN, further harming the problem.



End result is that the removal of price subsidies for using ethanol will make gasoline more expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NewsFeeder
Cocoa prices hit $10,000 per metric ton for the first time ever
Replies
1
Views
86
mmk119
M
FireWeatherMet
For Lower Gas Prices...Thank Ukraine
Replies
0
Views
2K
FireWeatherMet
FireWeatherMet
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - M2 Money is growing faster than inflation again
Replies
0
Views
461
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - China and Consumer Confidence push and pull the market
Replies
0
Views
2K
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - A union strike and a missile strike disrupt the bull market
Replies
0
Views
462
tsptalk
tsptalk
Back
Top