Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Scout26 on December 31, 2014, 06:27:48 AM
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/
Of course I disagree with his "Ratchet up CAFE standards to 40MPG !!" as a solution, but yes, Corn ethanol as a fuel needs to have a stake driven into it's heart.
I swear that 50-100 years from now they'll look back on Ethanol, Obamacare, etc. and ask "What the hell were they thinking?"
-
Does it need to be killed?
I have no problem using ethanol as fuel. Just kill the subsidies and let it (fail to) compete.
-
It just occurred to me that the US gov has, sometimes simultaneously, prohibited, taxed, and subsidized the distillation of alcohol.
-
Does it need to be killed?
I have no problem using ethanol as fuel. Just kill the subsidies and let it (fail to) compete.
We also need to remove the 10% mandate that some states have.
-
Can Ethanol as a fuel be killed?
Just on general principles, I'd say it was more about funneling money to favored people, than anything practical.
-
Does it need to be killed?
I have no problem using ethanol as fuel. Just kill the subsidies and let it (fail to) compete.
yes, that.
If they are going to subsidize a fuel, it should be LNG, not ethanol. We have enough of that stuff to never need to buy another drop of islamofacist oil ever again, its just a matter of getting the infrastructure in place. Can't expect .gov to not pick a loser to subsidize though.
-
I swear that 50-100 years from now they'll look back on Ethanol, Obamacare, etc. and ask "What the hell were they thinking?"
Hopefully and happily, it will occur in 2016.
-
Just on general principles, I'd say it was more about funneling money to favored people, than anything practical.
Bingo. In MN a couple of decades ago, one of the newspapers up there noticed an almost perfect 1:1 correlation between politicians who received campaign contributions from ethanol producers, and politicians who voted to impose an ethanol dilution mandate on gasoline.
I expect it's the same today, except more $$$ are involved. (I hear it takes more to buy a Federal official than a state representative.)
-
Can ethanol as a fuel be killed?
I hope not. E85 is perfect weekend warrior racing fuel. Even unsubsidized it's half or less the pricd of of dedicated go-fast juice.
Also, running a tank through every few fillups keeps the fuel system cleaned and de-watered. It also de-carbons combustion chambers nicely. Presuming your vehicle is flex fuel capable, of course.
Brad
-
We have had E-10 gas in Iowa since the mid 1970's, its not going anywhere anytime soon.
Neighboring town a cellulose to ethanol plant is being build, using corn stover to feed it at first is going to suck for the soil since the organic matter is being removed and surface litter (helps with erosion), but hopefully it can transition over to more perennial vegetation such as grasses or short rotation woody mass like poplar species.
-
I think that the core point is that using Corn-juice to produce ethanol is a bloody poor way to do it. That doesn't mean that ethanol can't be a worthy fuel, just that we need to stop using corn squeezings to do it.
Personally, I'd like to see algae used to produce it. Massive farms down in the desert, using seawater.
Use the oil of the algae to produce biodiesel, the carbohydrates and such to produce ethanol, or even the newer gasoline analogs.
-
Or build a crap ton of new nukes and use the excess capacity to synthesize methanol. Dehydrate some of that to make DME. Then use our oil for more value added manufacturing processes.
Then, if we're feeling generous buy the OPEC nations a few extra goats to keep them company.
-
Remove all subsidies and mandates and let the market figure it out. Also, build a bunch of nuke plants and start using them both for power generation and producing other fuels.
We have no energy problems. We have a lack of will.
-
I think that the core point is that using Corn-juice to produce ethanol is a bloody poor way to do it. That doesn't mean that ethanol can't be a worthy fuel, just that we need to stop using corn squeezings to do it.
Personally, I'd like to see algae used to produce it. Massive farms down in the desert, using seawater.
Use the oil of the algae to produce biodiesel, the carbohydrates and such to produce ethanol, or even the newer gasoline analogs.
ethanol is a worthy fuel in places like brazil, where they caN grow sugar cane which yields a much higher energy output vs input than corn...
-
ethanol is a worthy fuel in places like brazil, where they caN grow sugar cane which yields a much higher energy output vs input than corn...
Sugar cane has really high input costs to keep production costs up.
Sorghum would make more sense in the drier areas of the US instead of irrigated cotton or corn.
-
Remove all subsidies and mandates and let the market figure it out. Also, build a bunch of nuke plants and start using them both for power generation and producing other fuels.
We have no energy problems. We have a lack of will.
This.
You can keep your ethanol fuel if you like it. But it ain't right to mandate it and subsidize it.
-
This.
You can keep your ethanol fuel if you like it. But it ain't right to mandate it and subsidize it.
