backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by trisct.. on Oct 20 at 2:51 PM

E85 will be much more expensive than normal fuels without a new tax credit according to the coalition

The tax rebate on ethanol fuels is set to expire at the end of this year. This will vanquish the tax credit that allowed ethanol producers in the U.S. to export as much or more of the fuel to other countries than was used in American fuel tanks. Steven Rattner stated in a piece written for the NYT, “Because of the subsidy, ethanol became cheaper than gasoline, and so we sent 397 million gallons of ethanol overseas last year. America is simultaneously importing costly foreign oil and subsidizing the export of its equivalent.”
 
That exporting of ethanol is one of the reasons the tax break on ethanol is ending.
 
With the deadline looming for the tax credit, a coalition is forming to get federal tax law amended to allow E85 to get a tax cut. The new group will be called the Coalition for E85 and it is specific in that it isn't out to get the tax credit back for E10. The coalition will let that tax expire with no fight from its members, but it wants the E85 blend to gain a new tax cut or the coalition warns the days of E85 might be numbered.
 
The blenders that make E10 fuel that is in wide use, and is a mix of 10% ethanol and 90% unleaded are getting a 4.5-cent-per-gallon tax credit. E85 is getting a credit of 38.25 cents per gallon under the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit or VEECT. This is the tax that expires in December.
 
What the coalition is seeking is a change that would allow the E85 blend to receive the Alternative Fuel Credit (AFC). E85 was excluded from the AFC originally to keep it from being able to qualify for both the VEECT and the AFC credits. With the VEETC being discontinued, the makers want E85 to now get the AFC credit to allow the E85 fuel to maintain closer price parity with normal fuels for consumers that drive Flexi Fuel Vehicles. Flexi Fuel Vehicles or FFVs are able to burn regular gasoline and E85.
 
The coalition is trying to raise $75,000 to hire a Washington lobby group to speak on its behalf.

Source: Platts



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Awww poor E85
By DoeBoy on 10/18/2011 1:09:10 PM , Rating: 5
If you can't produce a product and make money on it without government assistance perhaps you need to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that actually has a solid return on investment. Government shouldn't subsidize industry.




RE: Awww poor E85
By Flunk on 10/18/2011 1:22:09 PM , Rating: 5
I'm a very liberal person, but this is a huge waste of taxpayers money. Why should the government subsidize unprofitable and detrimental (to the price of food) industries?


RE: Awww poor E85
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2011 1:25:37 PM , Rating: 1
So are you against solar and wind which aren't profitable without government subsidies?


RE: Awww poor E85
By bollwerk on 10/18/2011 1:35:36 PM , Rating: 5
Solar has been around for 40+ years. There are plenty of solar companies making a profit without gov't assistance.

Also, ethanol is a complete waste of time and money. It is vastly inferior to other biofuels.


RE: Awww poor E85
By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: Awww poor E85
By Gurthang on 10/18/2011 2:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, they're all in China.


Actually everything I have read says the Chinese government is heavily subsidizing their local solar industries thus allowing them to dump prducts in global markets at prices that are hard for our companies to compete against.

So the question is do you think we should do about that?
A. No more subsidies for local solar companies, this stuff is a dead end let the Chinese have this market.
B. Tax the crap out of the imports from companies caught dumping and increase taxes on all other solar imports.
C. Increase investments in the solar industry or devise credits which favor products from local companies.


RE: Awww poor E85
By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/2011 4:39:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A. No more subsidies for local solar companies, this stuff is a dead end let the Chinese have this market.


This would be the best option. There's really no demand for solar technology currently. People hate hearing this, but it's true. There's barely any market for solar. When half a billion dollars can't keep a manufacturer in business, something is wrong there.

quote:
B. Tax the crap out of the imports from companies caught dumping and increase taxes on all other solar imports.


Unfortunately this never works because it leads to "retaliatory" policies that end up hurting us more.

quote:
C. Increase investments in the solar industry or devise credits which favor products from local companies.


I believe that if something is worth investing in, the free market will get there first. "Investment" implies you get a return. Instead all we've seen is government "investments" of our money going down a black hole of corruption and greed to never be seen again. I would, obviously, be against increasing this practice.


RE: Awww poor E85
By spread on 10/18/2011 4:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
There's not much demand for anything currently. It's a recession and it's not over yet. Worldwide everyone's in trouble.

It's not solar that is the problem, everything is expensive right now because people don't have money to spend.


RE: Awww poor E85
By FishTankX on 10/18/2011 5:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe that if something is worth investing in, the free market will get there first. "Investment" implies you get a return. Instead all we've seen is government "investments" of our money going down a black hole of corruption and greed to never be seen again. I would, obviously, be against increasing this practice.


While I generally agree, this is not always true. The government had to intervene to get electricity to rural areas, along with telephone access. If it weren't for such intervention some places still might not have such essentials.


RE: Awww poor E85
By mkrech on 10/18/2011 7:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
Not true.

Those "essentials" were available to all. Those living in rural areas simply needed to pay the fair market value for the services to be extended to their doors. All the government did was mandate rural service and then subsidize the that rural service at the expense of existing customers.

Sorry, but I must rant.
<begin rant>
Rhetorical question:
Why does government get to deem electric and phone service essential?
Historical answer:
Because our society reached to point where political power began to usurp capitalism and competitive edge gave way to political influence.

Ever since then, our society has continued to allow crony-capitalism to invade our government. Both sides are guilty, but only one side can turn the course.

Here's why:
The Democratic parties platform is primarily supported by the poor. Entitlement programs create a society where the poor must vote for those that would support entitlement programs or risk reducing their own standard of living. Since the poor can't support the cost of political machine, democrats must garner financial support by promising favoritism by using crony-capitalism to pick winners like Solyndra.

The Republican parties platform is primarily supported by middle and upper class voters. Republicans have been guilty of using crony-capitalism to support their political machine as well. Also, choosing winners by targeting subsidies and regulation has helped generate more middle and upper class voters. But, for the Republicans this is counter productive. Because, even well intended regulations and subsidies are not as effective as true free market capitalism for generating wealth. As such, the Republicans must take a laissez-faire approach to governing if they hope to successful. Any other approach is counter productive and only leads to less prosperity which in turn leads to greater support for the Democratic parties entitlement programs.

The Tea-Party, and even occupy Wall St people if they listen to the Tea Party and learn a little, is the grass roots movement that is needed to help push politicians back to supporting a pure capitalism, limited government society. It's really our only chance.
</end rant>


RE: Awww poor E85
By me_at_here on 10/19/11, Rating: 0
RE: Awww poor E85
By mkrech on 10/19/2011 1:52:45 PM , Rating: 3
Drinking the OWS Koolaid I see.

Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates, Ellison et al are exactly what the 99% need. All of these people created wealth and not just for themselves. How many people have each of these employed in well paying jobs? Using just Microsoft as an example... how many poor oppressed workers can you find working for Microsoft? I see tens of thousands of well paid middle class employees that owe there standard of living to employment at Microsoft.

Now Marxism and socialism... how many Chinese died under Mao to generate the "wealth" of that society? How many workers in China now enjoy a lifestyle like your typical Microsoft employee (other than the ones employed by Microsoft in China)?


RE: Awww poor E85
By Hiawa23 on 10/18/2011 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
Seems, that we need to learn a thing or two from the Chinese. The way we are going it may not matter when they take over the great U S of A.


RE: Awww poor E85
By cruisin3style on 10/18/2011 3:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
not that it is what we should do, but i've heard they're subsidized...


RE: Awww poor E85
By Gondor on 10/18/2011 2:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
Mmm, ethanol ...


RE: Awww poor E85
By Solandri on 10/20/2011 2:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Solar has been around for 40+ years. There are plenty of solar companies making a profit without gov't assistance.

