The problem of government involvement in the markets is they without fail always screw it up and the result is unintended consequences. That's the case with ethanol, an artificial construct in America which couldn't survive without subsidies and worse: legal force requiring its use.
This is the case even with the horrid idea of corn-based ethanol, which demands enormous inputs that are worse than the alleged problem ethanol is being used to fix.
Now the industry is whining in Washington through their lobbyists as just about everyone is coming against the corn-based ethanol industry created by the government, but now not able to meet the goals imposed by that very government on it.
According to the shady federal law, big refiners like Exxon Mobil (XOM) are forced to use a specified amount of renewable fuels like ethanol annually. If they don't they have to buy production credits, which have soared in price on concerns the federal mandate for ethanol usage won't be met.
so we have an artificial industry, an artificial fuel, an artificial law, and an artificial payment energy companies must make in order to meet federal guidelines. No wonder everyone hates the American ethanol industry.
Among the haters of ethanol are groups trying to help the poor and hungry, who have to pay much more for food because of the rise in corn prices because of government laws. Not only is corn itself rising in price, but other foods that corn is used to feed like chickens and cattle, along with dairy products. Most food using corn also rises in price because approximately 40 percent of the corn crop goes into this loser of an industry which doesn't deserve to even exist because there is little real demand from consumers for it.
From an environmental viewpoint, not only is the inputs to grow corn among the highest in agriculture, but the need for more land to plant corn has led to the destruction of wetlands and grasslands.
While I'm not as concerned there, it does show the absolute hypocrisy of the government which pretends it is concerned about those areas until a pet program of the government overrides those alleged concerns.
Ethanol as an additive of any kind must be abandoned completely, and the market left to decide what it wants to use as a fuel.
The ethanol debacle confirms what most of us already know: the government doesn't belong in the market, and needs to keep its hands out of it.
Showing posts with label Ethanol Scam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethanol Scam. Show all posts
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Ethanol: U.S. Politicians Ignore Global Calls to Suspend Ethanol Mandate
With the presidential elections in the U.S. just a short couple of months away, you would think one of the candidates and/or political parties would tackle the horrendous ethanol scam. But alas that's not going to happen.
According to Robert Bryce at The Daily Beast, it's all about votes, even though the devastating practice and support and enablement from the U.S. government continues.
He said this:
We at Ethanol Fix vehemently oppose the ethanol racket, and call for the abandonment of this outrageous and damaging environmental, and more importantly - people-harming practice.
The ethanol mandate in America not only needs to be suspended, it needs to be ended and the industry shut down.
People in America should decide whether or not they want the harmful ethanol in their vehicles, as well as be forced to use it in their small equipment.
According to Robert Bryce at The Daily Beast, it's all about votes, even though the devastating practice and support and enablement from the U.S. government continues.
He said this:
The two presidential candidates dare not call attention to the corn-ethanol scam despite the drought that is ravaging the Corn Belt and sending corn, and other grain prices, to record highs. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama apparently want voters to forget that last month both the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Food Policy Research Institute called on the U.S. to suspend the mandates that require gasoline sellers to blend increasing amounts of corn ethanol into their fuel. (This year those mandates will require those fuel sellers to mix 13.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol into our gasoline. By 2015 the mandate will increase to 15 billion gallons.)How about whether or not corn-based ethanol affects food prices?
On Tuesday the FAO, in conjunction with the World Food Program and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, warned that because of soaring grain prices, the world faces “a repeat of the 2007–2008 world food crisis.” The nations of the world need to “act urgently to make sure that these price shocks do not turn into a catastrophe hurting tens of millions” of people. The statement said the countries of the world “need to review and adjust” policies that “encourage alternative use of grains” including, of course, “biofuel mandates.”
What accounts for the silence of the candidates in the face of such urgent appeals? One logical answer can be found in a simple number: 27. That’s the number of Electoral College votes at stake in three key states: Iowa, Minnesota, and Indiana. Those three states, which account for more than one third of all domestic ethanol production capacity, have exactly 10 percent of the electoral votes needed to clinch the race for the presidency. And those 27 votes are critical for both candidates.
At least 17 studies—done by organizations ranging from Purdue University to the World Bank—have exposed the link between increasing biofuel production and higher food prices. Last year the Farm Foundation, a nonprofit entity formed in 1933 that focuses on agriculture issues, issued a report saying that the ethanol mandate creates a “large, persistent and non-price responsive demand for corn.” The report went on, saying “there is little doubt that biofuels play a role in the corn price level and variability, and this has spilled over into other commodity markets.”
Thanks to Obama’s EPA, the food-versus-fuel problem is going to get worse. The agency is expected to approve the use of sorghum for ethanol production. Like corn, sorghum is a feed grain. But the agency is planning to designate ethanol made from sorghum an “advanced” biofuel, which will allow distilleries to sell it for a premium price. (Sorghum requires less water than corn but yields about the same amount of ethanol per bushel.)
We at Ethanol Fix vehemently oppose the ethanol racket, and call for the abandonment of this outrageous and damaging environmental, and more importantly - people-harming practice.
The ethanol mandate in America not only needs to be suspended, it needs to be ended and the industry shut down.
People in America should decide whether or not they want the harmful ethanol in their vehicles, as well as be forced to use it in their small equipment.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Mississippi Wastes $75 Million on Ethanol Scam
I wonder if the politicians in Mississippi know how to read or listen, as the news of the hundreds of millions wasted on so-called renewable energy by the Obama administration doesn't seemed to have reached the deep south, with Mississippi throwing around $75 million in low interest loans for the building of cellulosic biofuels plant in the state.
They also have offered up $155 million in tax incentives to get the boondoggle going. What a criminal waste of the taxpayer's money. And yes it is taxpayers money because they're the ones that will have to pay for it when it crashes and burns.
The company confisgating the state loan is named Virdia, which just changed its name from HCL Cleantech. They take natural matter such as woodchips and other plant matter and convert it into sugar, which is then converted into ethanol.
Virdia CEO Philippe Lavielle admits the amount of money offered by the state, along with $10 million in venture debt and another $20 million in venture capital equity isn't enough to build a viable plant that can successfully operate at a commercial level and compete against corn-based ethanol. He confessed concerning the money that "it takes more than that. It takes a chemical firm that will want to build it to have access to sugars for their own conversion processes."
According to Lavielle, the costs of building a commerical plant which would produce about 500,000 tons of sugar on an annual basis is $380 million. That could supply a 25-million-gallon ethanol plant, according to the CEO.
Another negative factor and complication to the success of such a plant would be the need for it to be located close to a chemical plant or a paper mill so it could be able to tap into the power infrastructure serving those businesses, and in the case of the paper mill, to be able to use the existing equipment for handling wood. Lavielle says it'll take up to three years for a plant like that to be built.
Historically capital requirements and projections are almost without exception much higher and take a lot longer to reach the expected goals.
To be able to compete with the scammy and damaging corn-based ethanol, Lavielle says corn would have to remain at a price of over $4 a bushel. While corn prices in the United States are higher now because of droughts in Argentina and Brazil which are expected to generate more exports for U.S. corn, that's a temporary situation, and corn could easily plummet below the $4 mark very rapidly.
Add to this the cost factors associated with cellulosic, which includes the requirement of having a wood production facility very close or the cost of shipping wood and plant matter to the facility soars.
Looking at the overall picture, ethanol, no matter what the form, is a waste of valuable time and money.
New discoveries of oil and gas shale, along with the technology to extract it from the rock, has changed the entire energy game in the United States, which now has enough energy to last possibly for centuries.
The known reserves already are estimated to last for well over a century in the United States, and there are many areas where it is unknown as to how much there actually is in America, let alone across the world. That's the future of American energy independence, not these idiotic and irresponsible projects that are truly nothing more than a scam. Ethanol, whether produced by corn, wood chips or plant material, is nothing more than that.
The people of Mississippi should be outraged over this travesty, but they're surely drinking the kool aide of jobs being created, even though not too long afterwards when the company declares bankruptcy, they'll all be lost.