What would the price of oil or gasoline be without the subsidies given to that?
-
What would the price of oil or gasoline be without the subsidies given to that?
Given that they're commodities traded globally and pricing is based on global supply and demand (and the USA is a large, but hardly majority supplier) I'm going out on a limb and will say they'd be very close to what they are with the subsidies. Besides, the "subsidies" we give to oil companies are mostly in the form of tax deductions that are hardly exclusive to petro-industry but happen to be useful to them.
-
Given that they're commodities traded globally and pricing is based on global supply and demand (and the USA is a large, but hardly majority supplier) I'm going out on a limb and will say they'd be very close to what they are with the subsidies. Besides, the "subsidies" we give to oil companies are mostly in the form of tax deductions that are hardly exclusive to petro-industry but happen to be useful to them.
We aren't the only country that subsidizes oil.
-
What would the price of oil or gasoline be without the subsidies given to that?
Fed.gov requires all manner of seasonal and regional formulations on gas that help drive up the cost.
Fed.gov takes in more taxes on a barrel of oil than the big oil companies make in profit on that same barrel.
In TX, state taxes on gasoline are applied to all manner of things other than roads and transportation.
So who's subsidizing who?
-
What would the price of oil or gasoline be without the subsidies given to that?
Tax deductions =/= "subsidies". Or perhaps, you can list the payments to oil companies given out by the fed. gov?
-
Tax deductions =/= "subsidies". Or perhaps, you can list the payments to oil companies given out by the fed. gov?
Money for exploration (direct grants, low/no interest loans/preferred lending) and cheap energy leases on federal lands.
-
Money for exploration (direct grants, low/no interest loans/preferred lending) and cheap energy leases on federal lands.
And at the end we get oil and cheaper oil
At the end of the ethanol gravy train the only ones getting the gravy are the folks growing corn and their bought and paid for politicians
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Also, running a tank through every few fillups keeps the fuel system cleaned and de-watered. It also de-carbons combustion chambers nicely. Presuming your vehicle is flex fuel capable, of course.
Dry Gas.
Marvel Mystery Oil.
Done.
-
Money for exploration (direct grants, low/no interest loans/preferred lending) and cheap energy leases on federal lands.
Perhaps you can provide links to these. As the only ones I find are Section 1703 and Section 1705 loans which are all about alternative and renewable energy. I spent over an hour on the energy.gov website and failed to find a single thing for oil, oil drilling, and oil production (except for Deepwater Horizon). Hell, even Mother Jones' rant about the oil industry only listed the tax incentives that the industry gets.
"Cheap Energy Leases on Federal lands" Seems that the .gov sets the market price and the oil drillers pay it. Just like the Bundy ranch, perhaps the Fed.gov needs to get out of the land business, since they seem to completely mis-manage it.
But again. Words have meanings. A tax break is not a subsidy. Allowing someone to keep more of their money is not a subsidy. Those are the terms the leftists use to create confusion in those that aren't paying attention and generate anger towards those getting a "subsidy". It's another way they create the "us vs them" that they need to gain and continue in power.
-
We aren't the only country that subsidizes oil.
No *expletive deleted*it, Sherlock. How, exactly, would you suggest we eliminate subsidies from other countries? We can only eliminate our own "subsidies" even if there aren't any real subsidies.
-
Remove all subsidies and mandates and let the market figure it out. Also, build a bunch of nuke plants and start using them both for power generation and producing other fuels.
We have no energy problems. We have a lack of will.
Exactly this. Engineers solved the energy crisis, it's up to the politicians to use it.
And Charby, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
-
And Charby, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
People complain end the subsidy on something they don't like. Just about everything we need to function as a society is subsidized at some level, whether it is a tax credit, preferred loan/insurance rates or direct payments.
Most people are ignorant on why we have subsidies or why subsidies are even there.
-
No *expletive deleted*it, Sherlock. How, exactly, would you suggest we eliminate subsidies from other countries? We can only eliminate our own "subsidies" even if there aren't any real subsidies.
Oil/energy is a global commodity, not just a domestic product.
Well you could just quit using any oil product and feel good that you are not part of any subsidy program.
-
Exactly this. Engineers solved the energy crisis, it's up to the politicians to use it.
Well when the market is figuring things out and fuel isn't delivered to your neighborhood filling station because it isn't profitable, don't go crying about it.
-
Perhaps you can provide links to these. As the only ones I find are Section 1703 and Section 1705 loans which are all about alternative and renewable energy. I spent over an hour on the energy.gov website and failed to find a single thing for oil, oil drilling, and oil production (except for Deepwater Horizon). Hell, even Mother Jones' rant about the oil industry only listed the tax incentives that the industry gets.