The vast majority of economically feasible solar is thermal solar. You stick a water tank outside, paint it black, and use it to pre-heat water before it's pumped into your hot water heater.

PV solar OTOH is pathetic as a competitor to grid power. Currently it's at around 20-25 cents per kWh wholesale vs. about 4 cents for coal, 5 for nuclear. (Hydro is about 3-5, wind is within spitting distance at 7-9 cents.)

PV solar has one particular niche application which makes it economically sustainable - electrical generation off the grid. If you need to power the electronics in a weather monitoring station on top of a mountain, PV solar works really well. If you're on a multi-day camping/hiking trip out in the boonies, PV solar is a good way to power your electronics.

The percentage of the country's grid electricity generated by different technologies reflects this. 69% fossil fuels, 18% nuclear, 9% hydro, a hair under 3% wind. Solar is a negligible 0.07%.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm#generation


RE: Awww poor E85
By Flunk on 10/18/2011 2:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
How are both of those detrimental to the price of food? That's a completely irrelevant comparison.


RE: Awww poor E85
By RU482 on 10/18/2011 2:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
Drive through northwest Iowa and take a look at how much farm ground is eaten up by Windmills, and the supporting roads that were put in place.

minor, but notable


RE: Awww poor E85
By nafhan on 10/18/2011 2:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
Increased taxes (where gov. subsidies come from, of course) generally affect almost everyone in the supply chain - therefore: increased prices on most things, including food. It may not be as much of an effect as burning the food for fuel a la E85, but it will still have an impact.

Not saying subsidies are always bad... just pointing out that they do have an impact - especially if it cannot be shown that there's a benefit to offset the cost.


RE: Awww poor E85
By shin0bi272 on 10/18/2011 6:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
I like how your original argument had the price of food as a supporting argument then when you reply later its the entirety of your objection to the "stimulus" or "subsidy" or "tax credit"... that's funny.


RE: Awww poor E85
By spread on 10/18/2011 4:44:57 PM , Rating: 4
The subsidies have been useful in popularizing wind and solar and creating a viable industry. Now they can thrive by themselves and they should plan to reduce the subsidies over a period of years until it gets to zero.

Corn ethanol however is a complete joke. It's a sham and theft of American citizen's money and goodwill. Even moreso when you find out that subsidized ethanol is exported.

You take people's money to produce this product and then sell it for LESS to a foreign buyer than it costs to produce. Tell me is that not blatant theft?


RE: Awww poor E85
By trisct on 10/20/2011 2:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Solar and wind do not use up food crops to produce energy. Its also harder to export wind.


RE: Awww poor E85
By Dr of crap on 10/18/2011 3:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, let's subsidize the E85. Please.
It a has been noone wants it fuel.

If it takes more energy to make it than the energy output where's the benefit??


RE: Awww poor E85
By Gurthang on 10/18/2011 1:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that E10 and E85 should not be getting any tax breaks. That baby is all grown up now and needa to stop living in mom's basement rent free.

My feelings on governments using "incentives" like loans, tax breaks, etc. to draw companies to that country/state/city or grow technologies that are seen as straegicly important for the future are mixed. A well designed and managed program can grow an economy far more than the costs associated with it and sometimes will create whole new industries. Do they always work, nope.

A good example is the "space race" if you only look at it as Americans just trying to beat the Soviet Union to plant a flag on the moon. Then you are right it was a terrible case of government waste. But look at what we learned and developed for those programs and what those industries and technologies that grew up to go to the moon have done for us since and I think it would be hard to say that the journey to the moon was not money well spent.

Or to continue the metaphor I started, helping your kids pay for college can be a great investment. Letting them mooch off of you so they can play video games all day long after they should have left the nest not so good.


RE: Awww poor E85
By RU482 on 10/18/2011 2:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what the ratio of tax credits is to the taxes paid by people employed in the ethanol industry.


