DON'T look now the Goverment is upping ETHANOL Content.

[Number 3]

Ok, now a perfect time to unleash my conspiracy theory.

Assuming the government wants us to:

a) Have us use less oil

b) Drive smaller cars that get better mileage

c) Not raise taxes to drive the market to do A and B on their own, and not have to accpept that they have disadvantaged any segment of the population.

Does it then make sense for the Government to allow the manipulation of the price of oil beyond the market driven price to much higher levels in order to accomplish a) and b) above?

If the oil companies make obscene profits, the government still collects taxes on that profit. While not as much would be collected as a straight up tax at the pump, stockholders would be benefitting by dividends and higher stock prices which would also be taxed. And with higher gas prices a), b) AND c) are accomplished.

[mickss]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok, now a perfect time to unleash my conspiracy theory.

Assuming the government wants us to:

a) Have us use less oil

b) Drive smaller cars that get better mileage

c) Not raise taxes to drive the market to do A and B on their own, and not have to accpept that they have disadvantaged any segment of the population.

Does it then make sense for the Government to allow the manipulation of the price of oil beyond the market driven price to much higher levels in order to accomplish a) and b) above?

If the oil companies make obscene profits, the government still collects taxes on that profit. While not as much would be collected as a straight up tax at the pump, stockholders would be benefitting by dividends and higher stock prices which would also be taxed. And with higher gas prices a), b) AND c) are accomplished.

That may or may not be true but the one thing is known for certain is that oil companies spend a great deal of money through their oil lobbyist to make sure that their profits do not suffer either. Depending on where you source the information on the amount of money spent by lobbyist that figure can range between 250-275 million dollars a year in lobbying for oil companies.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Not to be a dick, but it's kind of funny that you would say it takes CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's a plant. They all do that.

Absolutely correct!! And that's the point. By sourcing fuel from a plant that takes part in the natural cycle of things...you have much less impact on the ecosystem in terms of both emissions and introducing a foreign material to the picture. Fuel from Algae takes this concept to an even higher level.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Then add to that the fact that we risk a HUGE dependency upon foreign food for a small decrease in foreign oil dependency. (Using all of our agricultural land to grow corn ethanol would replace just 12% of our transportation fuel).

Ethanol's primary source will not be corn in the future, so your point...while a good one under a particular set of circumstances...isn't much of a concern.

Originally Posted by Number 3

Does it then make sense for the Government to allow the manipulation of the price of oil beyond the market driven price to much higher levels in order to accomplish a) and b) above?

If the oil companies make obscene profits, the government still collects taxes on that profit. While not as much would be collected as a straight up tax at the pump, stockholders would be benefitting by dividends and higher stock prices which would also be taxed. And with higher gas prices a), b) AND c) are accomplished.

No. I would support a straight-up tax at the pump. We tax alcohol and tobacco with a "sin tax", don't we? If they wanted to, they could take the same concept to fuel...but manipulating prices via the economy is playing with fire.....very hot fire, imo.

[buzzy56]

Subsidies for corn ethanol



More ethanol subsidy info from the heart of ethanol country. June 2, 2009

Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That's $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced).
Even with high gas prices in 2006, producing a gallon of ethanol cost 38¢ more than making gasoline with the same energy, so ethanol did need part of that subsidy. But what about the other $1.12. Not needed! So all of that became, $5.4 billion windfall of profits paid to real farmers, corporate farmers, and ethanol makers like multinational ADM. Why is it the farm states put up with this?!


Where did those subsidies come from:
1. 51¢ per gallon federal blenders credit for $2.5 billion = your tax dollars.
2. $0.9 billion in corn subsidies for ethanol corn = your tax dollars.
3. $3.6 billion extra paid at the pump.

That's quite a bit when you figure it only made us 1.1% more energy independent and only reduced US greenhouse gases by 1/19 of 1%.

[SleepWarz]

screw corn, use hemp.

[DGthe3]

Most people who link ethanol to rising corn prices forget to look at the prices of other foods, like potatoes, carrots, lettuce, and anything else you can think of. When ethanol usage was going up, corn prices did go up too, but so did all those other foods which had absolutely nothing to do with ethanol, but they went up at about the same rate over the same time period. It was mostly because of rising oil prices, which in turn made things like fertilizer and diesel fuel more expensive. Then oil prices droped, and food (including corn) became cheaper again.

And as for the corn ethanol taking away from food, thats a load of BS. Its not the corn kernels that we eat that gets converted into ethanol fuel, its mostly corn byproducts that get used. So unless you're concerned about having less corn based cattle feed, its not much of a problem. Additionally, while I'm not sure if its still the case, there was a time that American farmers were being paid not to grow corn, in order to lower the supply and keep prices higher. Even then, it still upset the Mexican farmers who could import US corn cheaper than they could grow it themselves.

Originally Posted by a_Username

So, just ignore the point of government subsidizing alternative fuels? Assuming the study is correct and ethanol should be costing $3.92, then you have:

Ethanol - $3.92
Gas - $2.46

Of course, all other things be constant for this to be true; you would have to take out government interference in the oil market to reveal its actual market price as well. (Let's just say that gas would be drastically lower than what it is now.)

Your last statement is true, but the question is rather or not it is economically viable.

Depends on gas prices. $3/gal no. $5/gal yes. $7/gal absolutely.

