Calls to scrap ethanol mandate intensify with drought

[Meetzos]

They need to do away with this mandate and let the market decide if they want to use ethanol. The boating industry doesn't use the stuff and they have to buy gas without it, so they pay quite a premium.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/06/news....htm?iid=HP_LN

Calls to scrap ethanol mandate intensify with drought
By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney August 7, 2012



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The drought that's killing crops across the Midwest and sending corn prices to record highs has revived calls to end or ease the government's requirement that corn-based ethanol be blended with gasoline.

Current rules stipulate that nearly 10% of the nation's gasoline supply come from corn-based ethanol. To make that ethanol, up to 40% of the country's annual corn production can be required.


With corn prices surging -- they're up 50% in the last six weeks alone -- many say waiving the mandate would help bring those prices down. They say lower corn prices would also help lower prices for certain foods that depend on the crop, like cereal and meat.

"The impact this is having on the animal protein industry and at the dinner table is profound," Arkansas Republican Congressman Steve Womack said in a statement last week. "If something isn't done -- and done fast -- food prices will soar."

Womack and 150 other lawmakers from both parties sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson last week asking her to ease the ethanol mandate.
snip

[searcher]

Wonder what's going to happen to food prices (overall) because of the drought? Probably gonna go sky high!

[Skirnir]

The ethanol scam is a reflection of the power of the Midwestern states and the agricultural-industrial complex. It is not likely to change without appea$ing both.

[Marthor]

Look what happened to worldwide corn prices in 2010 when the USA started burning the world's breadbasket in the gas tank...



This triggered the Arab Spring starting in Egypt which was particularly dependent on corn imports. The price increase was enough that a significant portion of the population was suddenly hungry, so they took to the streets in protest. Worldwide corn prices have come down some since then since we started growing a lot more to increase supply.

Guess what? With the drought, corn prices are currently spiking to higher prices than they were back then!!! New round of world upheaval if they don't relieve the Ethanol requirement. South America is planting more corn right now to help, but they won't have harvests till next year... food prices are currently on a path to create a fevered pitch crisis by December this year!

[phideaux]

Ethanol from corn makes no sense whatsoever, economically or agriculturally. A crop like hemp to make biodiesel makes much more sense.

Never mind, silly me.

[cpthnsolo]

Ethanol from corn makes no sense whatsoever, economically or agriculturally. A crop like hemp to make biodiesel makes much more sense.

Never mind, silly me.

Hemp, sugar cane, you name it and odds are it's more efficient than corn. However at this point we have roughly a dozen or so mid-western senators who will fight to the death to ensure the money spigot that pours ethanol subsidies is never turned off. No one wants to ever end or truly reform anything the government does so their letter to the EPA was symbolic and nothing else. If "both sides" actually wanted to fix the problem they could propose a bill, vote on it, and send it to the usurper in chief, but they're not serious about actually doing anything meaningful .

[tesskansas]

Hemp, sugar cane, you name it and odds are it's more efficient than corn. However at this point we have roughly a dozen or so mid-western senators who will fight to the death to ensure the money spigot that pours ethanol subsidies is never turned off. No one wants to ever end or truly reform anything the government does so their letter to the EPA was symbolic and nothing else. If "both sides" actually wanted to fix the problem they could propose a bill, vote on it, and send it to the usurper in chief, but they're not serious about actually doing anything meaningful .

I had an Iowa farmer tell me recently, that the spigot was off with ethanol subsidys. He said that the farmers were now on their own. You all would be in a better position to comment, but that is what one farmer is saying.

Personally, I feel like ethanol will make food prices worse. I say drill baby drill, so everyone else can eat.

[Bigjon]

Before we got the ethanol market, there was a big demand around here for corm burners. People could heat their house by burning shelled corn cheaper than using natural gas.

[Tecumseh]

http://discussions.agweb.com/showthr...thanol-mandate

There is discussion over on Agweb about it. These guys are a lot more knowledgeable about it and many of them are investors in the ethanol plants. The consensus seems to be that dropping the mandate may not necessarily destroy demand for ethanol.

I don't think food prices are driven primarily by the underlying agricultural commodities - maybe meat prices but the direct cost of grains in a loaf of bread or box of cereal makes up a relatively small component of the overall price.

I am in no way defending the mandate - it is central economic planning which I oppose.

[gringott]

One thing is sure: aThe price of [almost] everything in the supermarket will go up, as just about everything has corn in it, one form or another.
Healthy eating and preparing food from scratch using raw ingredients may make a comeback as the prices go up.

[Argent Dragon]

For those who like the conspiracy side of the coin, it's the car companies promoting the ethanol blends in gasoline. ETHANOL helps 'degrade' modern engines and promotes excess carbon build-up resulting in less efficiency and poorer gas mileage. Not to mention there must be a kick-back or cost savings to the oil & gas industry for providing these wacky blends that were never meant to happen (not part of the combustion engine design & engineering).

The solution car companies are pushing is to buy a NEW car to solve the issue. What we need is to remove the ETHANOL and all our combustion engines will be happier and last longer.

[Marthor]

ETHANOL helps 'degrade' modern engines.

Actually, in preparation for the Ethanol, car companies modified their 2009 (or it might have been 2010?) models and newer to handle the Ethanol.

In South America they have engines that run on 100% Ethanol or any mix ratio of 0 to 100%. These are modern engines.

It's the older engines in the USA prior to 2009 that weren't designed for any Ethanol. Ethanol can wear out seals and older engines in the USA can't handle more than 10% mix.

As for gas mileage, that's just a side fact that doesn't have anything to do with the engine, that Ethanol by volume gives less miles than gasoline. Ethanol always has lower gas mileage.

I don't think the car companies support Ethanol in particular. They have mandates imposed to reach gas mileage mandated targets by certain dates and they are motivated to want more MPG.

[Rusty Shackelford]

Hemp, sugar cane, you name it and odds are it's more efficient than corn.

Does it really matter? Choose what ever feed stock you wish, the real limiting reagent fertile farm ground to grow the crop de jour. I realize that the are certain types of feedstock that can be utilized on substandard ground that are not in use agriculturally speaking, but is theere really enough acreage to go around to use it to grown fuel feedstock?

[phideaux]

is theere really enough acreage to go around to use it to grown fuel feedstock?

I think it's more of a question of available water than land.

[Marthor]

Does it really matter? Choose what ever feed stock you wish,

Actually it matters a lot. The name of the game is to get more units of energy in return for the amount of energy you expend to get it.

Oil has a terrific ratio that returns 20 units of energy for every unit used to get the oil.
Sugar cane has a pretty good ratio of over 3 to 1.
Corn Ethanol is barely a positive number using almost as much energy to make it that it gives back, but it's the corn syrup sugar for the fermentation that is needed to make the Ethanol.

If we had a hotter and wetter climate in the USA, we should obviously use more sugar cane.

What may come to the rescue is gene-splicing and DNA engineering of plants. We need a plant that puts out more sugar and grows in the USA climates. I'd bet they're working their asses off behind the scenes to develop this.

Switch grass, hemp and whatever else aren't going to cut it and don't give a positive energy return. There is a plant called Jatropha which is very oily, grows in the USA and has other good properties that is a leading contender to help produce bio-diesel. (Not Ethanol which needs sugar, but other forms of bio-diesel that are usuable in combustion engines). Anyway, the point is that there are currently very few choices for bio-fuels that give a positive energy return.

[Tecumseh]

In a true free market if any type of ethanol made sense the market would produce it.

[phideaux]

There is a plant called Jatropha which is very oily, grows in the USA and has other good properties that is a leading contender to help produce bio-diesel. (Not Ethanol which needs sugar, but other forms of bio-diesel that are usuable in combustion engines). Anyway, the point is that there are currently very few choices for bio-fuels that give a positive energy return.

Jatropha seems like a great option for parts of India, Africa and Brazil, but not for the US. The problem with jatropha is that it is a water hog.

Water problem Jatropha curcas is lauded as being sustainable, and that its production would not compete with food production, but the jatropha plant needs water like every other crop to grow. This fact could create competition for water between the jatropha and other edible food crops. In fact, jatropha requires five times as much water per unit of energy as sugarcane and corn.^[9][10]
Nevertheless, jatropha grows in tropical climates with plentiful yearly rainfall (1000-1500mm). It would only require irrigation in the first year of its 35 year life.^{[citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha}

[Marthor]

In a true free market if any type of ethanol made sense the market would produce it.

The market knows that natural gas is the answer for energy in the foreseeable future. It's plentiful, the technology is there and it returns a great energy ratio.

The Obama crew has been fighting natural market forces trying to force solar, wind and bio-fuel solutions, but none of those hold a candle to natural gas. Bad bets by the liberals on their "pet" favorites and wasted a lot of our time and money. We should have been working on nat gas infrastructure the last few years, not the Corn Ethanol and solyndra type BS that were policies driven by Obama's crew.

[phideaux]

The market knows that natural gas is the answer for energy in the foreseeable future. It's plentiful, the technology is there and it returns a great energy ratio.

The Obama crew has been fighting natural market forces trying to force solar, wind and bio-fuel solutions, but none of those hold a candle to natural gas. Bad bets by the liberals on their "pet" favorites and wasted a lot of our time and money. We should have been working on nat gas infrastructure the last few years, not the Corn Ethanol and solyndra type BS that were policies driven by Obama's crew.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/port...future-hot-air

[Rusty Shackelford]

Actually it matters a lot. The name of the game is to get more units of energy in return for the amount of energy you expend to get it.

Oil has a terrific ratio that returns 20 units of energy for every unit used to get the oil.
Sugar cane has a pretty good ratio of over 3 to 1.
Corn Ethanol is barely a positive number using almost as much energy to make it that it gives back, but it's the corn syrup sugar for the fermentation that is needed to make the Ethanol.

If we had a hotter and wetter climate in the USA, we should obviously use more sugar cane.

What may come to the rescue is gene-splicing and DNA engineering of plants. We need a plant that puts out more sugar and grows in the USA climates. I'd bet they're working their asses off behind the scenes to develop this.

Switch grass, hemp and whatever else aren't going to cut it and don't give a positive energy return. There is a plant called Jatropha which is very oily, grows in the USA and has other good properties that is a leading contender to help produce bio-diesel. (Not Ethanol which needs sugar, but other forms of bio-diesel that are usuable in combustion engines). Anyway, the point is that there are currently very few choices for bio-fuels that give a positive energy return.

It does not matter when you are using limited ground to grow crops that will not be eaten. Every acre dedicated to fuel feed stock is an acre dedicated to higher fuel cost regardless of high energy output of feed stock