Comments on: The Inconvient Truth about Ethanol Subsidies http://chemicallygreen.com/truth-about-ethanol-subsidies/ Making Sense out of the Green Environment Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:02:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: chemicallygreen.com http://chemicallygreen.com/truth-about-ethanol-subsidies/#comment-8896 chemicallygreen.com Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:55:49 +0000 http://chemicallygreen.com/truth-about-ethanol-subsidies/#comment-8896 @Chief: I was reading over the comments you made and I check this out. A report (link is on the above post) issued by The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) has estimated that such subsidies currently sum to $1.05 to $1.38 per gallon of ethanol. or 42 percent to 55 percent of ethanol’s wholesale market price. This means the economic value of the resources that are used to produce a gallon of ethanol are nearly 50% greater than the value of the product to the consumers. Chief, I am all for using ethanol and using less gasoline and oil. I am tired of shipping U.S. dollars to OPEC. What is going to happen to ethanol if gas prices keep spiraling down? Americans, in their current economic condition, will care less about ethanol and the green movement and unfortunately, are satisfied with lower gas prices. Same scenario is currently playing out in the EU. EU members are screaming to drop or reduce the Kyoto Protocol and well as other green programs. I want to see cellulosic biofuels become the standard, but 2022 is still a long way off to meet EPA mandate of 50%corn/50%cellosic ethanol. Having enough ethanol to really slow down our oil consumption is still further off than many realize. @Chief: I was reading over the comments you made and I check this out.
A report (link is on the above post) issued by The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) has estimated that such subsidies currently sum to $1.05 to $1.38 per gallon of ethanol. or 42 percent to 55 percent of ethanol’s wholesale market price. This means the economic value of the resources that are used to produce a gallon of ethanol are nearly 50% greater than the value of the product to the consumers.
Chief, I am all for using ethanol and using less gasoline and oil. I am tired of shipping U.S. dollars to OPEC. What is going to happen to ethanol if gas prices keep spiraling down? Americans, in their current economic condition, will care less about ethanol and the green movement and unfortunately, are satisfied with lower gas prices. Same scenario is currently playing out in the EU. EU members are screaming to drop or reduce the Kyoto Protocol and well as other green programs. I want to see cellulosic biofuels become the standard, but 2022 is still a long way off to meet EPA mandate of 50%corn/50%cellosic ethanol. Having enough ethanol to really slow down our oil consumption is still further off than many realize.

]]> By: Chief http://chemicallygreen.com/truth-about-ethanol-subsidies/#comment-2903 Chief Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:53:16 +0000 http://chemicallygreen.com/truth-about-ethanol-subsidies/#comment-2903 I still don't get your argument. If *any* ethanol qualifies for the subsidy then I don't see Congress has to 'open the debate' about biomass ethanol. When biomass and cellulosic ethanol can compete with corn ethanol, then they will. I do not agree that corn ethanol gets any special specific subsidy. Most subsidies for growing corn are price floors...those have not been needed since the recent price increases. "As you are well aware of, the corn ethanol has been a big mistake for food prices and the consumer." - I don't fully agree with that statement. While far from perfect, corn ethanol affects food prices much less than you would believe. <a href="http://tragedy-of-the-commons.blogspot.com/2008/05/ethanol-crime-against-humanity.html" rel="nofollow">Ethanol: Crime Against Humanity?</a> "Check out the post on Kudzu Ethanol plant startup in Tennessee. These people are not asking for government kickbacks, they want to operate on private funds." - Most all ethanol plants run on private funds. The kudzu ethanol would qualify for the blender's 'kickback' just like any other ethanol. I don't know why they would forgo that. If they have a profitable product it sounds like a winner. We definitely need many sources of fuel. The 54 cent tariff would benefit *any* domestic producer of ethanol, especially processes that are currently less mature. I am all for second and third generation bio-fuels...the sooner the better. I'm not sure where you're coming on your arguments. Your article seems anti-ethanol, but you're pushing Kudzu ethanol, which benefits from all the items you are arguing against. Just a little confusing... Thanks for the reply. I still don’t get your argument. If *any* ethanol qualifies for the subsidy then I don’t see Congress has to ‘open the debate’ about biomass ethanol. When biomass and cellulosic ethanol can compete with corn ethanol, then they will. I do not agree that corn ethanol gets any special specific subsidy. Most subsidies for growing corn are price floors…those have not been needed since the recent price increases.

“As you are well aware of, the corn ethanol has been a big mistake for food prices and the consumer.” - I don’t fully agree with that statement. While far from perfect, corn ethanol affects food prices much less than you would believe.

Ethanol: Crime Against Humanity?

“Check out the post on Kudzu Ethanol plant startup in Tennessee. These people are not asking for government kickbacks, they want to operate on private funds.” - Most all ethanol plants run on private funds. The kudzu ethanol would qualify for the blender’s ‘kickback’ just like any other ethanol. I don’t know why they would forgo that. If they have a profitable product it sounds like a winner. We definitely need many sources of fuel. The 54 cent tariff would benefit *any* domestic producer of ethanol, especially processes that are currently less mature.

I am all for second and third generation bio-fuels…the sooner the better. I’m not sure where you’re coming on your arguments. Your article seems anti-ethanol, but you’re pushing Kudzu ethanol, which benefits from all the items you are arguing against. Just a little confusing…

Thanks for the reply.

]]> By: chemicallygreen.com http://chemicallygreen.com/truth-about-ethanol-subsidies/#comment-2592 chemicallygreen.com Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:46:13 +0000 http://chemicallygreen.com/truth-about-ethanol-subsidies/#comment-2592 @Chief: Thanks for your comments. The subsidy for ethanol blending with gasoline is paid to the blender of the tw0 fuels. You are correct, any type ethanol would qualify for this credit. However, the new biofuels should be able to be produced at a lower cost than corn ethanol to make them favorable as a diluent for gasoline, just like corn ethanol is being used. Yes, these new fuels will have to stand on their own cost merits because most government subsidies (kickbacks) have been cornered by the corn and corn ethanol lobbyists. Currently, unless Congress opens the debate on ethanol and biofuels made from biomass, the corn ethanol subsidies will continue going to the corn producers. As you are well aware of, the corn ethanol has been a big mistake for food prices and the consumer. Very little subsidies are currently being paid out for biofuel production, and subsidizing any fuels only drives up the price and causes shortages and other problems. In 2006, the effective wholesale price of ethanol, after subtracting the blender's subsidy, was 80¢ higher than the price of gasoline with the same energy content, hence the indirect subsidy to ethanol, paid at the pump, was 80¢ per gallon of ethanol. Check out the post on Kudzu Ethanol plant startup in Tennessee. These people are not asking for government kickbacks, they want to operate on private funds. @Chief: Thanks for your comments. The subsidy for ethanol blending with gasoline is paid to the blender of the tw0 fuels. You are correct, any type ethanol would qualify for this credit.
However, the new biofuels should be able to be produced at a lower cost than corn ethanol to make them favorable as a diluent for gasoline, just like corn ethanol is being used. Yes, these new fuels will have to stand on their own cost merits because most government subsidies (kickbacks) have been cornered by the corn and corn ethanol lobbyists. Currently, unless Congress opens the debate on ethanol and biofuels made from biomass, the corn ethanol subsidies will continue going to the corn producers. As you are well aware of, the corn ethanol has been a big mistake for food prices and the consumer. Very little subsidies are currently being paid out for biofuel production, and subsidizing any fuels only drives up the price and causes shortages and other problems.
In 2006, the effective wholesale price of ethanol, after subtracting the blender’s subsidy, was 80¢ higher than the price of gasoline with the same energy content, hence the indirect subsidy to ethanol, paid at the pump, was 80¢ per gallon of ethanol.
Check out the post on Kudzu Ethanol plant startup in Tennessee. These people are not asking for government kickbacks, they want to operate on private funds.

]]> By: Chief http://chemicallygreen.com/truth-about-ethanol-subsidies/#comment-1910 Chief Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:28:55 +0000 http://chemicallygreen.com/truth-about-ethanol-subsidies/#comment-1910 "The biggest single ethanol subsidy is the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, VEECT, which grants a tax credit to blenders who combine ethanol with gasoline, in the amount of 51 cents per gallon of pure ethanol blended." I don't see where this subsidy specifies what feedstock the ethanol is derived from. It is my understanding that any ethanol derived from any feedstock would qualify. Are you arguing that all alternative technologies that cannot currently compete with fossil fuels should have to compete on a 'level playing field'? <a href="http://tragedy-of-the-commons.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Tragedy of the Commons</a> “The biggest single ethanol subsidy is the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, VEECT, which grants a tax credit to blenders who combine ethanol with gasoline, in the amount of 51 cents per gallon of pure ethanol blended.”

I don’t see where this subsidy specifies what feedstock the ethanol is derived from. It is my understanding that any ethanol derived from any feedstock would qualify. Are you arguing that all alternative technologies that cannot currently compete with fossil fuels should have to compete on a ‘level playing field’?

Tragedy of the Commons

]]>