No more ethanol subsidy

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know this is only a recommendation by the GAO, not an actual policy, right?

Still, though, it's a step in the right direction for sure. I've heard many things said about ethanol as fuel, but the one thing everyone (except Archer Daniels Midland) seemed to agree on was that the subsidies were too expensive for what they were worth.

Let's hope the relevant authorities go through on this.
 
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
A lot of good ideas in that report. It makes you wonder why this was not done before.


What they are saying is that the 45 cent per gallon tax subsidy should be eliminated because there is already a government mandate that we the citizens must each buy our share of ethanol if we want to fill our tanks with gas. So when the subsidy goes away, the gasoline suppliers will raise the price of gas accordingly. The ethanol industry is afraid that when citizens see the real cost of the mandate (oh you mean I have to PAY for the real cost of ethanol??? Geesh!) then voters will push for the repeal of the mandates.

That is the issue.
 
As long as the corn-producing states play such an important role in the Presidential primaries, I really don't see the subsidies going anywhere.
 
While I agree in theory that we may be 10% less dependent by watering down our gas with ethanol, doesn't the factory spend the equivalent of $1.25 of fuel/energy to make a $1.00 worth of ethanol? Unless the ethanol plants are powered by wind or solar, we are using energy to make less energy to please the PC/green/corn belt crowd.
 
Originally Posted By: Burt

What they are saying is that the 45 cent per gallon tax subsidy should be eliminated because there is already a government mandate that we the citizens must each buy our share of ethanol if we want to fill our tanks with gas. So when the subsidy goes away, the gasoline suppliers will raise the price of gas accordingly. The ethanol industry is afraid that when citizens see the real cost of the mandate (oh you mean I have to PAY for the real cost of ethanol??? Geesh!) then voters will push for the repeal of the mandates.

That is the issue.


You make a very good point, Burt. They seem to be giving up on E85, and have now decided to mandate that all gasoline will be made with 15% ethanol content, so that everybody is forced to use it. This will cost everybody 5-6% in fuel economy, and drive up the cost of fuel by 7 cents per gallon. We'll be paying more and getting less. Also, older cars might not be able to handle the corrosive effects of the higher ethanol content in their fuel systems, so big repair bills may be the result. Every social experiment that those ninnies in Wasington think up turns out to be a nationwide disaster.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Burt

What they are saying is that the 45 cent per gallon tax subsidy should be eliminated because there is already a government mandate that we the citizens must each buy our share of ethanol if we want to fill our tanks with gas. So when the subsidy goes away, the gasoline suppliers will raise the price of gas accordingly. The ethanol industry is afraid that when citizens see the real cost of the mandate (oh you mean I have to PAY for the real cost of ethanol??? Geesh!) then voters will push for the repeal of the mandates.

That is the issue.


You make a very good point, Burt. They seem to be giving up on E85, and have now decided to mandate that all gasoline will be made with 15% ethanol content, so that everybody is forced to use it. This will cost everybody 5-6% in fuel economy, and drive up the cost of fuel by 7 cents per gallon. We'll be paying more and getting less. Also, older cars might not be able to handle the corrosive effects of the higher ethanol content in their fuel systems, so big repair bills may be the result. Every social experiment that those ninnies in Wasington think up turns out to be a nationwide disaster.


+1
 
I don't see this as nattering much. If fuels specifications are written correctly, the oxygenate content can be demanded by the EPA, and so all that will happen is that fuel will remain the same and the ethanol paid for differently.

I wouldn look at this as a savior for ethanol free fuel...
 
Quote:
The usage mandates for corn ethanol will top out at 15 billion gallons a year starting in 2015.

The mandates are already at levels high enough "to ensure that a market for domestic ethanol production exists in the absence of the ethanol tax credit."

Government regulations have created this industry. Without the nut jobs at the EPA mandating this counter productive policy, all of those billions of dollars could have been use by the people that earned them. Not to mention that the land used grow fuel, could have been use to grow food.

All of these subsidies and mandates need to evaporate, now.
 
Valid points. but just how much do you think it will cost to fight wars in the future when larger countries start demanding a larger supply of oil ( ie China/India)? A lot more than subsidies. And the purpose of the subsidies is to get ethanol situated and on its feet so that it cannot be pushed down by people, like what is desired by some on the thread. Once its situated, then we can start demanding more efficient production. Oh and theres plenty of food, corn isnt the only crop you can eat you know. Regardless of what you may think, ethanol is the only source of fuel that we can readily and easily switch to in a time of crisis. Are you gonna put a nuclear reactor under the hood of your car? Drive 15 miles on your electric battery and then call it a day? Probably not.
 
The "real" purpose of the ethanol subsidies is to fatten ADM's bottom line. The inefficient, carbon-intensive production of corn-based ethanol is a sop to the agri-business giants in the USA.

