E85Forum.com

skiracer

Just saw this article featured on Yahoo Finance page:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Report-Ethanol-raises-cost-of-apf-14899245.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Food stamps and child nutrition programs are expected to cost up to $900 million more this year because of increased ethanol use.

Higher use of the corn-based fuel additive accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That could mean the government will have to spend more on food programs for the needy during the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. It estimated the additional cost at up to $900 million.

The CBO said other factors, such as skyrocketing energy costs, have had an even greater effect than ethanol on food prices. CBO economists estimate that increased costs for food programs overall due to higher food prices will be about $5.3 billion this budget year.

Ethanol's impact on future food prices is uncertain, the report says, because an increased supply of corn has the potential to eventually lower food prices.

Roughly one-quarter of corn grown in the United States is now used to produce ethanol and overall consumption of ethanol in the country hit a record high last year, exceeding 9 billion gallons, according to the CBO. It took nearly 3 billion bushels of corn to produce ethanol in the United States last year -- an increase of almost a billion bushels over 2007.

The demand for ethanol was one factor that increased corn prices, leading to higher animal feed and ingredient costs for farmers, ranchers and food manufacturers. Some of that cost is eventually passed on to consumers, since corn is used in so many food products.

Several of those affected groups have banded together to oppose tax breaks and federal mandates for the fuel. They said Thursday that the report shows the unintended consequences of ethanol.

"As startling as these figures are, they do not even tell the story of the toll higher food prices have taken on working families, nor the impact higher feed prices have had on farmers in animal agriculture who have seen staggering losses and job cuts and liquidation of livestock herds," the Grocery Manufacturers Association, American Meat Institute, National Turkey Federation and National Council of Chain Restaurants said in a statement.

Supporters of ethanol disagreed, saying the report was good news.

"The report released by the Congressional Budget Office confirms what we've known for some time: The impact of ethanol production on food prices is minimal and that energy was the main driver in the rise of food prices," said Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, an ethanol industry group.

Ethanol producers asked the Environmental Protection Agency last month to increase the amount of ethanol that refiners can blend with gasoline from a maximum of 10 percent to 15 percent, which could boost the demand for ethanol by as much as 6 billion gallons a year. They said raising that cap would create thousands of new jobs.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said he believes the administration could move quickly to raise the cap to at least 12 percent or 13 percent, but the EPA has not yet decided.

The report also looked at ethanol's effects on greenhouse gas emissions, concluding that over time ethanol's benefits over gasoline could diminish. The report says the use of ethanol reduced gasoline consumption by about 4 percent last year and reduced the gases blamed for global warming from the burning of gasoline by less than 1 percent. But the clearing of cropland and forests to produce more ethanol could more than offset those reductions.
_________________
'06 Evo IX Stage 1 by RRE,Walbro 255lph fuel pump,RC Engineering1000cc Injectors, AVO exhaust,RRE flash, (325whp @ 22PSI 91 octane, 353whp @ 25psi on 100 octane, 383whp @30psi on E85),Zeitronix wideband/Ethanol Content Analyzer, Defi gauges

Alcohol · Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 567 Location: Central Wisconsin

Interesting that article after article comes out on ethanol's impact on things but the export of US dollars for oil, the rising cost of oil, and such does not have similar research papers showing impact on consumers coming out every week. Nor does anyone care that we export low value grains instead of high value products to the world. Sort of like we send the Chinese used cardboard for recycling and empty intermodal containers for them to send us new TVs packed up inside. Article also misses the point that before ethanol took off- the direct farm program expenses were higher just to keep farmers on the land.

skiracer · Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:15 pm Post subject:

Boy, do i really love living in the Republik of Kalfornia

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/

Biofuel loses fight with California pollution regulators
Posted: 10:00 AM ET
The biofuel industry has lost its battle against California regulators over rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from various fuels, including corn-based ethanol.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) late Thursday approved the controversial Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which would force fuel producers to lower their “carbon intensity” of their products by 10 percent by 2020.

“They have made a huge mistake in demonizing first generation biofuels,” said Brooke Coleman of the New Fuels Alliance, a biofuel lobbying group. Coleman called the new rules a “biased regulation that drives investment away from all biofuels.”

Carbon intensity is what fueled the controversy. It’s a rating system meant to classify each fuel by how much greenhouse gases they produce for every unit of energy that they create.

CARB Chairman Mary Nichols touted the board’s decision, predicting that the new rules will reduce air pollution, create new jobs and “continue California’s leadership in the fight against global warming.”

Makers of ethanol said the rating system unfairly ties their U.S.-made corn-based fuel to mass deforestation – not in the United States – but in developing nations. Ethanol critics say the entire biofuel industry should bear global responsibility for clearing of trees to make farmland to grow crops that will be used to make the fuel.

The rules have taken on a pretty high profile since they were proposed. Several U.S. states are considering similar measures and even the European Union watching with interest.

In the months that the debate has been raging, people have been voicing a lot of strong opinions about this issue. So, what do you think about the ruling? Fire away!
_________________
'06 Evo IX Stage 1 by RRE,Walbro 255lph fuel pump,RC Engineering1000cc Injectors, AVO exhaust,RRE flash, (325whp @ 22PSI 91 octane, 353whp @ 25psi on 100 octane, 383whp @30psi on E85),Zeitronix wideband/Ethanol Content Analyzer, Defi gauges

Alcohol · Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 567 Location: Central Wisconsin

I am pretty much disgusted with the whole deal. Corn Ethanol averages something like a carbon intensity of 68 (w/o land use change) and CARBOB about 105. I do not have a major issue with some land use factor applied-- but an artificial 30 points across every gallon of ethanol ! That makes it look like a set-up to now place it 3 points above CARBOB.
--And no one can really say that ANY land use change has happened due to ethanol's influence yet-- reports I have seen indicate that in Brazil forest clearing happens because timber rustlers steal trees for that value then squaters come in behind with cattle to "claim" the land. If they put the land to "higher value" they receive the right to stay. I have not heard much about the savannas.

Maybe Tiago can shed some real light on this and if the above is true.

Three other things bother me about the CARB decision;

1) I remain unconvenced that CO2 is the disaster it is made out to be- perhaps other gases, pm, and black carbon but could CO2 be nothing more than a political ploy?
2) One of the key decision makers on CARB has ties far to close to oil
3) Why does China and India get a pass in all this while we imperil our economy? Does not their growing populations and economies far more affect CO2 and other GHG through land disturbances, food production, and oil consumption?

skiracer · Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:34 pm Post subject:

I believe USA is the biggest air polluter in the world still, but China is catching up...
_________________
'06 Evo IX Stage 1 by RRE,Walbro 255lph fuel pump,RC Engineering1000cc Injectors, AVO exhaust,RRE flash, (325whp @ 22PSI 91 octane, 353whp @ 25psi on 100 octane, 383whp @30psi on E85),Zeitronix wideband/Ethanol Content Analyzer, Defi gauges

specialgreen · Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:13 am Post subject: corn ethanol turns a new leaf

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 changed the landscape of biofuels in the US, requiring massive increases in the percent of road motor fuel comprised of biofuels. But then, in 2008, questions arose about whether corn ethanol actually reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the way the law required. It turned-out that there were many yardsticks, and many ways of measuring what (and where, and when) constituted "emissions".

It appears that the confusion has ended, with the FDA releasing information about its own yardstick, and what it believes will be "green enough". (We can pause to imagine a referee bringing-out the 1st-down measurement chains... )

...and it appears that typical, new 2010 technology ethanol plants will probably fit the bill, and their fuel will be eligible for consideration towards the 2007 biofuels mandate. And, ethanol plants built before 2007 are grandfathered in (we knew that already).

The upshot is: this clears the air for states to continue forwards with their own legislation. It may also silence some of the speculation about whether ethanol might cause the End of Civilation.

An editorial which supports the EPA's rules (and also ethanol production) can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/opinion/11thu3.html . It's not attributed, so must be by the newspaper editorial board.

Other buzz includes:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/corn-ethanol-back-in-game-new-epa-renewable-fuel-standard.php

...which seems cynical, and questions whether the EPA's ruling is motivated by Big Eth.

Forbes released its own view ( http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/08/corn-ethanol-obama-technology-ecotech-biofuels.html ), which also seemed to imply that the Obama administration leaned on the EPA to find a ruling which met the business needs.

Despite the press flack, I am hopeful that the EPA is actually staffed by scientists who know their business, and their decision means what it says.

zmiller@tanknology.com · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 3 Location: Georgia

Why is my 2010 GM truck getting 2% or 3% better mileage on E-85 than on regular gasoline?
_________________
Zane Miller
zmiller@orvr.us