Finally some good news from Washington! :)
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20111224/AUTO01/112240320/1148/rss25
QuoteDecember 24, 2011 at 1:00 am
Congress ends corn ethanol subsidy
Trade group expects industry to 'survive'
By David Shepardson
Detroit News Washington Bureau
Washington —The United States has ended a 30-year tax subsidy for corn-based ethanol that cost taxpayers $6 billion annually, and ended a tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol.
Congress adjourned for the year on Friday, failing to extend the tax break that's drawn a wide variety of critics on Capitol Hill, including Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Critics also have included environmentalists, frozen food producers, ranchers and others.
The policies have helped shift millions of tons of corn from feedlots, dinner tables and other products into gas tanks.
Environmental group Friends of the Earth praised the move.
"The end of this giant subsidy for dirty corn ethanol is a win for taxpayers, the environment and people struggling to put food on their tables," biofuels policy campaigner Michal Rosenoer said Friday.
The subsidy has provided the oil and agribusiness industries with 45 cents per gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline. By some estimates, Congress has awarded $45 billion in subsidies to the ethanol industry since 1980.
Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group, said earlier this month the industry would survive without the credit.
"The blenders' tax credit initially helped the ethanol industry develop. But today, we don't have a production problem, we have a market access problem," Buis said.
"Without the tax credit, the ethanol industry will survive; it will continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs and strengthen our economy."
Ethanol supporters are worried Congress might roll back a 2007 mandate that dramatically boosts the use of ethanol annually through 2022. The mandate jumps from 15 billion gallons of renewable fuels — including cellulosic ethanol in 2015 — to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
The corn lobby has lost clout this year, losing votes in Congress. The Senate voted 73-27 in June to end the ethanol tax subsidy and tariff.
But Michigan Democrats Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow were among the 27 senators who voted against ending the subsidy.
Michigan is the nation's 11th-largest corn producer, harvesting 315 million bushels in 2010. The state has more than 11,000 corn growers, and they planted corn on 2.45 million acres last year, or about 4 percent of all land in the state.
Earlier in December, a bipartisan group of more than 70 House members urged a congressional block on higher levels of ethanol blended into gasoline.
Automakers and other engine makers have clashed with corn growers since 2010 over whether the United States should allow the use of a new blend of ethanol called E15 because it is 15 percent biofuel. The Environmental Protection Agency has approved the use in all vehicles from 2001 and after.
In August, the EPA approved fuel labels designed to warn drivers of older vehicles not to use the fuel, but it still must be registered before the fuel can go on sale. In February, the House voted 285-136 to block the EPA from moving ahead with E15 regulations.
"E15 is not ready for prime time," said the letter signed by Reps. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township; Mike Rogers, R-Brighton; John Conyers, D-Detroit; Tim Walberg, R-Tipton; Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland; Darrell Issa, R-Calif.; and Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., among others.
Automakers and other groups have opposed approval of E15, warning it could damage engines in some models. Automakers "unanimously expressed concerns that E15 is likely to harm engines, void warranties and reduce fuel efficiency," said the congressional letter.
Fuck you.
Makes sense. The ethanol subsidy was a colossal waste. Still, don't the Democrats need a couple of Midwestern states to win?
Wow, that's huge. I never thought something that is such an unqualified good idea could ever get through.
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2011, 08:13:13 PM
Wow, that's huge. I never thought something that is such an unqualified good idea could ever get through.
Seriously. Is the article from The Onion?
Of course, this is only part of the fix. There is still a requirement to contaminate fuel with ethanol, so even without a subsidy, you still have a minimum level of demand mandated by the government. Still, this is a good start, and hopefully just a start.
Good. It's about damned time.
Wow. Do we have to rename it Progress now?
Quote from: Scipio on December 30, 2011, 10:58:36 PM
Wow. Do we have to rename it Progress now?
:lol:
:blush:
Hmm...when I was last in DC there were signs all over the place warning me about Congress choosing not to support ethanol.
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2011, 08:54:52 PM
Of course, this is only part of the fix. There is still a requirement to contaminate fuel with ethanol, so even without a subsidy, you still have a minimum level of demand mandated by the government. Still, this is a good start, and hopefully just a start.
What are you talking about?
Quote from: Habbaku on December 30, 2011, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2011, 08:13:13 PM
Wow, that's huge. I never thought something that is such an unqualified good idea could ever get through.
Seriously. Is the article from The Onion?
To be fair nothing got through. It's wholly appropriate that this happened because Congress failed to agree on passing something :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2011, 02:50:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2011, 08:54:52 PM
Of course, this is only part of the fix. There is still a requirement to contaminate fuel with ethanol, so even without a subsidy, you still have a minimum level of demand mandated by the government. Still, this is a good start, and hopefully just a start.
What are you talking about?
There is a mandate to mix in a certain amount of ethanol into gasoline, in order to decrease oil consumption. Paradoxically, sometimes this drops your fuel mileage so much that you're actually using more gasoline to go the same number of miles.
Washington —The United States has ended a 30-year tax subsidy for corn-based ethanol that cost taxpayers $6 billion annually, and ended a tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol.
Congress adjourned for the year on Friday, failing to extend the tax break that's drawn a wide variety of critics on Capitol Hill, including Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Critics also have included environmentalists, frozen food producers, ranchers and others.
The policies have helped shift millions of tons of corn from feedlots, dinner tables and other products into gas tanks.
At last! Finally got rid of this insipid tax give away for a damned bad idea! And I'm glad that we'll now allow Brazilian ethonol, which is made out of sugar cane which is a much more efficient crop. Still don't like the idea of ethanol though, if as others say it can actually drop gas mileage, and for some engines it can corrode rubber bushings and gas lines.
Always seemed rather daft, growing a food crop and then turning it into portable fuel, would the energy in the finished fuel even cover the energy costs of growing and processing it into ethanol ?
Much better, if it's not needed for food, to turn the land over to some fast growing 'tree' crop like willow or that brazilian grass and burn that directly in local power stations (probably new ones) for electricity.
fun bit of trivia:
A few years ago, the corn output of Darke county in Ohio went to the ethanol plants. Which annoyed the pig farmers in the county, as they had to ship in corn to feed their pigs.
Mongers, the net energy return depends on which studies - and how recent ones - you look at. At the end of the day the new energy is coming from the sun.
Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2011, 02:10:46 PM
Mongers, the net energy return depends on which studies - and how recent ones - you look at. At the end of the day the new energy is coming from the sun.
I was interested in the energy used, to plant, maintain, fertilise, spay, gather and process the corn, which given US agriculture relies almost entirely on fossil fuel for energy inputs, is quite a considerable quantity of refined fuels.
Yes, and that's what my reply was directed to - it depends on which study you look at.
Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2011, 02:40:19 PM
Yes, and that's what my reply was directed to - it depends on which study you look at.
Yes, but those fossil fuels used don't come directly from the sun, well unless you consider 50-60 million years not too round about a way.
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2011, 01:26:56 PM
Always seemed rather daft, growing a food crop and then turning it into portable fuel, would the energy in the finished fuel even cover the energy costs of growing and processing it into ethanol ?
Much better, if it's not needed for food, to turn the land over to some fast growing 'tree' crop like willow or that brazilian grass and burn that directly in local power stations (probably new ones) for electricity.
From what I've seen written about US corn ethanol, it requires about as much fuel to make the stuff as is produced. Sugar ethonol, at least, is a more efficient process, as I understand it.
And prior to this law change the US banned Brazil (and probably ethanol products from other countries) from being imported. Of course to protect the domestic money making interests. <_<
Quote from: DGuller on December 31, 2011, 10:41:40 AM
There is a mandate to mix in a certain amount of ethanol into gasoline, in order to decrease oil consumption. Paradoxically, sometimes this drops your fuel mileage so much that you're actually using more gasoline to go the same number of miles.
There is? When I pump gas there are three grades. The 89 has ethanol added, the other two don't.
To be fair, I never received the ethanol consumption subsidy that, by rights, I deserve.
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2011, 02:50:30 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2011, 02:40:19 PM
Yes, and that's what my reply was directed to - it depends on which study you look at.
Yes, but those fossil fuels used don't come directly from the sun, well unless you consider 50-60 million years not too round about a way.
I don't. Almost all human-accessible energy is ultimately solar, even uranium, and hydroelectric and wind wouldn't work without a solar component. Geothermal is the only one that isn't that I can think of.
Quote from: Capetan MihaliTo be fair, I never received the ethanol consumption subsidy that, by rights, I deserve.
Go to a gay bar.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 31, 2011, 03:23:15 PM
To be fair, I never received the ethanol consumption subsidy that, by rights, I deserve.
Actually, as a law-abiding citizen your ethanol consumption causes a marked reduction in your carbon footprint; as being sauced up means you're unable to drive on those given evenings and so don't burn any fossil fuels.
In short Capt.Mal needs a govt. subsidy.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 31, 2011, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: Capetan MihaliTo be fair, I never received the ethanol consumption subsidy that, by rights, I deserve.
Go to a gay bar.
I'm allergic to alcohol, I break out in subsidies.
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2011, 03:27:29 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 31, 2011, 03:23:15 PM
To be fair, I never received the ethanol consumption subsidy that, by rights, I deserve.
Actually, as a law-abiding citizen your ethanol consumption causes a marked reduction in your carbon footprint; as being sauced up means you're unable to drive on those given evenings and so don't burn any fossil fuels.
Cork and trade?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 31, 2011, 04:19:46 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2011, 03:27:29 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 31, 2011, 03:23:15 PM
To be fair, I never received the ethanol consumption subsidy that, by rights, I deserve.
Actually, as a law-abiding citizen your ethanol consumption causes a marked reduction in your carbon footprint; as being sauced up means you're unable to drive on those given evenings and so don't burn any fossil fuels.
Cork and trade?
You should start this scheme up, seriously. :)
The figures I've found suggest that a 750ml bottle of French wine imported to the East coast, say NYC or New Jersey will have a total carbon footprint of around 2-2.25 kg.
Whereas your gallon of gas you might use of an evening 10.5 kg of C02.
(Imp.gal)
Hell you could drink 4 bottle in an evening and still be more environmentally friendly. :D
As long as you sleep it off in the park then walk home in the morning.
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2011, 02:50:30 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2011, 02:40:19 PM
Yes, and that's what my reply was directed to - it depends on which study you look at.
Yes, but those fossil fuels used don't come directly from the sun, well unless you consider 50-60 million years not too round about a way.
To give you a couple of data points:
QuoteWe conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol has been rising over time due to technological advances in ethanol conversion and increased efficiency in farm production. We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy output:input ratio of 1.34.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf
(ranges from 1.06 to 5.4 depending on the type of stock and the estimates for co-products)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance#Energy_balance_reports
Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2011, 04:54:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2011, 02:50:30 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2011, 02:40:19 PM
Yes, and that's what my reply was directed to - it depends on which study you look at.
Yes, but those fossil fuels used don't come directly from the sun, well unless you consider 50-60 million years not too round about a way.
To give you a couple of data points:
QuoteWe conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol has been rising over time due to technological advances in ethanol conversion and increased efficiency in farm production. We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy output:input ratio of 1.34.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf
(ranges from 1.06 to 5.4 depending on the type of stock and the estimates for co-products)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance#Energy_balance_reports
It's not very impressive to get that say upto 34% gain, even before you consider the multi-billion dollar subsidy input.
And why have you included the 5.4 figure, which specifically relates to switchgrass, not the corn under discussion ?
Quote
A 2008 study by the University of Nebraska found a 5.4 energy balance for ethanol derived specifically from switchgrass.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
As long as you sleep it off in the park then walk home in the morning.
You know, I think there needs to be a properly funded research program to consider the carbon impact of various nights on the tiles. :cool:
Mongers,
34% is high enough to make even corn ethanol viable as a fossil fuel replacer, at least with biodiesel filling in for heavy equipment. I mention switchgrass to show that there is a lot of potential there once infrastructure is in place for corn ethanol.
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2011, 05:20:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
As long as you sleep it off in the park then walk home in the morning.
You know, I think there needs to be a properly funded research program to consider the carbon impact of various nights on the tiles. :cool:
Well my early death from esophageal cancer or pancreatitis is sure to shrink my carbon footprint regardless.
Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2011, 05:23:47 PM
Mongers,
34% is high enough to make even corn ethanol viable as a fossil fuel replacer, at least with biodiesel filling in for heavy equipment. I mention switchgrass to show that there is a lot of potential there once infrastructure is in place for corn ethanol.
Oh yes there's a lot of potential, but I think the whole corn derived ethanol project has been a diversion; that money could have been used to develop far more efficient projects, it if hadn't all got sidetracked into political subsidies for farmers and dependent industries.
I have no problem with the government funding or subsidizing research, but IMO the government should not be funding or subsidizing production (unless maybe early infrastructure investment).
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2011, 05:26:45 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2011, 05:23:47 PM
Mongers,
34% is high enough to make even corn ethanol viable as a fossil fuel replacer, at least with biodiesel filling in for heavy equipment. I mention switchgrass to show that there is a lot of potential there once infrastructure is in place for corn ethanol.
Oh yes there's a lot of potential, but I think the whole corn derived ethanol project has been a diversion; that money could have been used to develop far more efficient projects, it if hadn't all got sidetracked into political subsidies for farmers and dependent industries.
On the other hand, without those subsidies, the money won't ever get spent. The point isn't to advance anything, but to buy votes.
Yeah, I'm not anti-biofuel but this whole business was all about "we already grow a shit ton of corn, let's pass some law to randomly give corn growers the government dole because they have gud Senators representing them."
Wrap it up in pretty language about "American farmers" and "sticking it to Habeeb" and then wrap that up in an American flag and you're ready to rock your way to $45bn in government subsidies.
I think biofuels are a real possibility to significant reduce dependence on traditional fossil fuels, and will be (and are) an important part of the energy portfolio of the globe as we go through the next few hundred years. But there are certain plants that, inherently, have more energy in the plants per sown acre, and thus it makes more sense to me to focus biofuel production on the raising of those plants. I don't think corn is even in the top 50% of energy/acre when it comes to biofuels, and that's with lots of technology being thrown specifically at corn production. (I'm sure if possible Monsanto has probably expended serious money into trying to genetically engineer more energy dense corn, so if any big advancements along those lines was going to happen I think we'd have heard of it by now.)