Even if every kernel of corn grown in the US was devoted to the production of ethanol, we couldn't supplant our need for foreign oil as a fuel. (Stop thinking just "gas" and start thinking kerosene jet fuel and diesel.)

Corn production is big agri-business, and big business is always looking for a shot at the government teat, i.e., subsidies, to finance their bottom line. Until corn ethanol can be produced economically with lower carbon emissions, it's a waste of tax dollars to prop up a failed attempt to substitute corn for foreign oil.

Personally, I would like to see the subsidy money directed towards research on creating enzymes that would create ethanol out of bio-mass products such as grasses. YMMV
 
Quote:
Once its situated, then we can start demanding more efficient production.

Really? How does one do that?

If it weren't' for the EPA mandates, there would be no need for their product.

Quote:
And the purpose of the subsidies is to get ethanol situated and on its feet so that it cannot be pushed down by people

Pushed down? And what other industries should the government be starting with tax payer money?
 
It's REVENUE people! The use of ethanol leads to a reduction in fuel economy thus increasing consumption. With that increase in consumption comes MORE TAX REVENUE. This problem, for us, will only be worsened with E15 or what mix of [censored] buzzard [censored] they concoct up.

Not to mention the added tax in the form mechanical damage it causes. To date, ethanol has effed up my mower,weed eater/edger, my Miller Bobcat, and 250hp Yamaha Saltwater Series II (twice on the outboard). Just my outboard high pressure fuel pump alone is $500ish on Ebay.

This whole ethanol situation makes my blood boil.

I actually take great satisfaction in letting my two stroke weed whacker idle all of the gas out after I use if for 5 minutes a week. Just knowing I thwarted some tree hugging Goron's best efforts that day makes me all warm and fuzzy.

P.S. I don't recycle anymore either, my form of civil disobedience/rebellion(same warm and fuzzy feeling, see above).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 3311
It's REVENUE people! The use of ethanol leads to a reduction in fuel economy thus increasing consumption. With that increase in consumption comes MORE TAX REVENUE. This problem, for us, will only be worsened with E15 or what mix of [censored] buzzard [censored] they concoct up.

Not to mention the added tax in the form mechanical damage it causes. To date, ethanol has effed up my mower,weed eater/edger, my Miller Bobcat, and 250hp Yamaha Saltwater Series II (twice on the outboard). Just my outboard high pressure fuel pump alone is $500ish on Ebay.

This whole ethanol situation makes my blood boil.

I actually take great satisfaction in letting my two stroke weed whacker idle all of the gas out after I use if for 5 minutes a week. Just knowing I thwarted some tree hugging Goron's best efforts that day makes me all warm and fuzzy.

P.S. I don't recycle anymore either, my form of civil disobedience/rebellion(same warm and fuzzy feeling, see above).


LOL, post of the decade.

You hate ethanol because it makes you spend more money, so to thwart them, you waste gas/money on purpose.

They must love you for your consumption...

(P.S. you'd stick it to them better if you just burned the money rather than buying gas and paying their taxes)
 
Originally Posted By: rangerfan24
Valid points. but just how much do you think it will cost to fight wars in the future when larger countries start demanding a larger supply of oil ( ie China/India)? A lot more than subsidies. And the purpose of the subsidies is to get ethanol situated and on its feet so that it cannot be pushed down by people, like what is desired by some on the thread. Once its situated, then we can start demanding more efficient production. Oh and theres plenty of food, corn isnt the only crop you can eat you know. Regardless of what you may think, ethanol is the only source of fuel that we can readily and easily switch to in a time of crisis. Are you gonna put a nuclear reactor under the hood of your car? Drive 15 miles on your electric battery and then call it a day? Probably not.
Ethanol doesn't need to be pushed down-it's already being pushed down our throats by a brainless DC bureaucracy that doesn't car whether E10,15, or 85 saves fuel, or causes more damage than it solves. Unless you're a multinational corporation like ADM, or a corn farmer-corn ethanol is a feel-good joke.
 
I have followed the "ethanol story" carefully since the beginning, some myths and half truths still exist.

1. This was caused by "nut jobs" at the EPA. Not true, the epa scientific information has consistently not found any benefit to using ethanol. Indeed, the increased vapor pressure - causing evaporation - often increases summer pollution in big cities.
EPA regulations are heavily influenced by congressional pressure... which is a result of massive campaign spending by ADM and the corn growers. Talk radio has been successful at finding false bogeymen among the poorly informed.

2. Independent environmental groups believe that ethanol increases total gas consumption, indeed the legislation encouraging E85 is so aggressive that it allows guzzlers to achieve an artificially high mileage number that is not grounded in fact... and assumes the vehicle only uses the 15% gas portion of the fuel. Most E85 "flex fuel" users report that they rarely or never use E85.

Corporate money greatly overpowers EPA and independent environmental groups.... and their front lobbying organizations have been successful at finding others to blame
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top