Ethanol Industry Sets Record in 2005

RenewableEnergyAccess.com ^ | March 6, 2006 | staff

[Mr. Lucky]

You're missing that there is no federal subsidy to farmers involving ethanol. In fact, the market for ethanol actually reduces subsidies to farmers (or in many cases landowners who don't farm). Farm subsidies tend to take the form of price supports; anything which raises the price of corn reduces the support payments.

[expat_panama]

Are you saying it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it yields?   If so, you're wrong.

There's lots of ways to calculate the benefit of burning gasoline while producing ethanol.  

Better than any fancy analysis coming out some bureaucrat's printer are the market forces.   All I've seen is that whenever somebody tried this ethanol schtick, they always ended up coming back crying to me for more of my tax dollars.    I say that if it's really such a great idea then it should be able to pay its own way. I say the tax'n'spenders ought to give it a break before I start wanting a few subsidies myself.

Hey, I come up with great ideas all the time too, you know.

Like, I've had this great idea for a rock band with me as a lead guitar and all I need is just a little help for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts-- and I won't be needing anywhere near $100 million per year...

[from occupied ga]

Do me a favor and quit bothering me with your dumb remarks until you educate yourself on the subject!

Do us all a favor and quit posting this crap until you understand the difference between sugar cane and corn.

[expat_panama]

quit posting this crap until you understand the difference between sugar cane and corn.

That would be all well and good, but the main thing I'd like is for these guys to stop saying they 'need' $100 million of our tax dollars for this goofy ethanol con game of theirs   --and then the way they get insulting when I try to take a pass on their begging for handouts, reminds me of those clowns that tell me they 'need' to clean my windshield when I'm stuck at a light.

[from occupied ga]

but the main thing I'd like is for these guys to stop saying they 'need' $100 million of our tax dollars for this goofy ethanol

I agree with you. There are two things that need to be shown before ethanol can make its way a a viable motor fuel. You have to be able to run the whole process on ethanol. Ie the energy balance has to be such that you can bootstrap it, and secondly it does no good at all even if there is a positive energy balance if it takes too much agricultural land to give a net gain of ethanol. We don't exactly have an unlimited supply of crop land suitable for growing corn. looking at Pimental's article gives you a realistic feel for what the ethanol addicts wish to deny.

[Keith in Iowa]

Tell me about the subsidies big oil gets.... then come whine to me about ethanol.

[Mr. Lucky]

If you're spouting off because you like to rant, go to it.

On the other hand, if you're serious about this guy Pimental, take a look at post 207.

[expat_panama]

Tell me about the subsidies big oil gets.... then come whine to me about ethanol.

LOL!  This is just like my post 242 --the old I-want-my-subsidy-too routine.  

As conservative we should agree that subsidies are bad --whether they're for corn or for oil.  As people who live on the planet earth we should know that gasoline is not subsidized, it's taxed.  In fact, ethanol subsidies often take the form of tax exemptions.

[globalheater]

but Brazil is in America last time a had a look.

[Mr. Lucky]

You're right, but they take the form of tax exemptions to the oil industry, not farmers (or even processors).

[Toddsterpatriot]

Regarding subsidies: many of them are in the form of tax credits...are we now going to reach a new FR low and call for tax increases?

That's funny!!

[expat_panama]

That's funny!!

Aw hell no.  I thought we blew past "funny" back during the first 50 posts.  We're way over in "poop-in-the-pants-hysterical" now, which IMHO is just fine as we live in an era where sometimes our very survival can hinge on our keeping a good sense of humor.

But seriously folks (rim shot) conservatives want lower taxes that bring us smaller government, more freedom, and less government control.   Liberals want more government control and less freedom, but they can't sell it by that name.  So the wording they use is 'tax-credits' aimed at subsidizing investing in my brother-in-law's strategic industries (base drum/cowbell).

[garandgal]

But seriously folks (rim shot) conservatives want lower taxes that bring us smaller government, more freedom, and less government control.

No, conservatives want smaller government, more freedom, BUT also a secure nation. You are an economic libertarian.

We cannot be a secure nation, particularly in light of the M.E. conflict, without a safe and stable energy supply. Oh, and as IF oil companies haven't had the benefit of "oil-exploration" tax credits for decades...give me a break. They just got another 1.1 Bn last year...while recording record profits.

[expat_panama]

...253  the wording they use is 'tax-credits' aimed at subsidizing investing in my brother-in-law's strategic industries...   ....254  We cannot be a secure nation, particularly in light of the M.E. conflict, without a safe and stable energy supply....

This is taking a tremendous effort on my part to curb my sarcasm, but here are the facts:

The article that started this thread bragged about "nearly 255,000 barrels of ethanol production daily".  Americans consume over eighty times that much -- about $1.3 trillion per year --about a tenth of the gdp.   Most we import, and most of what we import is from non-OPEC countries.   Americas biggest oil supplier (for imports) is Canada.  The next one is Mexico (from the DOE).  Right now ethanol costs twice as much as gasoline.  Assuming no change in price with volume we're talking about Americans spending an extra $trillion per year.  People on this thread say the price would go down if the scale expanded.  I say the price would go even higher because if we decided to replace all imported oil with ethanol, virtually all of the U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States. (from here)  

If the issue were really national security, we could think of a lot better ways to allocate these immense resources then this nonsense.   This ethanol canard will never come near addressing national security in any sense other than emotionally and politically.  Economically and strategically this is pure farmer welfare.

[Mr. Lucky]

Right now, ethanol costs twice as much as gasoline

I probably should know better than to ask, but whence came this little factoid?

[expat_panama]

I probably should know better than to ask, but whence came this little factoid?

You're absolutely right.  I couldn't agree with you more.  You should know better, and you don't.  

Sure, if what you'd wanted was the info then you could have done a search for the prices.   If you'd honestly wanted me to save you some work by my sharing my info then you'd have cut the attitude and simply asked politely.  

Someday if you ever get tired of trying to feed yourself off other people's taxes, then you'll go beyond just realizing you should know better.  You'll actually know better and behave accordingly.

[Mr. Lucky]

You can't really expect to be able to make up claims, whole cloth, and be taken serious, can you?

You made a claim that ethanol costs twice as much as gasoline. That claim is false; you know it's false; I know it's false; the other posters on this thread know it's false; and yet, you seem to think you have done a clever thing.