Ethanol subsidies are over! YAY!

quadzilla

aviator wrote: »

Can you tell me exactly and precisely what these subsides are?

You do realize more energy goes into ethanol than comes out of it?

srsly? http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_195764.asp

More energy goes in only by some studies. Others dispute that. However, what I'm really referring to is research into methods of producing ethanol by methods other than corn fermentation. Several of these show promise, and will produce clear positive net-positive energy from ethanol.

kevhed72

Jstas wrote: »

Um...you read it wrong.

"On Thursday, the Senate approved an amendment that could wipe out billions of dollars earmarked for the ethanol industry by voting 73-in-favor, 27-against. The amendment, if passed into law, will eliminate the 45-cent-a-gallon subsidy that the U.S. government hands out to producers of the corn-based fuel. The ethanol-related amendment that passed on Thursday will be tacked on to an economic development bill, which will likely face a tough battle in the Senate.

Turning our attention back to that failed amendment on Tuesday, though similar, it's not identical to amendment that passed through the Senate on Thursday.

On a related note, the House of Representatives voted 283-in favor, 128-against to ban the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from dishing out funds to support the installation of E85 pumps at gas stations across the U.S.
[Source: The New York Times | Images: Jan Tik via CC 2.0]"

Two different amendments passed with overwhelming majority.

Yes, there is still more stuff to do to end the subsidies completely but with a majority like that, it appears that it's now only a matter of time and the lobbyists are ineffective.

I'm all for supporting alternative fuels. But I'm not willing to pay to make things cheaper and I certainly don't want to pay for the infrastructure for a fuel that fails so miserably at what it's supposed to be good at.

If somebody wants money to fund research to find out how far we can go with Ethanol, I'm all for it. Give 'em every penny they need. Otherwise, if you think ethanol is the way of the future and you think you can make a profit then you need to find tech that works cheaply, make the product, raise the capital to sell and distribute and then make a profit. That means, go buy your raw materials at market value like everyone else and stop stickin' your hand out for a slice of gubment cheese.

If you're desperate for cash, might I suggest:

http://abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank/casting

Not completely wrong...I read this as the subsidy for ethanol amendment that passed will be tacked on to the overall economic bill, which will be tough to pass. But, they did vote NOT to pass the USDA from subsidizing the installation of E85 pumps at gas stations. Whatever...this is all part of our government's shell game to complicate things so the average American has no idea what is really going on. Anywho, happy Fathers Day everyone...

aviator

Quad,

That link didn't provide an exactly or precisely. I keep hearing about subsidizing big oil; but, the specifics are never there, its always just a blanket statement.

drselect

quadzilla wrote: »

The best current option would be the end the oil company subsidies and start setting the price based on the real cost of using hydrocarbons for energy, which would include a carbon tax. .

Could you please explain the need for a carbon tax? and how it would affect the real cost of using hydrocarbon energy?

disneyjoe7

That's the best news yet... but when I ask when?

tonyb

I know I've said it before, so I'll do it one more time.....you will not see a alternative fuel until the powers at be know how to control it and tax it. If some dude discovered how to power your car on the free flowing air, it would never come to pass until they found a way to tax that air. You can demonize any industry all day for whatever purpose, but thats just politics.
Carbon credits is just another transfer of wealth,and power,and has absolutely nothing to do with energy,the environment, or your benefit.

I'm all for ending subsidies to these billion dollar industries. Need to start closing these big loopholes for big corporations and for the rich. I don't say that because I want it redistributed either. When a dude who makes 100 g's a year pays more in R.E. taxes than Bruce Springsteen because of an organic farm loophole,somethings screwed up.

quadzilla

aviator wrote: »

Quad,

That link didn't provide an exactly or precisely. I keep hearing about subsidizing big oil; but, the specifics are never there, its always just a blanket statement.

So what, exactly, do you want to know? The amount of subsidies provided? To whom it's provided? What? The short answer is that, via a series of tax breaks and other incentives, oil companies receive subsidies for nearly every stage of oil production.

Given that this is a general discussion forum, providing even term paper level charts doesn't seem worth my time, since I doubt I'll change anyone's mind. Besides, if this was a real question for you, you would have already done the research.

quadzilla

drselect wrote: »

Could you please explain the need for a carbon tax? and how it would affect the real cost of using hydrocarbon energy?

The carbon tax is just the method by which the real cost of using hydrocarbons is imposed. For example, to cover the costs associated with the deaths of approx. 30,000 people every year in the US due to burning coal. We should also be figuring in the impact to the general environment of using fossil fuels, but we don't. A carbon tax would help to correct that to reflect the real costs, not just the production costs, which is how it's priced today.

txcoastal1

tonyb wrote: »

I'm all for ending subsidies to these billion dollar industries. Need to start closing these big loopholes for big corporations and for the rich.

You are correct oil is the largest international commodity and will always be exploited and don't let them fool you its not all republican nor democrat they both have their hands in the fire.

Not to turn this thread to another direction but "big loopholes" is another reason to come up with some type of flat tax program "you buy you pay"

aviator

quadzilla wrote: »

So what, exactly, do you want to know? The amount of subsidies provided? To whom it's provided? What? The short answer is that, via a series of tax breaks and other incentives, oil companies receive subsidies for nearly every stage of oil production.

Given that this is a general discussion forum, providing even term paper level charts doesn't seem worth my time, since I doubt I'll change anyone's mind. Besides, if this was a real question for you, you would have already done the research.

In other words, you don't know any specifics.

megasat16

This post is meant to be for those who thinks getting out of debt requires someone's spending with more borrowed money.

Today's Slogan:

"Got Debt? Get More Debt to solve your problems!"


hahaha...Why don't you sell your soul to Satan and calls it quit? Problem solved...:biggrin:

Demiurge

quadzilla wrote: »

The grasp of macro-economics is not your strong suit. But don't feel bad. It's not the strong suit of an entire political party so you have a lot of company.

Cutting government investment and spending during a slow period is about the dumbest thing you can do. After all, if private spending is down, then someone needs to be spending to get things moving. Not to mention that doing things like creating public-works projects causes money to go to *private* companies, which then hire people to do the work, who then spend the money, thus providing a stimulative effect. It's also a good time to invest in education and research in order to get people with the skills needed for the next wave of innovation, which will provide further stimulative effects down the road to keep things rolling.

After all, right now, borrowing by issuing debt for the US GOV is really cheap right now. Yes, the deficit will be a problem. Yes, we need to spend carefully and make smart decisions. But taking the path of ZOMGTEHDEBTZISHUGINORMORZ is not the smart play, since the deficit is not our *biggest* problem right now. This is especially true when all the proposals being thrown out by a certain US political party are fairly transparently obviously designed to further concentrate wealth into the hands of the top 5% of eaners while further reducing the share of wealth held by the middle and lower 95% of the rest of us.

If you want to spur on economic growth you stop printing money, reduce spending, and cut taxes. In other words, you get government out of the way. Oddly enough, the increased economic growth through lower taxes creates more revenue for the government to spend on proper functions of government (subsidizing farmers to foist a crap fuel that's ruining our engines is not one of those functions).

Funneling money to special interests such as ethanol, which is a complete joke of a fuel, is pissing money away and raising the cost of all products which use corn.

I'm not completely against subsidies if something good comes from it that benefits the taxpayers, but there's no benefit to ethanol.

Even your most rigid environmentalist knows that ethanol is not the answer, which is why they're as against as I am, just for a completely different reason.

You must be personally benefiting from this beyond the hit you and every American is taking at the gas pump, because the rest of us sure as hell aren't, right or left.

inspiredsports

quadzilla wrote: »

The carbon tax is just the method by which the real cost of using hydrocarbons is imposed. For example, to cover the costs associated with the deaths of approx. 30,000 people every year in the US due to burning coal. We should also be figuring in the impact to the general environment of using fossil fuels, but we don't. A carbon tax would help to correct that to reflect the real costs, not just the production costs, which is how it's priced today.

I'm surpirsed you don't just cut to the chase and suggest we tax the folks for breathing, and use that tax revenue to figure out how to keep them healthy.

drselect

quadzilla wrote: »

For example, to cover the costs associated with the deaths of approx. 30,000 people every year in the US due to burning coal. We should also be figuring in the impact to the general environment of using fossil fuels, but we don't.

Ok I realize this is a derail and my logic will of course be questioned and I should never engage in this but taking your points above I would like to apply it towards water and the need for a water tax? Look at the number of people who die as a result of over exposure to water each year which I believe can actually be proven as apposed to the approx. 30,000 number you are quoting which probably is more calculated than factual. Also consider the amount of damage done to the environment as a result of two much water. And the Hydrogen cars will need a tax because they will give off water which will lead to more deaths and environmental disasters.

I realize that you are probably going to argue that the reason for so much water is burning of carbon. Go ahead but I will just respectfully disagree with you.

tonyb

Demiurge wrote: »

Even your most rigid environmentalist knows that ethanol is not the answer, which is why they're as against as I am, just for a completely different reason.

.

Dave, you and I and a few million others know that ethanol was never about the environment. Most that coin goes to Iowa, and is a big vote getter for when the Iowa caucus comes around.

We can mangle this subject into farm subsidies in general but thats another can of worms.

I don't want to paint with a broad brush as I do believe there are those who actually care about the environment and are not wacked out over the cause,but for the most part, when I here anyone start talking carbon credits, environment,social justice, I grab my wallet and hide it.

aviator

tonyb wrote: »

... when I here anyone start talking carbon credits, environment,social justice, I grab my wallet and hide it.

Ain't that the truth!!!

amulford

when I here anyone start talking carbon credits, environment,social justice, I grab my wallet and hide it.

As well you should.

quadzilla

You know, there's just so much false equivalency, concern trolling, and just plain wrong with the last several posts, the only thing I can think of is this:

I'll let you get back to your Fox News talking points now.

michaeljhsda2

newrival wrote: »

agreed.

Cellulosic ethanol has always been a terrible idea that has only been perpetuated by lobbyists. Unless the crop is within 50 miles of the processing plant, it takes more energy to make the fuel than is available from it. After transport to a dispensary (gas station or otherwise), there is almost always a net energy loss.

In the last 30 years the energy crisis has been solved several times over (in research). The reason they're not wholly implemented is multifaceted. The most troubling reasons, in my opinion, are: One, that they aren't conducive to current profit structures, and two, they aren't pollitical leverage. If the method is going to benefit a corporate bottom line or a politicians career, then it's just not going to happen.

The state of both political lobbying and governmental regulation (namely the epa) are the biggest obstructionists in the progression of energy development.

+1,000,000

praedet

My car like the roughly 105 eq octane of E85

Especially with it's added cooling, it acts like about 115-120 octane race fuel. Fun for a while if I ignore the mileage

tonyb

I always have a soft spot in my heart for those who can't debate, or when you disagree on a topic, resort to name calling.:rolleyes:

Quad- if you care to discuss,cool, but name calling will be the quickest way to close a thread. Maybe thats the intent, I dunno.....but how about we notch it up a few grade levels.

newrival

drselect wrote: »

Ok I realize this is a derail and my logic will of course be questioned and I should never engage in this but taking your points above I would like to apply it towards water and the need for a water tax? Look at the number of people who die as a result of over exposure to water each year which I believe can actually be proven as apposed to the approx. 30,000 number you are quoting which probably is more calculated than factual. Also consider the amount of damage done to the environment as a result of two much water. And the Hydrogen cars will need a tax because they will give off water which will lead to more deaths and environmental disasters.

I realize that you are probably going to argue that the reason for so much water is burning of carbon. Go ahead but I will just respectfully disagree with you.

A funny way to put it, but there's more truth to what you're saying than I'm sure many realize.

A few points:

-A carbon tax is perhaps the most prohibitive and crippling thing that could come our way. Second only to the EPA deeming CO2 a pollutant -H2O vapor has the highest greehouse effect, and is 3-7 orders of magnitude greater than the effect of CO2 -There is no current energy process that doesnt first require the use of carbon consuming energy generation

I am involved with scientists that have been at the forefront of these very issues for the last 35 years and the effect of Carbon on the environment and otherwise is being wholly mischaracterized.

Does carbon have it's cons? Of course it does. Is it the root of global annihilation? Absolutely not.

I'm as much an environmentalist as anyone, but I'm not a reactionary.