$5B ethanol subsidy in jeopardy

[*kjm]

not true.

i know many family farms. all have around 90 acres.

but yes this will hurt them they have been making a killing (well compared to the past few years) on corn

It's also hurt a ton.... My cousin had a bad crop in one field because of heavy rain and had to buy corn for feed for the year... he ended up having to take out a loan because the price is so darn high. The only people this is helping are farms with more land than they need to feed or the ones with no feeders just growing crops.

His farm has about 98 planting acres but he has around 80 milkers and 20 feeders.

 

[catilley1092]

What I can't understand, is if the deficit is in such bad shape, why can't they eliminate one expense at a time, rather than through a package?

And why is badly needed food supplies used for the profit of the oil companies? All they're doing is basically watering down the gas, charging us more, while at the same time, slowly destroying our cars? Ethanol in not a new idea by far, there was a local gas station here in the 80's & 90's selling it as a 10% mixture.

Sure, it was a dime less a gallon, but it made every ride that I put it in run hotter, spark knock, and had less power. I hope it doesn't come here again.

Cat

 

[*kjm]

And why is badly needed food supplies used for the profit of the oil companies? All they're doing is basically watering down the gas, charging us more,
Cat

 

[dullard]

And why is badly needed food supplies used for the profit of the oil companies?

1) Corn made for ethanol is not sweet corn it is field corn. Meaning it isn't food for humans. They aren't badly needed food supplies. Time for this myth to end.

2) The net effect of this subsidy was basically to take marginal unused land and put it to corn production. Remove the subsidy, and the marginal land will go back to being unused. Field corn demand will drop, but so will the supply. So, the net effect is almost no price change.

3) Thus. It won't affect the price of food, nor the supply of food.

4) I say get rid of the subsidy since it (like most government meddling in agriculture) isn't needed nor is it particularly helpful. It is just wasted money. Get rid of it for that reason. But don't fool yourself into thinking it is human food going to ethanol.

 

[Throckmorton]

This is just another facet of Obama's plan to control the economy. He chooses the winners and losers in place of the market. Pulling $5 billion in subsidy from refiners will cause them to use less ethanol and, therefore, more oil. That will in turn drive up the price of oil, making the rest of his energy agenda easier to fulfill. Meanwhile, the farms built around the supposed booming ethanol market will take a huge hit when demand for their product dramatically decreases overnight. Obama will strongly suggest what they should grow instead using a new subsidy. Rinse and repeat. It's happening in every corner of the country at this point, creating huge uncertainty and people simply aren't willing to gamble when they could lose big simply on the whim of a politician with no skin in the game.

Obama said he would veto

 

[*kjm]

1) Corn made for ethanol is not sweet corn it is field corn. Meaning it isn't food for humans. They aren't badly needed food supplies. Time for this myth to end.

You like chicken, beef, veal, pork, fish, lamb, milk....... yes it is a food sorce for humans. How many years have you been farming to know so much dullard?

 

[dullard]

You like chicken, beef, veal, pork, fish, lamb, milk....... yes it is a food sorce for humans. How many years have you been farming to know so much dullard?

Did you read point #2, #3, or #4? How many years old are you to know how to read?

I worked on farms for 5 years. Laborer on corn fields. I also live in corn country (Nebraska) and know several corn farmers pretty well. I'm not a top expert on corn, but I know these extremely basic points. Take away the subsidy, and you'll take away the marginal fields. The result will not be more food for humans.

To answer your first question: I eat chicken but don't particularly like it, I like beef quite a lot, I hate veal, I'll eat bacon but rarely any other prok, I hate fish, lamb can be good but it is hard to find here, and I am intollerant to milk.

 

[hal2kilo]

I hope Grover Norquist has a coronary over this one!!!!

QUOTE]

One can only hope.

 

[hal2kilo]

Obama said he would veto

Sad to see that if its in fact true. Link? Not really surprising. This seems to be a big bipartisan pigs at the trough issue. Got to love corporate Ag.

 

[p0nd]

That's valid info, but I also found (written several years ago):



http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/mtbeban/

From your Wiki link:

The main problem of MTBE is that it is extremely soluble in water. So if you have a release of gasoline into groundwater, the MTBE will move farther and faster than the rest of the gasoline components. This makes MTBE more expensive to removed from polluted soil or water.

Very high concentrations of MTBE were not uncommon from releases when it was being used... think 50+ ppm. Given the lack of scientific consensus regarding MTBE's chronic toxicity, most limits are set to the detectable taste of MTBE in drinking water which is pretty low levels.

 

[Thump553]

Get back to me when we actually have a reduction in this subisdy. Arguably it is part of the solution in weaning USA off foreign oil, but it certainly appears to be a financially inefficient way of doing so (plus we use more foreign oil to raise and fertilize that corn).

The farm industry is second only to the NRA in the effectivness of it's lobbyists. Despite all the talk about balancing the budget, neither party in the Midwest is going to lift a finger to reduce this giveaway program.

 

[Cogman]

:thumbsup:

We should've put the money into nuclear and plug-in hybrids, not given it to oil companies so that they could compete for our food. But it's gone now.

I would prefer investing in full electrics. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/cambridge-crude-mit-battery_n_875996.html

Hybrids are alright, but not as efficient as a full electric would be. If we get battery tech up to snuff then something like this would be worthwhile.

 

[dullard]

As a reference, here is the US corn production minus the US corn going to ethanol. In other words, this is the amount of US corn going to food (either for humans or for animal feed). This graph is basically from the start of using corn for ethanol production. I added an excel trendline since the data is noisy (weather, temporary farm fads, etc.) Data from here.

 

[ShawnD1]

And why is badly needed food supplies used for the profit of the oil companies? All they're doing is basically watering down the gas, charging us more, while at the same time, slowly destroying our cars? Ethanol in not a new idea by far, there was a local gas station here in the 80's & 90's selling it as a 10% mixture.

Sure, it was a dime less a gallon, but it made every ride that I put it in run hotter, spark knock, and had less power. I hope it doesn't come here again.

That wasn't the alcohol doing it. Your car was a piece of shit.

I'll try to explain in as few words as possible.
-an "octane rating" indicates how much pressure and heat a fuel can withstand before it will explode without a spark
-higher octane ratings can withstand more pressure and more heat before they will explode without a spark
-engine "knock" is when a fuel's octane rating is too low for the engine; the knock is the sound made by the fuel exploding before there is a spark
-ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline

I think the gas in my car is something like 87. Ethanol has an octane rating around 110.

 

[bfdd]

I would prefer investing in full electrics. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/cambridge-crude-mit-battery_n_875996.html

Hybrids are alright, but not as efficient as a full electric would be. If we get battery tech up to snuff then something like this would be worthwhile.

Current battery tech would require us to rely even further upon China if we went FULL electric. Diesel hybrids allow us to keep the batteries smaller, keeping our demand for precious Earth metals smaller and allow us to use our local reserves and shale for diesel along with the various other bio-diesels that are coming along to off set. Much better stepping stone IMO.

 

[CycloWizard]

Obama said he would veto

It doesn't matter what he does at this point. The government is already in the business of fixing the markets, so it's pretty tough to get out now. Bush and the Republicans are just as guilty as Obama.

 

[Throckmorton]

Sad to see that if its in fact true. Link? Not really surprising. This seems to be a big bipartisan pigs at the trough issue. Got to love corporate Ag.

It's in the OP's article

 

[Throckmorton]

It doesn't matter what he does at this point. The government is already in the business of fixing the markets, so it's pretty tough to get out now. Bush and the Republicans are just as guilty as Obama.

But you were complaining about repealing the ethanol subsidy, which Obama isn't doing, and which Obama said he would veto.


Ethanol is stupid, and Obama himself acknowledged that during the campaign. Too bad he flipflopped.

 

[CycloWizard]

But you were complaining about repealing the ethanol subsidy, which Obama isn't doing, and which Obama said he would veto.


Ethanol is stupid, and Obama himself acknowledged that during the campaign. Too bad he flipflopped.

Obama is screwed either way. The government has its finger in the hole in the dike.

 

[senseamp]

Senate Majority is veto-proof, I guess it depends on whether it gets 2/3rds in the House.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I would prefer investing in full electrics. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/cambridge-crude-mit-battery_n_875996.html

Hybrids are alright, but not as efficient as a full electric would be. If we get battery tech up to snuff then something like this would be worthwhile.

But that's just the problem -- if.

Full electric would require either incredible energy density (800 mile+ ranges) or be a technology that allows for easy "refueling", which in case we'd need the refueling infrastructure -- and all at an affordable price.
Research into the battery tech would take years with no guarantee of success, then a couple years of conversion... it's too long without payback.
Plug-in hybrids can be done immediately. You only need ~30 mile electric range to account for... what, 80+% of driving? Gas/diesel refueling infrastructure is already in place.

You'd have an instant huge increase in transportation efficiency comparable to all-electric and doable at a much lower technology level. It allows for a naturally paced evolution of electric tech as any incremental advances could be put into the field immediately; not have to wait to be "total conversion of the fleet" -ready.

When looking at a very real problem like oil demand outpacing supply, the government should be looking for the best real solution, not the best imagined one.

Oh, and I hope there isn't anyone here stupid enough to look at that and be thinking, "Hurr, the free market should decide what's best, not the government." We are a high-tech society -- we are dependent on our energy and our technology. You do NOT leave these in the hands of a market full of entrenched conservative companies on the prayer that some start-up will magically come up with a solution to save us all. This is an instance where once things collapse, they very well could stay collapsed. Technology and manufacturing grew on the free ride of oil. Trying to convert to something else on only the remnants of oil would be a monumental challenge.
Better to convert now while we are still riding the wave of cheap oil, and only the government can direct companies in that direction. Consumers only direct from behind. (Consumer demand comes from hindsight, not foresight. Only after being hit in the face with a problem does the consumer realize that he have need to purchase a solution.)

 

[DominionSeraph]

As a reference, here is the US corn production minus the US corn going to ethanol. In other words, this is the amount of US corn going to food (either for humans or for animal feed). This graph is basically from the start of using corn for ethanol production. I added an excel trendline since the data is noisy (weather, temporary farm fads, etc.) Data from here.

Hmmm... that's consistent with population growth.
So why has price skyrocketed?

 

[Veramocor]

Ethanol, the triple crown of government regulation (as some blogger once put it).

1. Tariffs on imports
2. Mandate to use
3. and tax subsidy

The tax credit really isn't needed if you have the first two. The blenders have no choice because of the mandate to use corn ethanol whether or not they get a credit.

 

[Cogman]

But that's just the problem -- if.

There are a number of unrealized battery options out there, and some look pretty dang promising. I would much rather see R&D going into battery tech even if it never produces a thing.

Full electric would require either incredible energy density (800 mile+ ranges) or be a technology that allows for easy "refueling", which in case we'd need the refueling infrastructure -- and all at an affordable price.
Research into the battery tech would take years with no guarantee of success, then a couple years of conversion... it's too long without payback.
Plug-in hybrids can be done immediately. You only need ~30 mile electric range to account for... what, 80+% of driving? Gas/diesel refueling infrastructure is already in place.

Check out the link I gave you. The charge is held in the electrolyte, so you literally could stop at a station and change out your battery fluid and leave with a full charge. Not only is it highly efficient (at least as good as current battery tech and possibly 2x->3x better), they also have a working sample, which they are saying is pretty cheap to make. In other words, this is a solution that is ready for manufacturing right now, not a theoretical "oh, this would be cool" solution.

Something like this would benefit hybrids as well as all electrics and this is where I would like the government to research. As an added bonus. The benefits of researching into better battery tech is that techs such as solar or wind all the sudden become much more feasible. Having a large arrays of batteries really allows us to better utilize our power.

Yes, the infrastructure isn't in place, and that is a big issue. It probably will be something that is at first only feasible for city areas. However, if we never start the change it will never have a chance to happen. At one time, it was believed that Cellphone technology would never be feasible, yet with some large investments by the government it eventually payed off.

You'd have an instant huge increase in transportation efficiency comparable to all-electric and doable at a much lower technology level. It allows for a naturally paced evolution of electric tech as any incremental advances could be put into the field immediately; not have to wait to be "total conversion of the fleet" -ready.

We already have all-electric vehicles. In fact, the level of technology that goes into a hybrid is MUCH higher then the level of tech that goes into an electric vehicle. After all, a hybrid is an electric + gas powered engine. Making them play nicely can be difficult. (but obviously doable).

When looking at a very real problem like oil demand outpacing supply, the government should be looking for the best real solution, not the best imagined one.

An all electric fleet IS a real solution. Especially in city areas. Supplementing it with better public transport would really be all we need.

...Better to convert now while we are still riding the wave of cheap oil, and only the government can direct companies in that direction. Consumers only direct from behind. (Consumer demand comes from hindsight, not foresight. Only after being hit in the face with a problem does the consumer realize that he have need to purchase a solution.)

I agree with this. When it comes to mass adoption of new technology such as an hybrid or electric vehicle, government intervention is really a necessity.

 

[Cogman]

Ethanol, the triple crown of government regulation (as some blogger once put it).

1. Tariffs on imports
2. Mandate to use
3. and tax subsidy

The tax credit really isn't needed if you have the first two. The blenders have no choice because of the mandate to use corn ethanol whether or not they get a credit.

Yeah, ethanol from corn is a terrible idea. It is one of the worst crops out there for making ethanol.