End of ethanol subsidy will raise the price of gas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
392
Location
So. Utah
From USATODAY:

End of ethonal subsidy will raise the price of gas

Gasoline could cost 4.5 cents a gallon more starting as early as this week, and it's not because of rising oil prices.

It's because Congress declined to renew the 30-year-old federal subsidy for ethanol, letting it expire Sunday.
Ethanol, denatured grain alcohol used as a proven smog-cutting ingredient, currently makes up 10% of most gasoline-based motor fuel for general use, so-called E-10. In a few areas, E-85 fuel, 85% ethanol, also is available. E-85 can be burned only by vehicles equipped for "flex fuel."
How much the end of the subsidy could add to gas prices, and how soon, is yet to be seen. Ethanol blenders got a 45-cents-a-gallon tax credit, which amounts to 4.5 cents for the amount blended into each gallon of E-10 fuel.
It's hard to calculate the immediate impact. Oil prices and ethanol stocks are in flux. And unknown is the impact of another move by Congress: dropping the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports. Brazil is a leading global producer of ethanol made mostly from sugar cane.
In the U.S., ethanol primarily is made from corn. That has made the ethanol subsidy controversial because of allegations that it raised food prices. The estimated $6 billion annual cost of the subsidy also has added to the federal deficit.
The end of the subsidy, however, has caused barely a ripple among ethanol backers or corn producers. Corn prices remain high because of healthy exports, especially to China. E-10 is now standard, and more demand for ethanol is guaranteed by an escalating federal alternative fuel mandate requiring more use of it.
"Things have changed. The marketplace has changed," says Matt Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol makers. "Today, ethanol is 10% of the nation's gas supply."
Trading in benchmark crude opens this week at $98.83 a barrel. Crude prices averaged $95.09 in New York trading last year, up from $79.64 in 2010 and $62.11 in 2009, the Associated Press reports. The Energy Department expects oil prices in 2012 to average $98 a barrel.
Gas prices averaged $3.28 for a gallon of regular (E-10) nationwide Monday, according to AAA, up from $3.07 a year ago. E-85 ethanol averaged $2.95. But because cars can't squeeze as much mileage out of every gallon of ethanol, the price when adjusted to equal the mileage of a gallon of regular was $3.88.
 
Yeah but is there an agenda even in that story?

Many states/pumps state that they use "up to" 10%.

When ethanol was cheaper than gas, it made sense to use as much of it as possible, as it maximized profit.

If ethanol is the same as or more than gas, then the minimum allowable will be used (or perhaps a different oxygenate) to maximize profit.

Maybe Im wrong and E-10 is mandated everywhere, but I was under the impression that it wasnt.
 
Sorry if this has been covered.

But how does it reduce smog if ethanol isn't as efficient as gasoline?
It reduces the MPG's, not increases them.

I must be missing something.
 
The headline "end of ethanol subsidy will....."

Could have ended a dozen different ways. Leave it to USA today (originally us news, I'm not a fan of either) to write the article for the lowest common denominator... the end consumer worried about 4 cents a gallon, or a dollar a month.

Here's a more interesting piece done from the perspective of farmers:

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/03/144605485/congress-ends-era-of-ethanol-subsidies
 
Last edited:
"BABCOCK: That's right. It's an indirect affect on corn prices. The subsidy was paid to the oil companies to entice them to buy ethanol, which then increased the price of corn. And then that helped the corn farmers."

This little blurb tells me all I need to know about the ending of the corn juice subsidy:

Watch out for higher gas prices coming soon to a pump near you. The oil companies and energy companies will lose the money they received from ethanol subsidy so naturally they will jack the gas price up to compensate for it.

To me, this is just one more lousy excuse to jack up the price of gas at the pump. The oil industry fat cats and certain other individuals wouldn't have it any other way. God forbid they lose a few pennies' worth of profit.
 
Originally Posted By: SuperDave456
Sorry if this has been covered.

But how does it reduce smog if ethanol isn't as efficient as gasoline?
It reduces the MPG's, not increases them.

I must be missing something.


Just because cars get less mileage on it, doesn't automatically mean they pollute more. You can have two different fuels: One that pollutes a lot even if you only burn a little of it, and one that doesn't pollute much even if you burn a lot of it. Diesel for example, doesn't burn as cleanly as gasoline. Even though diesel vehicles get way better mileage, they still pollute more than gasoline cars. (I am JUST using diesel as an example; let's not take this thread off-topic with a whole gas vs diesel debate please!) Another example: Your average lawnmower pollutes way more than a modern car, even though it consumes way less fuel, because a lawnmower doesn’t have any emissions equipment and can let unburnt fuel into the atmosphere. When you add ethanol to gasoline, you get a cleaner burning fuel even though your consumption increases.

More fuel consumption does not necessarily equal more emissions.
 
At least the article told the truth: gas will cost more.

At first I was really happy for the end of the subsidy. No.

It means no more subsidy for an inefficient, highly polluting energy source. The MANDATE that it must be 10% of gasoline remains.

No wonder nobody complained with the ending of the subsidy this year---their market is guaranteed. Nothing changed from the corn growers' side.
 
@SuperDave456
What you are missing is the mechanism of smog formation. Smog results from the unburned parts of the fuel, not the amount of fuel burned. Oxygenates increase the "completeness" of the burn. CO2 and water, the final products of complete combustion of any hydrocarbon, do not cause smog.
 
It is really a shame that the US stopped using MTBE as the oxygenate. Reason? It was determined that MTBE was getting into the groundwater due to leaky gas station tanks. Further, it was determined that MTBE caused birth defects, a decision not backed up by science.

So, the EPA banned the use of MTBE and substituted ethanol rather than mandate the repair of leaky tanks. The use of ethanol has caused plenty of problems with fuel systems in autos and other gasoline fueled applications.

MTBE is made from cheap natural gas, using a low cost process. It adds only a penny or two to the fuel cost. It is still used in Europe and other parts of the world.

Our boneheaded politicians and the EPA are to blame for ethanol and the high cost of corn.

By the way, the fuel tanks at gas stations still leak.

Dumb!
 
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: SuperDave456
Sorry if this has been covered.

But how does it reduce smog if ethanol isn't as efficient as gasoline?
It reduces the MPG's, not increases them.

I must be missing something.


Just because cars get less mileage on it, doesn't automatically mean they pollute more. You can have two different fuels: One that pollutes a lot even if you only burn a little of it, and one that doesn't pollute much even if you burn a lot of it. Diesel for example, doesn't burn as cleanly as gasoline. Even though diesel vehicles get way better mileage, they still pollute more than gasoline cars. (I am JUST using diesel as an example; let's not take this thread off-topic with a whole gas vs diesel debate please!) Another example: Your average lawnmower pollutes way more than a modern car, even though it consumes way less fuel, because a lawnmower doesn’t have any emissions equipment and can let unburnt fuel into the atmosphere. When you add ethanol to gasoline, you get a cleaner burning fuel even though your consumption increases.

More fuel consumption does not necessarily equal more emissions.


Aldehydes are the main reason why ethanol pollutes more than gasoline. Ethanol, derived from vegetables, is one of the most backwards, useless ideas to hit the energy market in a long time. There truly is no benefit.
 
Originally Posted By: GMorg
@SuperDave456
What you are missing is the mechanism of smog formation. Smog results from the unburned parts of the fuel, not the amount of fuel burned. Oxygenates increase the "completeness" of the burn. CO2 and water, the final products of complete combustion of any hydrocarbon, do not cause smog.


VOCs are only part of the equation. NOx is the other. Not sure if oxygenates reduce combustion temps a bit...
 
Did anyone see that program re. farm land in Iowa?? They sold a lot for $13,000 a acre, hot stuff these farmers are rolling in cash!!! Bad times not in Iowa..
 
Ethanol was a hoax. Even Al Gore admits he was duped. The US stopped or reduced the corn exports and other countries cut down rain forests to grow corn to make up for the reduced US corn exports.

Brilliant!!

The US does good wars, but we screw up most everything else we touch and don't have a clue we did it until 25 years latter. That includes world politics.
 
Originally Posted By: exranger06
When you add ethanol to gasoline, you get a cleaner burning fuel even though your consumption increases.

I should have added, "At least, that's why they add ethanol to fuel. Whether it ACTUALLY reduces pollution or not is debatable, and frankly, I have no idea if it actually does."
 
BMWR1150GS:

MTBE is a highly toxic poison that take a century to break down and become inert.

I'm no fan of ethanol as it is utilized in the US either.

Now If you want an Ethanol based fueling scheme the Brasilians have it right, it is cost effective and does not greatly impact food production or costs.

If I remember correctly only certain areas of the country
MANDATE a requirement of 10% E in a gasoline mix. Many areas of the country have no such laws.

Although you see the up to 10% ethanol stickers on pumps many places I would bet that especially now that concentration is far less than 10%, perhaps almost nothing.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Yeah but is there an agenda even in that story?

Many states/pumps state that they use "up to" 10%.

When ethanol was cheaper than gas, it made sense to use as much of it as possible, as it maximized profit.

If ethanol is the same as or more than gas, then the minimum allowable will be used (or perhaps a different oxygenate) to maximize profit.

Maybe Im wrong and E-10 is mandated everywhere, but I was under the impression that it wasnt.


The pumps here are noticed' with "up to 10%." In the fall here, this "up to" is upped, and my economy 'tanks,' and drops 1.5 mpg on winter fuel.

This is a drop of about 12 percent in economy, and a cold start and warm up have to be factored in, but this makes me wonder if the non-winter blend is all gasoline. On a long summer trip vs. a same long winter trip, shows nearly this difference.
 
I always thought that the purpose of adding an oxygenate to the fuel was to cause the engine to run lean, thereby reducing the amount of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust. This might have made sense back when most cars were equiped with carburators but modern electronic fuel injection, with oxygen sensors in the exhaust, should negate whatever benefit the oxygenate was intended to provide.
 
SnPb you are correct. We have been involved in studies that show that a modern, low emission car will pollute more on an ethanol blend than pure gas. The extra fuel burned more than offsets the effect of the oxygenate. It did make a net positive effect on carbereted vehicles. Hanging onto it's required use is politics, not science.

As was noted, the emissions from burning a blend contain more toxic compounds than pure gasoline.

Sorry I can't share the data from our studies, it belongs to our sponsors. I'll see if I can find some that have been published in the public domain and posted on the net.

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
SnPb you are correct. We have been involved in studies that show that a modern, low emission car will pollute more on an ethanol blend than pure gas. The extra fuel burned more than offsets the effect of the oxygenate. It did make a net positive effect on carbereted vehicles. Hanging onto it's required use is politics, not science.

As was noted, the emissions from burning a blend contain more toxic compounds than pure gasoline.

Sorry I can't share the data from our studies, it belongs to our sponsors. I'll see if I can find some that have been published in the public domain and posted on the net.

Ed


Thank you Ed.

Many new pollutants are formed by Ethanol burning in an IC engine. Since they are not formed when you burn pure gasoline they are unaffected by the catalytic converter.

Many of them end in 'zene' and are toxic.

Pure politics, no benefits to anyone but the corn producers.
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett

Sorry I can't share the data from our studies, it belongs to our sponsors.


Can you share who your sponsors are?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top