They also have offered up $155 million in tax incentives to get the boondoggle going. What a criminal waste of the taxpayer's money. And yes it is taxpayers money because they're the ones that will have to pay for it when it crashes and burns.
The company confisgating the state loan is named Virdia, which just changed its name from HCL Cleantech. They take natural matter such as woodchips and other plant matter and convert it into sugar, which is then converted into ethanol.
Virdia CEO Philippe Lavielle admits the amount of money offered by the state, along with $10 million in venture debt and another $20 million in venture capital equity isn't enough to build a viable plant that can successfully operate at a commercial level and compete against corn-based ethanol. He confessed concerning the money that "it takes more than that. It takes a chemical firm that will want to build it to have access to sugars for their own conversion processes."
According to Lavielle, the costs of building a commerical plant which would produce about 500,000 tons of sugar on an annual basis is $380 million. That could supply a 25-million-gallon ethanol plant, according to the CEO.
Another negative factor and complication to the success of such a plant would be the need for it to be located close to a chemical plant or a paper mill so it could be able to tap into the power infrastructure serving those businesses, and in the case of the paper mill, to be able to use the existing equipment for handling wood. Lavielle says it'll take up to three years for a plant like that to be built.
Historically capital requirements and projections are almost without exception much higher and take a lot longer to reach the expected goals.
To be able to compete with the scammy and damaging corn-based ethanol, Lavielle says corn would have to remain at a price of over $4 a bushel. While corn prices in the United States are higher now because of droughts in Argentina and Brazil which are expected to generate more exports for U.S. corn, that's a temporary situation, and corn could easily plummet below the $4 mark very rapidly.
Add to this the cost factors associated with cellulosic, which includes the requirement of having a wood production facility very close or the cost of shipping wood and plant matter to the facility soars.
Looking at the overall picture, ethanol, no matter what the form, is a waste of valuable time and money.
New discoveries of oil and gas shale, along with the technology to extract it from the rock, has changed the entire energy game in the United States, which now has enough energy to last possibly for centuries.
The known reserves already are estimated to last for well over a century in the United States, and there are many areas where it is unknown as to how much there actually is in America, let alone across the world. That's the future of American energy independence, not these idiotic and irresponsible projects that are truly nothing more than a scam. Ethanol, whether produced by corn, wood chips or plant material, is nothing more than that.
The people of Mississippi should be outraged over this travesty, but they're surely drinking the kool aide of jobs being created, even though not too long afterwards when the company declares bankruptcy, they'll all be lost.
Friday, May 28, 2010
The Evil of Forced Ethanol
It's unbelievable what America and the radical environmentalists are getting away with. Ethanol is the latest attempt to force Americans to adhere to what can only be called a religion, with their god being the earth and the environment.
To even resist the monster is to be called a name, and that name is now a derisionary "gas purist."
Here's one example:
"Eric “Ric” Foster, the owner of a Gardner gasoline station, doesn’t like ethanol. No, that’s not quite right. He despises the stuff.
"A sign in front of the station alerts motorists that his gas contains no ethanol, and in case you miss it, an electronic sign in the window boasts of the station’s ethanol-free fuel."
The misguided regulations that force ethanol upon Americans is evil People have a right to the type of gas they want to buy, and the government has no place in telling them any different.
There are a growing number of people resisting this forced ethanol policy, and even by the standards of honest researchers, developing the ethanol industry on the back of corn is far worse for the environment than not doing it.
Once the monster that government is becoming puts something into law, only the bold and wise will be able to get a hearing on it, let alone make some real changes.
With so many things happening around us, it's hard to keep up with all this grab for power by the government, but we need to keep up the good fight, and this is really an issue of freedom.
People should be able to put into their cars what they deem the best fuel, and in a number of cars ethanol can damage them. And the damage done to power equipment is well documented.
The government blending the lines between them and industry is called fascism. This is the road we are increasingly traveling on in America, and we need to battle it every step of the way.
To even resist the monster is to be called a name, and that name is now a derisionary "gas purist."
Here's one example:
"Eric “Ric” Foster, the owner of a Gardner gasoline station, doesn’t like ethanol. No, that’s not quite right. He despises the stuff.
"A sign in front of the station alerts motorists that his gas contains no ethanol, and in case you miss it, an electronic sign in the window boasts of the station’s ethanol-free fuel."
The misguided regulations that force ethanol upon Americans is evil People have a right to the type of gas they want to buy, and the government has no place in telling them any different.
There are a growing number of people resisting this forced ethanol policy, and even by the standards of honest researchers, developing the ethanol industry on the back of corn is far worse for the environment than not doing it.
Once the monster that government is becoming puts something into law, only the bold and wise will be able to get a hearing on it, let alone make some real changes.
With so many things happening around us, it's hard to keep up with all this grab for power by the government, but we need to keep up the good fight, and this is really an issue of freedom.
People should be able to put into their cars what they deem the best fuel, and in a number of cars ethanol can damage them. And the damage done to power equipment is well documented.
The government blending the lines between them and industry is called fascism. This is the road we are increasingly traveling on in America, and we need to battle it every step of the way.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Meat Producers Ask for End to Ethanol Subsidies
Meat producers in America are rightly calling for an end to the subsidies given them by the government in order to misguidedly create ethanol industry.
The American Meat Institute, the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the National Chicken Council and the National Turkey Federation call for a level playing field in competition for corn, and they are of course correct.
If the ethanol industry can't survive competitively, it doesn't deserve to survive, and if people reject it as an alternative fuel, than there's no reason for it to be not only forced on people, but also to increase the price of meat as well for consumers.
The ethanol industry is coddled through tariffs on foreign ethanol, as well as receiving the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.
Government interference in any industry should be forbidden, as it eliminates market forces and creates a pseudo industry that can't survive on its own because consumers wouldn't buy it otherwise.
So when the meat industry has to acquire corn feed, they compete against a government entity in the ethanol industry, which acquires it at subsidized prices.
The beef and pork industries have been devastated because of this ignorant initiative that should never have been allowed in the first place, but now that it has, needs to be ended as quickly as possible.
With the economy down and production prices up for the meat industry, they had to take the losses because of the ethanol subsidies because people wouldn't buy meat when it is too expensive for them in tough economic times.
The meat industry estimates it has lost over $13 bilion as a result of higher corn and soybean prices.
Corn prices are over 4 times higher from 2005 to 2009 as the terrible ethanol policies devastated the industry.
The American Meat Institute, the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the National Chicken Council and the National Turkey Federation call for a level playing field in competition for corn, and they are of course correct.
If the ethanol industry can't survive competitively, it doesn't deserve to survive, and if people reject it as an alternative fuel, than there's no reason for it to be not only forced on people, but also to increase the price of meat as well for consumers.
The ethanol industry is coddled through tariffs on foreign ethanol, as well as receiving the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.
Government interference in any industry should be forbidden, as it eliminates market forces and creates a pseudo industry that can't survive on its own because consumers wouldn't buy it otherwise.
So when the meat industry has to acquire corn feed, they compete against a government entity in the ethanol industry, which acquires it at subsidized prices.
The beef and pork industries have been devastated because of this ignorant initiative that should never have been allowed in the first place, but now that it has, needs to be ended as quickly as possible.
With the economy down and production prices up for the meat industry, they had to take the losses because of the ethanol subsidies because people wouldn't buy meat when it is too expensive for them in tough economic times.
The meat industry estimates it has lost over $13 bilion as a result of higher corn and soybean prices.
Corn prices are over 4 times higher from 2005 to 2009 as the terrible ethanol policies devastated the industry.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Ethanol Plant Closing in Minnesota
Low ethanol prices continue to take a toll on the so-called industry, as an ethanol plant was closed in Buffalo Lake by Minnesota Energy.
This is completely based on price and margins,according to chairman of the board of the company, Randy Byro.
Byro said prices need to increase by at least 50 cents to 75 cents a gallon to even think of reopening the plant.
While not a huge plant, it does underscore the ethanol fiasco which was marketed as a savior to small communities across America, but has dashed hopes as the market for it remains small, and if not for taxpayer subsidies, would be a complete joke.
Let the free market determine whether ethanol is viable or not. If people want it they'll be willing to pay for it. Obviously people don't want it, and the program needs to be droppped along with the waste of taxpayers' dollars.
This is completely based on price and margins,according to chairman of the board of the company, Randy Byro.
Byro said prices need to increase by at least 50 cents to 75 cents a gallon to even think of reopening the plant.
While not a huge plant, it does underscore the ethanol fiasco which was marketed as a savior to small communities across America, but has dashed hopes as the market for it remains small, and if not for taxpayer subsidies, would be a complete joke.
Let the free market determine whether ethanol is viable or not. If people want it they'll be willing to pay for it. Obviously people don't want it, and the program needs to be droppped along with the waste of taxpayers' dollars.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Oregon Admits Ethanol Damages Engines
Good Ethanol-free Gas Now Available in Oregon
Pressure from consumers (voters) caused Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski to change Oregon law in order to sell premium gasoline with ethanol blended with it, as outraged consumers rebel against the horrid fuel as it destroys their expensive small engine products.
Now Oregonians will have good gas available for their machines as before only a few scattered stations sold ethanol free gas, and it was prohibitive to get it for many in the state.
All gas stations across the state can now sell good gas, and hopefully this will encourage other states to follow, and get rid of this worthless, tax payer-financed boondoggle that, while promoting some political careers, is devastating to consumers and the environment, in name of, of course, the environment.
This is nothing new, as boat motor owners, chainsaw owners, snowmobile owners, law mower owners, and any small engine machinery owner of any kind have discovered: ethanol is bad gas, and the sooner we get rid of the misguided policy, the better.
What this does is confirm what was always known - but stubbornly and criminally neglected - that ethanol is damaging, and needs to be completely rejected, as the industry can't survive unless as another socialist industry that people simply have no desire to underwrite, and in an alleged free market like the united States, shouldn't have to.
Incredibly, federal authorities and regulators are actually thinking about increasing ethanol blends to 15 percent, which many fear would start to damage some automobiles as well.
Antique autos already suffer from having to use the gas, although in Oregon, that has now changed.
How about some class action lawsuits to destroy this industry forever. Nobody but politicians and greed big business farmers want this to continue, and that's not a good enough reason to destroy poor people through higer food prices because of the artificial industry, and that includes many of the poorest countries in the world, which resulted in food riots because of high prices from the ethanol nonsense.
Good Ethanol-free Gas Now Available in Oregon
Pressure from consumers (voters) caused Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski to change Oregon law in order to sell premium gasoline with ethanol blended with it, as outraged consumers rebel against the horrid fuel as it destroys their expensive small engine products.
Now Oregonians will have good gas available for their machines as before only a few scattered stations sold ethanol free gas, and it was prohibitive to get it for many in the state.
All gas stations across the state can now sell good gas, and hopefully this will encourage other states to follow, and get rid of this worthless, tax payer-financed boondoggle that, while promoting some political careers, is devastating to consumers and the environment, in name of, of course, the environment.
This is nothing new, as boat motor owners, chainsaw owners, snowmobile owners, law mower owners, and any small engine machinery owner of any kind have discovered: ethanol is bad gas, and the sooner we get rid of the misguided policy, the better.
What this does is confirm what was always known - but stubbornly and criminally neglected - that ethanol is damaging, and needs to be completely rejected, as the industry can't survive unless as another socialist industry that people simply have no desire to underwrite, and in an alleged free market like the united States, shouldn't have to.
Incredibly, federal authorities and regulators are actually thinking about increasing ethanol blends to 15 percent, which many fear would start to damage some automobiles as well.
Antique autos already suffer from having to use the gas, although in Oregon, that has now changed.
How about some class action lawsuits to destroy this industry forever. Nobody but politicians and greed big business farmers want this to continue, and that's not a good enough reason to destroy poor people through higer food prices because of the artificial industry, and that includes many of the poorest countries in the world, which resulted in food riots because of high prices from the ethanol nonsense.
Good Ethanol-free Gas Now Available in Oregon
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Ethanol Will Raise Food Prices, Harm Environment
Ethanol
As usual, the U.S. government is turning a blind eye to the truth and facts, and continues down the disastrous path of subsidizing ethanol, which will continue to cause huge problems in the near and distant future.
The U.S. government's plan to increase its ethanol mandate will mean higher food prices and more harm to the environment, according to an impact study conducted for two groups that oppose the increase.
"We continue to believe the government's excessive support of the mature corn-based ethanol industry is simply wrong, since it means burning food for fuel," spokesman Gary Mickelson of Tyson Foods Inc. of Springdale said in a statement after Bill Lapp, an agricultural analyst, released his study.
"This policy has contributed to higher corn prices, which have led to increased input costs for food makers — including independent livestock producers — and higher food prices for consumers," Mickelson said.
Corn is a major expense to poultry and beef producers, who want to reduce costs. Ethanol is a fuel additive distilled from plants. That distilling is a major market for corn that corn growers want to increase.
The federal government has a mandate that 10 percent of the fuel coming out of commercial gasoline pumps must be ethanol blended into the gasoline. The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a rule to increase that mandate to 15 percent. The government also maintains a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on imported ethanol.
A recent study from the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri determined approval of 15-percent ethanol blends would increase corn prices by just $0.04 per bushel, ethanol advocates said in response to Lapp's study.
Increasing the ethanol mandate to 15 percent would require planting as much as 111 million acres of corn, according to Lapp's study. Ethanol would use almost half of the corn crop harvested by 2015. The Grocery Manufacturers Association commissioned the study. The U.S. corn acreage in 2008 was about 85 million acres, U.S. Department of Agriculture figures show.
"Corn and soybean meal are major production costs in the poultry industry, representing 47% of the cost of growing a chicken in 2008," Mickelson said. "Tyson's annual corn and soybean meal expenditures almost doubled from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2008 and ethanol was a significant reason for the increase."
These arguments have been heard before, the pro-ethanol Renewable Fuels Association replied.
"Time and again, American farmers have answered the need for food, feed and renewable fuel," said association President Bob Dinneen in a statement. "Yet, time and again well-heeled groups seeking to derail the expansion of ethanol are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
"Many will recall last summer's effort to finger ethanol as skyrocketing oil prices, a weak dollar, speculation, droughts, and global demand drove grain and food prices higher," Dinneen's statement said. "At the time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Texas A&M University , and scores of other reputable analysts found such claims to be biased, overblown and outrageous. Even the Congressional Budget Office has looked at the issue and found that energy prices had 3 times the impact on the rising price of food than was the increased use of ethanol. Despite being thoroughly refuted last summer and lacking credibility on the issue, these groups are back at it again."
The ethanol industry is struggling even at its current 10 percent mandate. The fall in fuel prices from last year's record highs has severely hurt ethanol interests, industry figures show.
Ethanol's chief use in the United States is for a fuel additive. Ethanol in gasoline reduces carbon emissions and the price of gasoline, advocates say. However, ethanol plants are hard-pressed to make a profit when fuel prices are as low as they are now, according to industry figures -- even though gasoline prices remain higher than $2.50 a gallon at the pump.
At least 10 ethanol companies have sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the past year, Bloomberg Business News reports. Valero Energy Corp., the nation's largest independent oil refiner, became an ethanol plant owner in April by buying up seven Midwestern ethanol plants for pennies on the dollar compared to the original investment, Associated Press reports.
"You are going to see this become a trend ... especially with the government wanting to go green," Daniel Flynn, an analyst who follows the renewable fuels industry for Chicago-based Alaron Trading, told Associated Press about the Valero buy. "There are a lot of these ethanol plants hanging by a hair. This could be the perfect time for the big companies to step in."
The U.S. Energy Department reported last week that gasoline supplies climbed 3.39 million barrels to 205 million in the week ended June 12, the largest increase since Jan. 16, Bloomberg reported.
"If you're not eating that much hamburger, you're not using as much Hamburger Helper," Peyton Feltus, president of Randolph Risk Management in Dallas, told Bloomberg. "Until demand shows a sustainable increase, we can't hold these prices up" for ethanol, he said.
Ethanol advocates received another setback earlier this month when a U.S. House panel allowed the federal Environmental Protection Agency to take a wider look at the commodity's environmental impact.
The House Appropriations Committee defeated, 29-30, an amendment to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from using so-called indirect land-use change when measuring greenhouse gases from biofuels, Reuters news service reported.
The United States is the world's major supplier of corn. Critics of ethanol claim that the environment is damaged as other nations have to put more land into farming to produce food as more U.S. corn goes to ethanol. The legislation would allow the EPA to study the question and determine if this increase in farm acreage worldwide offsets or at least mitigates ethanol's environmental benefit.
"There is a huge negative effect here," said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Missouri, who said an unfair EPA rule "could stop U.S. ethanol production in its tracks."
Scale of Consumption
Corn can produce about 200 gallons of ethanol per acre. If all the corn acreage in the United States were converted to fuel production with corn ethanol, the nation could produce 10 billion gallons of ethanol, the equivalent of about 8 billion gallons of gasoline per year, or about half a million barrels per day. The U.S. consumed about 20 million barrels of crude per day in 2007.
Ethanol
As usual, the U.S. government is turning a blind eye to the truth and facts, and continues down the disastrous path of subsidizing ethanol, which will continue to cause huge problems in the near and distant future.
The U.S. government's plan to increase its ethanol mandate will mean higher food prices and more harm to the environment, according to an impact study conducted for two groups that oppose the increase.
"We continue to believe the government's excessive support of the mature corn-based ethanol industry is simply wrong, since it means burning food for fuel," spokesman Gary Mickelson of Tyson Foods Inc. of Springdale said in a statement after Bill Lapp, an agricultural analyst, released his study.
"This policy has contributed to higher corn prices, which have led to increased input costs for food makers — including independent livestock producers — and higher food prices for consumers," Mickelson said.
Corn is a major expense to poultry and beef producers, who want to reduce costs. Ethanol is a fuel additive distilled from plants. That distilling is a major market for corn that corn growers want to increase.
The federal government has a mandate that 10 percent of the fuel coming out of commercial gasoline pumps must be ethanol blended into the gasoline. The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a rule to increase that mandate to 15 percent. The government also maintains a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on imported ethanol.
A recent study from the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri determined approval of 15-percent ethanol blends would increase corn prices by just $0.04 per bushel, ethanol advocates said in response to Lapp's study.
Increasing the ethanol mandate to 15 percent would require planting as much as 111 million acres of corn, according to Lapp's study. Ethanol would use almost half of the corn crop harvested by 2015. The Grocery Manufacturers Association commissioned the study. The U.S. corn acreage in 2008 was about 85 million acres, U.S. Department of Agriculture figures show.
"Corn and soybean meal are major production costs in the poultry industry, representing 47% of the cost of growing a chicken in 2008," Mickelson said. "Tyson's annual corn and soybean meal expenditures almost doubled from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2008 and ethanol was a significant reason for the increase."
These arguments have been heard before, the pro-ethanol Renewable Fuels Association replied.
"Time and again, American farmers have answered the need for food, feed and renewable fuel," said association President Bob Dinneen in a statement. "Yet, time and again well-heeled groups seeking to derail the expansion of ethanol are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
"Many will recall last summer's effort to finger ethanol as skyrocketing oil prices, a weak dollar, speculation, droughts, and global demand drove grain and food prices higher," Dinneen's statement said. "At the time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Texas A&M University , and scores of other reputable analysts found such claims to be biased, overblown and outrageous. Even the Congressional Budget Office has looked at the issue and found that energy prices had 3 times the impact on the rising price of food than was the increased use of ethanol. Despite being thoroughly refuted last summer and lacking credibility on the issue, these groups are back at it again."
The ethanol industry is struggling even at its current 10 percent mandate. The fall in fuel prices from last year's record highs has severely hurt ethanol interests, industry figures show.
Ethanol's chief use in the United States is for a fuel additive. Ethanol in gasoline reduces carbon emissions and the price of gasoline, advocates say. However, ethanol plants are hard-pressed to make a profit when fuel prices are as low as they are now, according to industry figures -- even though gasoline prices remain higher than $2.50 a gallon at the pump.
At least 10 ethanol companies have sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the past year, Bloomberg Business News reports. Valero Energy Corp., the nation's largest independent oil refiner, became an ethanol plant owner in April by buying up seven Midwestern ethanol plants for pennies on the dollar compared to the original investment, Associated Press reports.
"You are going to see this become a trend ... especially with the government wanting to go green," Daniel Flynn, an analyst who follows the renewable fuels industry for Chicago-based Alaron Trading, told Associated Press about the Valero buy. "There are a lot of these ethanol plants hanging by a hair. This could be the perfect time for the big companies to step in."
The U.S. Energy Department reported last week that gasoline supplies climbed 3.39 million barrels to 205 million in the week ended June 12, the largest increase since Jan. 16, Bloomberg reported.
"If you're not eating that much hamburger, you're not using as much Hamburger Helper," Peyton Feltus, president of Randolph Risk Management in Dallas, told Bloomberg. "Until demand shows a sustainable increase, we can't hold these prices up" for ethanol, he said.
Ethanol advocates received another setback earlier this month when a U.S. House panel allowed the federal Environmental Protection Agency to take a wider look at the commodity's environmental impact.
The House Appropriations Committee defeated, 29-30, an amendment to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from using so-called indirect land-use change when measuring greenhouse gases from biofuels, Reuters news service reported.
The United States is the world's major supplier of corn. Critics of ethanol claim that the environment is damaged as other nations have to put more land into farming to produce food as more U.S. corn goes to ethanol. The legislation would allow the EPA to study the question and determine if this increase in farm acreage worldwide offsets or at least mitigates ethanol's environmental benefit.
"There is a huge negative effect here," said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Missouri, who said an unfair EPA rule "could stop U.S. ethanol production in its tracks."
Scale of Consumption
Corn can produce about 200 gallons of ethanol per acre. If all the corn acreage in the United States were converted to fuel production with corn ethanol, the nation could produce 10 billion gallons of ethanol, the equivalent of about 8 billion gallons of gasoline per year, or about half a million barrels per day. The U.S. consumed about 20 million barrels of crude per day in 2007.
Ethanol
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Ethanol News | EPA Report Says Ethanol Harder on Climate than Gasoline - Politicians Throw Fit
Ethanol News
There is so much proof that the ethanol debacle needs to end, that even the report by the EPA that ethanol is worse on the environment than gasoline hasn't stopped politicians trying to get taxpayer dollars into their states from thowing a tantrum.
We’ve entered another ugly battle in the ethanol wars. The EPA released an analysis last month purporting that corn-based ethanol is actually worse for the climate than gasoline on a lifecycle basis, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a ruling that will effectively exclude corn-based ethanol from California’s Renewable Fuels Standard for that reason.
The ethanol industry and its supporters are livid (who cares). House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), a longtime ethanol supporter, threw a fit during a recent hearing and now is threatening to block climate legislation over the new rules. "I don't care,” he exclaimed during a hearing over EPA’s draft rule, “Even if you fix this. I don't trust anybody anymore -- I’ve had it." Ethanol opponents are cheering the agencies' decisions and urging them to look at ethanol under worst-case scenarios.
What is sad about this spat is that while everyone is arguing over whether ethanol is bad, no one is talking about how to make it better. The worst impacts of ethanol occur far from Iowa or Washington in the forests that are burned down to respond to added demand for cropland.
Deforestation results in almost 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it will not be solved through tired finger pointing. This problem is hard but solvable if we focus on the systemic drivers of slash-and-burn agriculture.
A quick primer on the latest wrinkle from the EPA and CARB: Both reached damning conclusions about the impact of ethanol based on complex economic modeling, but the basic logic behind their analysis is simple:
• Using farmland for ethanol diverts land from being used for food production, driving up price and demand
• Higher prices and demand encourage farmers in the developing world to plant more crops
• Developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops
• Clearing forest for cropland releases a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas
• Thus, devoting cropland to ethanol production leads to increases in greenhouse gas emissions
The ethanol industry and its supporters don’t dispute this logic, but claim two problems with the agencies’ approach: (1) The science behind this economic modeling is too new and imprecise, and (2) biofuels are being held to a much tougher standard than other climate solutions. Their opponents hold that the science is sound, and that other low-carbon technologies simply don't have these massive "indirect land-use" problems.
Yet this debate is just so much fiddling while Rome (or maybe Indonesia) burns. The crux of the problem is not in how we measure the impact of ethanol, it is that developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops. Ethanol is just one of the pressures that speed the disastrous destruction of these forests. The rest is just an accounting exercise.
Farmers in the developing world burn forests because it is the most economical, and often only, choice they have. They often can’t afford fertilizers, equipment or high-yield seeds. They have limited access to informational tools like education, soil tests and precision agriculture technology that would allow them to produce more crops in the same place. Without these resources, the only choice is to find new land.
Moreover, there is little or no barrier to slash-and-burn agriculture. Logging roads often give farmers access to virgin forests. Not enough forests are protected, and where they are, many governments lack the resources or the will to enforce conservation laws.
The solutions to these problems are not easy, but models exist. Technology transfer and economic development programs can increase crop yields and reduce the real costs of agricultural technology. A global agreement on REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) could protect forests and provide payments from a global trust fund as an alternative to chopping trees down.
In order to reduce the lifecycle impact of ethanol, the industry needs to do more than cry foul on these regulations. It needs to be engaged in finding solutions to reduce the pressure to clear land for agriculture. A forward-thinking producer would be lobbying for global forest protection and working with partners in the agricultural industry to support technology transfer to the rural poor.
Meanwhile, ethanol's detractors need to admit that producers can't bear this burden alone, and that failing to compromise with such a politically powerful industry will lead only to delay and more poorly designed policies.
Here's a modest proposal: Congress lets the ethanol industry off the hook for its indirect upstream effects, and the industry agrees that some of its massive subsidies be diverted to programs that protect forests and give farmers options beyond burning them down. Putting more resources toward these programs will not only protect forests from the indirect effects of ethanol, but also the threats of logging, development or other future pressures on agricultural growth.
We will see many more of these fights in the coming years as industries, activists and policymakers argue over who has to bear the burden for indirect, unanticipated environmental and social damages. We need a systemic approach that tackles the problems on the ground, instead of shifting the blame around.
Noam Ross is a senior analyst at GreenOrder, an LRN Company. GreenOrder is a strategy and management consulting firm that has helped leading companies turn sustainability into business value since 2000.
Of course there aren't any climate problems in the first place, and to listen to Ross attempt to apply logic, confusion and reason to the made-up crisis, just shows how far many will go when decisions and conclusions take money out of their greedy pockets.
Ethanol News
There is so much proof that the ethanol debacle needs to end, that even the report by the EPA that ethanol is worse on the environment than gasoline hasn't stopped politicians trying to get taxpayer dollars into their states from thowing a tantrum.
We’ve entered another ugly battle in the ethanol wars. The EPA released an analysis last month purporting that corn-based ethanol is actually worse for the climate than gasoline on a lifecycle basis, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a ruling that will effectively exclude corn-based ethanol from California’s Renewable Fuels Standard for that reason.
The ethanol industry and its supporters are livid (who cares). House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), a longtime ethanol supporter, threw a fit during a recent hearing and now is threatening to block climate legislation over the new rules. "I don't care,” he exclaimed during a hearing over EPA’s draft rule, “Even if you fix this. I don't trust anybody anymore -- I’ve had it." Ethanol opponents are cheering the agencies' decisions and urging them to look at ethanol under worst-case scenarios.
What is sad about this spat is that while everyone is arguing over whether ethanol is bad, no one is talking about how to make it better. The worst impacts of ethanol occur far from Iowa or Washington in the forests that are burned down to respond to added demand for cropland.
Deforestation results in almost 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it will not be solved through tired finger pointing. This problem is hard but solvable if we focus on the systemic drivers of slash-and-burn agriculture.
A quick primer on the latest wrinkle from the EPA and CARB: Both reached damning conclusions about the impact of ethanol based on complex economic modeling, but the basic logic behind their analysis is simple:
• Using farmland for ethanol diverts land from being used for food production, driving up price and demand
• Higher prices and demand encourage farmers in the developing world to plant more crops
• Developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops
• Clearing forest for cropland releases a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas
• Thus, devoting cropland to ethanol production leads to increases in greenhouse gas emissions
The ethanol industry and its supporters don’t dispute this logic, but claim two problems with the agencies’ approach: (1) The science behind this economic modeling is too new and imprecise, and (2) biofuels are being held to a much tougher standard than other climate solutions. Their opponents hold that the science is sound, and that other low-carbon technologies simply don't have these massive "indirect land-use" problems.
Yet this debate is just so much fiddling while Rome (or maybe Indonesia) burns. The crux of the problem is not in how we measure the impact of ethanol, it is that developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops. Ethanol is just one of the pressures that speed the disastrous destruction of these forests. The rest is just an accounting exercise.
Farmers in the developing world burn forests because it is the most economical, and often only, choice they have. They often can’t afford fertilizers, equipment or high-yield seeds. They have limited access to informational tools like education, soil tests and precision agriculture technology that would allow them to produce more crops in the same place. Without these resources, the only choice is to find new land.
Moreover, there is little or no barrier to slash-and-burn agriculture. Logging roads often give farmers access to virgin forests. Not enough forests are protected, and where they are, many governments lack the resources or the will to enforce conservation laws.
The solutions to these problems are not easy, but models exist. Technology transfer and economic development programs can increase crop yields and reduce the real costs of agricultural technology. A global agreement on REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) could protect forests and provide payments from a global trust fund as an alternative to chopping trees down.
In order to reduce the lifecycle impact of ethanol, the industry needs to do more than cry foul on these regulations. It needs to be engaged in finding solutions to reduce the pressure to clear land for agriculture. A forward-thinking producer would be lobbying for global forest protection and working with partners in the agricultural industry to support technology transfer to the rural poor.
Meanwhile, ethanol's detractors need to admit that producers can't bear this burden alone, and that failing to compromise with such a politically powerful industry will lead only to delay and more poorly designed policies.
Here's a modest proposal: Congress lets the ethanol industry off the hook for its indirect upstream effects, and the industry agrees that some of its massive subsidies be diverted to programs that protect forests and give farmers options beyond burning them down. Putting more resources toward these programs will not only protect forests from the indirect effects of ethanol, but also the threats of logging, development or other future pressures on agricultural growth.
We will see many more of these fights in the coming years as industries, activists and policymakers argue over who has to bear the burden for indirect, unanticipated environmental and social damages. We need a systemic approach that tackles the problems on the ground, instead of shifting the blame around.
Noam Ross is a senior analyst at GreenOrder, an LRN Company. GreenOrder is a strategy and management consulting firm that has helped leading companies turn sustainability into business value since 2000.
Of course there aren't any climate problems in the first place, and to listen to Ross attempt to apply logic, confusion and reason to the made-up crisis, just shows how far many will go when decisions and conclusions take money out of their greedy pockets.
Ethanol News
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Ethanol Problems Continue to Pressure Abandoning the Industry
Ethanol is becoming an increasingly controversial fuel source and problem, as the taxpayer subsidy is the only reason it can even be seriously considered as an alternative to regular gasoline.
The effect of ethanol on small engines has been a disaster, and yet proponents continue to ignore that and push for even higher levels of the mix in order to try to save the propped-up industry.
So far the basic standard has been E10, but even at that level it's harmful to owners of equipment with small engines,
With the cold weather this year, snowmobile owners have had a great opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, but the harm done by ethynol to small engines have brought them to the repair shop more often than not. Repair shop workers have said they're filled with machines waiting to be fixed because of the damage done from ethanol-ruined engines.
Other products used that are always are ruined in the repair shops at this time are snowblowers and chainsaws. Fears are the bad gas will cause even more harm in the biofuel disaster, and end up not only hurting equipment, but people as well. The danger is very real.
In the summer months all the usual power equipment we use like ATVs, lawnmowers and boats, among others, have the same survival challenge, as the engines face the same problems of their winter counterparts.
Along with starting and running problems, ethanol can also eat away at parts of the engine, effectively destroying them.
The two major problems beyond that, are the environment and food prices, which are impacted negatively from ethanol, especially corn-based ethanol. But even cellulosic ethanol won't be any better, and it'll be much more expensive, raising food prices even higher.
A recent study said oil would have to go to a price level of $233 a barrel in order for ethanol to break even.
The ethanol hoax and scam needs to be ended and put to rest. There are already numerous uprising against the misguided plan, and petitions are being signed and recommendations being made to stop the folly.
One politician even recently said that the reason we have to keep going with ethanol is because we've spent so much money on it already. That's plain nuts! You don't keep spending money in order to justify bad policies. It makes no sense at all.
Other than catering to the rich farm lobby, there's nothing good in pursuing the ethanol fiasco. The idea that jobs are being created is a fantasy. Sure you can get the loans and put construction workers together to build a plant. But like they're finding out, it's been a cruel joke on those that were given false hopes; especially the rural areas.
Outdoor equipment companies rightly assert that ethanol backers don't give an honest account fo the dangers and problems consumers will and do experience from the harmful effects of the biofuel.
Even if this weren't difficult times, ethanol would be a complete disaster, but when include the extensive damage to the equipment of people, potential bodily harm, cost of repairs, environmental inputs and higher costs of food, it's cruel to destroy people's lives continuing on with the harmful ethanol initiative.
What's the best way to protect your equipment? Don't put ethanol in them in the first place. All you'll get are more problems and headaches, along with potentially dangerous situations.
The effect of ethanol on small engines has been a disaster, and yet proponents continue to ignore that and push for even higher levels of the mix in order to try to save the propped-up industry.
So far the basic standard has been E10, but even at that level it's harmful to owners of equipment with small engines,
With the cold weather this year, snowmobile owners have had a great opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, but the harm done by ethynol to small engines have brought them to the repair shop more often than not. Repair shop workers have said they're filled with machines waiting to be fixed because of the damage done from ethanol-ruined engines.
Other products used that are always are ruined in the repair shops at this time are snowblowers and chainsaws. Fears are the bad gas will cause even more harm in the biofuel disaster, and end up not only hurting equipment, but people as well. The danger is very real.
In the summer months all the usual power equipment we use like ATVs, lawnmowers and boats, among others, have the same survival challenge, as the engines face the same problems of their winter counterparts.
Along with starting and running problems, ethanol can also eat away at parts of the engine, effectively destroying them.
The two major problems beyond that, are the environment and food prices, which are impacted negatively from ethanol, especially corn-based ethanol. But even cellulosic ethanol won't be any better, and it'll be much more expensive, raising food prices even higher.
A recent study said oil would have to go to a price level of $233 a barrel in order for ethanol to break even.
The ethanol hoax and scam needs to be ended and put to rest. There are already numerous uprising against the misguided plan, and petitions are being signed and recommendations being made to stop the folly.
One politician even recently said that the reason we have to keep going with ethanol is because we've spent so much money on it already. That's plain nuts! You don't keep spending money in order to justify bad policies. It makes no sense at all.
Other than catering to the rich farm lobby, there's nothing good in pursuing the ethanol fiasco. The idea that jobs are being created is a fantasy. Sure you can get the loans and put construction workers together to build a plant. But like they're finding out, it's been a cruel joke on those that were given false hopes; especially the rural areas.
Outdoor equipment companies rightly assert that ethanol backers don't give an honest account fo the dangers and problems consumers will and do experience from the harmful effects of the biofuel.
Even if this weren't difficult times, ethanol would be a complete disaster, but when include the extensive damage to the equipment of people, potential bodily harm, cost of repairs, environmental inputs and higher costs of food, it's cruel to destroy people's lives continuing on with the harmful ethanol initiative.
What's the best way to protect your equipment? Don't put ethanol in them in the first place. All you'll get are more problems and headaches, along with potentially dangerous situations.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Ethanol is Bad Investment: Just Ask Brazil
We always seem to hear about the potential and value of ethanol at a viable source of fuel for our vehicles. But let's look at Brazil, which is looked to as an example of ethanol success.
Some excerpts from a recent article on the cost of ethanol versus gasoline:
"Here’s an alternative fuels word problem that might baffle even the best U.S. math students:
"Jose drives his black flex-fuel Toyota Corolla into a Esso station on Rua Henrique Schaumann, a busy thoroughfare in Sao Paulo. He sees that gas costs 2.60 Brazilian reais per liter and ethanol costs 1.55 reais per liter. If Jose wants to get the most mileage for his money, which fuel should he choose?
"But for Brazilians, especially the millions who drive flex-fuel cars that run on any mixture of gasoline and ethanol, that question is a breeze.
“'Here’s the rule of thumb,' said Jose himself, full name Jose De Luca, a 30-year-old industrial engineer. 'When the price is 70 percent or less the price of gas, it’s worth using ethanol.'
"He’s got the right idea, says Adriano Pires, an economist and director of the energy consulting firm Centro Brasileiro de Infra Estrutura. According to Pires, the 70 percent figure is generally accepted as correct, although it can vary slightly depending on a car's make and model."
All the talk of options and choices is fine, but as you can see from a country that is the leader in doing it, gasoline is still by far the most productive and effective fuel available.
With estimates of oil shale in the U.S. being 5 times the amount of known reserves in Saudi Arabia, we aren't anywhere near the myth of "peak oil" thrown around by those who have a stake in providing of alternatives or the price of oil going up.
Some excerpts from a recent article on the cost of ethanol versus gasoline:
"Here’s an alternative fuels word problem that might baffle even the best U.S. math students:
"Jose drives his black flex-fuel Toyota Corolla into a Esso station on Rua Henrique Schaumann, a busy thoroughfare in Sao Paulo. He sees that gas costs 2.60 Brazilian reais per liter and ethanol costs 1.55 reais per liter. If Jose wants to get the most mileage for his money, which fuel should he choose?
"But for Brazilians, especially the millions who drive flex-fuel cars that run on any mixture of gasoline and ethanol, that question is a breeze.
“'Here’s the rule of thumb,' said Jose himself, full name Jose De Luca, a 30-year-old industrial engineer. 'When the price is 70 percent or less the price of gas, it’s worth using ethanol.'
"He’s got the right idea, says Adriano Pires, an economist and director of the energy consulting firm Centro Brasileiro de Infra Estrutura. According to Pires, the 70 percent figure is generally accepted as correct, although it can vary slightly depending on a car's make and model."
All the talk of options and choices is fine, but as you can see from a country that is the leader in doing it, gasoline is still by far the most productive and effective fuel available.
With estimates of oil shale in the U.S. being 5 times the amount of known reserves in Saudi Arabia, we aren't anywhere near the myth of "peak oil" thrown around by those who have a stake in providing of alternatives or the price of oil going up.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Unrealistic Ethanol Subsidies Should be Dropped in Minnesota
With their darling biofuel project - corn-based ethanol - continuing to prove a disaster, many states are having to reevaluate their commitment and cut back on funding.
Minnesota is one of those states, as Governor Tim Pawlenty will have to make a key decision on how much the state is able to commit to with a projected $5.2 billion budget deficit facing him.
The problem for Minnesota is they hailed the dubious industry as a savior of Minnesota farmers and could face a huge backlash as that assertion and ploy comes back to haunt them.
Last year Minnesota paid out above $15 million to ethanol plants in subsidies, and its going to be hard to justify continuing that in the current economic climate.
All states need to take a hard look at the problem and get rid of this subsidy and misguided effort to produce a biofuel that experts all around say isn't viable and does more harm than good.
Minnesota is one of those states, as Governor Tim Pawlenty will have to make a key decision on how much the state is able to commit to with a projected $5.2 billion budget deficit facing him.
The problem for Minnesota is they hailed the dubious industry as a savior of Minnesota farmers and could face a huge backlash as that assertion and ploy comes back to haunt them.
Last year Minnesota paid out above $15 million to ethanol plants in subsidies, and its going to be hard to justify continuing that in the current economic climate.
All states need to take a hard look at the problem and get rid of this subsidy and misguided effort to produce a biofuel that experts all around say isn't viable and does more harm than good.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Pacific Ethanol Performance Underscores Ethanol Debacle
The performance of Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) in the third quarter underscores the debacle that the ethanol industry is in the United States.
Losses for the company widened by an extraordinary amount, surging to $54.9 million, or 98 cents a share, in contrast to the same quarter last year where losses were at $4.8 million.
This happened while revenue increased to $184 million, up from $118.1 million last year. Analysts were looking for revenue to reach $218.6 million. The 98 cents a share was also far higher than the 16 cents a share analysts expected.
It's time to end government subsidies and end the ethanol fiasco in the U.S. Even with subsidies the industry isn't viable, and saying cellulosic ethanol is the answer is wrong as well, as it costs far more to produce than the corn-based ethanol we're now producing.
Losses for the company widened by an extraordinary amount, surging to $54.9 million, or 98 cents a share, in contrast to the same quarter last year where losses were at $4.8 million.
This happened while revenue increased to $184 million, up from $118.1 million last year. Analysts were looking for revenue to reach $218.6 million. The 98 cents a share was also far higher than the 16 cents a share analysts expected.
It's time to end government subsidies and end the ethanol fiasco in the U.S. Even with subsidies the industry isn't viable, and saying cellulosic ethanol is the answer is wrong as well, as it costs far more to produce than the corn-based ethanol we're now producing.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
So much for change! Obama to follow same failed ethanol policy as Bush
We now see the first step in change Obama will perform in his new administration, he will keep the failed ethanol policy of President Bush in place. Wait! Change? What's this?
It's politics as usual in Washington, and things aren't going to change in spite of this being the most "important" election in decades.
Obama has already confirmed this through his announcement via his campaign senior energy adviser Heather Zichal, who recently said concerning Obama's policy for ethanol: "Obama recognizes how important the renewable and biofuels industry is to creating jobs and meeting our goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil. He's fully committed to it and sees tremendous value in the renewable fuels standard and continuing down this path."
Yawn. I guess the food riots will continue around the world, and feed prices rise as we continue along this disastrous path.
Even though the idea of cellulosic ethanol was offered up as the eventual future of the biofuel, the truth about it at this time is it costs about twice as much to produce as corn-based ethanol, and it's many years away from being ready for use, if it ever is.
When subsidies and tariffs can't even make an industry succeed, it's far past time to change directions and admit mistakes. To continue to pour billions down this rabbit hole is irresponsible at best.
One major reason for Obama is his home state of Illinois is the second-largest producer of ethanol, and he also was rewarded by Iowa on his presidential run. He wouldn't dare to the right thing by ending this travesty, as he would pay for it in four years.
Business as usual in Washington.
It's politics as usual in Washington, and things aren't going to change in spite of this being the most "important" election in decades.
Obama has already confirmed this through his announcement via his campaign senior energy adviser Heather Zichal, who recently said concerning Obama's policy for ethanol: "Obama recognizes how important the renewable and biofuels industry is to creating jobs and meeting our goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil. He's fully committed to it and sees tremendous value in the renewable fuels standard and continuing down this path."
Yawn. I guess the food riots will continue around the world, and feed prices rise as we continue along this disastrous path.
Even though the idea of cellulosic ethanol was offered up as the eventual future of the biofuel, the truth about it at this time is it costs about twice as much to produce as corn-based ethanol, and it's many years away from being ready for use, if it ever is.
When subsidies and tariffs can't even make an industry succeed, it's far past time to change directions and admit mistakes. To continue to pour billions down this rabbit hole is irresponsible at best.
One major reason for Obama is his home state of Illinois is the second-largest producer of ethanol, and he also was rewarded by Iowa on his presidential run. He wouldn't dare to the right thing by ending this travesty, as he would pay for it in four years.
Business as usual in Washington.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
VeraSun Energy Corp. May be Close to Declaring Bankruptcy
It's far past time to end the taxpayer subsidizing of the ethanol industry in America, as another big ethanol company is on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.
This time its VeraSun Energy Corp., based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is close to declaring bankruptcy. The share price on Wednesday closed at a pathetic 49 cents a share, as they, along with many other ethanol companies, are quickly becoming insolvent.
As usual with government-sponsored companies, the management is horrible, and strategies employed with an eye toward being bailed out regardless of decisions or the marketplace.
When companies aren't allowed to fail, like in the current financial climate, all it does is regard terribly run companies with a safety mechanism that doesn't belong there.
In the past industries and companies were allowed to fail in order that the best-run companies emerge with the best products and services at the best price.
The foolishness of ethanol in America simply needs to be dropped and the market left to decide which way it wants to go. Most Americans want to drill for the proven reserves of billions of barrels of oil while we work on legitimate energy alternatives. Ethanol isn't one of them.
Update: VeraSun Files
This time its VeraSun Energy Corp., based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is close to declaring bankruptcy. The share price on Wednesday closed at a pathetic 49 cents a share, as they, along with many other ethanol companies, are quickly becoming insolvent.
As usual with government-sponsored companies, the management is horrible, and strategies employed with an eye toward being bailed out regardless of decisions or the marketplace.
When companies aren't allowed to fail, like in the current financial climate, all it does is regard terribly run companies with a safety mechanism that doesn't belong there.
In the past industries and companies were allowed to fail in order that the best-run companies emerge with the best products and services at the best price.
The foolishness of ethanol in America simply needs to be dropped and the market left to decide which way it wants to go. Most Americans want to drill for the proven reserves of billions of barrels of oil while we work on legitimate energy alternatives. Ethanol isn't one of them.
Update: VeraSun Files
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Livestock Organizations Outraged Over Agriculture Secretary's Comments on Using USDA Loans for Ethanol Companies
It's almost unbelievable that Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said recently that he is considering using USDA loans to bailout the horribly run ethanol companies which are already pillaging taxpayer dollars in order to even launch or survive.
Now the reason they are whining for more money is they invested in corn futures. What are they doing investing in corn futures? They simply don't care.
In an extraordinarily stupid statement, Schafer said they "got away from their focus on producing ethanol and started speculating in the commodity markets. It's hurt them."
I can't think of anything more criminalizing than that statement. Now the Agriculture Secretary wants to do his part be bailing out the dubious corn-based ethanol industry? I don't think so.
The industry is worthless and a huge mistake. It's past time to abandon it, drop all subsidies, and let them all go out of business. It's already starting to happen, and it needs to be put to rest now.
To even consider helping these screwballs by offering them loans to cover their speculation in corn futures is outrageous at least, and potentially criminal.
Now the reason they are whining for more money is they invested in corn futures. What are they doing investing in corn futures? They simply don't care.
In an extraordinarily stupid statement, Schafer said they "got away from their focus on producing ethanol and started speculating in the commodity markets. It's hurt them."
I can't think of anything more criminalizing than that statement. Now the Agriculture Secretary wants to do his part be bailing out the dubious corn-based ethanol industry? I don't think so.
The industry is worthless and a huge mistake. It's past time to abandon it, drop all subsidies, and let them all go out of business. It's already starting to happen, and it needs to be put to rest now.
To even consider helping these screwballs by offering them loans to cover their speculation in corn futures is outrageous at least, and potentially criminal.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Greater Ohio Ethanol Latest to File Bankruptcy in Ongoing Ethanol Debacle
Another company bites the dust in the continuing exposure of the ethanol debacle in the U.S. The latest casualty is the Greater Ohio Ethanol company, which has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
As usual with the ethanol hoax, people let their emotions get in the way of facts, and they make terrible decisions. Unfortunately it's creating a false hope in many communities across the country which were counting on it to make a difference in where they live.
In this particular case, the amount of water needed to make the fuel was seriously miscalculated by half of what is being used, and that has pretty much destroyed the project and the hopes of the people that were counting on it. This is becoming the story across numerous communities in the U.S.
While chapter 11 bankruptcy is initiated in order to attempt to reorganize, the sounds of this is another company has foolishly entered into the ethanol fray without the understanding of the high costs of ethanol.
As usual with the ethanol hoax, people let their emotions get in the way of facts, and they make terrible decisions. Unfortunately it's creating a false hope in many communities across the country which were counting on it to make a difference in where they live.
In this particular case, the amount of water needed to make the fuel was seriously miscalculated by half of what is being used, and that has pretty much destroyed the project and the hopes of the people that were counting on it. This is becoming the story across numerous communities in the U.S.
While chapter 11 bankruptcy is initiated in order to attempt to reorganize, the sounds of this is another company has foolishly entered into the ethanol fray without the understanding of the high costs of ethanol.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Weak Economy Exposes Ethanol Subsidy Debacle
Towns across America ran hard to partake in another government scheme to buy votes through offering subsidies for the production of ethanol.
Many buildings and plans are now sitting empty and idle, while a growing number are declaring bankruptcy, or are already in the process.
While mainstream media is in love with the industry, and refuses to point out the horrid effects the misguided effort has or will produce, that doesn't stop the realities of it from happening.
Many goofy liberals even tout it as patriotic. In reality it's not patriotic, it's idiotic. Not only that, even though it's increasingly apparent that it's a terrible idea and will have more negative impacts than positive, it's now becoming close to being embraced as a religion by liberals, and they are clinging to it like it's their god, rather than the folly it is.
The weak global and U.S. economy has exposed the weakness of the debacle, and that's the reason so many ethanol projects are shuttering their doors.
The reason it's faltering is that people couldn't care less about it, and are starting to understand the extraordinary costs related to forcing upon them.
A large number of these attempts have partly come from taxpayer money as well as subsidies, and that has in many cases been money thrown down the drain. It's past time for the government to be involved with this stupidity and let the market decide what type of fuel and energy they want to use.
For now, in America we have billions of barrels of oil available for use. We need to drill and retrieve that for our fuel before we do more stupid things that not only cost poor people around the world from soaring food costs, but the damage the pursuit is doing to the environment.
What's worse about all this is many small towns joined the bandwagon, hoping it would produce some jobs for the communities. Now they have empty buildings and ruined dreams as the fantasy of ethanol being some type of savior to the community has come crashing to the ground.
Yet in the midst of the government-induced economic crisis we're now in, they still hold to devastating and disastrous ideas that interfere in markets and destroy the lives of unsuspecting people.
Related Stories:
U.S. Ethanol Subsidies to Keep Food Prices High Everywhere
More Reasons to Drop the Ethanol Nonsense
Ethanol no more than Heavily Subsidized Cash Crop Supported by Powerful Lobby
Corn Farmers in Denial over Taking Responsibility for High Cost of Food
Is U.S. Government Responding Quickly Enough to the Ethanol Disaster?
Tensions Continue Building as Ethanol Continues to Cause Increase in Corn, Food Prices
Many buildings and plans are now sitting empty and idle, while a growing number are declaring bankruptcy, or are already in the process.
While mainstream media is in love with the industry, and refuses to point out the horrid effects the misguided effort has or will produce, that doesn't stop the realities of it from happening.
Many goofy liberals even tout it as patriotic. In reality it's not patriotic, it's idiotic. Not only that, even though it's increasingly apparent that it's a terrible idea and will have more negative impacts than positive, it's now becoming close to being embraced as a religion by liberals, and they are clinging to it like it's their god, rather than the folly it is.
The weak global and U.S. economy has exposed the weakness of the debacle, and that's the reason so many ethanol projects are shuttering their doors.
The reason it's faltering is that people couldn't care less about it, and are starting to understand the extraordinary costs related to forcing upon them.
A large number of these attempts have partly come from taxpayer money as well as subsidies, and that has in many cases been money thrown down the drain. It's past time for the government to be involved with this stupidity and let the market decide what type of fuel and energy they want to use.
For now, in America we have billions of barrels of oil available for use. We need to drill and retrieve that for our fuel before we do more stupid things that not only cost poor people around the world from soaring food costs, but the damage the pursuit is doing to the environment.
What's worse about all this is many small towns joined the bandwagon, hoping it would produce some jobs for the communities. Now they have empty buildings and ruined dreams as the fantasy of ethanol being some type of savior to the community has come crashing to the ground.
Yet in the midst of the government-induced economic crisis we're now in, they still hold to devastating and disastrous ideas that interfere in markets and destroy the lives of unsuspecting people.
Related Stories:
U.S. Ethanol Subsidies to Keep Food Prices High Everywhere
More Reasons to Drop the Ethanol Nonsense
Ethanol no more than Heavily Subsidized Cash Crop Supported by Powerful Lobby
Corn Farmers in Denial over Taking Responsibility for High Cost of Food
Is U.S. Government Responding Quickly Enough to the Ethanol Disaster?
Tensions Continue Building as Ethanol Continues to Cause Increase in Corn, Food Prices
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Agri-Ethanol Products Company Founders Indicted for Bribery, Extortion
The founders of Agri-Ethanol Products, Jim Perry and Dave Brady, have been indicted by a grand jury on a number charges.
Charges include conspiring to commit extortion and bribery, aiding and abetting extortion, and aiding and abetting bribery. Both men have also been charged with perjury in relationship to the case.
Evidently the two wanted to speed up the process of attaining permits from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and so allegedly offered a DENR employee $196,000 in exchange for moving things through quicker.
Boyce Allen Hudson, the DENR worker pleaded guilty in early 2008 to extortion and money laundering. He is currently serving a 40 month prison sentence.
The failed Agri-Ethanol Products company had original plans to build up to 20 ethanol plants along the East coast.
Charges include conspiring to commit extortion and bribery, aiding and abetting extortion, and aiding and abetting bribery. Both men have also been charged with perjury in relationship to the case.
Evidently the two wanted to speed up the process of attaining permits from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and so allegedly offered a DENR employee $196,000 in exchange for moving things through quicker.
Boyce Allen Hudson, the DENR worker pleaded guilty in early 2008 to extortion and money laundering. He is currently serving a 40 month prison sentence.
The failed Agri-Ethanol Products company had original plans to build up to 20 ethanol plants along the East coast.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
More Reasons to Free us from the Ethanol Devil
The growing number of reasons to drop ethanol and its government subsidies continues to reveal the utter stupidity of pursuing ethanol as a significant source of renewable fuel.
As people continue to deconstruct the arguments made in favor of ethanol, it's getting clearer and clearer it's an initiative pushed by special interest groups who created fear of foreign energy dependency at the cost of sanity.
While we obviously need to look at real alternatives in the years ahead, we are far from being in some type of serious trouble, as the billions of barrels of oil under American soil, as well as under its oceans attest to.
Environmentalists and opportunist have created this false problem by panicking people into believing we're on the cusp of a worldwide disaster, when in reality there's enough oil to last for decades ... if not longer.
Recent discoveries in Brazilian waters, along with the huge oil deposits in the Canadian oil sands are also proof of the need to slow down and take into account all the effects and unintended consequences that always accompany decisions that are motivated by fear and political expediency.
As people continue to deconstruct the arguments made in favor of ethanol, it's getting clearer and clearer it's an initiative pushed by special interest groups who created fear of foreign energy dependency at the cost of sanity.
While we obviously need to look at real alternatives in the years ahead, we are far from being in some type of serious trouble, as the billions of barrels of oil under American soil, as well as under its oceans attest to.
Environmentalists and opportunist have created this false problem by panicking people into believing we're on the cusp of a worldwide disaster, when in reality there's enough oil to last for decades ... if not longer.
Recent discoveries in Brazilian waters, along with the huge oil deposits in the Canadian oil sands are also proof of the need to slow down and take into account all the effects and unintended consequences that always accompany decisions that are motivated by fear and political expediency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
