E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Seth Perlman / AP
Corn is delivered by the truckload to ethanol plants like this one owned by Archer Daniels Midland in Decatur, Ill.
America's corn farmers have been benefiting from annual federal subsidies of around $6 billion in recent years, all in the name of ethanol used as an additive for the nation's vehicles.
That ends on Jan. 1, when the companies making ethanol will lose a tax credit of 46 cents per gallon, and even the ethanol industry is OK with it -- thanks in part to high oil prices that make ethanol competitive.
Ethanol output and exports reached record highs this year, and a federal law assures ethanol a longer-term share of the motor fuel market.
"Like all incentives it was put in place to help build an industry and when successful, it should sunset," the Renewable Fuels Association said in a statement last week.
What the industry doesn’t want to see, however, is an end to a separate tax credit for ethanol made not from corn but non-foodstuffs like switchgrass, wood chips and even the leaves and stalks of corn.
Known as cellulosic ethanol, no one is selling it just yet due to its higher R&D and production costs. But the industry hopes to soon, and the production tax credit is up to $1.01 per gallon.
The industry earlier this month asked Congress to extend that credit, set to expire on Dec. 31. 2012, for five years but lawmakers did not act before recessing last week.
In the case of corn ethanol, the writing had been on the wall for months. The subsidy's death was confirmed last week when Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, tax legislation that did not extend it.
Subsidized since 1979 as a homegrown fuel cleaner than gasoline, corn ethanol had plenty of opponents, environmentalists among them.
Environmentalists question the cleaner energy premise -- adding factors like tractor diesel emissions and fertilizer runoff make it dirtier, they say.
"Corn ethanol is extremely dirty," Michal Rosenoer, biofuels manager for Friends of the Earth, said in heralding the tax credit's demise. "It leads to more climate pollution than conventional gasoline, and it causes deforestation as well as agricultural runoff that pollutes our water."
Opponents also see corn ethanol, which now takes a larger share of the U.S. corn crop than cattle, hogs and poultry, as a factor in driving food prices higher.
"The end of this giant subsidy for dirty corn ethanol is a win for taxpayers, the environment and people struggling to put food on their tables," Rosenoer added.
A CNBC panel last June debates the impact of the ethanol subsidy on gas prices.
Environmentalists do support cellulosic ethanol in principle since it doesn't compete with corn as a foodstuff.
But there's a nearer-term battle brewing over corn-based ethanol. A 2005 law requires that 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel be produced by 2012 -- 6.25 billion gallons were produced in 2011. A 2007 revision gradually increases that to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
So far most of that renewable fuel has been corn-based ethanol.
"We will now also turn our attention to ending other federal policies that support dirty corn ethanol, including the Renewable Fuel Standard," said Rosenoer.
Some environmentalists say that standard could be a useful tool to incentivize clean ethanol.
The standard needs "to be strengthened and improved over time" to avoid "being taken over by corn-based biofuels," Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council wrote in his blog last week.
Greene's fear is that the standard might be weakened by those opposed to measuring a fuel's emissions of gases tied to global warming and its impact on land use.
As for tax credits, Greene told msnbc.com that the his group would like to see "a technology-neutral, performance-based tax credit that pays more" the cleaner a fuel is.
Short of that, the NRDC is OK with extending the cellulosic tax credit beyond the end of next year -- and figures lawmakers will take that route since it is an easy one. "Given the current dysfunction in Congress this seems pretty likely," Greene says.
The ethanol industry, for its part, stresses it's only trying to jump start cleaner energy. "Unfortunately," the Renewable Fuels Association stated last week, "the same mentality does not extend to century-old tax subsidies supporting 20th century petroleum technologies."
Leave a Comment:
I am wondering how the subsidy for cellulosic ethanol is being paid for? Running up the credit card balance? Or? I suspect it is paid for by running up the credit card balance.
The federal excise tax on gasoline might be the source of the funds. The really good idea in this article is the gradation of the subsidy according to how clean the fuel is. What we need is a tax on the garbage being sold that ends up in the landfills in a few months. Wasting resources should be penalized with a stiff tax on items designed to fail quickly. What comes to mind is the Ronco Cordless Electric Ashtray. Ridiculous garbage like that should be taxed out of profitability.
Ethanol- THE BIG LIE! If you think ethanol is efficient, guess again! First off, it created very little jobs. Second, it takes three acres of corn to produce one acre of product. And last but not least, Everyone involved pocketed most of the subsidy cash including polititians and contractors. So, if your vehicle starts running like chit, keep pumping the E85 flexfuel and check your warranties!
on top of that i do believe gasoline @ the pump will go up approx 4 cents a gal. on sun because of this , & if u live in n.c. the state is also adding on approx. another 4 cents , n.c. has 1 of the highest gas taxes in the country
leavingBB, You and I pay for everything the government does.
So, uh.... how do you measure fuel by the acre? This makes no sense.
Ethanol creates many jobs. Check with your boat or small engine mechanics, they must love this crap!
Ban the crap, or at least don't make it mandatory. There is no way it is better for the earth. All the energy used to grow it, harvest it, transport it and process it has to be a net loss.
Government fixes! Moronic!
Ethanol? This is one of the most controversial subsidies to date. It is a fact that it requires more energy to produce less energy. Example, it requires 127,000 BTU, (approximately 1 gallon of gasoline), to produce 77,000 btu of Ethanol. If someone can find #s to dispute mine, please come forward!!!
It also requires trucking the product as it is very damaging to the pipelines and ethanol is like a sponge in an aquarium, it pulls in lots of water and holds onto it. This is why so many of the newer cars are having serious running problems and premature fuel pump failures. Take a look at the BMW issues. Simply google BMW Ethanol running problems. Or, google SIB 13 01 06 Service Bulletin for BMW. Now, look at complaints of fuel economy. Ethanol at a 10% level in gasoline results in a minimum 10% reduction in fuel economy. Did I fail to mention the problems at Boat Marinas and the problems there?
