Latin American Ethanol Policy

[Paddington]

There was an article in the Economist recently about America's ethanol strategy, to use the stuff instead of imported oil. Everyone thinks that this strategy involves producing a lot of it in the Midwest for domestic consumption, but according to the Economist the real plan is to import a lot of it from Latin America in the future. GWB has recently met with the Brazillian President and signed an ethanol deal, so I don't think it's just speculation.

Anyway, I rather like the idea. It's a rare good foreign policy move from Bush. It's actually so good, that it solves a number of problems for America. The plan is basically that in the future, a lot of ethanol will be substitued for gasoline. Some of this will come from the Midwest, where ethanol is made from corn in a two step process that needs some mild subsidies from the government. In the warm climates of Central and South America, ethanol is produced much more cheaply from sugar cane, without any subsidies. In the future, instead of importing vast amounts of oil from the Middle East, America will instead get ethanol from it's neighbors. That may seem meaningless, but it accomplishes a number of goals.

1) Less money going to the Middle East, which ends up in the hands of unsavory characters like the Saudi royal family, and despots like the former Saddam Hussein.
2) Lots of jobs created in the dirt poor rural parts of Central and South America. Why does that matter? LESS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA. Instead of going over to Iraq, we need policies like this to help the economic situation in nearby countries, otherwise these guys just dump all their poor on the U.S.
3) Building on #2, less farmers in places like Columbia growing things like cocaine and shipping it to the U.S.
4) A sustainable energy source for the future.

 

[dmcowen674]

You actually believe we will see any ethanol from South America?

You actually believe prices will come down?

That's some pretty serious drugs you got going there. :laugh:

 

[Paddington]

You actually believe we will see any ethanol from South America?

Umm... Yes, especially since our country just signed a deal with them today on the future importation of the stuff.

You actually believe prices will come down?

I said absolutely nothing about prices. Middle Eastern oil is cheap and there's no doubt about that. Locally it sells for $.10 a gallon or something over there. Substituting it for something else, like equal energy amounts of ethanol from the Midwest or Brazil or whatever is definitely going to have some cost. But in the long term that may prove a wiser strategy.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You actually believe we will see any ethanol from South America?

Ethanol is just getting the ball rolling, thats the hard part, but i believe it will take on well.

 

[DealMonkey]

I hear the angle is to form a sort of OPEC-like cartel with the other ethanol-producing S.A. countries.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I hear the angle is to form a sort of OPEC-like cartel with the other ethanol-producing S.A. countries.

Yep, I actually have an article on that in my Oil thread.

 

[rahvin]

While touring the same brazillian production facility the President of Brazil asked if America would remove the currently existing $.54 gallon tax on ethanol produced outside the US, the president said "It's not on the table".

In other words, Bush is trying to look like he's doing something, while in fact he does nothing. As long as America imposes a $.54 per gallon tax on imported ethanol there isn't a market for Brazillian produced ethanol in the US.

I guess I'm not surprised that there a people naive enough to believe that a president from Texas who has ties to nearly every major US oil conglomerate and everyone in the petrochemical industry is going to promote anything other than oil. In fact what Bush is proposing is that Latin America use ethanol so there is more cheap oil for the US.

 

[imported_Lothar]

When they get rid of the 54c/gallon imorted ethanol tax, I'd consider it good policy.
Until then, it's just a bunch of politicians doing photo ops and signing useless papers.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: rahvin
While touring the same brazillian production facility the President of Brazil asked if America would remove the currently existing $.54 gallon tax on ethanol produced outside the US, the president said "It's not on the table".

In other words, Bush is trying to look like he's doing something, while in fact he does nothing. As long as America imposes a $.54 per gallon tax on imported ethanol there isn't a market for Brazillian produced ethanol in the US.

I guess I'm not surprised that there a people naive enough to believe that a president from Texas who has ties to nearly every major US oil conglomerate and everyone in the petrochemical industry is going to promote anything other than oil. In fact what Bush is proposing is that Latin America use ethanol so there is more cheap oil for the US.

Sugar ethanol is cheaper than Corn ethanol. Removing the tariff = lots of pissed off farmers, and not R or D would be willing to touch that 3rd rail. Chuck Grassley would personally break some knee caps. Did you see him smiling and clapping at the SOTU when Bush mentioned the ethanol initiatives? Like a 1st grade girl at her first tea party...

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: rahvin
While touring the same brazillian production facility the President of Brazil asked if America would remove the currently existing $.54 gallon tax on ethanol produced outside the US, the president said "It's not on the table".

In other words, Bush is trying to look like he's doing something, while in fact he does nothing. As long as America imposes a $.54 per gallon tax on imported ethanol there isn't a market for Brazillian produced ethanol in the US.

I guess I'm not surprised that there a people naive enough to believe that a president from Texas who has ties to nearly every major US oil conglomerate and everyone in the petrochemical industry is going to promote anything other than oil. In fact what Bush is proposing is that Latin America use ethanol so there is more cheap oil for the US.

uhmmm that would be congresses role not the presidents

 

[techs]

Sorry but Bush doing anything that would hurt the oil companies is so far fetched that I can't believe it. It sounds like more distraction, like his promise a majority of us will be driving hydrogen powered cars in under 10 years.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rahvin
While touring the same brazillian production facility the President of Brazil asked if America would remove the currently existing $.54 gallon tax on ethanol produced outside the US, the president said "It's not on the table".

In other words, Bush is trying to look like he's doing something, while in fact he does nothing. As long as America imposes a $.54 per gallon tax on imported ethanol there isn't a market for Brazillian produced ethanol in the US.

I guess I'm not surprised that there a people naive enough to believe that a president from Texas who has ties to nearly every major US oil conglomerate and everyone in the petrochemical industry is going to promote anything other than oil. In fact what Bush is proposing is that Latin America use ethanol so there is more cheap oil for the US.

Look how the resident Republicans actually tried to pass this nonsense off.

They really should be tried as traitors.

 

[daniel49]

but I do have a problem as did the person in this post
Text
with why we are pushing corn so hard and not rather a more promising crop like sugar beets. Which can be grown in many places across the United States.

 

[Paddington]

When they get rid of the 54c/gallon imorted ethanol tax, I'd consider it good policy.
Until then, it's just a bunch of politicians doing photo ops and signing useless papers.

That's going to expire in a couple of years, at least vis a vis Brazil. That's part of the agreement. :thumbsup:

 

[1EZduzit]

It seems like a good long term strategy to me. Maybe someday the M.E. will actually have to eat their oil.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Paddington

When they get rid of the 54c/gallon imorted ethanol tax, I'd consider it good policy.
Until then, it's just a bunch of politicians doing photo ops and signing useless papers.

That's going to expire in a couple of years, at least vis a vis Brazil. That's part of the agreement. :thumbsup:

Are you kidding? The corn/ethanol barons are no different from the sugar barons. We will not see an open market for ethanol in the US for at least a decade. Ethanol in the US is neither an environmental nor energy independence initiative. It's political patronage.

Rice (the shrinking) Secretary of State signed an agreement that means almost nothing. American producers of ethanol (and the Congressional pockets they line) have no intention of allowing the free market to determine the price (or supply) of ethanol.

Long-term neither corn nor sugar are viable ethanol feedstock. The oil oligarchs don't have anything to worry about until cellulosic ethanol goes primetime.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Paddington

When they get rid of the 54c/gallon imorted ethanol tax, I'd consider it good policy.
Until then, it's just a bunch of politicians doing photo ops and signing useless papers.

That's going to expire in a couple of years, at least vis a vis Brazil. That's part of the agreement. :thumbsup:

Are you kidding? The corn/ethanol barons are no different from the sugar barons. We will not see an open market for ethanol in the US for at least a decade. Ethanol in the US is neither an environmental nor energy independence initiative. It's political patronage.

Rice (the shrinking) Secretary of State signed an agreement that means almost nothing. American producers of ethanol (and the Congressional pockets they line) have no intention of allowing the free market to determine the price (or supply) of ethanol.

Long-term neither corn nor sugar are viable ethanol feedstock. The oil oligarchs don't have anything to worry about until cellulosic ethanol goes primetime.

With all the ethanol plants being built in the country, it's obvious they are going to have to find something else to use. I can't imagine it would take a lot of refitting to convert an ethanol plant form using corn to switchgrass?

 

[dphantom]

Converting food crops to use in transportaiotn makes very little sense. Corn prices are already rising fast as more corn is diverted to feed the ethanol plants.

Ethanol will never replace oil and make only a marginal dent in oil consumption. It's good we are looking at alternatives, but realistically, ethanol can never replace a majority of the oil consumption in the US.

 

[TheSlamma]

If it REALLY happens it's a great deal. But it also has to happen in a realistic volume. If it only counts for 10% of imported fuel it's not enough, we need a massive reduction from the mid east.

They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we are in their lands PERIOD.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Paddington

When they get rid of the 54c/gallon imorted ethanol tax, I'd consider it good policy.
Until then, it's just a bunch of politicians doing photo ops and signing useless papers.

That's going to expire in a couple of years, at least vis a vis Brazil. That's part of the agreement. :thumbsup:

Are you kidding? The corn/ethanol barons are no different from the sugar barons. We will not see an open market for ethanol in the US for at least a decade. Ethanol in the US is neither an environmental nor energy independence initiative. It's political patronage.

Rice (the shrinking) Secretary of State signed an agreement that means almost nothing. American producers of ethanol (and the Congressional pockets they line) have no intention of allowing the free market to determine the price (or supply) of ethanol.

Long-term neither corn nor sugar are viable ethanol feedstock. The oil oligarchs don't have anything to worry about until cellulosic ethanol goes primetime.

With all the ethanol plants being built in the country, it's obvious they are going to have to find something else to use. I can't imagine it would take a lot of refitting to convert an ethanol plant form using corn to switchgrass?

Last I checked . . . the gubment was cutting cheques for CORN ethanol ONLY. I seriously doubt the corn barons would tolerate loss of their gravy train anymoreso than the sugar bandits or milk welfare queens give up theirs.

Cellulosic ethanol means the massive amounts of paper in our waste streams becomes a potential fuel. Cellulosic ethanol means some evil timber company (Weyerhauser) might actually do the nation a favor and cull underbrush and overgrowth that leads to out of control fires. Now they wouldn't be clearing it to be a good citizen. They would be clearing it b/c it's basically free fuel.

Corn (or even sugar) based ethanol as a substitute for gasoline is a ridiculous notion . . . unless of course you are a US farmer or corporation that grows/trades corn or sugar. I'm not as negative on switchgrass but it's hard to be enthusiastic when we've got so much FREE fuel going into the garbage or lying on the forest flo-or.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Paddington

When they get rid of the 54c/gallon imorted ethanol tax, I'd consider it good policy.
Until then, it's just a bunch of politicians doing photo ops and signing useless papers.

That's going to expire in a couple of years, at least vis a vis Brazil. That's part of the agreement. :thumbsup:

Are you kidding? The corn/ethanol barons are no different from the sugar barons. We will not see an open market for ethanol in the US for at least a decade. Ethanol in the US is neither an environmental nor energy independence initiative. It's political patronage.

Rice (the shrinking) Secretary of State signed an agreement that means almost nothing. American producers of ethanol (and the Congressional pockets they line) have no intention of allowing the free market to determine the price (or supply) of ethanol.

Long-term neither corn nor sugar are viable ethanol feedstock. The oil oligarchs don't have anything to worry about until cellulosic ethanol goes primetime.

With all the ethanol plants being built in the country, it's obvious they are going to have to find something else to use. I can't imagine it would take a lot of refitting to convert an ethanol plant form using corn to switchgrass?

They have already diversified away from oil, and accelerating the process. It still remains a very good thing for the US to break its dependence on ME oil for its energy needs. But it will not represent a dramatic change for ME economies.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Paddington

When they get rid of the 54c/gallon imorted ethanol tax, I'd consider it good policy.
Until then, it's just a bunch of politicians doing photo ops and signing useless papers.

That's going to expire in a couple of years, at least vis a vis Brazil. That's part of the agreement. :thumbsup:

Are you kidding? The corn/ethanol barons are no different from the sugar barons. We will not see an open market for ethanol in the US for at least a decade. Ethanol in the US is neither an environmental nor energy independence initiative. It's political patronage.

