Corn ethanol subsidy killed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
It looks like the subsidy pays for 4.5 cents for the ethanol required for 1 gallon of finished gasoline. So in theory, 10% ethanol gasoline should be 4.5 cents/gallon more expensive next year


Except that the tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol ends along with the subsidy for corn ethanol. With the increased boatloads (literally) of sugar cane ethanol that will be coming into the U.S., the price of E10 should stay roughly the same.
 
Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: Burt
It is rare that a subsidy is not renewed, so using the term "killing" is not off the mark.

I don't believe that that ethanol producers have really made huge strides in efficiency. Fermenation and distillation have been around for a long time. Making ethanol takes alot of energy that is most often provided by natural gas and with the price of natural gas in the dumps, it brings down the price of ethanol. But it does not mean the producers are more efficient.

I always wonder about the huge numbers quoted for tax breaks for oil companies. Is the $21 billion you quote tax bax breaks specifially for oil companies or are they for all companies? The oil company that I work for pays 40% of its income in taxes. I think that is a lot.

I think we would be better off with less ethanol.


Look at that, a guy who works for an oil company thinks ethanol is bad. In other news, water is wet!

The subsidy wasn't renewed because the ethanol lobbyists aren't as strong as the oil lobbyists. It wasn't about making good decisions or doing the right thing based on market conditions and prices. Nope. The oil industry simply holds more weight in congress than the ethanol industry. If it were the ethanol industry pumping $19 million in political contributions, the story would be much different.

That's just how we roll.


Yes I work for the oil business, but that does not mean I can't speaketh the truth. We just happen to have a superior product. Get over it. It may make you feel better to make oil companies the whipping boy, but most of what you say is not true. Please feel free to refute that oil companies don't pay
taxes at a higher rate than heavily subsidized and protected ethanol companies. ADM, the leader in ethanol production was known for heavy political contributions. Please tell us details about the efficiency improvements in ethanol. Please give details on the $21 billion in tax breaks - are these unique to the oil business or do ethanol and other industries get similar breaks?


You misunderstand me. I am not making a commentary on on ethanol's effiency or oil's superiority.

I am simply making a statement that most of the decisions made concerning our country's energy policy (or lack thereof) is politically driven, not scientifically driven, and much of that drive comes from $$$ donated by industry. All industry, not just the oil industry. This is unfortunate. I am sorry if my post made the oil industry a whipping boy. Ethanol producers (an by extension, the farm lobby) and the electrics do it just as much. I have disdain for them all.

I would welcome a frank and factual congressional discussion about the true effiencies about fuel and energy. One that ultimatly leads to a comprehensive energy policy which benefits both the people consuming the energy and the companies that are responsible for producing it, all while keeping a watchful eye on enviornmental effects, but not so much that it becomes an insurmountable handicap.

Unfortunatly, I don't see that happening any time soon. I may as well wish for Santa Claus to deliver me a winning lottery ticket while I'm at it.
 
I don't know anything about subsidies to the farmers or alcohol manufacturers going away, but the federal blended fuel tax credit does go away this weekend.

This is what I received from one of my suppliers today:

"Under the IRS Code for Alcohol Fuel Mixture Credit, the ethanol Blender of Record is allowed to take a credit against their Federal Excise Tax return for purchases of blended gasoline. Currently, when purchasing blended gasoline with an ethanol content of 10% from xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, a credit has been passed along to you in the form of a $.0450 credit against the Federal Gasoline Tax. The ethanol tax credit is scheduled to expire after 12/31/2011. With this in mind, xxxxxxxxxxxxx will no longer be passing allong tax credits to you on your invoices for blended gasoline."

As a practical matter, around here, blended fuel usually cost me about three and a half cents more than non blended before the credit, so it will be interesting to see where the wholesale prices land on blended and non blended for 01/01/12.
 
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: ridgerunner
I don't know much about this topic of adding corn ethanol to gasoline [censored]. All I do know is that it is a cryin' shame to waste good corn ethanol in a gas tank when it could be made for sippin'!


My vote for the best post here!
01.gif
cheers3.gif



I dont like corn liquor a.k.a. "Moonshine."
smile.gif
10.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 45ACP
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: ridgerunner
I don't know much about this topic of adding corn ethanol to gasoline [censored]. All I do know is that it is a cryin' shame to waste good corn ethanol in a gas tank when it could be made for sippin'!


My vote for the best post here!
01.gif
cheers3.gif



I dont like corn liquor a.k.a. "Moonshine."
smile.gif
10.gif



U just haven't found the right producer yet lol.
 
Originally Posted By: AmericaWestCMH
The subsidy expired, but the mandates for using ethanol are still there.

Is not it elegant?
 
Originally Posted By: Burt
..to make oil companies the whipping boy..

It does look that way that this administration in particular has some scores with oilers to set, and they use any excuse however minor to do it..
As someone who drives minimum 300 miles per day, all I can say: drink that ethanol yourself, shove it in some New Age enema, do whatever you want, but don't force it on me - it is bad for business.
 
Your oil boy had the best part of a decade to "do the right thing by your 'oilers' "...and what did he do ?
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: 45ACP
Originally Posted By: Cujet
As a "turbo guy", I love E-85. It's cheap and it allows high compression engines to tolerate high boost and make excellent HP.

I do hope for continued E-85 pumps throughout the country.

It's not uncommon to use 11 to 1 compression ratio's on E-85, along with significant boost. Try that with 93 octane!

Im not following you. Im familiar with 87, 89, (90 and 91 in the Mid-west. 86 is NEVER going in my car) and 92, 93, 94 for Premium. I see 92 and 93 about equally.

I have also been taught that unless your car NEEDS it, get 87. I also do not know how to determine if a car NEEDS high octane gas, any car. Old or new...... import or domestic.. the 80s/90s/2000s on high-end cars (?) blur the line. 70s cars, too.

Now, about E85:
1. Doesnt it have special marked pumps, like Diesel does? (and therefore, select availability?)
2. How is it better than the 87, 89, 92/93?

Maybe i can learn something here.


Well, in this case, the fuel is unique and quite different from high octane gasolines. Also, the poster above is only partially correct. It's not just the mods that make the HP. It's the significantly increased volume of fuel required to achieve proper combustion (remember that alcohols contain less energy per gallon) . Put another way, it's because of its lower stoichiometric fuel ratio and lower heating value. This additional quantity of fuel, coupled with alcohol's excellent "latent heat of vaporization" result in a more dense air charge, whether normally aspirated (a modest improvement) or boosted (where it works exceptionally well in various ways such as cooling valves and pistons in addition to the more dense air).

There's more too. While the octane of E-85 is not all that high (94-96 in knock engine tests), it soundly outperforms much higher octane race gas in many forced induction applications. This is due to a situation where the fuel and air are quite densely packed in the combustion chamber, and certain fuels have vastly slower flame fronts and significantly higher detonation resistance under these conditions.

The two fuels that come to mind that work very well under very high boost applications are Toluene and certain alcohols. Both far exceed the predicted performance of the "calculated octane value". The 1980's vintage turbo F1 cars were a prime example of this (they ran off a mix of Toluene, that met modest octane rule requirements, yet were able to run unlimited boost!!! ) .

It's quite common for E85 turbo guys to run 11 to 1 compression ratio's and 30+++ pounds of boost in port fuel injected engines without any detonation detected. There are very few/none gasoline based fuels that can do this.

Yes, direct injected engines can run even higher CR's with E-85. Testing is now going on with turbocharged E85 only engines that run 14 to 1. It's almost difficult to believe, but it works very well and is quite thermally efficient.


I'm not sure this has been clarified in relation to 45ACP's question: E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, not to be confused with the 85 OCTANE regular you'll see from eastern Colorado on up into the Rockies.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Your oil boy had the best part of a decade to "do the right thing by your 'oilers' "...and what did he do ?


This is a true statement. But this current individual is no better because instead of oil he is a partner in crime with the financial community.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
someday you guys will all figure out there are NO honest politicians!


I've known that forever nearly.

However, we did have one honest guy here. They changed the electoral boundries such that he had thousands of square km of electorate, and maybe a few meat cows on it...then when he died, they rescinded everything that he'd accomplished.

RIP Peter Andren.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Your oil boy had the best part of a decade to "do the right thing by your 'oilers' "...and what did he do ?

Not saying one is better than the other. Just this 'anybody but X' strategy gave us these banana benders in the first place. The oilboys were not particularly smart and nimble, yet they did not ruin the working and profitable industries. These guys think that the sooner they kill the 'old, stagnating order' and create the vacuum, the sooner the vacuum is going to be filled by the new gentler, kinder shining future.. This killing for the sake of killing, revenge for the sake of revenge is more ruinous than stagnation. Nothing but obstructive governance so far.
Anyway, socialist friends of The Crown, have a Happy New Year yourselves!
 
Where would one rather have the subsidy money go to, someone in the usa or elswhere? I heard on the radio the blender subsidy was 16billion and the oil companies subsidies is between 75-200 billion but no one knows the exact figure for the oil companies. With the 16 trillion debt who cares anyway.
 
Yes it is true that money and special interests influence policy making, but the best way to overcome that is to get involved in the primary selection process. It is too late to just wait for the general election and grumble about the lack of decent choices. Where I live, the GOP elders pick the candidate and we have to live with someone who walks the straight party line. Reminds me more of the Soviet system where the party picks the candidate and you vote yes or no. I prefer someone that can think for themselves and have little respect for the candidate that happens to agree with the party line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom