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."

10 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Physics: an alternative political spectrum by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Democrat, Republican, whatever. My political support goes for congressmen who believe in the laws of thermodynamics.

    1. Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum by Fallingcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Subsidies spur production and research, as well as making a product more competitive internationally. They can keep a threatened industry that is desirable to keep around (say, one that is expected to be useful later but which might die in the meantime and be hard to start back up, or one that needs a push to get off the ground but will provide lots of jobs and tax money once it's going, or one critical to defense, even in an indirect sense) from being lost to foreign competition or simple changing demand. They can also be used to keep staples in the reach of the poor (though that happens more often in other countries, I think). Those are just the uses/justifications I can think of off the top of my head at 7:30 in the morning local time.

      They're not as nonsensical as you imply, though I happen not to support this particular one myself.

    2. Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your 74 charger would be referring to the "gasohol" movement, which was immature but just emerging back when this car was produced in 1973. There were no standard blends back then (and few filling stations); people could mix anywhere from a couple percecnt ethanol in to a majority ethanol. Your leak almost certainly had nothing to do with the ethanol; the notion that these small percents ethanol are not only damaging, but so damaging that they'd destroy a fuel pump in just a couple weeks, is just absurd.

      The lower MPG claim is quite a legit one. Ethanol is a less dense fuel than gasoline, so when you buy by the gallon, you're buying less energy. But at 10-15% blend, you're not buying that much ethanol in that gallon.

      Gasoline is always going to be a blend of different chemicals. No one chemical is needed, but a wide variety of different chemicals are needed to yield different properties in the fuel. It's likely that for the forseeable future gasoline will contain at least a few percent ethanol because, all "sustainability" issues aside, it's one of the best substitutes for MBTE, which causes serious groundwater contamination.

      --
      Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
  2. Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway by tarsi210 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway by acid06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Corn-based ethanol is a joke. Ethanol from sugar cane has been in use in Brazil for 20+ years and it works great - cheaper than gas without the need of any subsidies. More than half of the Brazilian car fleet runs on ethanol on a daily basis. Don't dismiss ethanol completely just because the US has chosen a silly way to manufacture it.

    2. Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway by alta · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not just a choice based on how it's manufactured... I'd dare to argue that we don't have as much area to grow sugar cane as brazil. It's a tropical plant. It needs somewhere north of 125cm/year of rainfall to grow, high humidity and lots of sun. Unfortunately most of our agriculture land does not support those conditions. Brazil is MADE for cane. Where we grow stuff, it's made for corn, and maybe switchgrass? Compare Iowa/nebraska, indiana, illinois, where corn is grown, to Louisiana, Florida and Hawaii, where we can grow cane. Add to that, hawaii is tiny, florida and Louisiana have a lot of unaccessable swamp, and that florida land prices are at a premium.

      http://www.tangail.110mb.com/sugar.php production amounts
      http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USLA0231 - AVG rainfall/temp of US States
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Brazil
      http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Iowa/average-annual-temperatures.php - Iowa average Temp - high 50s, low 60s
      http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Louisiana/average-annual-temperatures.php - Louisiana avg temp high 80s

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  3. Re:Food As Fuel by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."
  4. Uneducated debate, as usual. by OwenTheContrarian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Uneducated debate, as usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, if we get rid of corn subsidies and sugar cane tariffs, then the USA will no longer be crippled by substandard Coca-Cola.

  5. Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is? by sorak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Big government is when the government helps someone else. Small government is when they only help you.