E85 for American Fuel Independence !

[CalG]

Then explain why ethanol is traded on the commodity exchange closed at $1.471 and gasoline on the commodities exchange closed at $1.388. If it takes $1.74 per gallon to produce ethanol, that is a net loss of 27 cents a gallon. Now why, pray tell, would anyone produce something at a such a significant loss? Can't be because they are subsidized, as all subsidies for ethanol production came to a close at the end of 2011. Government may control the level of ethanol used in gas, but it doesn't control price, and ethanol is traded like any other commodity on the market. And they can't make anyone produce a product at a loss.

Fossil fuel to make ethanol is in the form of natural gas. The price is ridiculously low for that fuel source. Makes sense to use it for ethanol production.

Why?

Because you are mixing market times and prices.

And this is blind maddness:

[Government may control the level of ethanol used in gas, but it doesn't control price, and ethanol is traded like any other commodity on the market. ]

Forcing a market for a product IS controlling the price. Assuring that it will not fall to it's true demand value.


If you do not see the missing logic from your statements, I am afraid there is no helping.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I don't care if they make ethanol fuel, just wish I didn't have to buy it. No choice here.

 

[CaptainKarl]

Eddie - there are no government subsidies for Ethanol. It is a GREAT product, not a "horrible product". The voters in states that grow corn do not have enough votes to put or keep someone in national office. There is no welfare here. Thanks for your opinion. Merry Christmas

Corn Ethanol Subsidies Are Alive and Well (link)

Yes there are Government subsidies and mandates.

Reality check, how can you have an entire industry producing an additive for any product and then make that product cheaper by adding 10%, 15%, XX% of that additive to the product without at least creative accounting? Doesn't pass the smell test.

If gasoline costs $2.00 at the pump, and 10% gasohol costs $1.80 (difference in my area is more around $0.25+), then the ethanol either has subsidies (or mandates, or "favorable" tax treatment - same end result) or it is being harvested, produced, transported, blended at a price of $0.00 per gallon. $2/gal X 90% = @1.80/gal. Leaves NO money left to add alcohol. Someone is paying for the difference, and as usual it is the sucker taxpayer.

Ethanol also must be trucked or shipped by rail as it is too corrosive to be sent through pipelines. This adds to the cost, both in dollars and energy to use it, and makes it a less appealing fuel alternative, even without mentioning the absorption of water, and other problems with it.

 

[Copperhead]

A simple read of the article you link shows the fallacy of the conjecture. The article says that ethanol subsidies were eliminated in 2011, which is true, but they then contend that a mandate to use the stuff is a subsidy. Simple logic says that while the government can mandate a product be used, it cannot mandate it be made in the first place. The commodity market exchange dictates the price for ethanol. Thus far, to a profitable enough degree that people make the stuff. If the market price drops to below where it is no longer profitable to make the stuff, then it will not be made, at least here. And at that point, the government cannot force anyone to make a product at a loss.

But let's take the mandate then results in a subsidy argument. Ok. There is a mandate for air bags, seat belts, TPMS systems on autos and light pickups, and myriad of other things we all deal with day to day in our lives. All of them dwarf anything that might be of profit to the ethanol industry. I don't want daytime running lights on my pickup. I disable them. But I had to pay for them. I don't have any desire for TPMS tire inflation systems on my vehicles. I have to pay for replacement sensors from time to time. I learned over a half century ago how to use a tire gauge, why should I be force to pay for some stupid TPMS system on my auto? Seems that if folks would take a look around at what they are being forced to pay for, the ethanol thing would pale in comparison.

Yet another example: government can mandate medical insurance, but United Healthcare showed us that they can refuse to offer policies by bailing out of the exchanges. There is no way for the government to force any insurance company to provide a policy. So while there is a mandate to obtain a policy, no insurance company can be forced to provide one. United determined it was unprofitable to do so, therefore they bailed out, as have a lot of insurers. But wait! I thought a mandate was a subsidy?

 

[CalG]

A simple read of the article you link shows the fallacy of the conjecture. The article says that ethanol subsidies were eliminated in 2011, which is true, but they then contend that a mandate to use the stuff is a subsidy. Simple logic says that while the government can mandate a product be used, it cannot mandate it be made in the first place. The commodity market exchange dictates the price for ethanol. Thus far, to a profitable enough degree that people make the stuff. If the market price drops to below where it is no longer profitable to make the stuff, then it will not be made, at least here. And at that point, the government cannot force anyone to make a product at a loss.

But let's take the mandate then results in a subsidy argument. Ok. There is a mandate for air bags, seat belts, TPMS systems on autos and light pickups, and myriad of other things we all deal with day to day in our lives. All of them dwarf anything that might be of profit to the ethanol industry. I don't want daytime running lights on my pickup. I disable them. But I had to pay for them. I don't have any desire for TPMS tire inflation systems on my vehicles. I have to pay for replacement sensors from time to time. I learned over a half century ago how to use a tire gauge, why should I be force to pay for some stupid TPMS system on my auto? Seems that if folks would take a look around at what they are being forced to pay for, the ethanol thing would pale in comparison.

Yet another example: government can mandate medical insurance, but United Healthcare showed us that they can refuse to offer policies by bailing out of the exchanges. There is no way for the government to force any insurance company to provide a policy. So while there is a mandate to obtain a policy, no insurance company can be forced to provide one. United determined it was unprofitable to do so, therefore they bailed out, as have a lot of insurers. But wait! I thought a mandate was a subsidy?

The logic in defence the OP has slipped past the realms of sensibility. Time to move along.

 

[CaptainKarl]

A simple read of the article you link shows the fallacy of the conjecture. The article says that ethanol subsidies were eliminated in 2011, which is true, but they then contend that a mandate to use the stuff is a subsidy. Simple logic says that while the government can mandate a product be used, it cannot mandate it be made in the first place. The commodity market exchange dictates the price for ethanol. Thus far, to a profitable enough degree that people make the stuff. If the market price drops to below where it is no longer profitable to make the stuff, then it will not be made, at least here. And at that point, the government cannot force anyone to make a product at a loss.

But let's take the mandate then results in a subsidy argument. Ok. There is a mandate for air bags, seat belts, TPMS systems on autos and light pickups, and myriad of other things we all deal with day to day in our lives. All of them dwarf anything that might be of profit to the ethanol industry. I don't want daytime running lights on my pickup. I disable them. But I had to pay for them. I don't have any desire for TPMS tire inflation systems on my vehicles. I have to pay for replacement sensors from time to time. I learned over a half century ago how to use a tire gauge, why should I be force to pay for some stupid TPMS system on my auto? Seems that if folks would take a look around at what they are being forced to pay for, the ethanol thing would pale in comparison.

Yet another example: government can mandate medical insurance, but United Healthcare showed us that they can refuse to offer policies by bailing out of the exchanges. There is no way for the government to force any insurance company to provide a policy. So while there is a mandate to obtain a policy, no insurance company can be forced to provide one. United determined it was unprofitable to do so, therefore they bailed out, as have a lot of insurers. But wait! I thought a mandate was a subsidy?

I noticed you did not challenge the math. In my area 10% blend ethanol sells for around 25-30 cents a gallon than real gasoline. At that rate, using $2/gal example, the end consumer is paying less than the price of the gasoline itself, let alone what additional cost the ethanol has. The money comes from somewhere. Who is paying it then?

 

[Garandman]

Seems like most agree E85 is about the dumbest idea the government has ever concocted.

Implementing a minimum MPG on vehicles especially the 40 mpg said earlier is completely stupid. Do you plan on driving across the country in your 40 mpg car to get groceries because they won't be brought to your local grocery store anymore? How do you plan to make a semi get 40 mpg? How am I going to tow my gooseneck weighing 11,000 pounds? A ton truck can't get 40 mpg. How am I going to tow anything much less 11,000 or more pounds. How are you going to carry more than 5 passengers? I can't afford a vehicle that gets 40 mpg even if it was capable of towing. I am going to keep on driving my Chevy 1500 with 219,000 miles and my F-350 with 110,000 miles.

Light trucks have different standards than passenger cars and heavy trucks have none. Truck manufacturers are working on operating efficiency because if you drive something 200 or 300,000 miles a year, fuel costs add up.

Our Chevrolet Cruze turbodiesels already average 40mpg in real-world use. Nine out of 10 pickups I see are hauling air.

 

[Garandman]

From link above.

While VEETC was finally eliminated at the end of 2011 (in addition to the tariff on imported ethanol), corn ethanol subsidies live on. The federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was created and expanded in the 2005 and 2007 energy bills, respectively, mandating that fuel blenders use a minimum amount of corn-based ethanol each year. Recalling such treatment, Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) remarked at the forum, “I can’t think of another product in the American economy that really had the trifecta – a tariff barrier, a subsidy, and a mandate.” This trifecta of subsidies has resulted in numerous unintended consequences, such as greater greenhouse gas emissions and higher food and feed prices. Rep. King admitted the latter when he posited what would happen if the RFS was repealed: “I believe that it would […] drive your corn prices down significantly,” even though corn ethanol lobbyists have historically refused to acknowledge that federal corn ethanol supports increase corn prices.

Even if Rep. King attempts to argue that the RFS isn’t a subsidy, he surely can’t ignore all the other government giveaways for ethanol. The industry enjoys subsidies through farm bill energy title programs such as the Rural Energy for America Program and the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels; tax breaks such as the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit, Master Limited Partnerships, and biodiesel tax credits; and various Departments of Energy and Transportation programs. Worse yet, on Sept. 30, another member of the Iowa Congressional delegation Senator Harkin (D-IA) proposed billions more in new ethanol subsidies such as those for blender pumps, storage tanks, and biofuels pipelines.

 

[MD09]

Poor Fuel economy
Additional maintenance headaches
Cold weather issues
All add to higher operating costs


No thank you.

I am all for an alternative fuel, Bio Diesel works well in older engines but screws up modern motors. EPA, Biggest waist of taxpayers dollars, add EGRs to Diesels saying that it is good for the environment, end result worse for the environment as all it does is kill the engine life.

There are better alternatives out there but they are lacking support and infrastructure. There are synthetic fuels in use. they are expensive in low quantity. larger quantities might bring down the cost to reasonable.

 

[4570Man]

Seems like most agree E85 is about the dumbest idea the government has ever concocted. Light trucks have different standards than passenger cars and heavy trucks have none. Truck manufacturers are working on operating efficiency because if you drive something 200 or 300,000 miles a year, fuel costs add up. Our Chevrolet Cruze turbodiesels already average 40mpg in real-world use. Nine out of 10 pickups I see are hauling air.

So how many people that drive that many miles per year besides a trucker drive a 15 mpg gas guzzler? Anyone driving that many miles is by their own choice driving a 40 mpg plus vehicle.