Additionally, many of the auto manufactures get huge tax breaks for building the Flex Fuel Behemoth SUVs that are designated to run on Ethanol. Problem is, there are not that many E85 stations to buy the stuff. Hence, a huge burden on fuel consumption, (an equivelant $4 Billion a year or 1 billion gallons per year subsidy) gas pipe emissions, and rude drivers being subsidized so we can all have higher food and fuel prices. Ethanol has one value and only one, it can buy votes out in the heartland. Problem is, it isn't the small farms that benefit. It's the lobbyist at the auto companies that get the pretended Green Feel and see me awards for something that is insanely bad.
Ethanol is not fuel efficient, in fact it is the opposite. It requires enormous quantities of water to manufacture. It can result in high levels of carcinogens via the tailpipe, more than conventional gasoline, it has inflating effects on food prices and one of the worst parts is the amount of energy required to produce less energy. Where does that energy money go??? To the enemy that wants desperately to race this modern civilization back into the Stone Age.
Remember to VOTE for if it wasn't for the Incumbent, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Softdude...I agree...the trouble is that junk is most of the stuff made in china that is so cheap it is more cost effective to toss it out and buy a new one...because you cannot repair it even if you wanted to.
There aught to be a 100% tax on disposable diapers and plastic water bottles as well. Their volumes are enormous :)
@ Raging Capitalist:
Such a pity; four paragraphs of good sense spoilt by a final paragraph of utter nonsense.
Live to Ride, you are just wrong. 2.8 gallons of ethanol to one bushel of corn, pick your source (Purdue, USDA, Wiki). So at a average of 150 bushels per acre (bpa), 420 gallons of ethanol are produced. Then 60 bushels of Dried Distillers Grain (DDG) comes back to the ag industry for animal feed from the process. Which by the way has become the number #2 ag export from the US to the world. And if you want to inject the geo-political effects, as far as I know, not one American soldier has ever died for ethanol. Can gasoline say the same? Perfect, no; but acceptable in many ways.
My cows sure LOVE the ethanol mash and syryp I git frm the ethanol plant! Plus ethanol is REQUIRED to raise octane. Before they used lead. It made kids retartded. Then they started usin noLead with MTPD(?) which made kids more retarded. Now they use ethanol to raise octaine.
I rebuilt a 400 SBC with smalll 58cc heads and a truck pullin cam, cold cranks at about 285psi. It makes use of the 105 octain of E-85. It gits 18 to 21 mpgs in my 78 3800lb Trans Am and it is FAST. The sweat spot for mpgs is 45mph. Fixin to put it in my 72 Vega which weighs 1500 lbs less and switch the Muncie 4 speed to a T56 6 speed with a .5 overdrive and I figure I should git at least 35 to 40. Recon we'll see. LOL!
@ RagingManiac: So you just make up numbers and we are only to believe you? Gasoline by far is more polluting on EVERY level. From pulling/pushing it out of the ground to shipping (and spilling) to cracking to then shipping the end products to then the final burn. One thing America can do better than any nation is grow stuff. And growing corn is easy. Start googling ethanol productoin for startes and you will read about how the production of ethanol is a energy gainer not a loser like you-er like you stated.
This is silly. On the one hand, the government will end its subsidy for corn based Ethanol, but on the other hand, it will require an increase in the amount of Ethanol produced, so it will merely transfer the extra cost to the consumer, so gas prices will increase anyway.
It's all part of the government's plan to artificially increase the cost of fossil fuels to make 'green' sources more competitive, and the poor ignorant consumer is poorer, but not wiser.
If the Gov really worried about restrictin gas usage, it should merely increase the Fed tax on gas each year by say five cents, eventually people will make their own choices to drive more efficient vehicles or not. The gov should not mandate it. Also additional road construction would not have to be financed by the tax payer, but by the vehicle driver.
It just amounts to another welfare subsidy for the farmers, and it's about time it ended. Kudos to Obama for having the guts to sign it out of existence. There is no more pampered segment of society. I'm getting tired of hearing farmers cry and whine when they pay little taxes, (like the ridiculously low property tax rates- look it up at your County Auditors website, you may be shocked) receive huge subsidies and deficiency payments, why their crop insurance premiums are even subsidized by YOU, the taxpayer! Look it up! They drive diesel pickups so they can fill out of their non-tax farm tanks and skip paying any road maintenance, after they've trashed the same roads with obnoxiously massive equipment. Go to www.ewg.org and click on "farm subsidy database." You'll be shocked at the handouts. I hope Obama keeps signing this welfare out of existence, but little chance of that when millionaire farmers who are elected to the House and Senate sit on the Ag committees. Seems like a conflict of interest to me, but a sweet one for the crybaby farmers. And yes, I'll talk with my mouth full, I'm paying plenty for my food!
Man, it's real typical for the big oil companies to downgrade ethanol...but lets hope the blue collar workers don't. The ethanol industry does produce many jobs in the U.S. and keeps workers out of the unemployment line and spending money. Hopefully people will do research and not believe the guys who line their pockets with under the table money!! Many people I know have worked in this industry for thirty years...must be doing something right!!
Hoosier Farmer, you have by far given the most cogent synopsis of a typical ethanol yield that could be expected from an acre of corn, but you left it a bit short. The DDG is fed to animals as you mentioned, and the animals produce crap that is spread on the fields to increase the yields of the grown crops, without use of petro-based fertilizer (or it can be directly used to produce methane gas for fuel). Those animals are then sent to slaughter. We humans get to eat about one half of the mass of said critters. The remainder is rendered. About 25% of the rendered product is fat, which can then be used to to make bio-diesel. The other 25% is protein, which can be used for feed or fertilizer. If used as feed, it helps animals make more fat, to make even more bio-diesel. And as an added feed ingredient, it reduces the demand for more corn to achieve the same purpose. Now I'm not as bright as most of the folks on this forum, but I'm pretty certain that that bushel of corn used to produce ethanol, ultimately makes more fuel than it takes to make it.
The ethanol debacle is a monumental fraud. Virtually every post condemning this product is accurate. The worst of its shortcomings is the incredible amount of water needed to create the fuel. The High Plains Aquifer (Ogallala) is being depleted because of the water demands of corn.
There is a far better plant that we should be considering.....HEMP. It is the most efficient plant on the planet for converting solar energy to biomass. (All energy on this planet comes from the sun.) It has very low water requirements. It requires almost no fertilizers and very little in the way of pesticides. It produces high grade fiber for clothing, makes high-grade paper, makes excellent feedstock for ruminants. It has incredible potential to reduce our reliance on foreign imports - petroleum, cotton. This is an awesome plant.
But noooooooooo, these idiots think kids are going to get high on it. That is simply not true, but hey, since when have Americans been impressed by the truth? Let's continue the slide to third-world status. That will be just fine.
Not too sure on hemp, I never really thought of it. If you can make jet fuel out of it I guess it would give a new meaning to "getting high". On a serious note, here in Central PA, they built the largest ethanol plant east of the Mississippi in Clearfield, PA. The plant took years to build and they promised hundreds of jobs to the area. When the plant finally opened, not one local person was hired by Bionol. They brought all workers in from out of state. Now here we are almost 2 years later, and the plant has been closed for almost a year. After their first production run of ethanol, they couldn't afford to purchase corn for the plant and secondly, they didn't have any more orders. No one wants it so they shut it down. Maybe Budwieser or JD will come in to town now. We have a perfect distillary already made for them sitting empty.
so before the subsidy ended, corn ethonal was...
1. cleaner burning
2. saved millions of dollars by not having to rely on foreign oil.
3. good for the environment.
Suddenly the subsidy ends, and now suddenly corn ethonal is dirty, and a waste of time,. GEEE THANKS OBAMA AND THANK YOU MASS MEDIA!!
LOL can you imagine if Bush didn't extend the subsidy. Liberals and tree huggers would have been claiming that Bush and the republicans want dirty air and dirty water and more global warming.
Now corn ethonal isn't all that great and burning more oil is good for the environment and air? Huh this is interesting.
If the $.46/gallon subsidy ends, its stands to reason that overnight the price will go up .46 cents per gallon, making E85 nearly the same price as regular 87 octane.
And with e85 getting poorer fuel mileage, that means people will no longer buy e85 as it is no longer cost effective.
It appears that obama wants dirtier air, and dirtier water, and a greater dependance on foreign oil. I mean thats how it would be portrayed if it wasn't a democrat in office right? I mean someone tell me I am way off base here.
I have never heard an analogy using acres of land, but I believe he is talking about the input to output ratio. For every 1 unit of energy put into producing ethanol from corn, it results in 1.5 units of energy. If that same ratio is put onto acres of land, it means you get get 1 acre of real productivity out of 3 acres being used.
Corn is very inefficient for producing ethanol. For comparison, Brazil uses sugar cane to produce ethanol. Sugar cane is much more efficient at producing ethanol. For every 1 unit of energy put into producing ethanol from sugar cane, it results in 4 units of energy. If that ratio is put onto acres of land, it means you get 3 acres of real productivity out of 4 acres being used. (To avoid using fractions involved with a 3 acre comparisons, I have instead opted to show how 1 additional acre of land results in 2 additional acres of real productivity.)
3 out of 4 is a lot better then 1 out of 3
75% vs 33%
Unfortunately the government chose corn for some reason. I'm guessing a lot of it had to do with climate and technological limitations. Scientists are still attempting to utilize switchgrass, which has the potential to be even more efficient then sugar cane and is suited to our climate.
That this nasty additive has been polluting our grounds, waters and defoiling our forestries is not new news and has been known and banned in at least 20 states ever since it's creation. The only states that support this nasty crap are the states that are receiving the subsidies.
Type what states banned ethanol into your search engine and you will see that this nasty additives demise has been in the workings since the early 2000s and the lawsuits will be coming to the front very soon from the states that banned it but are still being effected by it's fallout from the states that support it's usage.
Anything that has had subsides for over 30 years, and still can't make it on it's own merits, doesn't deserve any more of our money to subsidize it. Since 1979, that's 32 years, to say nothing of the hungry of the world's needs for food. Let's get our prioities in order, and quit feeding busniness that cannot compete with out bankrupting us. Enough. Get on natural gas, and get off corn.
Luckily we still subsidize wind turbines. GE really needs the money.
Michelle, Gary you're both right! Do I sense political corruption? With our Tax dollars! Cut the money trough out, enough already ! Where's the working mans, women's tax bailouts? Nowhere!!!
Imaginary numbers in and you get imaginary numbers out. The cost in BTU's of producing BTU's is too complicated to be stated in a post even if one had the knowledge. Once the subsidies are gone the market will determine what works. But in America it seems that without subsidies and tax breaks very few things work.
Ethanol subsidy, is by far the dumbest, stupidest,most idiotic ,crazy , wasteful brain child of our Federal idiots have ever come up with; it is wasteful, cars get less mileage per gallon, it drives up the price of livestock feed, and it costs twice as much as a gallon of gas.. it was Bush's gift to the farm lobby, just as Carter was a reaction to Nixon; Obama was a reaction to Bush.
Did you even read the article Saxon? How is it Bush's fault for this subsidy when CARTER was President when this subsidy started? And before you say Bush continued it, yeah, so did Clinton. I agree that it's a dumb idea that it's just now sunsetting, but it was long past due to expire in the 90's as well. 10 years or so should be plenty long enough for any subsidy to work (or fail).
I dunno, milk price supports rank right up there on the idiocy scale, in my opinion. Same concept, though...
JimP1969 Don't forget REGAN. You went from Carter to bush to clinton but you skipped your god REGAN
I do not support corn ethanol. The only reason that it was first and foremost for subsidies is that the big agricultural corporations promoted it. The result has been prime food crop land the equivalent size of the state of California set aside for grow the corn ethanol it made from. This takes that crop land out of service for growing food crops and therefore increases food prices
A better alternative is switch grass, shave grass and other native prairie grasses. They are perennial and do not require the repeated tractor work on land. They are drought resistant, disease resistant and insect resistant. It can be easily grown on marginal crop lands and provides natural habitat for wild life.
An even better alternative is using genetically altered algae to produce ethanol and bio diesel. Greenhouses are set up beside traditional coal fired electricity plants. The carbon rich emissions are pumped into the green houses, the algae uses the carbon dioxide, produces fuel and the waste product is clean oxygen. The first commercial plant was opened last year. Subsidies might help jump start this industry, but there is no reason it cannot quickly become self sustaining without subsidies.
Saxon, you need to get facts straight. The subsidy has been around for 30 years. Who ran congress in 1981? I believe it was the democrats.
http://www.green.autoblog.com/2011/12/27/30-year-old-corn-ethanol-subsidy-nixed-by-washington/
It has been renewed every 5 to 6 years. It may have been renewed under Bush, but was not started under him.
With ethanol you , I get less gas mileage, vehicles need more maintence, and we get to pay more for a gallon of gas and subsidize the farmers!! Hmmmm - bad deal all the way around for you and me- a ripoff is what it is!!
I specifically didn't mention Reagan or the first Bush for a reason. As I said in my post, 10 years or so should be the period for any subsidy to work or fail. The appropriate sunset for the subsidy would have come sometime late during G.H.W. Bush's term or early in Clinton's.
Now while we're being partisan, why don't you question why Carter even signed off on it to start with. It's been pretty well established that this was a bad idea from day 1.
Lastly, how do you know who my god is? I'm agnostic, so I certainly don't worship YOUR god. By the way, go back to school if you can't even spell something as simple as Reagan. I would normally cut you some slack, figuring you to just be a product of the public school system, but you resorted to ad hominem attacks as well as spelling it that way TWICE in an 18 word post that contains at least 5 more errors. You see the little checkmark with the ABC above it? It helps with grammar and punctuation too.
The ethanol in regular gas also causes problems with the carbs on chainsaws, lawnmowers, tractors, etc. It absorbs moisture, so you get the effect of water in your fuel, and it also seems to cause deterioration of the carb diaphragms.
Ending the tax credit is way past due.
Exactly, the article says subsidies are put into place to help build an industry - so if you didn't just invent corn or oil or coal your subsidy should end.
Even the ethanol industry wants this subsidy eliminated... however, they also want the roughly $50 billion tax loopholes and military support for shipping eliminated for big oil so that they can compete on the free market.
STOP SUBSIDIZING MONSANTO!!!!
I am so sick of paying my taxes so they can hand them over to some monster corporation.
Monsanto, making plastic food for plastic people!!
Seconded.
End corn subsidies. They just use the money to make high fructose corn syrup cheaper for them to produce. How much f'ing corn do we need in our diets? Its in nearly every processed food item on the grocery store shelf and it has the dietary value of powdered lead.
Corn-based ethanol was one of the worst ideas ever conceived. Using food to dilute fuel did nothing more than cause the country to use even more fuel (lower mileage and higher energy use to produce the ethanol) and raise global food prices. If we're going to use ethanol, then we need to develop the technology to use non-food sources and make sure that it uses less energy overall.
Agreed 100%, but I'll also add that regardless of what the supporters claim, ethanol will cause damage to engines (especially high performance engines in sports cars and motorcycles). Most of the stations in my town proudly advertise "ethanol-free" gasoline.
There was one farm that I heard of that grew the corn, fermented it, distilled the ethanol with methane made from the manure of the cows that ate the mash left after the distillation. My cousins, who are dairy farmers stopped using the mash from a local brewery years ago because of the heath effects on the cows. Doesn't sound to me like there is a good way to make the process efficient or clean. We spend far too much money on programs that don't really produce any benefit.
I want a subsidy for making alcohol from my unused hemp stalks.
Lets not forget hemp seed oil 300 gal/acre and it doesn't need fertilizers to grow
You make approximately 420 gallons of ethanol per acre PLUS 30% of the original corn comes out of the plant as a high protein animal feed product. I'm not saying hemp isn't good, but if your numbers are correct it has a long way to go before matching up to ethanol.
Oh, and john, if you do make cellulosic ethanol from your hemp stalks then you can in fact cash in on that subsidy.
i just smiled and waved... set'n there on that sack a seeds...
And brother Bob was on top of the windmill.... claimed he flew up there!!!!
Now if we can just stop that 10 billion dollar a year subsidy for the oil companies too.
Exactly. All of this vitrolic response about the ethanol subsidy yet no one is really discussing the oil subsidies. It's amazing they are given to companies making millions upon millions in profits each quarter. That is a true scandal. The oil companies are paying off congress people who allow it while the American public is spanked. Congress members get rich off us. Why don't people focus on oil subsidies first before going off on ethanol, a fuel that helps us be less reliant on foreign oil? I do think the ethanol subsidy should go away as well since the industry is matured, just don't understand all the negativity about ethanol and the past subsidy.
flnobody
"Now if we can just stop that 10 billion dollar a year subsidy for the oil companies too."
Yes and the 30 billion per year subsidy to green energy.
How about ending the child tax credit? That would save another 90 billion per year.
Or the SSI tax break that would save another 112 billion per year. The list goes on and on.
End all subsidies and loopholes.
bob
Lets compare the two ok and see who gets more then their share. Oh yes, I love the way you just pull facts out of your A@#. You want to do the math again or you going to use the republican motto? "not intended to be a factual statement."
Over the full lifetime of subsidies, the oil and gas industry has benefitted from tax expenditures of, on average, $4.86 billion per year between 1918 and 2009. The renewables industry has received an average of only $0.37 billion per year between 1994 and 2009.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-healey/subsidies-for-renewable-energy_b_1151023.html
Green energy is a joke. It has been here for years and years and has yet to become profitable or even reasonable. Beside the thousands of birds and hundreds of Bald Eagles that die at the windmill. But a green person feels good to say they are green.
flnobody
Now if we can just stop that 10 billion dollar a year subsidy for the oil companies too.
Thats payback, the last 3 months of 2010 Exxon made 2.something CENTS per gallon, the average taxes on the other hand were 48.1 cents, yeah those evil, evil oil companies gouging the consumer.
Really if you add in our military expenditures used to protect oil shipping lanes the per year subsidy of oil is closer to 50 billion. And much of the money we spend on oil ends up in individuals pockets that are adverse to us.
And while the profits as a percentage of revenue are not as high as some industries (2.1% as of 2008) it is still more than double food production, electricity generation, home goods manufacture and semiconductor manufacture. Add in the sheer volume of oil, and the relatively stable demand, and Big Oil is still having its way with us. (Also don't forget that this is a profit number, and the oil companies pay out inflated salaries and dividends to keep this number low in order to soak the government for tax breaks.
flnobody
bob
"Lets compare the two ok and see who gets more then their share. Oh yes, I love the way you just pull facts out of your A@#. You want to do the math again or you going to use the republican motto? "not intended to be a factual statement."
Over the full lifetime of subsidies, the oil and gas industry has benefitted from tax expenditures of, on average, $4.86 billion per year between 1918 and 2009. The renewables industry has received an average of only $0.37 billion per year between 1994 and 2009.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-healey/subsidies-for-renewable-energy_b_1151023.html"
Using the Huffington site is almost as good as using the Fox site.
I always get a kick out of those who whine about the Iraq war when it cost less over 9 years than the Stimulus cost in one.
bob
Nice reference to back up your claim. Oh wait, you couldn't could you. Nice try.
cannon
That 2 cents is maybe what the Exxon station may make on the gas they sell. But not the company.
"nearly $11 billion quarterly profit"
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/28/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm
cannon
I always get a kick out of those who whine about the Iraq war when it cost less over 9 years than the Stimulus cost in one.
Actually, what you read on FLOX news said two years. You can't even get that right. But that a side. Did the stimulus cost 4,500 American lives? Of course, those lives don't mean anything to some one like you, right? Now go figure the cost of helping all the wounded.
“We made the conservative assumption that only those with severe brain injuries and amputations would require lifetime care. Estimates commonly used by medical experts suggest a lifetime cost of care for brain injuries ranging from $600,000 to $4,000,000 per person and about $45,000 to $57,000 for amputees, plus the cost of prosthetic limbs ranging from about $12,500 to about $100,000.”(17)
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8710&type=0
Notice that that was for severe brain injuries. It doesn't include any other injuries.
The costs that just keep on giving. So lets talk costs again, ok.
You libs get on here and bash the oil companies and spout all your crap from Keith Oberman and the Huffington Post like its really news or something. What you all need to do is stop driving and sell your cars. Then you need to quit heating your homes and using electricity until you can come up with something "cleaner" like your president has shown us with Solyndra. Until solar and wind is harnessed, you people need to support drilling and finding new sources, or just support your bull@!$%#, and get rid of cars, electricity, and anything that uses energy to give you something to do. You democrats have done everything in your power to stop new sources of energy in this country and sometimes i wonder if you people are not the new communist power in the world or something, because you sure do act like it. So go fly a kite and get out your magnifying glass and harness all your solar and wind "green" energy, and leave the rest of us alone.
The ethenal subsidy is just another example of the government sticking their nose in the private business of our country and screwing up once again. Have we not learned yet from everything the government sticks its nose in that its fails????
flnobody
cannon
I always get a kick out of those who whine about the Iraq war when it cost less over 9 years than the Stimulus cost in one.
Actually, what you read on FLOX news said two years. You can't even get that right. But that a side. Did the stimulus cost 4,500 American lives? Of course, those lives don't mean anything to some one like you, right? Now go figure the cost of helping all the wounded.
“We made the conservative assumption that only those with severe brain injuries and amputations would require lifetime care. Estimates commonly used by medical experts suggest a lifetime cost of care for brain injuries ranging from $600,000 to $4,000,000 per person and about $45,000 to $57,000 for amputees, plus the cost of prosthetic limbs ranging from about $12,500 to about $100,000.”(17)
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8710&type=0
Notice that that was for severe brain injuries. It doesn't include any other injuries.
The costs that just keep on giving. So lets talk costs again, ok.
WTF are you talking about? You go off on some screwball rant that has absolutely no goddamn connection to my post. Try and pull your head out of wherever you have it shoved.
flnobody
cannon
That 2 cents is maybe what the Exxon station may make on the gas they sell. But not the company.
"nearly $11 billion quarterly profit"
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/28/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm
Ok, if you would have kept reading past the first paragraph you would have seen this...
In addition, Exxon said federal and state taxes make up 40 to 60 cents of the
price for a gallon of gas, compared with the 7 cents per gallon that the company
earns. That's a little more than the other article I read.
Another thing sunshine, when somebody is talking about price per gallon, tossing quarterly profits in is irrelevant.
Ethanol, like oil/gas, involves burning, which creates carbon thus contributing to Global Warming. We have got to stop subsidizing burning, and move instead towards electric cars that run off of solar, wind, and nuclear power. It is the only way to decrease carbon that contributes to climate change.
You might want to watch what you wish for @Bill-3024964. There are many politicians who would be just as happy and seem hellbent on putting us into Flintstonemobiles.
You can decrease yours for me. two tanks ago I got 9mpg on e85. woohooo!
That would be great if those could be produced and sold at a reasonable price. So far it is not happening. The electric cars they have now are too expensive for the average driver. Then you have to pay for the charging station to be put into your garage, because you cannot just plug them into any plug in your home. Once you have the car, you cannot leave your house because there are no charging stations anywhere to charge them up away from your home. I can just bet you that the car companies would add that cost to the price of the car, or better yet the electric companies would add that to your already skyrocketing electric bill to pay to put in charging stations. None of those ideas you have put forth are practical, nor are they going to be in the near future. We cannot just stop using gas and oil just because you say so.
For those who failed to read the article all the way through. Even the experts quoted in this article say that ethanol is not the clean replacement that it was supposed to be. Even they say it is part of the reason for higher food prices.
Subsidies should be stopped, but first I think we should ask those millionairs in the house and senate why they are sitting pretty while the rest of us are barely getting by. They are making millions. They have a better retirement plan than anyone of us. They have a better medical and dental plan than the rest of us. They get raises no matter what the economy looks like. They get to vote themselves all these great benefits, when we cannot even afford to put food on the table. We could save a substantial amount of money if we cut the pay of every representative and senator, and cut their benefits out altogether and make them pay for their own benefits out of their own pockets.
Bill, go fly a kite and ride a bike and leave us true Americans alone
I agree with Bill...global warming aside, despite our exploitation of shale and our increasing imports from safe ally Canada...we will eventually have to come up with an alternative to petroleum. We still rely on oil drilled by our enemies to keep the price stable for our economic survival. I guess killerteam likes America being the Arab's biatch. How does that make him a "true American"? In addition to our use of renewables, backed up by nuclear power, reducing climate change, it will also make America stronger and more independent. It is bad enough we are so deep in debt to the Chinese...if killerteam has his way...we will also be in deeper and deeper debt to the Saudis; Kuwaitis; Indonesians; Venezuelans
Ethanol: One of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the American people. It ranks right up there with the mythical "Clean Coal."
What annoys me is that most Americans still seem to believe that Ethanol is good for the environment. It's not. In fact, it's WORSE for than environment than pure fossil fuels! It's also bad for the economy. There is literally nothing good about it whatsoever. The farmers who produce it need to go back to producing food for eating. It's disgusting that, with all the hungry people in the world, we find it more important to use that corn to water down our fuel for no apparent reason than to do our part in curbing the global food shortage.
Kris, ethanol is not great for the environment, but it is a whole lot better than oil production. This is because ethanol production keeps getting more efficient, whereas oil production becomes less efficient as the easy to get to oilfields become depleated, and we need to drill deeper and in more remote areas to get to it.
Here is an article by UC Berkeley comparing the energy usage required to make oil versus ethanol:
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/26_ethanol.shtml
Secondly, corn grown for ethanol generates about 30% of the input as an animal feed product. Since the ethanol industry keeps the price of this kind of grain stable, this often impacts food prices positively (without ethanol these fields are often fallow as it makes more economic sense for the farmer to do so).
Third, world hunger has decreased since ethanol has become a major industry. This does not show any causality, but if you think ethanol increases food shortages the statistics suggest otherwise.
Fourth, each $ spent on ethanol goes back into the US economy. Not to Iran or Saudi Arabia. This, by its very nature, helps the US economy.
Fifth, back to the food issue, since 1980 the acherage of farm land being used in the US has decreased by 39 million acres due to better crop yields and growing techniques. There is no lack of growing land to feed people, however there is no economic reason to do so. Today we could grow the food required to feed the starving throughout the world, we simply do not do so. (this is a much larger issue that you cannot really peg on ethanol).
Finally, in each box of corn flakes there is more oil than corn (as a pure $ amount). Thus, food prices fluctuate more in response to fuel costs that corn prices. Corn plays a big role, but not as much as fuel costs.
Is ethanol the answer? No, but it is part of the solution.
ethanol is great for screwing up your fuel pumps on your autos, and also damages your carburetors on your lawnmowers and everything that uses gas. After listening to the small engine repair guy lam blast the ethanol in the gas and what it is doing to us, i quit buying it and buy pure gasoline now and stopped having all this trouble. Not only that, but your price of meat and groceries and everything tied to corn has gone up because of this subsidy by our all loving bureaucratic in Washington. I wish for once they would leave us alone and all democrats would just stay on the ground and quit flying, quit driving, quit using electricity, and support your agenda, instead of what you really do like Al Gore, one of the largest users of energy in the state of tennessee for a private home owner. You talk the bull@!$%#, but when it comes down to it, your all fluff, and you love your SUV's as much as everyone else!! ha ha you people are sick.
Oh and Bill, keep in mind that nuclear power is just as dirty as coal. The only difference is that it pollutes the ground water instead of the air. But it still pollutes and harms the environment, and that's just when they don't have meltdowns....
Hydrogen is the best new technology :)
Hydrogen is an element, not a technology.
I discovered a new element...Nellium. It is a stinky gas that comes from my dog's butt. Her name is nelly and she is producing a lot of it at the moment :(
DP, an element.thanks you made me laugh. I hardly spend time in these forum sandboxes but its worth strolling thru once in a while to snag a laugh. Thanks. There are smart people around just very few here. Other than you and I of course.
Hydrogen technology has taken great affordable leaps ahead. However it is being suppressed.
For about $15,000 you can build a hydrogen gas generator kit. There is no need for storage tanks. The hydrogen gas is pressurized in a fuel line directly to the engine. You can drive a pickup truck from coast to coast on 20 gallons of water. This application can power generators, supply power to homes, and buisnesses, without hardly any ecological footprint. The engines have a healthy boost in power output, because its like running race fuel. Since water is basicly free, and quite available, and there is no pollution, there simply is no reason not to go this way! Except ... big oil is suppressing it. They preferr making billions of dollars and polluting everything in sight.
Can you imagine paying nothing for electricity, or auto fuel? After the 15k investment, the only cost is maintenance. How much money does the average household spend on gasoline, heating fuel, electricity, in a year?
It takes 1 gallon of petroleum gasoline to make two gallons of Ethanol. This means you net one gallon. Then you mix 10% in petroleum gasoline which can give you up to 1 less mile per gallon due to the lower BTU. If you use sugar cane instead of corn you net 8 gallons of ethanol. Why are we using corn?
Because we have tariffs to keep cheap Brazilian cane waste ethanol out of the country. We NEED to give tax dollars to corn growers.
Main reason is that most of the land in the US isn't suited to grow sugarcane.
We can't even get sugarcane back into our coca-cola! Instead everyone uses corn-syrup now.. because it's "healthier" or "cheaper" I don't know.. more likely the corn industry has a huge amount of power and influence over someone...
Then grow hemp
Does hemp make a viable fuel source? I read that it is good for lubricating and cooking oil,clothing building materials, not to mention the medicinal benefits.
you people do know that there is very little corn in the food that you eat. The rise in corn prices has only contributed a couple of cents to the cost of food. It is the transportation costs that have driven up food prices, not the raw materials. BTW Brazil is imp[orting our ethanol because sugar prices are so high that they don't want to use it to produce ethanol.
Algae is the new miracle. It grows fast and is easy to produce. It can actually replace petroleum. The big issue is diesel fuel. It pollutes the most, is most used and is the most expensive.
We have gillions of cubic feet of natural gas, some California Truckers have already converted to LNG. Engines last twice as long, and it is clean.
jeff moralez
Does hemp make a viable fuel source? I read that it is good for lubricating and cooking oil,clothing building materials, not to mention the medicinal benefits.
Yes it is a viable fuel source, I'd go as far to say it's the wonder plant that can change the world, not that it will ever be used, there's too many lobbyists for big pharma, oil companies, textiles etc. etc.
I won't argue pro or con re the benefits of ethanol or no. I WILL say we should have a choice and NO subsidies either way. If it is good it will survive on its own merit. If not, too bad.
RE "jump starting the technology": Where are the tax dollars to "jump start" my pet project and how is this not corporate welfare?
While I am not opposed to killing off the lawyers (as misquoted in Shakespear's King Henry VI, Part II, (Act IV), Scene 2), I really think we need to start with the lobbyists.
And takes an enormous amount of water, is difficult to process, and cost a bundle if you want to grow it in solar bioreactors (to avoid the water issue). It may be the next big thing, but it isn't there yet.
Diesel, with a NOX trap and a particulate filter produces significantly lower emissions than standard gasoline. This is because it used a high compression and is about 20-30% more efficient than standard gas engines.
There couldn't possibly be any republican energy companies taking federal taxpayer welfare could there? Say it ain't so...just tell me why a subsidy for corn or swithcgrass is ok but one for solar or wind is bad?
Yeah, why didn't those folks at Solyndra get subsidized? Oh, wait....
they didnt get susidized, they got a loan but since Bush drove us into bankruptcy no one had any money to buy the solar panels and since everyone was losing their home no one had any place to put solar panels. You idiots on the right keep saying follow the money, well I did and if there is a conspiracy going on in regards to energy the oil companies have more reasons to keep the status quo, try $200 trillion reason. One of the cheif reasons they dont want solar is because you can put a meter on a solar panel a guy puts on his own house. That was the banksters reasoning for not financing tesla, there would have been no way to monitor how much was being used therefore it was impossible to charge people, meaning no profit. There is probably dozens of ways to power the world but big energy doesnt want to use one they cant control.
Read the book "who owns the sun", it's about Shell's attempts to get legislation passed in the US that would have given them the rights to the rays of the sun that hit the earth, thus they could charge people for it's use on solar panels. Sound crazy? Bechtel tried to charge people living in Bolivia money who were collecting rain water to drink and when they couldnt pay Bechtel took their homes. The people in bolivia rose up and took back their water and many other aspects of their life that had been stolen by the Bush family's New World Order of free market criminals.
You are going to wake up one day and find that the criminals you have been supporting so blindly have stolen the most basic of resources right from under your nose.
Happy it's coming to an end. Hope we can get rid of it completely. We need the corn for food more than we need it for anything else. So many other crops have declined because farms went for the big money and raised corn.
..."total green" energy on a large scale is doomed to fail, for it is the environmental lobby that decides what qualifies as such, and the rationale for selection of options includes an unscientific socio-political component, closely akin to the emotion of love and hate....energies that reduces its current carbon footprint are the ones that will succeed, and that includes oil/gas/coal...solar/tidal/ethanol/telepathy can be incrementally implemented, but will never be the panacea the environmental lobby hopes for...at least until the little green men land...
I just read about a newly created enzyme that used on switchgrass will eliminate 2 of the 4 steps in making fuel. Switch grass has no economic value (not a food for animals or humans) and can be gwon in areas that are not suitable for farm crops. The 2-step rocess is faster and far less expensive to produce than all other technologies.
HOWEVER, it wil still produce CO-2. By the way, this method is cheaper than oil and oil refining because it produces diesel, gasolene and jet fuel without refining.
Bottom line: reduces our dependance on foreign oil and is less expensive than oil. I say, thumbs-up for this teechnology until it's economical to develop renewable alternatives without the CO-2.
Switchgrass is CO2-neutral since it takes CO2 from the air to grow. The same amount of CO2 (plus CO2 from processing, transport, etc.) gets put back into the atmosphere.
Ethanol and nuclear power threaten Exxon Mobile. Therefore, faux research, was conducted perpetrating the myth that ethanol is worse than fossil fuels. It's one thing to burn a fossil fuel thus releasing carbon that was formed over millions of years into the atmosphere. It's an entirely different matter to release carbon that was recently absorbed by plants. Another myth is that nuclear power is as dirty as coal. Coal is responsible for the bulk of air pollution and global warming gases. Look at China's air quality. Most of their energy comes from coal, and it is the most contaminated place on Earth.
Subsidizing the production of ethanol is asinine! It is horrible for our cars. This is a political subsidy and nothing more. Farmers want money to produce something no consumers want! Politicians want the farmers' vote. END the subsidy now! I have to pay extra for high test gas in the winter time because it has no ethanol, so my car will run! Why should I have to pay more for gas without ethanol just so it will run properly in the winter and the farmers get subsidized for producing this junk? Every small engine mechanic I have talked to says don't put this junk in your mowers or other small engine equipment. So why are the farmers' subsidized to produce it???? It makes NO sense whatsoever!
There isn't really a big difference in price anymore anyway. I've noticed it as little as ten cents less than regular gas in the past few months... It's usually around 20-30 cents less. But they're doing so well that losing their 46 cent per gallon subsidy would not hurt their ability to compete with gas? Wonder who's pocketing the difference....
Ethanol doesn't really compete with gas. Ethanol is a required blending component. Ehtanol is required as an oxygenate and octane booster. Things that were previously acheived with lead and MTBE. Ethanol has become the preferred agent for this.
Ending this subsidy may jerk the price around a bit, but it won't change that fact that Ethanol is still a necessary product with a real un-subsidised market demand.
The farmer does not get the subsidy and I have yet to be able to set the price of what I produce.
lp-1052987 You do realize of course that less than 2% of the American population are farmers in this day and age. I think it would be a safe bet that most of the politicians from the midwest states are more concerned with what their urban constituants think. Perhaps I'm wrong. Also, your small engine mechanic is correct in telling you not to burn ethanol in your small engine because they are not fuel injected. Do you rail against the makers of 10w-30 oil because you have to use straight 30 weight oil in your mower since 10w-30 foams too much for your oil slinger to provide adequate lubrication? (maybe over your head) And in closing, just a bit of fact from the heartland. Farmers haven't been paid subsidies for corn since it topped $2/bushel. I think the last time corn was at that level was 3? or so years ago. (corrections welcome) Please understand that the farmer doesn't get subsidized by the federal government unless the market price of his crop is less than what the federal government determines it takes to grow it. Ethanol plant subsidies are another thing altogether. And, in another closing, I wonder why so many people are so angry that the American citizens producing a crop in America have a safety net (subsidies) available to them when they need it (also determined by the federal govt) and so few have complained about foreign companies recieving assistance from our govt (not sure how the oil companies subsidies are calculated, perhaps they are also based on a cost to produce), in any case, take it for what it's worth.
Please. With all do respect the ag industry owns the senate. Ag states trade 3-4 pet votes with non-ag states for ag subsidy support. Never going away.
The rabid environmentalists are clueless. First they supported Ethanol as the "Wunder" solution that achieved more miles per gallon and produced less pollution!
Now the rabid environmentalists blame Diesel smoke from Ethanol delivery vehicles and farm equipment oil seepage as the problem. The taxpayers paid for the development of the Ethanol technology. Let's find a weed, like tobacco and make it into Ethanol. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
No "not good enough" and now "dirty" is always the answer from these loony environmentalists to any reasonable energy proposal other than windmills and solar!
Its called the Hippie Law of Unintended Consequences and its hilarious.
Well said.
Meanwhile the auto industry built huge personal vehicles for sale that used a lot of fuel. Engineers would say the footprint of building the Gargantua passenger vehicles used more energy than the lack of miles per gallon they got on the highway. Moral of the story has always been get them off the production line. Example Escalades, Humvees, Range Rovers, SUV's, etc. Why the subsidy for ethanol when the units sold use up what was saved?
Well that's a good idea...But what would the 1% drive?
Enginners would not use the word "footprint" That's a simplified buzzword for propaganda to the uneducated masses.
I see where you are going with this. They can, because they have the money, still buy them but since fewer will be made will have to pay more. Win Win for everyone.
DP you misspelled engineers. The point is the most energy is consumed making the vehicle. Big units cost more to make hence use use more of everything. Why does a pimp need to drive a Cadilac Escalade around the city by himself when he can drive a smaller car?
You think it's the 1% that buy SUVs? You're living in a fantasy land. It's great that you guys go on about the 1% when you don't realize that your neighbor's over-consumption (and probably your over-consumption too) is helping to keep the 1% riding high.
Keep thinking your clever and act like thumbing you nose is making a difference. In the end you'll just keep being the victim to your own foolishness.
east coast
He is saying "what would the 1% drive if the units were discontinued". I said keep making them but charge the customer the cost. Fewer units spread out the costs to what's sold.
Yank - I can't stop laughing. I pictured a pimp in his solar power golf-cart riding around town and lining up his hos.
SUV's are needed in some areas...I live on an unpaved road on the side of a mountain. Try getting your Prius up that in the winter...LOL! I do agree though that there is no need for huge 4WD vehicles for suburban/city dwellers who never leave the pavement.
So let me guess - the right wingers who are AGAINST the auto bailouts are FOR these subsidies right? Why would we give these right wingers a dime when they are crying about spending? Cut them off - for good - right now.
That's not even true, except for the corn-growing states. But hey they have to pretend to represent their constituents occasionally. And by constituents, I mean contributors, of coarse.
Ethanol whats that? LOL! You only see it in certain states as I recall... must be something for the Right wing donors... that's all I can figure?
Its in all states, you just missed it.
tdemex, your bias prevents you from seeing past the Left Wing propaganda. Here in Hawaii, one of the bluest of Blue States, a percentage of ethanol in all gas sold here has been required for years. I guess our Left Wing politicians are reaping the benefits of those Right Wing donors as well. Gotta start thinking for yourself instead of swallowing the propaganda from either political party.
Don't bother with tdemex... he made some claim that it was the 1% who were buying all the SUVs. He's living in a fantasy land and instead of learning and understanding he'll just keep cawing on the same crap because his ego won't let him realize that both parties are invested in energy and both profit from it. Understanding and admitting that would hurt his little head. That's part of the problem with party politics.
I was in Long Island recently and found gas with 15% ethanol.
tdemex
it's moonshine made legal.
Scientists should find a way to burn Federal Reserve Notes instead of Oil since there seems to be an
un-exhaustible supply.
Solar and Wind are not viable due to the fact no one wants it in their back yards. Most importantly permits for solar are about impossible to get due to an insect living under them will die due to lack of light. Enviromentalist for the most part want renuable energy but won't let anyone have permits.
TKC - You have it partially correct. Environmentalists want us to return to caves.
Let the home fit the owner? Nah- where would you get your cheezy poofs? Where would you park your pickem'up, or watch NASCAR? I believe you just want an end to the ethanol subsidy because white lightnin's too expensive these days. But, no worries- you can get all the corn you can handle every day- because almost everything has high fructose corn syrup in it- and that metabolizes just like malt liquor- but without the high.
It's time to take the checkbook away from the free spending goverment.
2012 stop paying federal income tax! If all of us stop for a month or so they will hear us!!