RE: Awww poor E85
By Hiawa23 on 10/18/2011 2:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
If you can't produce a product and make money on it without government assistance perhaps you need to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that actually has a solid return on investment. Government shouldn't subsidize industry.

I agree 100%. I say end all subsidies for fuel companies. we need the money more than they do. I see gas prices are slowly going back up.


RE: Awww poor E85
By AssBall on 10/18/2011 3:00:59 PM , Rating: 3
While we are at it lets also do away with the over-inflated tax and regulations on consumable ethanol. Now we're talking!


RE: Awww poor E85
By DanD85 on 10/19/2011 5:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I'm not against your ideas about E85, I just recommend you read the book named "23 things they don't tell you about Capitalism", read it, think about it and later tell me about what you think about government subsidiary. It's not as bad as what you believe now.

Really I recommend all who really wish to understand more about how bad these "free-market capitalism" had done to our society and have a totally new view give this book a glimpse.


No thanks
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2011 1:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm already paying enough for food.




RE: No thanks
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/18/2011 1:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, if Herman Cain wins the election, free pizza for everyone!!! :)


RE: No thanks
By DNAgent on 10/18/2011 1:33:46 PM , Rating: 6
"Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, consider this pizza a gift on my inauguration day."


RE: No thanks
By RU482 on 10/18/2011 2:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
this country will never elect a black president, silly


RE: No thanks
By coondini on 10/18/2011 3:22:48 PM , Rating: 1
Herman Cain is just an old white guy in black sheep's clothing.


RE: No thanks
By FITCamaro on 10/19/2011 7:43:04 AM , Rating: 3
I love how liberals say this because a black person dares to not be a drone and actually believes in capitalism and conservatism. Basically you idiots can't call him racist so you just disparage him every other way.

Saw the same thing when our wonderful representative Tim Scott was elected here in Charleston. Pretty sad really.


RE: No thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/19/2011 10:08:54 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Herman Cain is just an old white guy in black sheep's clothing.


I'm disgusted that this comment gets a 5 on DT. It's just so wrong and offensive. Haven't we moved past this sort of thinking?

If I said something like "Obama's never lived in the hood and his mom was white, he's not black", Democrats would come out of the woodwork to call me racist and everything else. But these same people can make similar attacks on black Republicans. I just do NOT get it.


RE: No thanks
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/19/2011 8:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well they have a hard time against people like Colin Powell. Democrats could take pot shots at him but his track record is pretty solid. It's not any wonder the guy wants nothing to do with politics these days. Personally I'd like to see him run for the presidency, if nothing else then maybe a senate seat.


RE: No thanks
By tastyratz on 10/18/2011 2:11:01 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed,
We should not be subsidizing an industry that provides an alternative fuel that produces WORSE mileage and efficiency, WORSE costs, and WORSE if not similar emissions in just different categories. Ethanol was snake oil of lobbyist bidding.
Here is a bold statement: Bring back mbte! SCREW E10


RE: No thanks
By Natch on 10/19/2011 8:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention higher costs for the suppliers, as the normal aluminum fuel dispensers cannot handle the high ethanol content of E85, and require all the parts to be nickel coated (anything the fuel touches, inside the dispenser, the nozzle, break-aways and swivels on the hoses, etc). Added cost to the supplier is ALWAYS passed on to the consumer.

Add to that the fact that subsidizing ethanol from corn crops has caused food prices to skyrocket, across the board, not only because of the higher cost of corn, but because so many fields that used to be dedicated to other grain crops are now being utilized for corn.

In fact, the ONLY Americans who have benefited from the ethanol subsidies are those involved in producing the crops (big ticket farmers, with their farming lobbyists, and the industrial ethanol industry). EVERY OTHER AMERICAN has been hurt by this, but we're the one's paying for it, on BOTH ENDS??

