Corn and Ethanol.

[James48843]

Buster- I want to show you something:

First, here is the bulk price of gasoline, on the Chicago Board of Trade today, trading April RBOB gasoline futures: $2.11 a gallon

View attachment 8424​

Next, Here is today's price for April delivery- Chicago Board of Trade, for ethanol futures, same date: Ethanol futures are at $1.70 a gallon.

View attachment 8425

Now, ethanol also gets a .49 cent a gallon blender's tax credit. That means for each gallon that someone mixes ethanol and gasoline to make E85, they get .49 cents from Uncle Sam.

Which means, the REAL price, at the point where it's made into E85, is $1.70 a gallon, MINUS .49 cents, or $1.21 a gallon.

There is .185 cents a gallon federal tax, and, in my state, .20 cents a gallon state tax. Which brings the price of E85 ethanol back up to $1.595 a gallon.

Gasoline, at $2.11 a gallon, also has the same .185 federal road tax, and .20 cents a gallon state road tax, for a total of $2.495, without ANY costs for delivery taken into account.
(Note- if things were fair- since E85 gives you about 15% fewer miles per gallon, the road taxes SHOULD be 15% LESS than gasoline- but almost all states don't recognize that fact. Two cars of equal weight really should be paying the same road tax for each mile traveled, not the same per gallon of fuel,, but that's another gripe for another post...).

So, in short, it costs .90 cents a gallon CHEAPER to buy a gallon of ethanol at the Chicago Board of Trade in bulk (33,000 gallons at a time) than gasoline is.

That's 36% CHEAPER for ethanol, than gasoline.

Now, who again makes that .49 tax credit we always hear about as an "ethanol subsidy"?

It isn't the ethanol companies.

It's the OIL COMPANIES, who own the distribution system now, and blend at the rack.

Ethanol companies, by the way, are currently making a profit on $1.70 ethanol. No subsidy for them.

If free market competition really kicked in here, we would have E85 selling for about 20-25% cheaper than gasoline right now. It's not, because the OIL COMPANIES are soaking up all that profit, and keeping the ethanol companies in check, because OIL owns the distribution system for now.

This is one of the main reasons we NEED to get better distribution in place. We need more E85 pumps. And we need people to demand of their local stations to start carrying E85, so that we can bring up competition, and bring down the price.

And THAT is when you are going to WANT to own a flex-fuel capable car.

Any questions?




​

 

[burrocrat]

Then they got us by the short-hairs.:suspicious:

there's an easy fix for that, starts with R, end with azor.

less to grab that way, and if they do get ahold of something...

who knows, maybe both will like it?

 

[James48843]

Invest $20G in this truck:

View attachment 8426

and start driving ethanol from your local ethanol plant, to the gas station to deliver it.

Collect and clear $1,250 in gross margin on each trip.

Get 10 gas stations in a 50 mile stretch from the plant to your home, and you can do 3 loads a day comfortably. ($3,750 a day). Less about $250 a day in operating expenses.

Make .50 cents a gallon profit on delivering ethanol, and still undercut the costs of the oil companies by .40 cents a gallon delivered to the gas station.

The truck can be paid for outright a week.

One guy, driving this truck, and delivering to just 10 stations, can clear almost a million bucks a year.

Now multiply that times the number of gas stations out there. If only one out of every ten gas stations in America becomes your customer, you can have 20,000 stations. That's 2,000 of these trucks on the road delivering. That's $2 billion bucks, less wages for the drivers, clerical office staff, etc. Still works out to a billion dollar business within perhaps 3 to 5 years. I've got the business plan to back it up.

Anybody ready to chip in?




​

 

[Silverbird]

When will I be able to use it to fuel a bass boat?

 

[nnuut]

Invest $20G in this truck:​

View attachment 8426​

and start driving ethanol from your local ethanol plant, to the gas station to deliver it.​

Collect and clear $1,250 in gross margin on each trip.​

Get 10 gas stations in a 50 mile stretch from the plant to your home, and you can do 3 loads a day comfortably. ($3,750 a day). Less about $250 a day in operating expenses.​

Make .50 cents a gallon profit on delivering ethanol, and still undercut the costs of the oil companies by .40 cents a gallon delivered to the gas station.​

The truck can be paid for outright a week.​

One guy, driving this truck, and delivering to just 10 stations, can clear almost a million bucks a year.​

Now multiply that times the number of gas stations out there. If only one out of every ten gas stations in America becomes your customer, you can have 20,000 stations. That's 2,000 of these trucks on the road delivering. That's $2 billion bucks, less wages for the drivers, clerical office staff, etc. Still works out to a billion dollar business within perhaps 3 to 5 years. I've got the business plan to back it up.​

Anybody ready to chip in?​

​

Have you considered that if this business is so lucrative that the big trucking companies that deliver GAS might jump on it and put the small truckers out of business, or is there some reason I don't know about as to why they won't?

 

[WorkFE]

Where can I buy shares of Corny James Fuel Delivery

 

[James48843]

Where can I buy shares of Corny James Fuel Delivery

http://greatspiritfuel.com

 

[James48843]

http://detnews.com/article/20100225...a-concerned-flex-fuel-mandates-could-cost-it-$600M-yearly

Toyota concerned flex-fuel mandates could cost it $600M yearly
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington -- Toyota Motor Corp. executives worried last summer about what it perceived as an emerging uneven playing field in the United States, and said new fuel requirements could cost it up to $600 million annually.

The concerns were included in the release by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of what appears to be the complete, 28-page version of a now infamous memo prepared for the company's new North American president Yoshi Inaba in July 2009 -- on his second day on the job.

Other parts of that presentation became public earlier this week, and revealed the automaker as bragging about its success in avoiding or delaying costly regulatory actions, including widespread safety recalls.

The newly released pages reveal the depth of Toyota's concern over flexible-fuel vehicle mandates. Flexible-fuel vehicles can run on traditional fuel blends or E85, which is made of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

Toyota said flex-fuel mandates could cost the company $200 to $300 per vehicle -- or $400 million to $600 million annually.

The presentation featured a photograph of President Barack Obama and included a quote from his campaign literature:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with Congress and auto companies to ensure that all new vehicles have FFV capability."

The presentation noted that Toyota had avoided the requirements so far.

It noted that Toyota had beaten back attempts to make last summer's "cash for clunkers" program apply to only North American-built vehicles. Toyota was the biggest beneficiary of the program that grew to $3 billion.

The presentation called the program a "conquest" for Toyota.

It also worried about the impact of a measure dubbed "card check," which would make it easier for workers to unionize. Toyota has managed to avoid unionization of its U.S. plants.

Delaying the legislation was chalked up in the memo as another "win" for Toyota.

Separately, Toyota's president Akio Toyoda and Inaba met with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for 30 minutes this morning at the department's headquarters.

The meeting, which included National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chief David Strickland, was "productive and focused on the importance of safety and working cooperatively to protect consumers in the U.S.," the department said in a statement.

One recommendation made by Toyota's Washington office, to accelerate decision-making in the United States, appeared to go unheeded. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was critical of the inability of Toyota officials in the United States to make decisions, saying it often took too long to get decisions from Japan on recalls and other issues.

The Toyota internal presentation urged establishment of a "small senior exec. group in U.S. to make timely decisions," and initiate action on legislative and regulatory issues. It also noted the benefit of having engineers in Washington.

"Many issues require immediate (or near immediate) response," the presentation said. "Provide quick response based on daily communication with (Toyota in Japan) and ... to educate lawmakers to have reasonable legislation and regulation."

Toyota said this week it is adding more engineers in the United States and at least three new engineering centers.

Other newly revealed parts of the internal presentation explain the company's concerns about the $85 billion auto industry bailout.

"Government $ for GM/Chrysler," the presentation read. "Not a level playing field."

The presentation said there were "adverse implications" for Toyota of government support for bankrupt GM and Chrysler.

Ironically, Japan is considered one of the world's most closed markets for non-Japanese automakers.

The presentation noted that Ford Motor Co, Tesla Motors Inc. and Nissan Motor Co had received $7 billion in Energy Department retooling loans.

Toyota executives also were worried about "Buy American" attitudes being "on the rise," as well as import taxes, border tariffs and support for auto suppliers.

The company fretted over the impact of new consumer financial regulation on its lending arm, Toyota Motor Credit.

dshepardson@detnews.com (202) 662-8735



From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100225...a-concerned-flex-fuel-mandates-could-cost-it-$600M-yearly#ixzz0gfQdCJnb

 

[James48843]

You would think they should be more worried about safety than about whether or not flex-fuel cars are made mandatory.

P.S. Toyota- get with the program- Flex-Fuel cars are needed.

 

[WorkFE]

E85 after you factor in the reduced MPG is not (marginally) cost effective for the consumer but it does reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned by quite alot. If it helps slow the rate of importing oil, live with it.

"Not a level playing field." Pot calling the kettle black. Been that way for US companies in Japan for years.

I do not believe in protectionism but Japan "Lets level playing field."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/177...ys-no-to-american-cars-in-its-subsidy-program

 

[James48843]

E85 after you factor in the reduced MPG is not (marginally) cost effective for the consumer but it does reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned by quite alot. If it helps slow the rate of importing oil, live with it.

The state with the most E85 stations is Minnesota. They have over 325 stations now, so there is competition in the marketplace.

E85 gets you, on average, between 10% and 15% fewer miles per gallon.

Today, the average price of E85 in Minnesota is $2.11 a gallon, and the price of gasoline is $2.59 a gallon. That's an 18.7% price spread.

So it's cheaper to drive per mile on E85.

http://e85prices.com/minnesota.html

Where ever you have true competition, E85 comes out the better deal.

GM is planning on 50% of it's cars and trucks to be E85 capable by 2012, and 80% dual fuel capable by 2015. The problem now is getting more stations to convert and offer customers a choice.

Me? I'll choose AMERICAN MADE renewable fuel, over imported foreign fuel any day.

P.S. Expect gasoline to go over $3 a gallon soon. Some say $3.25 will be the going rate this summer.
When you have a flex-fuel car, you have a choice.

 

[Show-me]

Take the taxpayer subsidy away and how efficient is it? And, the tax credit.

 

[WorkFE]

James & Show-me, I will not argue the pros and cons, take away all of the tax incentives and subsidies and let stuff survive on its own merits. Changing infrastructure takes a long time, job creation. If tortilla,s have to compete with fuel so be it.

By the way my 2010 Taurus is Flex Fuel capable, just don't find much here in KY.

 

[Show-me]

Rice University analysis questions U.S. ethanol subsidies

By Scott Learn, The Oregonian

January 10, 2010, 7:00AM

Federal taxpayers forked over $1.95 a gallon in ethanol subsidies in 2008 on top of the retail gasoline price, a new white paper from Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy found.

The 118-page analysis from the Houston-based institute says the United States needs to rethink its policy of promoting ethanol. Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the Rice Energy Program and one of the report's authors, said in a news release that the federal government's aggressive goals for ethanol production could mean "throwing taxpayer money out the window."

Oregon has invested heavily in ethanol, including granting tax credits for two corn ethanol refineries that filed for bankruptcy after the economy soured. Critics note that biofuels take up a lot of land and often use petroleum-based fertilizers in abundance.

Oregon officials and ethanol backers say the next generation of biofuels will be more efficient, rely on non-food crops and use less land, helping wean the nation off oil. Petroleum supporters are emphasizing the defects of biofuels to take the heat off oil, they say.

In 2008, the U.S. government spent $4 billion on biofuels subsidies, replacing about 2 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply, according to the Baker Institute report, "Fundamentals of a Sustainable U.S. Biofuels Policy." The average cost to the taxpayer was about $82 a barrel, or $1.95 a gallon.

In 2007, Congress mandated that biofuels production increase from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Corn ethanol is capped at 15 billion gallons a year, but the study says even that level will be difficult to reach.

The report also questions the tariff imposed on ethanol imported from Latin America and the Caribbean, mainly made from sugar cane. Because sustainable production of U.S. domestic corn-based ethanol faces limitations, the report finds "tariff policies that block cheaper imports are probably misguided."

