Ethanol - A new battle brewing?

   / Ethanol - A new battle brewing? #1  

Ford850

Super Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
5,252
Location
Ohio
Tractor
Case DX55, Ford 850
I recently noticed quite a few television ads by Is the ethanol mandate the most broken policy in America? | Smarter Fuel Future
I checked them out briefly and noticed their backers are many of the poultry, cattle, or other food producers. I thought most farmers were in favor of ethanol, but maybe it's just the grain producers. Maybe this is all old news. I have varying opinions on ethanol, and I don't intend this thread as a bickering match. I'm really just curious if this is a new development regarding ethanol.
 
   / Ethanol - A new battle brewing? #2  
I haven't seen the ads here in SC yet, but I can tell you that I wish the mandate would end. To a degree, you can influence this yourself by buying non-ethanol at the pumps where it is available to keep it available. You'll be speaking with your wallet. Sometimes I don't have a choice, but locally, we have quite a few stations that carry it in varying forms of octane numbers.

I use it in every small engine exclusively and sometimes use it in my vehicles for full fill ups when it's convenient to do so. I find that for 87 octane, it's generally about 10-15% more expensive. I get better mileage no doubt. I think I come close to offsetting the price, but probably don't break even. What I will say though, is the performance is noticeably superior and if it prevents more future engine problems, then I'm money ahead. I wish I could get it at every station at a break even price, but as long as ethanol is subsidized, I don't see that happening.
 
   / Ethanol - A new battle brewing? #3  
Only the grain farmers are in favor, anyone who depends on buying grain (livestock producers) obviously would prefer it go away. It’s nothing new. In fact, grain producers might be some of the only people in America in favor of the mandate. It doesn’t even really have anything to do with whether ethanol is a good product or not.
 
   / Ethanol - A new battle brewing? #4  
I've seen the ads and all for ending mandates. Corn is for food. . Alcohols for drinking, not cars
 
   / Ethanol - A new battle brewing? #5  
Whoever made the campaign donations that got it pushed onto the general public last time...better dig a bit deeper this time around. The EPA and the Hildabeast need more money.
 
   / Ethanol - A new battle brewing? #6  
I recently noticed quite a few television ads by Is the ethanol mandate the most broken policy in America? | Smarter Fuel Future
I checked them out briefly and noticed their backers are many of the poultry, cattle, or other food producers. I thought most farmers were in favor of ethanol, but maybe it's just the grain producers. Maybe this is all old news. I have varying opinions on ethanol, and I don't intend this thread as a bickering match. I'm really just curious if this is a new development regarding ethanol.

The debate should be gaining momentum. The main issue is the taxpayer subside of $0.46 per gallon paid to the producers of ethanol.
The original law stipulated a sunset clause in the law for the subside. It was intended to help get the industry up and running not a sustaining cash flow for the producers. The polititions knew if they stopped the subside the full price of ethanol would be passed on in fuel prices and voters would not be happy with oil prices on a steady rise. Now that oil prices are down and fuel cost down there is no need for the subside to continue.

The fact that ethanol fuel is less efficient than pure gas and it creates more pollution growing, transporting, processing and distributing ethanol should be enough reason to stop adding ethanol to fuel and stop burning food for fuel.
 
   / Ethanol - A new battle brewing? #7  
The real reason at least for me that i like ethanol is it is american, not from Saudi Arabia.
 
   / Ethanol - A new battle brewing? #8  
The real reason at least for me that i like ethanol is it is american, not from Saudi Arabia.

America has always had enough oil to sustain itself. Was decided after WWII it was better and cheaper to use others oil first so when the projections of oil supply was done the USA would be the last man standing with an oil supply. After the oil embargo of the seventies the thought changed since we were getting dependent on other countries oil.

As we speak the oil industry is lobbying congress to allow them to export the surplus oil we are producing in hopes of driving up the price.
Getting rid of ethanol would increase the demand for local oil to keep up with US demand.
 
   / Ethanol - A new battle brewing? #9  
The debate should be gaining momentum. The main issue is the taxpayer subside of $0.46 per gallon paid to the producers of ethanol.
The original law stipulated a sunset clause in the law for the subside. It was intended to help get the industry up and running not a sustaining cash flow for the producers. The polititions knew if they stopped the subside the full price of ethanol would be passed on in fuel prices and voters would not be happy with oil prices on a steady rise. Now that oil prices are down and fuel cost down there is no need for the subside to continue.

The fact that ethanol fuel is less efficient than pure gas and it creates more pollution growing, transporting, processing and distributing ethanol should be enough reason to stop adding ethanol to fuel and stop burning food for fuel.

Agreed!
 
   / Ethanol - A new battle brewing? #10  
Need to get up to speed. Ethanol subsidies died in 2011 when they were not renewed in the farm bill. There are some grants, tax credits, etc for ethanol blender pumps, but that is retail gas station stuff, not ethanol producers.

One of the main reasons for ethanol production is corn price stability. Corn prices are low now, and without price being somewhat stable due to ethanol, the price would go into the basement and the taxpayer would be shelling out grain price support subsidies. Right now, on an inflation adjusted basis, corn prices are lower than in the mid 90's. All of this hoopla by livestock producers over ethanol costing them more in grain price is a ruse. They want $1 a bushel corn. No different than folks wanting $1 a gallon fuel. They cry and whine about feed, but they fail to mention that livestock market prices are doing very well.

It's really simple. Folks with a bias against ethanol will continue to see conspiracies, black helicopters, and suck up every bit of stuff on the net that justifies their preconceived mindset. And those that have a stake in ethanol are not much different. Then there those of us who are neutral and we have flex fuel vehicles, know what the fuel economy is on different blends of ethanol and ethanol free, then we look at prevailing price at the pump and choose whatever offers the lowest cost per mile to use. No bias, just a business mindset.
 
 
Top