Federal Gov't Finally Kills $6B USD Corn Ethanol Subsidy
December 26, 2011 1:01 PM
comment(s) - last by
Fresh debate focuses on eliminating blending/consumption mandates or replacing them with non-corn-based targets
Biofuels have become almost a dirty word, thanks to the government's dealings with respect to
. Deep in campaign donations from farm lobbyists, federal politicans have sprinkled billions in subsidies on the corn farmers that helped pay their way into office. Many have argued these subsidies have cost the consumer both in direct taxes and by
raising the cost of corn-derived food products
at the supermarket. Still other critics accuse the government of greenwashing, pointing out that corn ethanol has actually been shown to
increase greenhouse gas emissions
, not cut them.
I. RIP "Dirty" Corn Ethanol Subsidy
In the end, it appears the critics prevailed. The federal government is at last axing the $6B USD in annual federal subsidies it had previously been bequeathing on corn farmers and ethanol production facilities.
As the Congressional year ended, corn ethanol's supporters
failed to muster
the support necessary to
push through a new subsidy
to replace the previous subsidy that was voted out over the summer.
The handouts are finally at an end for corn ethanol. [Image Source: AP]
Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group, clearly wasn't thrilled with the decision, but in an interview earlier this month he claimed the ethanol industry would survive without government handouts stating, "The blenders' tax credit initially helped the ethanol industry develop. But today, we don't have a production problem, we have a market access problem. Without the tax credit, the ethanol industry will survive; it will continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs and strengthen our economy."
By some estimates the total gifts to corn ethanol business totalled $45B USD since 1980.
The subsidy cut -- approved by a
73-27 Senate vote
in June -- also is accompanied by the end of a tariff on the importation of Brazilian ethanol. Brazil has an excess of sugarcane ethanol, but the U.S. government had previously penalized this fuel stream as a means of allowing U.S. ethanol producers to escape competing on the free market.
The ethanol debate has divided both political parties and even set federal representatives within certain corn-producing states against each other.
For example Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), whose state is the nation's 11th-largest corn producer -- with 11,000 corn growers using 4 percent of the state's land (2.45 million acres) to produce 315 million bushels in 2010 -- was among those who voted against cutting the subsidy, attacking the plan.
By contrast Michigan Reps.
(R-Zeeland) joined California's
(R-San Diego) and
(D-Orange County) in attacking higher ethanol blends in a letter "E15 is not ready for prime time".
II. The Next Front: Cutting Mandatory Blending Targets
The letter alludes to the next major front in the debate -- the question of mandatory ethanol consumption targets and fuel blends.
Many states have already forced gas stations to vend a blend of fuel that's 90 percent gas and 10 percent ethanol. But this blend is insufficient to fulfill the federal mandates of 15 billion gallons of biofuel to be consumed by 2015 and 36 billion gallons by 2022. These mandates were pushed through by the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush (R) and Barack Obama (D).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has called for using
a higher E15 blend
(15 percent ethanol, 85 percent gas), while offering non-E15 options and warning stickers for drivers of older vehicles. Both the EPA and automakers agree that E15 use could do great harm to older engines. However, the automakers and the EPA dispute its effect on more modern engines. Automakers say
E15 can still cause significant harm
to some modern engine designs, while the EPA claims the automakers
don't know what they're talking about
and that it's own testing has proven E15 use in modern vehicles to be safe.
But the E15 scheme has been shelved indefinitely thanks to a 285-136 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The house is now debating whether to roll back biofuels targets and/or the existing ethanol blending mandates. Downsides to such actions are that other biofuels such as algae and cellulosic ethanol -- which lack the compelling negatives of corn ethanol -- could be harmed. A repeal could also create uncertainty in the fuel market, causing deleterious financial effects.
III. Moving Towards Better Biofuels
An alternative could be to scale back targets, focusing solely on more promising technologies like cellulosic ethanol and algae, while scrapping any sort of federal mandate for corn ethanol. Interestingly such an idea has support from some environmental lobbies who aren't a fan of corn ethanol.
Friends of the Earth
's biofuels policy campaigner Michal Rosenoer cheered the decision to kill the subsidy, stating, "The end of this giant subsidy for dirty corn ethanol is a win for taxpayers, the environment and people struggling to put food on their tables."
His group supports focusing federal funding on "better" biofuels.
One particularly promising biofuel is
Algal oil is a promising corn ethanol alternative, offering a higher octane biofuel.
[Image Source: Jacopo Werther]
While pure-ethanol vehicles can have a better performance power-wise than pure-gasoline vehicles thanks to higher fuel compression ratios, availability mandates mixed vehicles that can burn both pure gasoline or pure ethanol. These dual-mode engines offer the worst of both worlds, in terms of inferior gasoline performance, while falling short of the promised ethanol performance.
By contrast, algal fuel can be produced in a higher octane blend which mirrors standard gasoline. Thus lesser engine modifications are necessary even for pure supplies. Additionally, for blends the performance losses would be lessened.
