Skip to comments.Ethanol Boom Helps Cut $31 Billion From Farm Subsidies
Posted on 01/24/2007 12:59:25 PM PST by kellynla
WASHINGTON -- The fuel ethanol boom and high crop prices will cut U.S. farm subsidy spending by $31 billion through 2016, a dramatic drop in the cost of the farm program, the Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday.
In a semiannual report, CBO estimated farm subsidies would cost $10 billion this year and the annual cost "will range between $8 billion and $10 billion over the next decade."
The forecasts are expected to constrain this year's overhaul of farm policy by Congress. The 2002 farm law, which allocates about $20 billion a year on farm supports, expires in the fall.
Large U.S. farm groups want to maintain the current crop support system. The American Farm Bureau Federation asked on Dec. 6 that Congress and the Bush administration assure that funding "be sustained at levels authorized in the 2002 farm bill with adjustment for inflation."
Congress has a target of agreeing by April 15 on a spending outline. Leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture committees say they will not begin work on farm subsidy programs until it is clear how much money will be available.
"Projected spending . . . has declined by $31 billion for the 2007-2016 period," said the CBO report. "That reduction primarily reflects lower income-support payments to farmers for major crops because commodity prices are now expected to be higher than previously anticipated.
"In particular, CBO has reduced its estimates of support payments to corn producers as a result of stronger demand for ethanol."
Corn prices have doubled since last fall and are the highest in a decade. Soybean and wheat prices rose as well, pulled up by corn.
and consumers pay either way.
and if you don't know that we are paying BIG TIME by using gasoline;
you are the most naive person on the planet! LMAO
the difference is by coming up with alternative sources of energy;
we are getting off our foreign oil dependency.
Not a big deal, I don't suppose, but the author of the article you link to can't tell a stone cliff from a pile of corn.
54 cents per gallon. Header is deceptive, should read "Ethanol Boom Shifts Subsidies."
You said it.
I should have mentioned, a corn pile has an angle of repose of 23 degrees.
They have coal fired and nuclear power plants all up and down the Tennessee River valley that extends into Alabama and Kentucky.They also have extensive research facilities in Alabama to study the problem. They could easily set up stills to run off the spent steam used to turn the turbines. The cost of the heat and steam would be free. There are beacoup acres of farmland to raise corn or other fermentable crop.
......Ain't no free lunch......
Well almost free..... see my post 12 below
Rush said something about the prices of corn tortillas in Mexico have started going up and the locals are getting restless.
Freestanding angles of internal friction of particulate matter aside, what part of the article do you disagree with?
Sounds reasonable to me, but whatever the sources whether they be ethanol, biodiesel, nuclear or whatever; we've been down this road since the seventies and it's time to FINALLY get off the dime and start resolving the problem!
If we had done in the seventies what Brazil started doing;
we would be totally self-sufficient today as Brazil is.
Personally, I quit commuting in 1979, started working out of my house and never looked back.
.....I quit commuting in 1979, started working out of my house and never looked back.....
I downsized my company to "me" in 1994. My little business has grown and I no longer commute. However, I have developed clients far flung places and drive in excess of 500 miles a month to serve them. go figure
--They could easily set up stills to run off the spent steam used to turn the turbines.--
A little research would show that the temperature of the 'spent steam' in not adequate to run a still.
I wonder why we have to wonder about it. Seems like they ought to be telling us up front.
As far as energy independance, we are smart enough in this country to do it. We just haven't had the will for years.
As far as farm subsidies, not every farmer participates because it's a one-size-fits-all program but doesn't work for all farms. DH and I participated in the Milk Income Loss Program for about 18 months. It just prolonged the agony until we sold the dairy cows.
After that, it's been all free market. Since we don't have highly productive corn ground we've gone into specialized products -- hay for horses; and freezer beef.
I hate to hear people complaining about farm prices, though, especially when almost everyone in our country looks pretty fat and happy ;-)
For perspective -- we are basically living on DH's income on straight sales. We aren't living high on the hog, but that's our own fault for the choices we made. Not blaming anybody else -- not the government and not consumers.
--I wonder why we have to wonder about it. Seems like they ought to be telling us up front.--
Sometimes the info is not automatically pushed to you. You have to actually type a few words into google.
