At what petroleum (gas) price point does the ethanol become more expensive than the gas itself?
Seems then they should stop adding ethanol?
Seems then they should stop adding ethanol?
is the ethanol now more $$$ than the gas itself?
- Thread starter edwardh1
- Start date
- Status
Depends on what the actual production cost of the ethanol is. I read that it costs about $1.10 to produce a gallon of ethanol from corn. And some of these costs maybe or are subsidized by our US government in crop production.
In that case I highly doubt farmers are going to stop their guaranteed income by not planting corn for a year. So the corn will continue to be made into fuel.
And the EPA probably has some mandatory fuel mixtures for winter and summer to help with emissions across our country. For sure in California.
And with production jobs with the ethanol employing thousands of folks, I doubt any production segment will decrease output. So I see production continuing.
So based on my few thoughts, I think that no matter what happens to the price of crude oil and gasoline production costs, we will continue to see ethanol put into gasoline.
Yes, even if it costs more that the gas itself.
In that case I highly doubt farmers are going to stop their guaranteed income by not planting corn for a year. So the corn will continue to be made into fuel.
And the EPA probably has some mandatory fuel mixtures for winter and summer to help with emissions across our country. For sure in California.
And with production jobs with the ethanol employing thousands of folks, I doubt any production segment will decrease output. So I see production continuing.
So based on my few thoughts, I think that no matter what happens to the price of crude oil and gasoline production costs, we will continue to see ethanol put into gasoline.
Yes, even if it costs more that the gas itself.
In 2010 the cost of ethanol against the tax payers of the USA was about 4.00 a gallon.
So any amount of money charged by the producers is pure profit.
So any amount of money charged by the producers is pure profit.
Yesterday E-95 was like 1.81 a gallon, and Gasohol was 1.80!
When gas was about 50 cents per gallon more expensive than now, the petroleum and the ethanol costs were nearly equal. So I would expect that now a gallon of ethanol costs more than a gallon of pure gas.
What a boondoggle, pay more for the fuel, get worse MPG, use food resources for gasoline, sketchy benefits as far as pollution - it should go away, but it won't due to BIG AG, like ADM.
What a boondoggle, pay more for the fuel, get worse MPG, use food resources for gasoline, sketchy benefits as far as pollution - it should go away, but it won't due to BIG AG, like ADM.
Originally Posted By: edwardh1
At what petroleum (gas) price point does the ethanol become more expensive than the gas itself?
Seems then they should stop adding ethanol?
To find the ACTUAL cost of the alcohol one has to look at the cost to the taxpayer for the vast subsidies paid to big agro to grow the corn. Even if E 10 is cheaper, you have to add, if you are a taxpayer instead of a taker, the cost to you of the subsidy.
At what petroleum (gas) price point does the ethanol become more expensive than the gas itself?
Seems then they should stop adding ethanol?
To find the ACTUAL cost of the alcohol one has to look at the cost to the taxpayer for the vast subsidies paid to big agro to grow the corn. Even if E 10 is cheaper, you have to add, if you are a taxpayer instead of a taker, the cost to you of the subsidy.
Last edited:
First, I am not an ethanol defender in its current corn based production in the US.
That being said, the comments that ethanol can only be priced based on its cost to the taxpayer need to be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently oil doesn't receive any subsidies or handouts in the form of tax breaks or otherwise... Give me a break. Both oil and ethanol do.
Rack price for straight gas here is about a 1.45 a gallon. Rack price for ethanol is about 1.54 a gallon. So yes, at the moment, ethanol is more expensive than straight gasoline. However, both are subject to the whims of the market, so there is no straight relationship as to when that flips.
That being said, the comments that ethanol can only be priced based on its cost to the taxpayer need to be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently oil doesn't receive any subsidies or handouts in the form of tax breaks or otherwise... Give me a break. Both oil and ethanol do.
Rack price for straight gas here is about a 1.45 a gallon. Rack price for ethanol is about 1.54 a gallon. So yes, at the moment, ethanol is more expensive than straight gasoline. However, both are subject to the whims of the market, so there is no straight relationship as to when that flips.
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
That being said, the comments that ethanol can only be priced based on its cost to the taxpayer need to be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently oil doesn't receive any subsidies or handouts in the form of tax breaks or otherwise... Give me a break. Both oil and ethanol do.
+1 I've also found the amount of hatred for the ethanol industry based on "massive subsidies" and "big ag" entertaining. Meanwhile big oil keeps plugging along with it's tax breaks, subsidies, other government incentives. That's before you even start thinking about foreign policy spending and/or wars that have been fought to keep oil flowing and cheap. Nobody has died for the sake of ethanol that I'm aware of, unless you count the moonshiners down south.
