Senate votes to end ethanol subsidies
#1
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Senate votes to end ethanol subsidies
I just read in the news that the US Senate voted to end subsidies for the ethanol industry. Also, the House reported moved to end support for blending equipment.
This, hopefully, will bring and end to ethanol in my gasoline!
This, hopefully, will bring and end to ethanol in my gasoline!
#3
Rennlist Member
I do agree, however, that the subsidy was one of the worst and most ridiculous wastes of taxpayer money ever. Ever. God Bless Sen Coburn!
#4
Drifting
Then there is the general debate about turning 'food' into 'motor fuel'.. which drives up food prices in some ways.
The support to get the industry off the ground has been there long enough... its sink or swim time.
#5
Rennlist Member
Ending the subsidy is something welcomed. If its worth doing it would stand on its own economically.
Then there is the general debate about turning 'food' into 'motor fuel'.. which drives up food prices in some ways.
The support to get the industry off the ground has been there long enough... its sink or swim time.
Then there is the general debate about turning 'food' into 'motor fuel'.. which drives up food prices in some ways.
The support to get the industry off the ground has been there long enough... its sink or swim time.
At the same time it was SUBSIDIZING the cost of the ethanol for producers. That's stupid. A good analogy is your local municipality PAYING you for observing the posted speed limit. Under law they require you to adhere to it, and pay you to do so at the same time. stupid. wasteful. US government.
#6
ironically, there's a law already in place REQUIRING that refiners account for a portion of their production in renewables. Ethanol is the easiest and most likely renewable out there. So whether or not it can stand on its own economically is academic. The government is forcing the issue.
At the same time it was SUBSIDIZING the cost of the ethanol for producers. That's stupid. A good analogy is your local municipality PAYING you for observing the posted speed limit. Under law they require you to adhere to it, and pay you to do so at the same time. stupid. wasteful. US government.
At the same time it was SUBSIDIZING the cost of the ethanol for producers. That's stupid. A good analogy is your local municipality PAYING you for observing the posted speed limit. Under law they require you to adhere to it, and pay you to do so at the same time. stupid. wasteful. US government.
So ethanol comes down the pike as a replacement oxygenator to MBTE in gasoline and low and behold it also appears to be a salve to the green-folk who want to see visible reductions in the consumption of fossil fuels plus it's based on bio-mass/renewables like corn.
So... GWB and the boys go all in. Ethanol solves the MBTE problem and gives a good enviro-profile. Ethanol plants get subsidies up the yingyang. Corn gets planted ad nausea. Ethanol plants show to be non-viable except for subsidies - standard BS when government gets involved. Bad move for some PR on the part of GWB. Negative side effects are considerable - both in replacement crop loss and bio-mass price inflation. No one visibily cares that more fossil fuels get burned to produce the ethanol than the energy value of the ethanol produced (tractors and combines and ****e)
Lesson learned? Not likely.
The end to it a bad thing if the subsidies are indeed withdrawn? Absolutely.
#7
Rennlist Member
Trending Topics
#8
Rennlist Member
With today's economics, ethanol production is significantly more expensive than gasoline. However, since the refiners must blend biofuels into their petro gasoline, they will have to pay market prices for ethanol. In the absence of the subsidies, the cost of ethanol is likely to go up which will show up at the pump. A related issue is the proposal to reduce tariffs on ethanol imports which should increase supply and hold down prices. dave
#9
Drifting
FYI, if you hear anyone talking about how we should adopt biofuels to replace gasoline for environmental reasons, punch them: it takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol or biodiesel from North American crops than you get from burning it. They may stammer and come up with reports that dispute, and try to claim it has a 0-5% net energy return, but seriously, if the argument is whether ethanol is a net loss or just really really inefficient, it's NOT the solution to our energy problems. Now, we get most of that energy from coal, so we're effectively trading coal for oil with ethanol, which is a good thing if you favor energy independence, but it's not terribly effective environmentally and has a much larger carbon footprint.
#11
Rennlist Member
...but that MTBE was effectively banned simply because of the risk that some if it would leach into the ground from gasoline spills or leaky underground fuel tanks. It's not even toxic, just tastes bad. And probably should have been dealt with in better ways, like double-walled bulk fuel storage tanks
I've always used 15% as the value: it takes 85 BTU's of OPEC oil to produce 100 BTU's of corn ethanol. Not a good deal IMO. Research is continuing and someday the values will be reversed. As an example, it takes about 15 BTU's of oil to make 100 BTU's of ethanol from sugarcane. Lucky for Brazil they have the sun to do the heavy lifting. dave
#12
Drifting
I've always used 15% as the value: it takes 85 BTU's of OPEC oil to produce 100 BTU's of corn ethanol. Not a good deal IMO. Research is continuing and someday the values will be reversed. As an example, it takes about 15 BTU's of oil to make 100 BTU's of ethanol from sugarcane. Lucky for Brazil they have the sun to do the heavy lifting. dave
MTBE is a relatively harmless tracer. Typical California; instead of solving the real problem (stopping fuel from leaking into the environment and water table), they attacked one of the symptoms. But, I suppose ignorance is bliss- who cares if filling station overflow is still being washed into stormdrains so long as nobody notices when they turn on the tap?