Are you off in your own little world there?
Ethanol is inefficient. Instead of mandating it and driving up prices artificially, we should be drilling for our own gas.
But keep dreaming that ethanol is the answer to any question except "how do we line the pockets of our campaign contributers AND pander towards the iowa primaries????"
It just peeves me to pay good money to get told half truths.
I trust the free market to determine prices much more than I trust the government doing so.
"drilling for our own gas?"
uhhhhhhh...we drill oil and refine gasoline.
And I thought you were just naive.
gezzzzzzzzz the I.Q. level gets lower by the minute around here. LMAO
But, at your request I got past all the stuff about Clintonistas being slobs to the part about ethanol.
He makes up his facts.
For instance, the ethanol blending credit is $.53 per gallon, not $.053; it is paid to oil companies, not farmers or ethanol producers; the increase in corn prices has eliminated the price support subsidies; his numbers have no support; and so forth.
Look at some other grains, it is not just corn. It must be more than ethanol.
Yep, we just need to drill our oil like they did.
"54 cents per gallon."
That tax credit has actually dropped to 51 cents a gallon now, and that's for each gallon of pure ethanol blended with gasoline. So the blender gets a 5.1 cent tax credit for each gallon of E10 he blends. The farmers don't get this "blender's credit," and in most cases the ethanol producers don't get it either because they generally aren't the ones blending the ethanol in with gasoline. The blender is generally going to be the gasoline/oil company that provides your gas station with gasoline. No doubt the tax credit does help lower the price at the pump so the farmers and ethanol producers do benefit from this tax credit in a 'round about way.
hmmm-coke with real sugar. I've forgotten what that used to taste like.
You are in your own little world with your clever quips.
Wow, I wrote down gas instead of oil while I was busy working on something else at the same time. I guess that proves all your points correct and everyone else wrong! Tell your teacher you get a gold star tomorrow!
Another great feature of the ethanol lobby. Avoid science. Avoid facts. Avoid market forces. Ignore consumer preference. Boil it down to soundbites and fearmongering.
I do believe it's mexico. Maybe some of our guest workers could smuggle some of the good stuff across the border.
On another thread where illegal workers are complaining about the work disappearing after crops were frozen, it was mentioned it's too bad the workers didn't stay in Mexico and grow corn.
They could be making a fortune right about now making tortillas.
This is actually a subsidy that makes some sense then. Since the infrastructure for current refining is useless for Ethanol. It has to be blended at the terminal not at the refinery which at least temporarily screwed up the distribution of gasoline in the US. But until cellulosic ethanol achieves widespread production, ethanol will be a loser on a purely economic basis.
--Steam could very well be hot enough to use for distillation.--
I repeat: "A little research would show that the temperature of the 'spent steam' in not adequate to run a still."
Yep, I agree.
As I have repeatedly said, whatever we can do to get off our foreign oil dependency. Whether it be more drilling, solar, coal, nuclear, biodiesel, ethanol and/or a combination of all. Lets "get 'er dun!" LOL
The intensity of tillage has historically decreased with the increase in corn yields. Put another way, I get about four times the yield off my best corn field than my grandfather did when he was my age, but the soil is disturbed only about a quarter as much.
--. My uneducated bet is that the steam coming from the turbines would be hot enough to distill alcohol. --
My educated bet is that it is not.
--did not find anything that gives the temperature of steam from a nuclear power plant after it leaves the turbine but before it is cooled and reintroduced into the system.--
The link below gives the parameters of the cycle. It looks messy but down at the end there is a diagram, steam cycle on temperature and enthalpy. Look at the temperature at the exit of the turbine. About 80 degrees. That is what you would have to work with for your still.
It is NOT "cooled" after it leaves the turbine. The thermo cycle requires it to
It is NOT "cooled" after it leaves the turbine. The thermo cycle requires it to to be condensed and then REHEATED to over 400 degrees before going back to the steam generator.
That's 80 degrees Celsius, which works out to about 176 degrees Fahrenheit, plenty hot for distillation.
Yeah, except that most of the heat in the spent steam already goes back into the system, pre-heating the feedwater into the steam generators, helping to increase the efficiency of the system.
That makes sense.