Corn ethanol subsidy killed

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Thank god, maybe they will finally stop blending mileage killing, expensive, corn ethanol in our gas!
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=23593


Nothing is that simple as you might know. Here in the heartland(corn country) ethanol is hugh business now. We have two new ethanol plants just miles from here hiring many people using a lot of farmers corn grown right here in Illinois. You might gain 1/2 mile per gallon with your mileage if ethanol is gone(which it won't be) but thousands here may lose their jobs.

 

[45ACP]

Is this why gas is now $2.97 instead of in the mid-to-high $3-range?

if so, i approve this move.

These low gas prices are just what we needed. I dont care WHO did WHAT.. Im saying "Thank you." (btw, they normally go UP when it gets cold. Went DOWN this year!)

 

[JHZR2]

IMO pricing may depend upon the law. When EtOH was subsidized and cheaper than has, why not blend it on the up to 10% level allowable, as it raises profit margins.

If EtOH is now more expensive, maximization of profit would suggest to use as little as possible to satisfy the law, and maximize the use of the lower cost fuel. Back when ethanol was cheaper, the only thing keeping retailers from going higher than 10% was the laws. And, many did sneak more in. BMW actually had an advisory where they found 15-20% in some gas.

 

[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.

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: 45ACP

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.


1. Yes, they have specially marked pumps.
2. It’s not “better” than regular gas, it just has a higher octane rating. (Around 105-110, if I remember correctly)

If your vehicle only requires 87 octane, then simply use 87. Anything higher is a waste of money. However if your vehicle requires a higher octane, such as 91, then obviously you need to use 91. The reason some vehicles need higher octane is because they were designed/tuned to use the higher octane fuel. The manufacturer may have given the engine a higher compression ratio, added a turbo or supercharger, advanced the timing, etc. All of these will increase power and performance, but will require the use of higher octane gas. (It is NOT the fuel itself that increases power, it is the modifications/design of the engine I listed above. The modifications simply require the use of high octane gas in order for the engine to run properly.)

What Cujet is saying, is that many people modify their engines to get much more power out of them, but in doing so, they require a higher (105+) octane fuel. E85 is a great, cheap ~105 octane fuel.

 

[SevenBizzos]

If ethanol is so great it will have no problem standing in the marketplace on it's own. End the mandate and give the people options on what they want to buy.

 

[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'!

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: 45ACP
Is this why gas is now $2.97 instead of in the mid-to-high $3-range?

if so, i approve this move.

The price decrease is likely due to the European financial problems.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Now what I really want them to do is stop raising the blasted vapor pressure of gasoline in the winter. With so few carbureted cars left on the road its worse than pointless, its doing the exact opposite of the original intent of lowering unburned HCs in the air.

It's not that they purposely raise the vapor pressure for winter gas, it's that they lower it for summer gas to prevent vapor lock. Winter gas is easier and cheaper to produce because they don't need to remove the volatiles. Plus, lowering the vapor pressure is needed for summer ozone concerns.


Different way of saying the same thing, and it was only after pushing it as an emissions measure that they started dumping trash gasoline on the market in the winter. We need lower vapor pressure fuels year round, at least here in Texas. My garage REEKS of gasoline when I pull one of the cars in on warm winter days because the vapor control systems have to vent to relieve the pressure. On top of that, the 01 Cherokee vapor locks its #3 injector on warm winter days (known problem with the model). But in the summer it can be 115 out, no vapor lock and no gasoline reek. Winter gas is little more than chemical waste as far as I'm concerned.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: 45ACP
Is this why gas is now $2.97 instead of in the mid-to-high $3-range?


Nothing to do with ethanol. Everything to do with the vapor-pressure topic woven into this thread. In winter the refiners get to dump their volatiles into gasoline and call it "good" for cold starting and fuel vaporization. That's only true if its 50 below zero with fuel injected engines- it has some value for carbureted engines. It saves the refiners money, but mostly what it does these days is vastly increase volatile organic compound concentrations in the air as more gasoline escapes from vapor control systems because so much more of it evaporates. And makes our cars run like shnot on hot days during the winter season.

 

[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.

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: SevenBizzos
If ethanol is so great it will have no problem standing in the marketplace on it's own. End the mandate and give the people options on what they want to buy.


So true.

That is why sugarcane ethanol makes sense in some parts of the world. Getting ethanol out of sugarcane is easier than getting it from corn.

 

[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.

 

[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!

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The only thing that scares me is that removal of subsidies may cause us to loose more farms. I HATE it when farms sell.


My gut feeling is that most farms are lost to confiscatory death taxes.

 

[Hokiefyd]

This came across our local news yesterday:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10537467/

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 (plus whatever your state tax goes up, if they adjust it to the price of gasoline regularly like NC does).

 

[LTVibe]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
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.

Oil and ethanol are not necessarily separate industries. For example, Valero and Sunoco are both involved in ethanol production:

Valero, Mascoma to build ethanol plant in Michigan

Sunoco ethanol facility begins operations

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The only thing that scares me is that removal of subsidies may cause us to loose more farms. I HATE it when farms sell.


My gut feeling is that most farms are lost to confiscatory death taxes.


Estate tax is 0% for the value below $5 million. Very few farms are worth that much.

 

[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?

 

[engineerscott]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
If only you knew what you were talking about. Quite frankly that's old news-producers have been expecting it for a few years now and it took effect last summer.

The blenders credit wasn't killed, it simply wasn't renewed. The ethanol industry has gotten efficient enough that the blenders credit only makes about a 4 cent difference per gallon of 10% ethanol and producers believe the demand will change very little. Most producers are planning production increases for the next few years, and companies like POET Energy are planning to expand significantly by 2022, in both corn and cellulosic ethanol. POET produces about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol annually, and plans to increase that capacity to 3.6 billion annual gallons by 2022. Add to that the huge demand for by-products such as distillers grain and CO2, and the industry is in little danger of ever going away.

And to top it off, many ethanol producers are working on anaerobic digester systems that, in a few years, will power their cellulosic and grain plants with zero fossil fuel use. They may in fact be able to return energy to the grid if they can make the anaerobic digester systems efficient enough.

And since you feel so strongly about the ethanol credit, I assume you think that the oil companies should also give up their 21 billion dollar a year tax breaks, right?


Hummm, I see you live in the Midwest. That wouldn't have anything to do with your enthusiasm for corn ethanol subsidies would it?

Look, if they get rid of the subsidy but retain the mandate then it is immaterial. This will still mean that this is not a free market, that consumers are almost certainly paying above market prices for the product, and that consumers are being compelled to purchase a product that many do not want. Free country though, right?

The mandate is itself a subsidy to corn growers and nothing but naked vote buying.