Senate vote marks start of end for ethanol subsidies

news.yahoo.com...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to eliminate billions of dollars in support for the U.S. ethanol industry, sending a strong message that the era of big taxpayer support for biofuels is ending.

The Senate vote also comes as criticism mounts globally over subsidies for corn-based ethanol, blamed by some for raising food costs.

Last week, the World Bank and other international organizations called on governments to stop their ethanol subsidies because of concerns they were driving up food prices.

At the moment, this looks like a good thing. I think somewhere around 1/4th of corn harvested goes to ethanol at the moment. Maybe this will help lower global food prices? Or, will this cause a little increase in gas prices? (if this gets fully passed)

reply to post by buni11687


If it happens, that's great. Ethanol is a waste. It drives up food prices and ruins engines. I just had to have my lawn mower repaired and the sweet old guy that did it days the ethanol is destroying engines. He says the water separates over a short time than gets sucks up and fouls the carbs.

its a start in the right direction

i never thought it was a great idea to burn our food sources.

another step in the right direction is eliminating all government subsidies ranging from agriculture to big oil and everything else in between.

competition the more people competiting to bring goods and services to the market lowers cost and if your a business pay your own damn way.

I believe this to be a good thing...although ethanol is NOT a complete waste...corn ethanol is...

The yield from corn ethanol is rather small compared to others such as ethanol made from sugar or switchgrass and yes it does effect meat prices quite a bit as what do you think we feed the cows/chickens/pigs?...you can read my thread in my signature...it has some good information in it and I even had a couple well informed people come in and post some good info on the subject

If they are going to eliminate the regulations mandating the ethanol blend (usually winter in my area), then this could be good..

If they are only cutting off the subsidies... I would say look out! that 45 cents could be headed to a gas pump price near you?

need more details before cheering on this?

reply to post by neo96

i never thought it was a great idea to burn our food sources.

With how many people go hungry in the world daily, I never understood why we continue to burn our food either. I would think it would be common sense by now.

reply to post by here4awhile

The yield from corn ethanol is rather small compared to others such as ethanol made from sugar or switchgrass

Im not sure about the yield from sugar or switchgrass, but if I remember correctly, the yield from corn is extremely small, something like 1.1% I think. Not very big.

reply to post by buni11687


common sense aint in the governments vocabulary

sad but true

reply to post by buni11687


1) Not all ethanol are the same. Some are good and some are bad. You will see that corn ethanol is bad, and sugar cane and switchgrass ethanol are good.
2) Ethanol can be produced from sugar cane (Brazil), corn grains (US) and cellulose. Cellulose is found in the plant cell wall, so every plant can be a feedstock. The most promising ones for the US are switchgrass and miscanthus due to high biomass production per area. Sugar cane produces 800 gallons of ethanol per acre, corn produces only 180 gallons per acre. Switchgrass is estimated to produce between 600 and 1000 gallons of ethanol per acre. Bad corn ethanol.
3) Net energy efficiency (NEV) is the energy input divided by the energy output. It shows if there's a gain or a loss of energy in the system. In other words, it shows if are spending more energy to produce the ethanol than you can get out of it. There's no point in using more energy than produced. Corn has a NEV of 1.2, sugar cane of 6, and switchgrass of 7. Therefore, corn only produces 20% more energy, sugar cane produces 7 times more and switchgrass produces 8 times more energy than spent. Bad corn ethanol! It's like driving 18 miles to get a free gallon of gas with a car that gets 20 mpg. It's almost pointless.
4) Corn is also a food source, so diverting corn grains to ethanol production can increase food prices. The magnitude of the increase is not high though. Corn directed to ethanol production was responsible for only 10% of the increase in maize prices in 2008 (it was the peak). Switchgrass is a non-food crop, so no direct effects on food prices!

This is the reply i got in my thread when talking to a guy with an MS and PhD in cellulosic ethanol production

It just goes to show that corn ethanol is a complete waste of time and resources...

reply to post by here4awhile


BINGO on the switchgrass...

I always wondered why, once announced that is a viable alternative, and non food supply price influencing, why ws it not pushed further?

reply to post by JacKatMtn


that's what I always wondered...It's such an easy plant to grow and is a drought tolerable plant...so even with very little water it will still grow! The yield that comes from it compares to sugar plus some more...and you can literally drive anywhere in the country and find it...so why isn't this being pushed? it would be an awesome alternative...

edit to add: it's a perennial too so you don't need to replant it

GMO corn would be better off in your gas tank than in your belly or your livestocks bellies. One of my few gripes with Obama

End ethanol subsidies and oil company subsidies; especially when they are showing record profits.

The govt. doesn't give me any subsidies for my manufactured products. Why the preferential treatment?

Oh, I know why.....

Lobbyist handing out superbowl tickets, campaign contributions, prostitutes, golfing vacations etc.

No use bitchin' systemic corruption is here to stay.

reply to post by JacKatMtn

Simple answer - because ADM (and other companies like them) isn't invested heavily in switchgrass or cane or any of the other myriad sources for ethanol that are at least five times more efficient than corn.

reply to post by buni11687


Not to divert from your excellent thread, but there is a chart on a thread I made that shows (among other things) how much corn has risen in price just since 2009. This is good thing. Corn is for food, not destroying engines.

/TOA

Originally posted by Kali74
GMO corn would be better off in your gas tank than in your belly or your livestocks bellies. One of my few gripes with Obama

edit on 16-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Oh I didn't see this. STARSTARSTARSTARSTAR! GMO corn is most definitely not food! I don't know if I'd trust it in my car, either.

/TOA

reply to post by here4awhile


Yes.. so we have a viable alternative to corn...

it's LESS detrimental to soil... and

it continues to grow......

O M G

it's Too efficient... "run for the hills"

not enough PROFIT...

Oh wait I thought we were trying to become more fuel efficient, and also go green...

I didn't catch the memo where someone had to make money off of this... nevermind.. if $$$$ is involved...

principle is abandoned....

Ethanol for fuel is bad.

Its a way the oil companies sell more gas as you don't get as many MPG on ethanol blends.

Butanol would be good because its not made from food crops and its close to gasoline in MPG.

We could make butanol from trash and end up with a lot better outcome.

Butanol can be use in many cars with little to no modifications

Using the Fischer–Tropsch process butanol can be made from trash, coal, plant mater or sewage.

Butanol can also be used in fuel cells
www.urbanbioalliance.org...