Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Votes For Repeal of Ethanol Subsidies
T Murphy writes "Although the measure is not expected to become law, a Senate vote 73-27 in favor of repealing ethanol subsidies and tariffs means a lot for future legislation. The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year. Even so, this is a strong indication that such government support for ethanol will be reduced if not eliminated. The response to the Senate vote has been mixed, from corn prices falling, to the World Bank encouraging lower food prices, to concerns over reduced funding for alternative energy, to supporters of such budget cuts."
Democrat, Republican, whatever. My political support goes for congressmen who believe in the laws of thermodynamics.
If the US used every acre of cropland for biofuel feedstock production it would only be able to produce 40% of transportation fuel needs and then there'd be nothing to eat! It's impossible to make even a dent in fossil fuel usage with biofuels, and by trying we will make food more expensive for everyone and reduce the surplus that helps to feed the world's poor.
I wish it WOULD pass. I'm in Iowa, the heart of ethanol country, and I can't stand the stuff and what it's done. Artificial inflation of corn prices, artificial money, artificial companies. Whole corporations and huge plants have been built up on the promise of ethanol and just as quickly have fell into bankruptcy because the dream failed to pay off. As people have slowly come to realize that the bang-for-buck of ethanol is so much lower than gasoline, even with subsidies, plus the corrosion factors on improperly-engineered cars, it's fallen by the wayside. E-85 was supposed to be the next big thing and it barely made a fart in the market at all. All we've ended up with is farmers who thought they had a huge market for their product and suddenly....don't.
I've heard a lot of arguments for things like switchgrass ethanol and so forth and, hey, I'm all for alternatives -- if they work. But the fact remains that despite whatever "green" intentions people may have, if you can't sell it to the general public without a crutch, you're going to lose in the end. Time to let ethanol stand -- and die gracefully -- on its own.
Blog,Twitter
It's about ethanol and biofuel. I think that many of us have different ideas about biofuel (e.g. I don't like it, it reduces food fields) that might be discussed.
And there's the problem of funding biofuel, that may not be fair comparing it to other alternative technologies, like hybrid or pure electric cars.
Senators are in the senate, Representatives are in the House of Representatives. The Senate and the House of Representatives are two houses of a bicameral legislature we call congress. All people serving in congress are congressmen.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Only if that someone is very ignorant. Congressman means either Senate or House of Representatives.
False. Congressmen refers to either. That is a fact.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year.
That 73-27 vote is way more than the 2/3 required to override a presidential veto. Even if Obama doesn't want to do this, Congress could force it on him.
I am officially gone from
EXCEPT: IT's a fantastic racing fuel. I have 10 friends that are in racing and all of them have modified their cars to use ethanol instead of racing gas. IT's cheaper and they are getting MORE power from it One friend has went from 12.2 on the quarter mile to 11.9 just by changing fuel. Plus they can afford to race at $3.29 a gallon instead of $6.89 a gallon.
I assume your friend has changed the tune of their engine to take advantage of the higher octane rating, since thermodynamics is thermodynamics and per mass the ethanol isn't providing more power, but you can run higher compression w/ E85.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
The subsidies should not be permanent, but then again, how long have we been subsidizing and providing tax incentives to oil companies that continually rake in billions in profit? Can we at least be fair about our stupidity?
Actually, it still is cheaper per kilometer for my car, it only wasn't for maybe a week or two. It actually depends on the car - the Brazilian media usually says it's only worth using ethanol if its price is at most 70% of the price of gasoline but that varies from car to car. On my car, the threshold is 80% - I've done several measurements over a few months.
If there was a reliable, growing, international demand, the producers would also raise production levels so we would only face maybe a short-term price spike but it the long-term, production would be adjusted accordingly.
The problem with algal biofuel is that you can't just grow it in a field. You have two options: sterile, pure algal strains, and open-air tanks. Open-air tanks means that algal predators get in, wild algae strains get in and overtake your desired ones, etc. The amount of recoverable energy is a tiny fraction of that if you use pure strains. But pure strains means compeltely enclosed tanks. *Acres and acres* of enclosed tanks, with each acre only yielding a few tens of thousands of dollars. And you can't just enclose it with thin film; the weather would destroy it in no time. This needs to be thick plastic. And it'll photodegrade. The cheaper the type of plastic you use, in general, the faster it'll photodegrade. This makes it increasingly opaque and brittle until it's useless.
On top of all this, separating water from algae is an expensive, energy-intensive process.
Solar is even higher capital cost per acre, but it is *extremely* energy dense per acre compared to even the best biofuels -- about an order of magnitude more energy dense than enclosed-tank algae, two orders of magnitude more than corn. A streamlined EV like the Volt or Leaf uses about 250Wh/mi. A square meter of land on the surface of the Earth receives that every 15 minutes that said area is in full overhead sunlight. Even after factoring in panel losses, and the capacity factor (sun's not shining all the time, etc), that's *very* high energy density compared to 330 gallons of ethanol per acre per *year* (under 1/10th gallon per square meter per *year*) for corn and 6,000 for enclosed algae (1 1/2 gallons per square meter per *year*). Plus, fuel crops generally have absurd amounts of freshwater water consumption, something that marginal lands are already very short on, plus there's the pesticide and fertilizer issues, etc.
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
The "trillions for bankers" weren't subsidies, they were loans
Of course they are subsidies. What is the interest rate again? 0.25%? 0.01% at some points. Meanwhile inflation is hitting 7% (http://www.shadowstats.com/). Which is like 100 billion/year in free money.
Deleted
Congratulations you have just stumbled upon the issues with ethanol as a general purpose motor fuel. You mention that that your flex fuel car gets 25% less mileage when running on E85, but if you look at the energy content by unit volume of fuel you will see that E85 has closer to 2/3 the energy of regular gas. This show that your car isn't running as efficient as it could be on either fuel since they have very different characteristics (octane, stoichiometric ratio, latent heat).
Also you mention that it is a great racing fuel, which is true. E85 is a good fuel for racing, better would be methanol but that is harder to find. Your friends who race probably just up-jetted their carbs, or put in bigger injectors given the performance increase. If they really want to get the most benefit from E85 they should look in to raising the compression ratio since E85 has an octane in the range of 105-115 and a much higher latent heat than the 100 low lead (avgas) they were previously using. If the vehicles are older they should also consider putting in hardened valve seats. My project car, a 68' MG Midget, is being rebuilt and is going to be a supercharged alcohol burner for the same reasons that your friends are now racing with E85.
Time to offend someone
I should have included this initially, but here is the link to the Minnesota statute that mandates 20% ethanol. Also here is the MN senate file on the bill.
Time to offend someone
Here are some facts.
1. Corn has been subsidized for decades, keeping the cost of corn below the cost of production.
2. Third world agriculture cannot compete with our subsidized grain exports. Therefore, they have no sustainable agricultural production. If we use the grain for something else, they starve. If we use the grain for something else and the prices go up, they begin growing their own grain again. Our farm subsidies have been a foot on the head of the third world. They don’t need a handout, they need us to play fair so they can have real economies themselves.
3. Alternative fuels are actively hindered by grocery manufacturers and big oil companies. They want cheap high fructose corn syrup and a continued 90% petroleum mandate. Don’t kid yourself. Follow the money.
4. Without incentives, we’ll never get off petroleum. It costs so little to produce and has existing infrastructure paid for with our tax dollars. There is the other problem of the most powerful cartel in the world, OPEC. Do you think they are happy about our efforts to wean our nation off of their product and stem the tide of petrodollars?
5. Food prices are affected 2% by the cost of grain and 92% by the cost of petroleum, according the USDA.
I’m all for getting rid of subsidies. If we get rid of ethanol subsidies, let’s level the playing field first. Get rid of petroleum subsidies and make the EPA remove the artificial 90% gasoline mandate, too. Then we can see how things really shake out.
BTW, if an engine is properly designed for ethanol, it will get better mileage than with gas. The higher vapor pressure allows higher compression than is possible with gas. In fact, oil companies have used this fact to worsen the grades of gas they sell, knowing the 10% ethanol blend will prevent consumers from complaining about knocking.
It's a big government if it taxes or regulates you. It's a small govenment if it doesn't suffucuently tax or regulate your competitors.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
yes, and if we say we live in a democracy, we get the pikers who have to insist it's a constitutional republic
and if we say something was hacked, we get the pikers who no, the system was cracked, or socially engineered
yes, pikers, we KNOW THAT ALREADY
hey pikers: the general meaning of a word often strays from narrow definitions. don't think you are in a position to correct that. understand you are in a position to learn, for once in your life, what common usage means
Speaking of common usage: you clearly have absolutely no clue what the term piker means, either in common or uncommon usage. Pretty much makes your rant meaningless.
*Corn* ethanol was always a boondoggle, brought to you by lobbyists and innumerate politicians who were unable to understand or care about the concept of EREOI. Brazil has made *sugar cane* alcohol with a reasonable EREOI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil). While nothing will replace oil, moving as much of the transportation industry to alternatives like sugar cane methanol would give us a bigger cushion against the inevitable loss of oil as a major energy source.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I love the wonderful colour you british pikers insert into your language. ;)
The "King's English"? Sorry, the King is dead. And for my money the Queen can go fuck herself. We "colonials" will speak as we wish.
For your information, a piker is someone who is stingy or only makes small bets. Maybe you should learn the meaning of a word before using it to avoid using the word incorrectly.
Big government is when the government helps someone else. Small government is when they only help you.
Well, constitutionality is a reasonable requirement, I give you that - how does following the constitution correlate with size, though?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
When does a small tree become a big tree? Is there an intermediate sized tree in between?
That should demonstrate the concept. Indistinct boundaries between terms don't mean the terms are meaningless.
A congress controlled by Democrats. In particular Democrat control of the House of Representatives where all spending bill must originate. Reagan could sign or veto what these guys came up with, he could not write the legislation.
In typical Reagan worshiper fashion, you fail at history.
Throughout his two terms, Reagan asked for billions more in his budget proposals than congress eventually approved.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
A negotiated plan where increases in the Department of Defense were offset by cuts elsewhere in government, and a failure of congress to deliver on those cuts.
Yet, Reagan still tried to increase the size of government, just in the area where they make things go BOOM, which is OK with Republicans.
But God help them if anyone else tries to increase the size of government that, you know, actually tries to help people, or keep business in check.
I think you missed the point GP was trying to make entirely. He's saying you can identify a big tree and you can identify a small tree, and both those descriptions have meaning even if you can't identify the exact boundary between the categories. In other words, just because you can't pinpoint the nano second a warm bath becomes a hot one doesn't mean you shouldn't take action to prevent the water from boiling with you in it.
Yes, and exotic sports cars. Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean the private sector is bad at producing it. The discussion about what a human deserves or is entitled to in a just society is a different discussion.
Ronald Reagan grew the federal government to ginormously huge non-conservative levels, and yet is hailed as one of the "greatest Conservative Republicans" ever. What am I missing here?
Well a lot of 'conservatives' would probably disagree with the moves these days (but change their tune once told that Reagan had done it), but many of the increases under Reagan were in the areas that were in the federal government's constitutional pervue. For instance, military spending is one of the areas of the federal government that the Constitution says they should handle, so conservatives are all for it. Social programs? The Department of Education? The arts? Conservatives would say that because those aren't explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution, those are more state or local issues and should not be handled on the federal level. I guess that's why Mitt Romney can say with a straight face that he supports Massachusetts's health care system and oppose the federal system, despite them being very similar. At least, I hope that's why he does that. Maybe I'm being too charitable.
In addition, around Reagan's time the Republican Party was taken over by the neo-Conservative movement, people who believe in those traditional conservative values except for issues of morality. Those, they believe the federal government should stick their noses into all the time, in enforcement of "traditional moral values." For some reason to them this is not hypocrisy.
As a society, we've already made the decision that humans deserve health care in some form.
The private sector may be good at producing health care as a product, but it has a dismal track record of efficiently delivering it to all people.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.