Corn and Ethanol.

[James48843]

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.

The VEETC (Ethanol blending credit) 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]

The VEETC (Ethanol blending credit) 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.

What??? And who paid the "generated $8 billion in tax revenue"???

The consumer again?

If it is such a great fuel, how about letting it stand on its own two feet unsubsidized. Quit play the political tax/tax credit/subsidy shell game and save some trees and quit trying everyone's patience. No change.

 

[Show-me]

Sounds like another embedded tax.

 

[SkyPilot]

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.

Actually, e85 is about 25% less efficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

I live in Minnesota, and my neighbor (an engineer) who is rather focused on the subjuct has monitored his own use and tells me unless he can buy it 30% cheaper than gas, it does not demonstrate a benefit. Plus, we live next to one of those damn plants... the trucks are destroying our roads, the farmers are getting screwed on the corn contracts (plant has already gone bankrupt once) and they are draining our aquifer.

Today
Reg. 2.704
E85 2.32
e85 **E85 MPG/BTU adjusted price 3.065

Break Even Price for e85 2.028 (Today it is .30 a gallon "2.32"from breaking even, much less saving any money.)

That does not even include the tax subsidies granted to keep it at 2.32.

 

[James48843]

Actually, e85 is about 25% less efficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

It depends on the car. My Dodge Stratus gets 14% fewer MPGs on e85 than on gasoline. Some cars get as little as 10% difference. The Dodge Ram pickup, with it's V10 engine, gets 30% fewer. It's all in the design of the engine.

I'll take my 14% difference, and know that the money is going to American farmers, rather than middle-eastern nations.

 

[Show-me]

So lack of efficiency, environmental impact, and cost to the taxpayer takes a back seat to pumped out of the ground of a middle-eastern nation. I say use up their cheap oil and when they run out sell them our ethanol and shale oil reserves.

It is American made but costly to our aquifers for irrigation and production of the end product. Costly to the soil because of the massive artificial nutrients required to grow it and the farming of marginal ground that causes enormous erosion. Very costly to the taxpayer but the Democrats don't really care how much they rape them as long as it has a title of "green" or "made in the USA" no matter how much it is subsidized.

Your arguments are the weak and reek of "no change" due to the fact that ethanol is not a better substitute for oil and legislating its use is tantamount to legislating loans to people who can not afford them so they can feel warm a fuzzy inside from ownership of a house that they will default on and be bailed out by the taxpayer again.

This is not brilliant reasoning in any way, shape, or form considering the nightmare crisis we are in now. This is just more partisan digging your heels in. That argument is ridiculous because we are one world now and you better not sacrifice your Treasury just to have bragging rights of "Made in America".

It depends on the car. My Dodge Stratus gets 14% fewer MPGs on e85 than on gasoline. Some cars get as little as 10% difference. The Dodge Ram pickup, with it's V10 engine, gets 30% fewer. It's all in the design of the engine.

I'll take my 14% difference, and know that the money is going to American farmers, rather than middle-eastern nations.

 

[Show-me]

James,

You give me the impression that you and your party have to much personal wealth to burn. You enjoy the high taxes and want to make them higher. You would sacrifice your income and the Nations solvency for the brand "Made in America". If a consumer can buy a widget for $1 and the same widget sells for $5 but is "made in USA". Which will the consumer buy? It is economic and it is on a "global scale" now. You can not legislate jobs. It will fail if it does not work economical and bailing it out with tax money that we don't have is another disaster. Look at Greece, Spain, Ireland, it did not work and now they "mob" is in the streets demanding the taxpayer tit and it is dry.

Have you not observed the auto industries mistakes? It takes time for a massive ponzi scheme to collapse, but it will. As much as you would like to blame it all on CEO's and the Republican's. Toyota, Hyundai, and KIA all are making it work in the USA.

Let ethanol stand on its own to feet and see how it works.

 

[SkyPilot]

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning’

David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.
Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".

 

[SkyPilot]

If corn ethanol is so efficient, why is it that ethanol plants do not power themselves with their own product, but rather, rely on natural gas and petroleum? Why do farmers who raise the corn use diesel instead of ethanol for their farm equipment?

When ethanol is produced from biomass instead of corn, then we will see actual progress in this area. However, ADM, ConAgra and the others have no vested interest in tree fiber pulp, switchgrass or general waste. This is why countries who can and do rely on ethanol use sugarcane instead of corn.

 

[James48843]

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning’

David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people.

Now that brings us over here to the energy balance thing. Energy balance has been a masterful piece of PR deception by the oil companies for over 40 years. What the proposition is is it takes more energy to produce alcohol than you get out of it. And the first studies that said this pre-1980 were based on beverage distilleries that were from the 1940's that didn't care anything about the price of energy, because they were making whisky. And the price of energy was immaterial to the profit from the whisky. When that cover got blown and the scientists debunked all that, the oil companies came up with a clever way of keeping the argument going. They found the perfect whitewash man in a scientist named David Pimentel. Now David Pimentel, in many fields, is a person I would respect. The guy's an organic bug scientist. In fact, he's the only organic bug scientist I know who has never had a funding problem. And it turned out that he and four other guys together wrote a study in 1982 that said that it takes more energy to make alcohol from corn than you get out of it. The only problem was that David Pimentel was working for Mobil Oil and he was being paid by them when he did that study. Jack Anderson outed that in public, and Mobil Oil was so arrogant that they came out and took out a full page ad saying, "how dare you impugn the credibility of such a man like David Pimentel simply because he was taking money from us?" Well, duh, yeah, exactly. But just like global warming. Whenever there's an article in the paper about global warming, they bring one of the six scientists left in the world who say global warming is a theory, to be balanced, to be the opposite statement for the six thousand who say it's a fact. Pimentel is that one for alcohol, and whenever he speaks, the American Petroleum Institute sends out 10,000 press releases.

http://www.communitysolution.org/04conf/af1.html


Sure. Dave Pimentel. On the payroll of Exxon-Mobil. Now there's a credible spokesperson.


Would I pay the same as, or slightly more for E85, and help employ Americans, rather than fork over money borrowed from the Chinese, to give to Middle-Eastern countries?

Darn right I would.

The REAL cost of oil addiction is this-
American lives spent to protect oil fields and sea lanes. Young Americans killed, maimed, blown up, to ensure you get your oil addiction fix.

If my neighbors aren't working, and I can buy something from them, and ensure that they are able to make a modest living, I would be happy to do so. If I can change the world to keep our soldiers, sailors, Marines and Airmen to be needlessly killed in the name of addiction to cheap oil, oil subsidized that doesn't reflect the REAL cost per gallon of keeping it flowing (which should be more like $6-8 a gallon gasoline, by the way, if you added up the real cost).

Then yes, by all means-- I WOULD support finding alternatives to oil. Spend fifteen minutes reading this report- compiled back in 2005, BEFORE the latest price spikes, which found the real price of gasoline, when pump prices were around a buck, was considerably higher:

http://www.icta.org/doc/Real Price of Gasoline.pdf

View attachment 8526

​

 

[Show-me]

The VEETC (Ethanol blending credit) 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.

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/59172

Point 5: The VEETC has reduced farm payments and increased tax revenue that completely offsets whatever the cost of that tax credit is...

Response: Irrelevant even if true, because once more I remind you that the blender still has to buy the ethanol. So if it really had the offsets you claim, that won't change by eliminating the subsidy.

If that's the best you have, then I can safely conclude that the emperor has no clothes. You didn't address my arguments at all, because you know you can't. Of course people might be curious as to why you have responded in such a way, but I know why you did. The last thing you want is for people to confront the costs of ethanol at the pump, where they might start to think that our ethanol policy isn't such a good idea after all. That is what you truly fear.

In closing, if you guys aren't afraid to expose your arguments to a bit of scrutiny, I would like to issue a debate challenge. Let's say 3 rounds, 1,000 word limit per round.

Resolved: The ethanol mandates enacted by the U.S. federal government have eliminated the purpose of the ethanol subsidies.

 

[Bullitt]

"The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray."

Basically, everything you've laid out in defense of using a FOOD SOURCE as energy is based off of models, stats and subsidization. When a few people based their hypothesis' on a housing model that seemed foolproof a few years back, we brought ourselves to the biggest economic catastrophe in global history.

Without subsidizing the ethanol industry, it won't work. How much of my tax money has been subsidized in the wind energy business? The plan that, "We need to stop relying on enemies for an energy source!", sounds great on paper, but there isn't enough money to go round here.

The economy is in the dumps. New Normal? How about "back to normal". Airline traffic is down, truck traffic is down and trains are soon to be defunct regardless of Warren's 100 year investment. Who are the majority fliers? Businessmen with maybe leisure right behind? Businessmen make global deals with other companies to deliver a product, hence additional oil is burnt in the air by aircraft and on the roads with 18 wheelers to make delivery. With consumption down, oil usage is down, and it's only going to get worse as thousands of baby boomers retire daily while thousands of college educated kids are unable to find work because of cost cutting.

I'm not a believer in Peak Oil as I consider it just another sham thought up by the crooks to get mom and pop to "buy and hold energy stocks for the long term". We take much for granted and yes, we could have a face off with Iran that brings oil shock to the west, but at the same time, what are we going to do when we face our first crop failure in the US?

I am not going to let myself be fooled into believing that the auto industry is on the mend either after 29% of last years sales were fleet sales. My agency has cars in the fleet still buried in snow from November just sitting in the parking lot. Let's see how long we keep ourselves awake for (auto industry) by drinking coffee (stimulus/subsidization) until we completely crash.

I will agree with you on one thing though. Americans haven't learned the lesson from $4 oil shock a few years ago. I say mix in a bicycle or a walk to get from point A to point B. Think of the billions of calories America will burn, billions of dollars America will save in healthcare, and billions of barrels of oil America can save the world. Unfortunately, for anyone who pays taxes and with a mid term election year upon us, expect the finger to once again be pointed at big oil and their 'failure' to produce a viable green energy.

 

[Show-me]

And, the people you quote are on a payroll too. Ethanol producers, corn producers, ethanol transporters, green loonies, PETA, DNC, etc. So what, facts are facts. Ethanol is not the answer and it is not cheaper or more efficient. Ethanol producer are gaming the system just like the crooked corporate goons in the lending and housing industry. Just another gaming the system at the taxpayers expense. Rah, rah, rah, go green weenie.

 

[Show-me]

Lets force everyone to be Amish. Better for the environment and less subsidies.

 

[alevin]

Show-Me-I personally agree wholeheartedly about the massive artificial fertilizer inputs, aquifer drawdown, soil erosion, farmng of marginal ground, etc. etc.

My life's vocation has been about Conservation with a capital C-and that includes protecting soil and water as the basic foundation for any other form of conservation. At the same time I've been an Indie/Dem my whole life too-so please don't call ineffective or partial energy conservation solutions a Dem or Green issue-call it an issue of ecological ignorance and short-sightedness and not thinking the whole thing through re long-term impacts.

Tribes around here think in terms of wellbeing of the 7th generation down the line-they make all their tribal government policy and business decisions based on the 7th generation down the line. they're here for the really long haul.

Along with draining aquifers, costly non-renewable energy chemical inputs, and other demands on limited water supply-I became aware recently (through another forum), that producers of seed for Open-Pollinated/Heirloom varieties (read non-commercial) food production are going out of business, converting their acreages to corn due to the subsidies/tax breaks and higher prices for the product thanks to emphasis on ethanol.

The demand for seed from these small producers was so great last year, that the suppliers still in business could barely keep up with the demand last spring and maybe not this spring either (from backyard food farmers, back-to-the landers, Community-supported Agriculture movement, urban neighborhood gardening, people out of work who are trying to cut grocery costs and transportation costs, and need to move affordable quality food supply closer to urban and suburban consumers.

Sustainable/self-sufficient lifestyle (grown your own food/organic/farmers market/Community-supported agriculture) people like me used to be called "greenies" or back-to-the lander hippies, but I'd say now we cross all political boundaries-considering many politically conservative as well as many extremely liberal people on the Heirloom Food Gardening forum I hang out in.

....-BTW did you notice Detroit? the mayor is trying to move people in closer to be able to continue to provide for residual affordable utility and road maintenance, convert outlying areas back to farmland to produce more food locally). It's going to happen other places as well.

Heritage/Open-Pollinated/Heirloom seed (means you can cut your seed-purchase costs, save your own seed to grow your own food year after year). Can't do that if big biz becomes monopoly on seed supply.

Some people could start selling their own excess production at local farmer's markets. one way to to earn money/support your family if can't find a job doing something else more lucrative)-won't happen if corn-ethanol subsidies/tax breaks cause the Heirloom seed growers to leave the business for financial survival reasons.

Just wish people would quit putting all us Dems/libs/Progs/Indies in the same box. We're not all alike and don't all support the same solutions with the same fervor. One reason I'm a Dem/Indie-I try to be independent thinker-no "party line only" here.

 

[Show-me]

alevin,

I am glad to see your post and thrilled that I am not the only person concerned with the aquifers and conservation. The hatred of oil and the marketing of the ethanol industry has blinded the population. I say pump they oil until it runs out. Water, soil, and food are more important and the free market will take care of the oil by pricing, supply, and demand.

 

[James48843]

State of the art Ethanol production facility.

Doesn't use corn.
Uses anything that has carbon in it.

Old tires.
Switch Grass.
Wood chips.

Anything that has carbon.


This is where ethanol is going next.
​

 

[SkyPilot]

James, don't get me wrong. I am pro ethanol, just not from corn. It is corporate greed that pushes corn at the expense of taxpayers. The petroleum industrial complex as well as the agricultural mobsters are using corn to bleed the country.

Ethanol from sugar (non tariff), switchgrass, biomass, etc... fine. But we are beign suckered. That's why no one else in the world is pursuing ethanol from corn. Mostly just us.

However, ethanol production as it stand now is deplieting our water supplies and ruining beautiful Minnesota.

 

[nnuut]

James, don't get me wrong. I am pro ethanol, just not from corn. It is corporate greed that pushes corn at the expense of taxpayers. The petroleum industrial complex as well as the agricultural mobsters are using corn to bleed the country.

Ethanol from sugar (non tariff), switchgrass, biomass, etc... fine. But we are beign suckered. That's why no one else in the world is pursuing ethanol from corn. Mostly just us.

However, ethanol production as it stand now is deplieting our water supplies and ruining beautiful Minnesota.

I agree with you SP, make it out of trash not food.

 

[alevin]

trash, not food-and maintain a diversity of food crops within a region-no corn monoculture. the other little problem developing on the east side of the Midwest-is people converting prime farmland back to timberland (for carbon storage credits). :worried:

the east side of the midwest tallgrass prairie was always a naturally fluctuating boundary-trees invaded from the east, fires from the grasslands on the west side would beat the tree line back eastward regularly through natural fire cycles-reason why there used to be buffalo as far east as New York.