-- Scott Learn
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/01/rice_university_analysis_quest.html

 

[Show-me]

Archer Daniels Midland:
A Case Study In Corporate Welfare

by James Bovard
James Bovard is an associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute. His most recent book is Shakedown: How the Government Screws You from A to Z (Viking, 1995).
​

The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html​

 

[Show-me]

Ethanol’s Federal Subsidy Grab Leaves Little For Solar, Wind And Geothermal Energy

As Congress and the incoming Obama administration plan the nation’s next major investments in green energy, they need to take a hard, clear-eyed look at Department of Energy data documenting corn-based ethanol’s stranglehold on federal renewable energy tax credits and subsidies.
Solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have struggled to gain significant market share with modest federal support. Meanwhile, corn-based ethanol has accounted for fully three-quarters of the tax benefits and two-thirds of all federal subsidies allotted for renewable energy sources in 2007.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/Ethanols...es-Little-For-SolarWind-And-Geothermal-Energy+

 

[Show-me]

What The Ethanol Industry Fears

February 22, 2010 - 4:21 pm

I hadn't intended to write two essays in a row about ethanol policy, but in response to my previous commentary, the ethanol lobby fired a salvo in my direction. Their comments warrant a response.

The point of my previous essay is simple. U.S. taxpayers have provided a tax credit to the ethanol industry for over 30 years. That tax credit, presently known as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), was created to provide incentives for domestic fuel production. In 2005, mandates were introduced in the form of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS directs gasoline blenders to mix specific amounts of ethanol into their fuel, and blenders are subject to fines by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if they fail to comply. Since the EPA can wield a big hammer, companies willingly violate EPA regulations at great corporate risk.

So with a mandate and an enforcement mechanism in place, there is no longer a need for the VEETC. Gasoline blenders won't blend any less than they do now if the credit is eliminated, because of their obligations under the RFS. To continue paying the tax credit is akin to paying people for obeying the speed limit. Without the VEETC, blenders will still buy more ethanol in 2011 than they did in 2010, because it is the law.

"Here are some points to consider, and remember to use these in your own words: * What Rapier is suggesting boils down to a tax increase on an innovative, domestic energy industry. Does Forbes really endorse raising taxes in this tough economic climate? Does Rapier really think raising taxes on an emerging industry is smart? * With domestic, green energy the likely source of hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the United States, why would Forbes and Rapier force a job-killing tax increase on ethanol? * If Rapier is so eager to tax American energy companies, why not end the massive tax subsidies and tax breaks that Big Oil and gas companies get? By some estimates, the oil and gas industry will get around $29 billion in tax breaks from 2008 to 2013. That’s an enormous handout to an industry that sends a billion dollars a day overseas – often to countries that are hostile to the United States. * If the choice were to give a tax credit that helps an American farmer and an American engineer in an American ethanol plant, or giving a tax break to an oil man who is doing business in the Middle East, I’d rather the tax credit stay here on American shores. * The VEETC has reduced farm payments and increased tax revenue that completely offsets whatever the cost of that tax credit is – and in fact generates additional revenue for the federal treasury. In 2007, the $3.3 billion VEETC costs saw farm payments reduced by $8 billion, and generated $8 billion in tax revenue, according to an Iowa State University study."

 

[Show-me]

This is the same programs and mentality that got us into the economic crisis we are in. Stop subsidizing and bailing out the free market.

 

[Show-me]

Now, if you get rid of that tax credit, oil companies still have to buy the ethanol and blend it into the gasoline. Let the free market determine the price of a gallon of ethanol and a bushel of corn.

More embedded taxation.

 

[burrocrat]

GM is planning on 50% of it's cars and trucks to be E85 capable by 2012, and 80% dual fuel capable by 2015.

too bad they weren't planning on avoiding bankruptcy back in '08 instead of pawning off 50% of their assets (100% crap) on the unsuspecting public, but i'm sure they're feeling much better now.

The problem now is getting more stations to convert and offer customers a choice.

yeah, be nice if the taxpayers had a choice.