It's time to get active, and contact your elected representatives. Tell them you do NOT support any ethanol industry subsidies, and you do NOT support fuel made from food crops!! Remind them that they work for us, NOT the lobbyists! It really won't matter how much campaign funding they get from those guys, if they get kicked out of office, will it?


So......
By tng on 10/18/2011 2:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
My mileage will go down with E85?

I have noticed wild swings in my mileage with a 99 Honda Civic. I had blamed it on my driving, but there have been a couple of times over the last 2 years where I got 55+ MPG and could not explain why.

My last trip to see family I found a station that sold gas with no ethanol for RV's and even though it was a buck a gallon more, I tried it and found that I got 60MPG on that tank.

Isn't this getting a bit out of hand? I have to be creating more pollution at 35 MPG than 60 MPG. Right?




RE: So......
By Gurthang on 10/18/2011 2:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well, my understanding for E10 and such was that it actually does help with emissions though initially this was all done in the US to reduce the likelyhood of yet another "fuel crisis".

The one I have not heard of until reciently was hE15 which is 15% ethanol which still has about 4% water content. The claim is that this additional water "injection" in the fuel (less than 1% of the total fuel volume) actually helps combustion efficency (better MPG) and reduces one of the major costs of ethanol production (distillation) and thus the cost of hE15 fuel. Call me a skeptic but I can't help but think this is not all sunshine and rainbows it is being made out to be.


RE: So......
By kjboughton on 10/18/2011 2:35:11 PM , Rating: 4
Shocking (can you sense my sarcasm?)

The energy content (per unit volume) of ethanol is less than that of pure gasoline.

Ethanol: ~75,000 BTU/gal
Gasoline: ~115,000 BTU/gal or ~150% that of ethanol

E10 is essentially diluted gasoline. Since cutting gas with water is problematic, it's cut with ethanol. The effect is similar....you're paying more for less energy content.

The idea that you can move a vehicle, of some mass, from point A to point B, using a fuel with a lower energy content per unit volume than gasoline, by filling a tank of a given, known volume with said alternative fuel, and expect to achieve the same fuel economy (measured in miles per gallon) is absolutely absurd. Of course you should expect to see a lower fuel economy. Energy content per gallon is less, therefore more fuel is required to do the same amount of work (same vehicle, same mass, same distance...same work).

In conclusion, if you want the best mileage (per unit volume of fuel), you need to fill up with 100% gasoline. Not this E10 (or E15 now) you find being sold as "gasoline."

This fraud has be perpetuated on the public at large and is defensible only because the pumps dispensing this gasoline/ethanol "blend" usually display a sticker noting that the gasoline you are pumping may contain "up to 10% ethanol" (etc).

This is akin to adding 10% by volume water to a gallon a milk, charging more (or the same), and then continuing to claim by packaging that you are selling the contents as "milk." No, you're selling diluted milk.


RE: So......
By NovoRei on 10/18/2011 9:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
But its green and come from the plants, cant you see how green and friendly its??...

E85 should give ~25% less mileage on a Flex vehicle.

E10 less than 10% on normal vehicles.


RE: So......
By Masospaghetti on 10/18/2011 2:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
Why do I find it hard to believe that you get 60 mpg (or even 55 mpg) out of a 99 Civic?

Doesn't hold a candle to my 75 mpg Explorer though...


RE: So......
By Hiawa23 on 10/18/2011 3:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
Why do I find it hard to believe that you get 60 mpg (or even 55 mpg) out of a 99 Civic?

Doesn't hold a candle to my 75 mpg Explorer though...


I find it hard to believe. I have a 97 Honda Civic DX that gets over 30 with 225, 000 miles on it but 55-60 is not believeable at all


RE: So......
By tng on 10/18/2011 7:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a 97 Honda Civic DX that gets over 30 with 225, 000 miles on it but 55-60 is not believeable at all
I found it hard to believe as well.

I had just gotten the dashboard replaced and thought that the fuel gauge was screwed up. When I filled the tank to check, all the way to the point of spilling some out of the top and ran the numbers, it worked out to 61 MPG.

After that the mileage went to 50 MPG, then after the next fillup to 42, and then back to a my normal 37. Happened again about 6 months later as well.


RE: So......
By mindless1 on 10/19/2011 1:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
I suspect your odometer is off for whatever reason and the times you had lower MPG it was even lower than the OD suggested.

One possible cause is smaller diameter tires.


RE: So......
By tng on 10/19/2011 10:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I suspect your odometer is off for whatever reason and the times you had lower MPG it was even lower than the OD suggested.
Really?

I drive to work every day and one way that is 49 miles. This was no different, and I have confirmed that with my wife's car as well. Also why would the diameter of my tires change on a day to day basis?


E10 getting 4.5 cent per gallon tax credit
By drkicker on 10/18/2011 2:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'd happily pay the extra 5 cents a gallon for these companies to take ethanol out of my gasoline. The increase in fuel economy I would get back would easily cover that.




RE: E10 getting 4.5 cent per gallon tax credit
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2011 3:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I see no mileage difference in E10 and straight gas when driving my GTO. Granted that's a newer vehicle largely designed to run on it.

Not disagreeing with you. Just saying you likely won't see a mileage difference.

I'm not against ethanol. It just shouldn't get per gallon subsidies like they want. Nor should there be ethanol mandates from the federal government as there are now.


RE: E10 getting 4.5 cent per gallon tax credit
By mkrech on 10/18/2011 7:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Rub it in.... ARGH!!!

I've wanted another GTO ever since my '68 died over 20 years ago.

However, I am surprised. Your moniker would lead me to think you would never roll in such glorious wheels.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/2011 9:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've wanted another GTO ever since my '68 died over 20 years ago.


If you want a GTO better get another '68 lol. I don't think the new iteration can honestly be called the GTO that you knew and loved. The new Camaro is a freaking land barge. The "Charger"...just wtf.

I mean, I hate to say it, but the Mustang is pretty much the only "muscle car" that's survived.


By fcx56 on 10/18/2011 11:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
My 2003 X5 definitely sees better gas mileage with non-oxygenated fuel, but my fuel economy was never that great to begin with. There is only one gas station in my area that supplies gas that isn't E10, I buy it for the decreased engine wear more than the fuel saving effects. I also buy it to support the gas station with my monetary vote as I'm against ethanol.


Hah
By aharris02 on 10/18/2011 3:03:28 PM , Rating: 5
Excuse me "Coalition for E85": keep your despised product.

I'd rather spend our tax dollars to fund Heidi Montag's plastic surgery addiction than give it to you guys.




Over half of corn will go to ethanol
By DockScience on 10/18/2011 8:54:27 PM , Rating: 3
We drive up the price of corn to make uneconomic ethanol, which is more expensive than petroleum gasoline, and millions starve in Africa from the increased food prices.

Greenies have so much of which to be proud.

It's a simple decision in 2011: EAT food. DRILL fuel.
Someday, when oil truly does become more expensive than food, we an revisit the decision.




By JKflipflop98 on 10/19/2011 4:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
Nooooooooo.

Eat food. Make fuel from electricity and ocean water.


Why so long?
By Ringold on 10/18/2011 2:22:10 PM , Rating: 4
Why has it taken all these years for economic libertarians to win the argument against ethanol? How many tens of billions of money got wasted in the process, and whats the impact been on food inflation? (And the Department of Agriculture and other sources of studies that suggest the impact has been nil is about as trustworthy as Chinese economic data)

Finally, late 2011, the mass consensus finally comes around and sees corn-based ethanol will never stand on its own. Sorry, but this looked pretty likely on day 1, and the impact on food of prices.. who ever thought you could toss a large percentage of a major crop and burn it in engines without impacting crop prices?