Rice (the shrinking) Secretary of State signed an agreement that means almost nothing. American producers of ethanol (and the Congressional pockets they line) have no intention of allowing the free market to determine the price (or supply) of ethanol.

Long-term neither corn nor sugar are viable ethanol feedstock. The oil oligarchs don't have anything to worry about until cellulosic ethanol goes primetime.

With all the ethanol plants being built in the country, it's obvious they are going to have to find something else to use. I can't imagine it would take a lot of refitting to convert an ethanol plant form using corn to switchgrass?

Last I checked . . . the gubment was cutting cheques for CORN ethanol ONLY. I seriously doubt the corn barons would tolerate loss of their gravy train anymoreso than the sugar bandits or milk welfare queens give up theirs.

Cellulosic ethanol means the massive amounts of paper in our waste streams becomes a potential fuel. Cellulosic ethanol means some evil timber company (Weyerhauser) might actually do the nation a favor and cull underbrush and overgrowth that leads to out of control fires. Now they wouldn't be clearing it to be a good citizen. They would be clearing it b/c it's basically free fuel.

Corn (or even sugar) based ethanol as a substitute for gasoline is a ridiculous notion . . . unless of course you are a US farmer or corporation that grows/trades corn or sugar. I'm not as negative on switchgrass but it's hard to be enthusiastic when we've got so much FREE fuel going into the garbage or lying on the forest flo-or.

Hey, farmers are goverment employees too, they should deserve at least half the benifits that real "gubment" employees get. At least they're actually producing something needed besides excess paper.

 

[smashp]

Any Mass use and adoption of ethanol will Fail.

It is expensive, massivly subsidized, and here is the zinger

Take a look at the GM E85 cars

you get 35% less miles per gallon of Ethanol

for example chevy impala 3.5l 211hp engine

"It also gives you an EPA estimated 21 city and 31 highway MPG using gasoline. And with E85 fuel, you?ll get an EPA estimated 16 city and 23 highway MPG."
3.5L V6 Engine (Gasoline/E85 Compatible)

DEAD Technology

no american will pay the same price per gallon of E85 to be able to drive less total miles.

Oh in my area i have 4 E85 plants within 20 miles and they all charge more per gallon of E85 than gasoline

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: smashp
Any Mass use and adoption of ethanol will Fail.

It is expensive, massivly subsidized, and here is the zinger

Take a look at the GM E85 cars

you get 35% less miles per gallon of Ethanol

for example chevy impala 3.5l 211hp engine

"It also gives you an EPA estimated 21 city and 31 highway MPG using gasoline. And with E85 fuel, you?ll get an EPA estimated 16 city and 23 highway MPG."
3.5L V6 Engine (Gasoline/E85 Compatible)

DEAD Technology

no american will pay the same price per gallon of E85 to be able to drive less total miles.

Oh in my area i have 4 E85 plants within 20 miles and they all charge more per gallon of E85 than gasoline

You don't get it do you? They are forcing the issue by rationing regular gasoline.

You must buy the corn fed fuel whether you want it or not.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: smashp
Any Mass use and adoption of ethanol will Fail.

It is expensive, massivly subsidized, and here is the zinger

Take a look at the GM E85 cars

you get 35% less miles per gallon of Ethanol

for example chevy impala 3.5l 211hp engine

"It also gives you an EPA estimated 21 city and 31 highway MPG using gasoline. And with E85 fuel, you?ll get an EPA estimated 16 city and 23 highway MPG."
3.5L V6 Engine (Gasoline/E85 Compatible)

DEAD Technology

no american will pay the same price per gallon of E85 to be able to drive less total miles.

Oh in my area i have 4 E85 plants within 20 miles and they all charge more per gallon of E85 than gasoline

I'm not much of a believier in E85. I guess an E85 motor would be a nice to have, just in case, but that's as far as it goes at this point. The current problem is that right now ethanol is "hot" and it seems everybody wants to invest in ethanol plants. The more ethanol plants they build, the bigger demand for corn, which just drives up prices. IMO, it's become an overheated market. I guess I'd rather see that then to send the money overseas??