"Cheap Energy Leases on Federal lands" Seems that the .gov sets the market price and the oil drillers pay it. Just like the Bundy ranch, perhaps the Fed.gov needs to get out of the land business, since they seem to completely mis-manage it.
But again. Words have meanings. A tax break is not a subsidy. Allowing someone to keep more of their money is not a subsidy. Those are the terms the leftists use to create confusion in those that aren't paying attention and generate anger towards those getting a "subsidy". It's another way they create the "us vs them" that they need to gain and continue in power.
Government doesn't set the price, the leases are normally sold via bidding, very few players are able to actually have the money and technology to drill for oil/gas/etc so the price is lower because of this.
Tell me why a tax break is not a subsidy? Not all subsidies are direct payments.
-
People complain end the subsidy on something they don't like. Just about everything we need to function as a society is subsidized at some level, whether it is a tax credit, preferred loan/insurance rates or direct payments.
Most people are ignorant on why we have subsidies or why subsidies are even there.
Okay...
Why do we have subsidies? Why are subsidies even there? Would the free market not optimize itself and provide for the demands of consumers?
Well when the market is figuring things out and fuel isn't delivered to your neighborhood filling station because it isn't profitable, don't go crying about it.
I'm not suggesting this would be an overnight process. Just that, there is an abundant energy source should we as a people choose to use it. As such, any scarcity of energy as a commodity is artificial.
-
Oil/energy is a global commodity, not just a domestic product.
Well you could just quit using any oil product and feel good that you are not part of any subsidy program.
Huh? This makes no sense as a response to what I wrote.
-
Government doesn't set the price, the leases are normally sold via bidding, very few players are able to actually have the money and technology to drill for oil/gas/etc so the price is lower because of this.
Tell me why a tax break is not a subsidy? Not all subsidies are direct payments.
Supply and demand. It's not an artificially low price if all willing buyers are able to participate with willing sellers.
Words have meanings. Discrete meanings. Tax breaks, especially when available to all corporations, are not subsidies. If you can't understand that then we have a problem with fundamental understanding of the English language.
-
If government thinks it needs to choose to lower taxes on a targeted industry from what the taxes would be under the law normally then the tax law is bad.
It is not a subsidy just because other industries are still suffering under the bad tax rate.
It is bad tax law that is the problem.
-
Okay...
Why do we have subsidies? Why are subsidies even there? Would the free market not optimize itself and provide for the demands of consumers?
I'm not suggesting this would be an overnight process. Just that, there is an abundant energy source should we as a people choose to use it. As such, any scarcity of energy as a commodity is artificial.
Subsidies are created so a specific industry will produce a product and continue to do so. It is also used to start an industry or research/development that may be beneficial in the future. The ethanol program was a result of the 1973 oil crisis and to produce a potential domestic energy.
-
Perhaps you can provide links to these. As the only ones I find are Section 1703 and Section 1705 loans which are all about alternative and renewable energy. I spent over an hour on the energy.gov website and failed to find a single thing for oil, oil drilling, and oil production (except for Deepwater Horizon). Hell, even Mother Jones' rant about the oil industry only listed the tax incentives that the industry gets.
"Cheap Energy Leases on Federal lands" Seems that the .gov sets the market price and the oil drillers pay it. Just like the Bundy ranch, perhaps the Fed.gov needs to get out of the land business, since they seem to completely mis-manage it.
But again. Words have meanings. A tax break is not a subsidy. Allowing someone to keep more of their money is not a subsidy. Those are the terms the leftists use to create confusion in those that aren't paying attention and generate anger towards those getting a "subsidy". It's another way they create the "us vs them" that they need to gain and continue in power.
here you go
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
there is a nice little table that shows direct payments to different energy sectors.
-
Supply and demand. It's not an artificially low price if all willing buyers are able to participate with willing sellers.
Words have meanings. Discrete meanings. Tax breaks, especially when available to all corporations, are not subsidies. If you can't understand that then we have a problem with fundamental understanding of the English language.
From Investopedia
DEFINITION of 'Subsidy'
A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
from the business dictionary
1.Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. The basic characteristic of all subsidies is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Also called subvention.
2.Indirect financial contribution by a firm to its employees, such as low cost meals or free transportation. Also called benefit.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/subsidy.html#ixzz3Nd7WbFML
-
here you go
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
there is a nice little table that shows direct payments to different energy sectors.
Non sequitur.
That's chart's for electricity generation, not drilling and production (and it still shows that there was only $4 million is direct aid to NG/PL generation out of $14,295,000,000 in Direct Expenditures.
To remind of your original statement:
Money for exploration (direct grants, low/no interest loans/preferred lending) and cheap energy leases on federal lands.
Nice try, but you are trying to conflate apples with watermelons. (electricity generation vs exploration and drilling)
-
Here's the full report:
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdfw
To save you some time, you might want to concentrate on pages 18 and 63-79. I see big fat goose eggs for direct expenditures and loans/loan guarantees for oil and Natural Gas.
So again. What subsidies are you referring to? And again, I'll point out that tax "breaks" are not subsidies, just like your tax loophole is my qualified tax deduction.
Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy
Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidy
And Oxford:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/subsidy
Words have specific meanings. If you use them improperly, you are attempting to conflate to separate things into one. See "Assault Weapon" as an example.
-
Here's the full report:
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdfw
To save you some time, you might want to concentrate on pages 18 and 63-79. I see big fat goose eggs for direct expenditures and loans/loan guarantees for oil and Natural Gas.
So again. What subsidies are you referring to? And again, I'll point out that tax "breaks" are not subsidies, just like your tax loophole is my qualified tax deduction.
Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy
Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidy
And Oxford:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/subsidy
Words have specific meanings. If you use them improperly, you are attempting to conflate to separate things into one. See "Assault Weapon" as an example.
Then why is subsidy used differently then spelled out in Webster's in government and business?
Also read the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in the act there is incentives to companies to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Lots of tax incentives to energy companies, also.
-
Then why is subsidy used differently then spelled out in Webster's in government and business?
Also read the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in the act there is incentives to companies to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Lots of tax incentives to energy companies, also.
A tax incentive is not a subsidy.
As an FYI, even Jonathon Gruber admitted that Corporations don't pay taxes, people do....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m54CqiMGe-k
-
A tax incentive is not a subsidy.
As an FYI, even Jonathon Gruber admitted that Corporations don't pay taxes, people do....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m54CqiMGe-k
I said incentives not tax incentives for oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. I also mentioned that their were lots of tax incentives as a separate item.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
scroll down to types of subsidies.
-
Money for exploration (direct grants, low/no interest loans/preferred lending) and cheap energy leases on federal lands.
Again, your original assertion. You have yet to provide any proof.
-
Again, your original assertion. You have yet to provide any proof.
posted earlier:
Also read the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in the act there is incentives to companies to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
-
Hmmm, after reading it (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fenergy.gov%2Fsites%2Fprod%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F10%2Ff3%2Fepact_2005.pdf&ei=_TamVIouiLfIBP-kgaAD&usg=AFQjCNFoM1nYB_oEnM-fSGEsOifB7LjJyw&sig2=V4fGPFYoBpLF-Er7enlMQQ&bvm=bv.82001339,d.aWw), the only incentives I see are payment-in-kind (oil or Nat Gas) for lease payments, and this for Alaska:
EXPLORATION INCENTIVES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(A) WAIVER, SUSPENSION, OR REDUCTION.—To encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of oil or gas or in the interest of conservation, the Secretary may waive, suspend, or reduce the rental fees or minimum royalty, or reduce the royalty on an entire leasehold (including on any lease operated pursuant to a unit agreement), whenever (after consultation with the State of Alaska and the North Slope Borough of Alaska and the concurrence of any Regional Corporation for leases that include land that was made available for acquisition by the Regional Corporation under the provisions of section 1431(o) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.)) in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary to do so to promote development, or whenever in the judgment of the Secretary the leases cannot be successfully operated under the terms provided therein.
There was a maximum of $3million on grants for demonstration projects of injecting CO2 into well to see it if would increase their production and sequester CO2 underground.
It does the Secretary of Interior the ability to make allowances for reduced royalty payments for under-producing wells on public lands. If that's what you mean by "Incentives".
But perhaps you could point to chapter and verse (It's under Title III- Oil and Gas), in the link above.
-
The oil industry would survive, no make that thrive without government mandates and tax/fiscal shenanigans.
The ethanol as fuel industry requires the government to mandate its use and underwrite the whole operation. It's a brilliant rent seeking scheme.
-
The oil industry would survive, no make that thrive without government mandates and tax/fiscal shenanigans.
The ethanol as fuel industry requires the government to mandate its use and underwrite the whole operation. It's a brilliant rent seeking scheme.
This is about says it all. Fuel ethanol is a wasteful, uneconomic dead-end. Petroleum is a useful industry that can survive the market.
-
You may get your wish Mr Scout.
http://breakingenergy.com/2015/01/26/senate-amendment-to-repeal-rfs-corn-ethanol-mandate/