The U.S. military has been doing some excellent pioneering work in terms of reducing the cost of algae biofuels. A year ago algae biofuel
cost $424 USD/gallon
, this year it
costs $26.67 USD/gallon
Algae biofuel production is inherently scalable, although it works best in relatively frost-free climates like Florida and the American southwest. Aside from the cost of the glass tanks, harvesting/processing equipment, and bioengineered algae strains, the only additional costs involved are the certain fertilizers/growth additives used to accelerate the growth of the oily algae.
Algae's biggest weakness is that it doesn't have the millions in special interest money backing it hat corn ethanol has. Thus even as corn ethanol has some firm advocates on The Hill, algal biofuel is just starting to be considered.
The Detroit News
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Just so I'm clear...
12/26/2011 8:09:19 PM
i've got no issue with e-85 if it lowers the cost of fuel AND it's not forced on the public. finding non-ethanol-deriched gas is next to impossible in my area. hopefully, i can finally reach my expected performance/mileage even if it costs 8c/gal more.
RE: Just so I'm clear...
12/26/2011 10:13:23 PM
I have a BIG issue with E85, and with E90 for that matter. I would not have any issue with the states individually deciding what percentage, if any, to allow. If states stick with E90, fine. If they decide to drop ethanol altogether, fine. We'll get better gas mileage.
With no thanks to Messiah in the White House, our dependence on aOPEC oil has already dropped to 50%. With a new administration and renewed domestic production, we can drop our dependence much further, regardless of ethanol.
RE: Just so I'm clear...
12/27/2011 6:23:48 AM
I have big issues with states forcing Ethanol down our throats without letting us decide if we want the garbage or not. I agree that it is far better to let states decide this sort of thing, but it is still BAD due to most states running a deficit yet still forcing stupid crap down our throats(which SHOULD cost the state money).
E10 already reduces fuel economy, E15 would be worse, and giving consumers the right to choose not to lower our fuel economy in the name of questionable benefits to pollution levels SHOULD be required.
Has anyone proven that in modern engines that E10 actually has a positive environmental impact? I'd rather get 5 miles per gallon better fuel economy by dropping Ethanol, since that would probably be better on the environment.
RE: Just so I'm clear...
12/27/2011 10:07:43 AM
not what your saying is wrong, I just want to separate the issue foreign oil dependance and Oil price for anyone who reads the threads. They are not one in the same here, Because of the free market. Even if we stop our dependance we won't be getting cheaper gas anytime soon. I think we should put real effort in finding a real solution long term to lower dependance, lower prices all the while using responsible actions (using some type of blends) to help the environment.
RE: Just so I'm clear...
12/27/2011 11:45:56 AM
Fellas, a quick reminder. E10 is the current blend of gasoline (10% Ethanol). E15 is what the EPA is pushing (15% Ethanol).
E85, on the other hand, is 85% ethanol, and 15% gasoline. You're confusing E85 with E15.
E85 can only be burned in engines that are designed for it, since they require a coating to protect any aluminum parts that would come into contact with the higher ethanol blend fuel (since ethanol tends to "eat" aluminum, over time). In fuel dispensers, they coat the parts in nickel (not sure about engines).
The really screwed up part of all this is that the government is calling for higher gas mileage figures from automobiles, at the same time they're talking about mandating E15 blend gasoline, which would actually DROP the mileage you'd get from an engine! Talk about your Catch-22's!!
"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Military Biofuel Costs Slashed Thanks to Massive Navy Purchase
December 7, 2011, 10:32 AM
"Coalition for E85" Wants a New Tax Break for Ethanol
October 18, 2011, 1:01 PM
Ethanol Production Used More Corn than Farmers in Past Year
October 13, 2011, 1:01 PM
EPA Calls Automakers Liars, Says Cars Can Handle Higher Ethanol Blend
July 8, 2011, 10:32 AM
Ford and Toyota Blast EPA for Forcing Ethanol Blends on Public
July 6, 2011, 9:38 AM
Hot Air? President Obama, G7 Pledge to Eliminate Most Fossil Fuel Use by 2100
June 8, 2015, 5:40 PM
Study Predicts Self-Driving Vehicles Could Rake in Billions
March 6, 2015, 8:34 AM
Dual-Motor Tesla Model S P85D's "Insane Mode" Shocks Passengers
January 28, 2015, 11:18 PM
2016 Cadillac CTS-V Packs 640 hp Punch with 200 mph Reach
January 23, 2015, 3:25 PM
BMW Testing Tech to Allow Users to Auto-Park, Summon Cars Via Smartwatch
December 16, 2014, 9:30 AM
Lamborghini Offers Up $6,000 Leather-Bound Android Smartphone
December 12, 2014, 3:12 PM
Most Popular Articles
Exclusive: If Intel and Micron's "Xpoint" is 3D Phase Change Memory, Boy Did They Patent It
July 29, 2015, 10:52 PM
Quick Note: Apple Watch to Get Brick and Mortar Boost From Best Buy
July 27, 2015, 3:00 PM
Windows 10 to Get New Features in October Service Release 2 (SR2)
July 30, 2015, 5:50 PM
As iPad Sales Wane and Watch Flops, iPhone Saves Apple's Profit With Its Heroics
July 22, 2015, 6:13 PM
Editorial: Reddit Allows Itself to be Hijacked as a Hate Platform For Racist Bigots
July 21, 2015, 6:32 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information