Sorry, just depressing that the whole thing could've been avoided had green groups and certain energy independence boosters educated themselves before jumping in bed with the much more experienced and older Ag lobby.




something strikes me funny here
By RU482 on 10/18/2011 2:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
“Because of the subsidy, ethanol became cheaper than gasoline, and so we sent 397 million gallons of ethanol overseas last year.


quote:
The blenders that make E10 fuel that is in wide use, and is a mix of 10% ethanol and 90% unleaded are getting a 4.5-cent-per-gallon tax credit. E85 is getting a credit of 38.25 cents per gallon under the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit or VEECT


So, are we exporting blended ethanol, or E100?
If E100, where does the tax credit come into play...if no where, where's the crime?




RE: something strikes me funny here
By spread on 10/18/2011 8:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
where's the crime?


Public money is used to make an expensive product that is sold for LESS than it costs to make... to a foreign buyer. You're taking American People's money and giving it away. The crime is theft and whoever stands for ethanol exports is a thief and a liar.


Not only no, H&*$ no.
By rcc on 10/18/2011 1:42:34 PM , Rating: 3
This is no longer even a new development product. If it can't fly on it's own, kick it into the pile with the other bad ideas poorly executed.




LIES!
By Shinobisan on 10/18/2011 5:06:26 PM , Rating: 3
I can only assume if you make a statement that is so blatantly wrong and so easy to check against reality... that you INTEND to lie and mislead.
"...allowed ethanol producers in the U.S. to export as much or more of the fuel to other countries than was used in American fuel tanks"
The number given - 397 million gallons - for the export number is far less than the 14 Billion gallons produced. To make things a little more clear: we exported 2.8% of production. And in large part that was because the ethanol industry in Brazil fell short of the global needs (they had a bad crop year).
Ok.. so 2.8% is NOT "more than".
Go to 1st grade math class.
Go directly to 1st grade math class.
Do not pas GO, do not write any more lies.




And... who cares
By nafhan on 10/18/2011 2:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it wants the E85 blend to gain a new tax cut or the coalition warns the days of E85 might be numbered
Those producing E85 are probably the only ones who feel that's a bad thing. Pretty sure everyone else either doesn't care or is glad that another group will no longer be getting tax subsidies.




if you need a tax break...
By shin0bi272 on 10/18/2011 6:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
if it needs a tax break or a subsidy to survive, it shouldnt be on the market. That doesnt mean Im in favor of oil subsidies either but we all know that the oil companies can survive without the subsidy. This goes for wind, solar, oil, nat. gas, ethanol, electric, and algae. Make it on your own or gtfo!




You don't need to use corn!
By 2tweeked on 10/19/2011 1:01:12 AM , Rating: 2
Ethanol producers don't need to change their process by using a alternate source other than corn, duckweed! Duckweed is a water plant that grows fast on waste water purifying the water. Duckweed can also be used as feed and alcohol production.

Ref: http://www.ecoseed.org/technology/science/article/...




From the previous DT article
By Fracture on 10/19/2011 11:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
Just wanted to post a quote from the previous DT article linked above:

quote:
Because of the subsidy, ethanol became cheaper than gasoline, and so we sent 397 million gallons of ethanol overseas last year. America is simultaneously importing costly foreign oil and subsidizing the export of its equivalent.


Ethanol as fuel is inefficient, counterproductive, and a waste of resources - the same can be said about this "Coalition for E85".




By haukionkannel on 10/19/2011 12:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it is good to study alternative fuel sources, and some support to new technology is needed, because "old" and "known" technology is normally cheaper, and works better in the beginning. But, the extra support have to end one day, so that the best and most economical alternative can survive. What ever that may be! The old, "the new" or some other competitor.
I am not sure how long time the ethanol should be supported, but the time is running out. The plug and support wheels has to be removed, so that we can see if it is, or ever will be an good alternative to oil. If it's not, it is better to put money on some other form fuel, bacause later or sooner the oil suplies will dry out. But as I said it is not usefull to support alternative that is doomed to fail. It is a waste of resources!




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki