The Ethanol Boondoggle Will Continue

[rangerrebew]

The Ethanol Boondoggle Will Continue

USDA Sec. Sonny Perdue supports the ethanol mandate. Evidently there are some parts of the swamp that will never be drained.
Lewis Morris · May 11, 2017

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue informed reporters this past weekend that one promise Donald Trump intends to keep is his support for ethanol. At a farming event in Iowa with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Rep. Steve King, Perdue said, “Ethanol is here to stay, and we’re going to work for new technologies to be more efficient.”

Unfortunately, this is one Trump campaign promise that would have been good to break. The Renewable Fuel Standard — known as the ethanol mandate — is a classic example of what happens when the government interferes in the marketplace, with an agenda to boot. Through presidential administrations both Republican and Democrat, the government has heavily subsidized the production and distribution of ethanol, as well as required a certain amount of its use, in the hopes of making renewable fuels the next great thing.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/49029

[Smokin Joe]

D@mnit. That is one promise I had hoped he would not keep.

The problem is the amount blended into fuel is not set as a percentage, but a number of gallons. Which was raised, and is now approaching the blend wall (10%), where warranties would go void, and manufacturers have warned of possible engine damage.

 

[DCPatriot]

D@mnit. That is one promise I had hoped he would not keep.

The problem is the amount blended into fuel is not set as a percentage, but a number of gallons. Which was raised, and is now approaching the blend wall (10%), where warranties would go void, and manufacturers have warned of possible engine damage.

I'm thinking that the same reasoning is being utilized here....as when they decided to 'wean' Americans off Obamacare instead of the outright repeal.

You cannot destroy entire industries...like Obama did to coal...without taking into account the homes of whom it affects.

Of course, I don't deny that the 2018 mid-term was taken into account here.   

[Smokin Joe]

I'm thinking that the same reasoning is being utilized here....as when they decided to 'wean' Americans off Obamacare instead of the outright repeal.

You cannot destroy entire industries...like Obama did to coal...without taking into account the homes of whom it affects.

Of course, I don't deny that the 2018 mid-term was taken into account here.   

No one was calling for the destruction of the ethanol industry. Just an end to the Mandate that it be blended with gasoline in specific amounts regardless of the gasoline sold.
There is no allowance for capping alcohol percentage in those blends because of that mandate.

All that was wanted was an end to the mandate and let the market decide.
E10 would still be out there for those who want it. Now, the content will go up.
From: http://www.filluponfacts.com/?gclid=CK7Byay379MCFQyAfgodoxkN_A#/?section=thecost-of-mandates

Today, most gasoline contains 10 percent ethanol by volume. However, if the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requirements continue to be implemented, our nation could exceed this level of ethanol in the fuel mix. Extensive testing by the automotive and oil industries shows higher ethanol blends may result in damaged engines and fuel systems for owners of the overwhelming majority of cars as well as boats, lawnmowers and other gasoline engines. Automakers have warned these increased blends of ethanol could void car warranties. Increased RFS volumes could also cost consumers money and choice, and threaten far higher costs in the form of engine damage.

[Cripplecreek]

Ethanol is where I saw Trumpers first start making excuses for Trump.

They said he has to pander to ethanol because nobody can win Iowa without kissing the ring of King Ethanol. Ted Cruz stood firm on his opposition and won the Iowa primary.

(shouldn't be long before one of the usual suspects comes to feed us the BS story about Ted Cruz dirty tricks winning Iowa)

[Hondo69]

D@mnit. That is one promise I had hoped he would not keep.

The problem is the amount blended into fuel is not set as a percentage, but a number of gallons. Which was raised, and is now approaching the blend wall (10%), where warranties would go void, and manufacturers have warned of possible engine damage.

If ethanol ruins your engine you will soon discover everyone has an easy way out - but you.  The manufacturer will say you voided the warranty.  The gas station says they're not responsible for exceeding the limit.  And the government is for damned sure not going to send you a check.

So go right ahead on with your ethanol subsidies.  Just set aside a fund from which we receive a check for all our ruined motors.  That includes lawn equipment, marine engines and automobiles.  Hint: it's going to have to be a really, really big fund.

[driftdiver]

I'm thinking that the same reasoning is being utilized here....as when they decided to 'wean' Americans off Obamacare instead of the outright repeal.

You cannot destroy entire industries...like Obama did to coal...without taking into account the homes of whom it affects.

Of course, I don't deny that the 2018 mid-term was taken into account here.   

@DCPatriot

When That industry only exists because of the govt mandates?  When it's based on lies and is really nothing but yet another farm subsidy.  When that industry is harming the nation.    End it.

[Smokin Joe]

@DCPatriot

When That industry only exists because of the govt mandates?  When it's based on lies and is really nothing but yet another farm subsidy.  When that industry is harming the nation.    End it.

Not that it would end the industry per se, just the mandate. The industry could continue as market demand allows, and no ethanol fuel would be more available in more markets which would save people with small engines from generators to small engines to outboard motors and older vehicle engines and gas tractors people depend on for lives and livelihoods.

[Cripplecreek]

Not that it would end the industry per se, just the mandate. The industry could continue as market demand allows, and no ethanol fuel would be more available in more markets which would save people with small engines from generators to small engines to outboard motors and older vehicle engines and gas tractors people depend on for lives and livelihoods.

I know there was one ethanol producer who said that Ted Cruz had convinced him that losing the mandates and subsidies would be good for business. It wasn't out of the goodness of his heart or anything but he admitted that losing the mandates and subsidies would eliminate a lot of his competition but that's how the free market works. He also pointed out that it would spur innovation among competitors to produce ethanol more efficiently to increase their profit margins.
 

[Hondo69]

I know there was one ethanol producer who said that Ted Cruz had convinced him that losing the mandates and subsidies would be good for business. It wasn't out of the goodness of his heart or anything but he admitted that losing the mandates and subsidies would eliminate a lot of his competition but that's how the free market works. He also pointed out that it would spur innovation among competitors to produce ethanol more efficiently to increase their profit margins.

Great points   

An interesting side note: if you go to Iowa where much of the ethanol is produced and drive into a gas station you'll be in for a big surprise.  You have the choice of ethanol gas or regular gas.  Most states do not have this choice at the pump.  Here in Texas for example it's all ethanol all the time.  Most people would find that more than a little ironic.

[Cripplecreek]

Great points   

An interesting side note: if you go to Iowa where much of the ethanol is produced and drive into a gas station you'll be in for a big surprise.  You have the choice of ethanol gas or regular gas.  Most states do not have this choice at the pump.  Here in Texas for example it's all ethanol all the time.  Most people would find that more than a little ironic.

A point I made many times with people claiming that candidates MUST pander to king ethanol in Iowa. They can't even pass a statewide ethanol mandate.

[Hondo69]

Like any fuel or any energy source ethanol it has it's pro's and con's.  It's just the con's far outweigh the pro's in my opinion.

One aspect I find very interesting is the pollution angle.  Ethanol is a net polluter and as such one would think the liberals would be setting themselves on fire over that simple fact.  Why isn't some liberal out in the corn fields taking a chunk of rope and tying themselves to a stalk of corn right before the combine comes in to mow them down?

The answer is two-fold.  For one, ethanol represent big government at its worst and liberals pray at the alter of big government.  Another reason is the press.  Speaking ill of ethanol is verboten by the press, which in turn controls the Democrat party.  The upshot is you have no Democrats complaining about ethanol pollution so the followers kneeling in the pews of the Clinton Church of Peons have no clue about the subject at all.

[Hondo69]

A point I made many times with people claiming that candidates MUST pander to king ethanol in Iowa. They can't even pass a statewide ethanol mandate.

The reason we have a mandate here is Texas can be answered in a single word - highways.  The Federal Government uses highway funding dollars as a sort of carrot and stick.  If you want highway money you must mandate ethanol usage.  Instead of telling the Feds they can go straight to hell the Texas legislature accepted the bribe.  Which is why today my neighborhood small engine repair shop is doing a booming business.

[Smokin Joe]

I know there was one ethanol producer who said that Ted Cruz had convinced him that losing the mandates and subsidies would be good for business. It wasn't out of the goodness of his heart or anything but he admitted that losing the mandates and subsidies would eliminate a lot of his competition but that's how the free market works. He also pointed out that it would spur innovation among competitors to produce ethanol more efficiently to increase their profit margins.

That was how Cruz won Iowa, by convincing those producers and farmers that the free market was the best option and that the mandate wasn't needed. Despite Cruz' position on removing the mandate invoking the unabashed ire of the Governor (whose son is/was an ethanol industry lobbyist), who demanded that Cruz be beat, 'no matter what it takes', Cruz won the Iowa Caucuses. However, within hours of the Governor announcing his antipathy for Cruz, Trump had come out in favor of the mandate, something I hoped was just political pandering.

In concert with Tillerson's antics, http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,262569.msg1319234.html#msg1319234 (Tillerson signs international declaration recognizing climate change)
and this failure:http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,262220.msg1316718.html#msg1316718
I am seeing a less friendly administration toward the energy industry than had been anticipated.

[driftdiver]

That was how Cruz won Iowa, by convincing those producers and farmers that the free market was the best option and that the mandate wasn't needed. Despite Cruz' position on removing the mandate invoking the unabashed ire of the Governor (whose son is/was an ethanol industry lobbyist), who demanded that Cruz be beat, 'no matter what it takes', Cruz won the Iowa Caucuses. However, within hours of the Governor announcing his antipathy for Cruz, Trump had come out in favor of the mandate, something I hoped was just political pandering.

In concert with Tillerson's antics, http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,262569.msg1319234.html#msg1319234 (Tillerson signs international declaration recognizing climate change)
and this failure:http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,262220.msg1316718.html#msg1316718
I am seeing a less friendly administration toward the energy industry than had been anticipated.

I grew up in Iowa and even back then govt subsidies were big business.   Every farmer worked to earn their subsidies.   Planting or not planting based on the availability of subsidies.  Farming is a tough business which the govt has turned into a welfare system.

Only now the family farm is rapidly disappearing and turning into corporate farms. Corporations with lobbyists and money for political donations.

[Cripplecreek]

The reason we have a mandate here is Texas can be answered in a single word - highways.  The Federal Government uses highway funding dollars as a sort of carrot and stick.  If you want highway money you must mandate ethanol usage.  Instead of telling the Feds they can go straight to hell the Texas legislature accepted the bribe.  Which is why today my neighborhood small engine repair shop is doing a booming business.

That's the primary problem I've always had with federal highway funding. It became a weapon to whip the states into compliance. The states made things worse by allowing that federal money to be stripped away from interstate highways and bridges so they could use it for state and local roads. These days we're lucky if the money even goes to something transportation related.

Locally I've seen the state dole out federal highway funds to my county which then used it for things like tearing out a massive concrete wall in a county park so they could replace it with a wildly expensive wrought iron fence.

[Smokin Joe]

I grew up in Iowa and even back then govt subsidies were big business.   Every farmer worked to earn their subsidies.   Planting or not planting based on the availability of subsidies.  Farming is a tough business which the govt has turned into a welfare system.

Only now the family farm is rapidly disappearing and turning into corporate farms. Corporations with lobbyists and money for political donations.

Even here the joke was going around :

How do you bankrupt a farmer?

Steal his mailbox....

Part of what is killing the family farm is estate taxes, the other part (and it took a good friend off his ranch) is that those offspring not interested in farming want to sell their fraction of the estate or be paid for it. Carving off a chunk of farm can render the rest uneconomical, because it is the economy of scale that makes many family farms go in these parts.

My friend could not pay the other kids in Seattle and elsewhere on the coast for the rest of the ranch, even though he'd worked it, kept the land viable, and taken care of their mother in her failing years. They showed no interest until they could get the money. They sold it out from under him, house and all because they had a controlling interest. The irony is that I don't believe they kept any of the mineral rights, and this happened just a couple of years before the Bakken boom...

[Hondo69]

If you think about the evolution of big government and the farmers you have to go back to the early 1900's.  When the Dust Bowl rolled around it was determined that multiple causes were in play, one of them being the lack of crop rotation.  Up popped coops and entities similar to the Farm Bureau designed to educate the peeps on Farming 101.

But they were really more than just about education, they were more like grassroots organizations that pooled resources for a mutually beneficial outcome.  So various groups such as bankers and teachers became involved as well, all pitching in together.  The key being they were local groups, either centered in a single community or more often by county.

Although they were not without their local politics and the occasional dirty deal, they were designed from the bottom up which is supposed to be the American way.  And by in large they operated just fine, at least until the Feds poked their noses under the tent.

[roamer_1]

D@mnit. That is one promise I had hoped he would not keep.

The problem is the amount blended into fuel is not set as a percentage, but a number of gallons. Which was raised, and is now approaching the blend wall (10%), where warranties would go void, and manufacturers have warned of possible engine damage.

I only burn Conoco (Sinclair, Union76) Premium - Ethanol free. I actually think it is cheaper in the end. It seems like more power and more mileage to me. But even if not, the extended life of the motor by not subjecting it to alcohol has to be considered for that extra what, 5 bucks a tank?

I do wish they offered super in ethanol free. Small engines are being designed with regular gas in mind (ethanol included) and don't seem to like higher octanes.

[Smokin Joe]

If you think about the evolution of big government and the farmers you have to go back to the early 1900's.  When the Dust Bowl rolled around it was determined that multiple causes were in play, one of them being the lack of crop rotation.  Up popped coops and entities similar to the Farm Bureau designed to educate the peeps on Farming 101.

But they were really more than just about education, they were more like grassroots organizations that pooled resources for a mutually beneficial outcome.  So various groups such as bankers and teachers became involved as well, all pitching in together.  The key being they were local groups, either centered in a single community or more often by county.

Although they were not without their local politics and the occasional dirty deal, they were designed from the bottom up which is supposed to be the American way.  And by in large they operated just fine, at least until the Feds poked their noses under the tent.

Another big thing was planting shelter belts to keep another dust bowl from being so bad. You can still get seedlings from the Ag office...

[Smokin Joe]

I only burn Conoco (Sinclair, Union76) Premium - Ethanol free. I actually think it is cheaper in the end. It seems like more power and more mileage to me. But even if not, the extended life of the motor by not subjecting it to alcohol has to be considered for that extra what, 5 bucks a tank?

I do wish they offered super in ethanol free. Small engines are being designed with regular gas in mind (ethanol included) and don't seem to like higher octanes.

I only burn ethanol free, too (the fleet is 17 years old and older). That's 91 octane here, and premium. The little engines like it fresh, the big ones will tolerate it as it gets a little older If I let 'em sit a spell (more than a month, it's sta-bil time)
The price split is about 70 cents now, though, still cheaper than a fuel pump, but getting spendy. With the increased mandate for gallons of ethanol blended into fuel, though, and trying to avoid the blend wall, I expect the market pressure to raise the price of E0 gasoline as less will be available. Either that or E-85 will be more widely available...(I have seen a few pumps with that on them, too). I don't have any flex fuel vehicles, and can't use it, but on any given day have about 200 gallons in vehicles of the good stuff, not counting the gas cans...

[Night Hides Not]

I'm thinking that the same reasoning is being utilized here....as when they decided to 'wean' Americans off Obamacare instead of the outright repeal.

You cannot destroy entire industries...like Obama did to coal...without taking into account the homes of whom it affects.

Of course, I don't deny that the 2018 mid-term was taken into account here.   

Destroying whole industries? Corn farmers should sell their corn to consumers as food, not additives to gasoline.

[roamer_1]

Destroying whole industries? Corn farmers should sell their corn to consumers as food, not additives to gasoline.

I remember when we had so much surplus that the corn we didn't use was given away to starving African nations.

I don't think what we have now is better.
Cheap corn means cheap beef.
Folks should remember that.

[Hondo69]

If the peeps want renewable fuel sources then oil and gas are renewable, they just take longer.

OK, OK, I'm being facetious.  But what the heck, trying to have an intelligent conversation on a national basis is pretty much a waste of time anyway.

[geronl]

Great points   
  Here in Texas for example it's all ethanol all the time.  Most people would find that more than a little ironic.

There are places here and there (mostly rural, lakeside) that sell non-ethanol gas in Texas.