Here is another point to consider with ethanol:
Whats the best way to avoid damage caused by a spike in gas prices (such as the one in 2008)? Diversify fuel sources. The most viable way to do that at the moment is with ethanol. But spikes like that rise faster than production capacity can be added, the price of fuel can double in a mater of months yet it would take years to build more ethanol plants and get the feed stock. So capacity needs to be there before hand so it can meet the demand with minimal lag.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Most people who link ethanol to rising corn prices forget to look at the prices of other foods, like potatoes, carrots, lettuce, and anything else you can think of. When ethanol usage was going up, corn prices did go up too, but so did all those other foods which had absolutely nothing to do with ethanol, but they went up at about the same rate over the same time period. It was mostly because of rising oil prices, which in turn made things like fertilizer and diesel fuel more expensive. Then oil prices droped, and food (including corn) became cheaper again.

And as for the corn ethanol taking away from food, thats a load of BS. Its not the corn kernels that we eat that gets converted into ethanol fuel, its mostly corn byproducts that get used. So unless you're concerned about having less corn based cattle feed, its not much of a problem. Additionally, while I'm not sure if its still the case, there was a time that American farmers were being paid not to grow corn, in order to lower the supply and keep prices higher.

Subsidies like that are probably still in force legally, but corn prices haven't been low enough to trigger them for a while.

Corn for ethanol demand CAN be blamed in part for rising prices for other agricultural commodities, because when the price of one (corn) goes up substantially, production is shifted away from the other crops to cash in on the hot one, thus lowering the supply of everything else.

PS> I completely support your idea of algae based bio-diesel. It makes much more sense than ethanol for a whole list of reasons, particularly since diesel is in tighter supply than gasoline. If the free market where choosing winners and losers in alternative energy, and not lobbyists from important primary states, that is where the focus would be. The resources we are wasting on ethanol (which is more about vote buying than energy) would be much better spent on bio-diesel.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Subsidies like that are probably still in force legally, but corn prices haven't been low enough to trigger them for a while.

Corn for ethanol demand CAN be blamed in part for rising prices for other agricultural commodities, because when the price of one (corn) goes up substantially, production is shifted away from the other crops to cash in on the hot one, thus lowering the supply of everything else.

PS> I completely support your idea of algae based bio-diesel. It makes much more sense than ethanol for a whole list of reasons, particularly since diesel is in tighter supply than gasoline. If the free market where choosing winners and losers in alternative energy, and not lobbyists from important primary states, that is where the focus would be. The resources we are wasting on ethanol (which is more about vote buying than energy) would be much better spent on bio-diesel.

But the problem with that logic is that it isn't food-corn being used per-say, and there isn't much (if any) acreage of corn field used specifically for ethanol. When you think of growing corn, you probably think most of it gets canned or frozen, with the rest being left on the cob and all of it is eaten by people. But in reality, that isn't how most corn gets used. The bulk of it is processed and used to make corn syrup, which I'm pretty sure is the most common source of sugar in the United States. When you do that, the byproducts are still useful and have 2 main purposes, either as animal feed or ... corn based ethanol feedstock. Right now, there is enough demand for 'regular' corn products that there is enough 'leftovers' to not cause farmers to have to plant more corn fields to fuel ethanol plants.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Depends on gas prices. $3/gal no. $5/gal yes. $7/gal absolutely.

Here is another point to consider with ethanol:
Whats the best way to avoid damage caused by a spike in gas prices (such as the one in 2008)? Diversify fuel sources. The most viable way to do that at the moment is with ethanol. But spikes like that rise faster than production capacity can be added, the price of fuel can double in a mater of months yet it would take years to build more ethanol plants and get the feed stock. So capacity needs to be there before hand so it can meet the demand with minimal lag.

Most here on missing the main point, which would be without government interference there would be no need to pursue any alternative fuel at the moment. The government(s) are the reasons gas prices are so high, thus in absence of their meddling our want for an alternative fuel source simply disappears.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Most here on missing the main point, which would be without government interference there would be no need to pursue any alternative fuel at the moment. The government(s) are the reasons gas prices are so high, thus in absence of their meddling our want for an alternative fuel source simply disappears.

So what you are saying is that without the governments involvement, the US would stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and burning gasoline would become CO2 neutral? Please explain how.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

So what you are saying is that without the governments involvement, the US would stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and burning gasoline would become CO2 neutral? Please explain how.

What I'm saying is that we would import more oil at a drastically cheaper price without government intervention on both sides. I feel a GW thread coming along if I acknowledge your CO2 comment, so I think I'll leave that one be.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by buzzy56

That's quite a bit when you figure it only made us 1.1% more energy independent and only reduced US greenhouse gases by 1/19 of 1%.

That's actually fairly impressive considering the extremely low use of e85. When my injectors came in the other day, I posted a picture on facebook and said, "e85 soon!" Three people asked me what e85 is

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by a_Username

What I'm saying is that we would import more oil at a drastically cheaper price without government intervention on both sides.

?? I'm not sure I follow. I also think we've had this conversation before...but I can't remember the details.

In any event (not necessarily directed at you)...whatever the details - I think it's incredibly foolish not to pursue alternatives to a finite resource. Even if only to be prepared...this is one of our issues as a culture in this country; we are a decidedly reactive people.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

?? I'm not sure I follow. I also think we've had this conversation before...but I can't remember the details.

In any event (not necessarily directed at you)...whatever the details - I think it's incredibly foolish not to pursue alternatives to a finite resource. Even if only to be prepared...this is one of our issues as a culture in this country; we are a decidedly reactive people.

We have talked about something similar. BTW, I can't answer your question here, because I know it would be way to political for this forum.