The US is built on a cheap food and cheap fuel model. Maintain that and the population is happy.
For the record, I burn non-ethanol fuel in my OPE. I'm also in agreement that the corn based model here in the US is not optimal. Sugarcane based - that's another story.
That being said, the comments that ethanol can only be priced based on its cost to the taxpayer need to be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently oil doesn't receive any subsidies or handouts in the form of tax breaks or otherwise... Give me a break. Both oil and ethanol do.
+1 I've also found the amount of hatred for the ethanol industry based on "massive subsidies" and "big ag" entertaining. Meanwhile big oil keeps plugging along with it's tax breaks, subsidies, other government incentives. That's before you even start thinking about foreign policy spending and/or wars that have been fought to keep oil flowing and cheap. Nobody has died for the sake of ethanol that I'm aware of, unless you count the moonshiners down south.
The US is built on a cheap food and cheap fuel model. Maintain that and the population is happy.
For the record, I burn non-ethanol fuel in my OPE. I'm also in agreement that the corn based model here in the US is not optimal. Sugarcane based - that's another story.
Well, one thing ethanol does have going for it.... it has claimed far fewer lives in wars, and cost less in the big picture than oil has. If the cost at the pump truly reflected the money we have spent on wars and lives to keep the oil flowing, it probably would be more like $10 a gallon, before the fuel tax. That is the cost that so many folks seem to overlook when they fill the tank. Even if subsidies were still part of the ethanol scene, and if we added them all up over the years, I would bet it would pale in comparison to the money we have spent over the years to keep the middle east oil flowing since the embargo of '73. Lots of propping up governments, bribery, military aid, and American lives to keep those spigots open. Kinda makes ethanol seem like a minor thing when taken in context of everything else.
TiredTrucker, how so? There would be no ethanol without foreign oil. The tractors used to farm the corn don't run on ethanol. The fertilizer and pesticides used in farming corn are not made from ethanol. The trucks and locomotives required to transport the ethanol to the terminal don't run on ethanol. All those lives and dollars are spent on ethanol too.
Ed
Ed
There would be no ethanol without foreign oil? Tell that to Henry Ford when you see him in the afterlife. His first autos were designed to run on ethanol. And we were not importing oil at that time. No, the tractors don't run on ethanol, but many of them use biodiesel, another home grown deal. Some of those have been certified to use 100% bio in them. There is hardly a diesel truck that isn't being fed some blend of bio nowadays. And if you look at the levels of oil used for ag production today compared to 10 years ago, there is a significant drop. Low till and no till farming practices have reduced the footprint on ag crop production by significant amounts. Even commercial semi trucks are averaging 50% better fuel economy than 15 years ago. Wish the same could be said for the pickup truck market. I never implied that ethanol was a cure for everything, or that we have no need for oil. I stated the facts for what they are. The day the Iowa and Illinois get into a war over ethanol production, delivery, etc, then that will change.
By foreign oil, I assume you are mentioning Canada, Mexico, or Venezuela. Those are our primary "foreign oil" sources. But all of our military expenditures, propping up middle east potentates, and wars have been primarily with oil exporters that we barely use any oil from. And those costs should be rolled directly into the fuel cost at the pump so the public can feel the actual cost of these various adventures. My contention remains..... ethanol has one major thing going for it. We have not had to play in the same sandbox with it as we have had with oil. We have not gone to war over ethanol, we have not lost one soldier over ethanol, For all of it's detractors, ethanol has had a relatively benign impact both financially and human death toll compared to oil.
And even if we didn't make a drop of ethanol, that would not change the dynamics of what oil is costing us in money and lives. If you want to dispute those facts, they your argument is not so much with ethanol as it is with a government that does not allow us to be totally energy independent.
Use it. Don't use it, I don't care.
By foreign oil, I assume you are mentioning Canada, Mexico, or Venezuela. Those are our primary "foreign oil" sources. But all of our military expenditures, propping up middle east potentates, and wars have been primarily with oil exporters that we barely use any oil from. And those costs should be rolled directly into the fuel cost at the pump so the public can feel the actual cost of these various adventures. My contention remains..... ethanol has one major thing going for it. We have not had to play in the same sandbox with it as we have had with oil. We have not gone to war over ethanol, we have not lost one soldier over ethanol, For all of it's detractors, ethanol has had a relatively benign impact both financially and human death toll compared to oil.
And even if we didn't make a drop of ethanol, that would not change the dynamics of what oil is costing us in money and lives. If you want to dispute those facts, they your argument is not so much with ethanol as it is with a government that does not allow us to be totally energy independent.
Use it. Don't use it, I don't care.
- Status
Similar threads
