Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Producers Panic as Ethanol Mandate Loses Support
Oil Price ^ | 02 January 2014 | James Stafford

Posted on 01/03/2014 5:30:46 AM PST by thackney

Ethanol producers are panicking amid speculation that the ethanol mandate could be drastically reduced or scrapped entirely this year as the biofuel loses its allure and bipartisan allies and former friends team up against it.

December saw California Democrat Dianne Feinstein—a renewable fuel champion--coordinate efforts with Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn to come up with a Senate bill to get rid of ethanol from the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), citing fears that corn-based fuel production mandates will harm livestock producers.

In November, Washington proposed cutting the biofuels mandate for 2014 by 16% to 15.21 billion gallons. This would be the first cut in biofuels requirements, which were ideally set to grow each year with incremental increases in renewable fuel targets laid out in a 2007 law.

For renewable fuel targets, this represents a major setback because not only is 15.21 billion gallons for 2014 much less than the originally intended 18.15 billion gallons, it is also less than this year’s mandate of 16.55 billion gallons.

Two years ago the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the E15 blend, which contains 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline, for vehicles manufactured in 2001 or later. There has been little progress towards widespread use of E15 though, and today’s blend is commonly E10.

The problem is that the RFS set its parameters too far ahead and predictions are a tricky thing....

(Excerpt) Read more at oilprice.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; ethanol; gasoline
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: Dr. Sivana
I wouldn't be surprised if the CORN producers quietly supported the U.S. sugar tariffs, so that real sugar doesn't threaten the HFCS dominance in baked goods and bottled beverages.

I completely believe that.

41 posted on 01/03/2014 6:36:56 AM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie

Yep. I suppose it is OK for engines that have a max build life somewhere around 750 miles at best. Actually, the engine shop can tell the team almost to within 10 miles how long it will last before it hand-grenades.

I suppose Austin also had forgotten about all of the engines that erupted for a while at the beginning of last year when NASCAR mandated the E85 blend for the spec fuel. But then again, he is a driver and could care less what it takes to get him from a green flag to the checker. Just as long as his motor coach is parked in the right place.

They also started to talk about how the fuel load distance was reduced by as much as 5 laps at Daytona and more in other cases just because of the change, but that didn’t bother NASCAR because it made it mandatory for more pit stops along the way to make the races more interesting. But that was quickly squelched.


42 posted on 01/03/2014 6:39:00 AM PST by mazda77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Irenic
Drive straight west out of Minneapolis about 60 or 70 miles and you will see some of the wealthiest farmers in the world.
They grow sugar beets.
43 posted on 01/03/2014 6:40:25 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks ("Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I hope that everyone that was involved in the ethanol scam loses everything.


44 posted on 01/03/2014 6:40:32 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Everybody was happy when corn was less than $2 a bushel, except for the farmers going broke.


45 posted on 01/03/2014 6:42:30 AM PST by Cloverfarm (This too shall pass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The use of ethanol for fuel instead of food is insane. To discontinue its mandated production may result in significantly lower food prices, which benefits our nation far more than producing ethanol to reduce are already low fuel imports.

What would also drive fuel costs lower is to offer incentives for oil refineries to build more plants. So many have shut down that the price of fuel is artificially high, and always borderline to shortage.


46 posted on 01/03/2014 6:49:40 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (There Is Still A Very Hot War On Terror, Just Not On The MSM. Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Remove ethanol from our gas and:

1. better running engines with improved mileage
2. gas prices will improve
3. food prices will improve

so, what’s the problem?? Get ethanol off our back!!


47 posted on 01/03/2014 7:19:18 AM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

quick.....more bribes!!!!


48 posted on 01/03/2014 7:28:22 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

There is nothing wrong with producing ethanol but corn is one of the least efficient bases to use. An acre of Sorghum will produce something like 1500 gallons of ethanol and an acre of corn I think less than half that.


49 posted on 01/03/2014 7:48:37 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I am not happy with the effects of ethanol on our car.


50 posted on 01/03/2014 7:50:24 AM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

WILL harm livestock producers?

It already has done so.

Why do you think the price of beef is so high?


51 posted on 01/03/2014 7:58:49 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

We already refine more product the we use in the US. No subsidies/incentives. The oil/gas companies will economically meet the demand without government intervention. They just need to be treated like any other business.


52 posted on 01/03/2014 8:11:08 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: hadaclueonce

The thing about burning food for fuel is more of a myth than reality from my standpoint. We eat about 2% of the corn we raise and use another 8-10% for syrup, etc. used in manufacturing food products. Ethanol uses mostly #1 Dent [field corn] and the residual cake is used for livestock feed. The planted acres of corn in the country have remained roughly the same since the 90’s but production per acre has soared with the new hybrids and better use of technology, including irrigation. The land around our farm has produced 30% more corn since 2001.

I hate ethanol in fuel for what it does to older engines and small, especially 2 cycle engines, but it sure isn’t causing anyone to starve.


53 posted on 01/03/2014 8:37:41 AM PST by Hartlyboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hartlyboy

Adding alcohol to gasoline dilutes the fuel, and lowers the heat energy.

One US gallon of Gasoline (regular unleaded) = 114,100 BTU/gal
One US gallon of Ethanol (E100) = 76,100 BTU/gal [67% of gasoline BTU]
One US gallon of 10% Ethanol/Gasoline Blend (E10) = 110,300 BTU/gal [97% of gasoline BTU]
Math Check: [(114,100 X .9) + (76,100 X .1) = 110,300] [110,300/114,100 = .966]

Adding 10% ethanol to gasoline requires burning 3% more fuel to accomplish the same task.

Why do state and federal governments really like ethanol blended fuels?
Ethanol blended gasoline requires buying 3% more gallons of fuel in order to travel the same distance.
Highway fuels are taxed “by the gallon”, so governments collect more taxes with blended fuels.
Mandating the use of ethanol blended fuel was a disguise for a 3% hike in gasoline taxes.


54 posted on 01/03/2014 8:56:49 AM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Hartlyboy

U.S. CORN ACREAGE UP FOR FIFTH STRAIGHT YEAR
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2013/06_28_2013.asp
June 28, 2013

U.S. farmers successfully overcame a cold and wet early spring this year, planting 97.4 million acres of corn, up slightly from 2012, according to the Acreage report released today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). This is the highest acreage planted to corn since 1936 and marks a fifth year in a row of corn acreage increases in the United States.


55 posted on 01/03/2014 10:29:37 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Hartlyboy

This is from a Business Week article in 2006.
Ed Wallace has had his thumb on the pulse since day one.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-04-27/ethanol-a-tragedy-in-3-actsbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

Pretty much gives history, winners and us losers side of Ethanol.


56 posted on 01/03/2014 10:55:45 AM PST by hadaclueonce (Because Brawndo's got electrolytes. Because Ethanol has Big Corn Lobby)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson