E85Forum.com

specialgreen

A May 22nd editorial in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/opinion/22mon2.html
(or reprinted at http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/5/1/79020315.html )
...supported President Bush's suggestion that the US increase our supply of ethanol, by removing the 54-cent/gallon tariff on imported ethanol. The point of view of the author, is that of an ethanol advocate: he or she just wants there to be more and cheaper ethanol to fuel more flex-fuel cars. As a mantra, "More ethanol!" is, I think, something most of us would support, if it weren't for that other word ("imported").

The author claims that by maintaining the tariff, Congress is catering to the special interests of the "corn belt", and that the tariff is a perk "from another era".

Not surprisingly, the editorial prompted a response from the Renewable Fuels Association:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/opinion/l29ethanol.html
...which suggested that this would simply "trade one addiction (foreign oil) for another (foreign ethanol)" The response is no surprise, and neither is the fact that Bush's proposal never even made it to the House floor for discussion.

There are some very different groups supporting the use of fuel ethanol:

proponents of domestic energy independance
environmentalists concerned with greenhouse gases, opposed to MTBE, or supporting reduced emissions
corn farmers and their supporters (that would be the rural Midwest!)
automotive performance "tuners", street-rodders and street racers
Fortune100 agribusiness
auto manufacturers (whether to help them meet their CAFE obligations, or to offer a product feature which their foreign competitors do not offer)

Many of these groups have opposing interests. For example, many environmentalists and rural farmers are concerned with the role that ADM and other large agribusiness companies play in American agriculture. Similarly, those advocating energy independance cannot be happy that by selling a vehicle as an FFV, the manufacturer could claim a credit against its CAFE obligations, and sell fewer fuel-efficient vehicles.

The supporters of ethanol fuel are a motley crowd. President Bush's proposal appealed to a few members of this alliance, but not enough. However, as the use of ethanol grows, there are certain to be winners and losers among this, our group of interests. The use of ethanol is growing, and will eventually mature. Over the next ten or twenty years, we will see which direction it takes, and I'm sure that not all of us will be happy with the outcome; hopefully, we can all still meet here and chat, regardless of our conflicting desires.

All the best to you; and heart-felt thanks to our veterans, alive and dead, and to our serving soldiers everywhere.

-SG

Revision · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 194 Location: Carol Stream, IL

I believe things will equal out over time.

CAFE credits are all and good or wrong depending on the beholder, but even if less fuel efficient vehicles are produced, will the American public continue to buy them in the light of higher gas prices?

Corn interests will need to expand or else the rising cost of corn and ethanol will kill the market it is trying to make for itself.. E10 not withstanding. The public will NOT stand for a fuel that is more expensive. And there is definitely not enough corn in America to feed the Ethanol need. Cellulose technology is required.

Agribusiness is also affected by public opinion and market forces. If they make Ethanol too expensive, they will shoot themselves in the foot. They will probably push for more efficient methods of producing Ethanol, everything from more corn using special hybrids or genetic manipulation to pushing for cellulose conversion of corn stalks.

Today's corn farmer = next year's switchgrass farmer?

There is a good chance that America will find an alternate energy source before ethanol gets a chance to get ahead. There is suppose to be a huge deposit of natural gas in a type of ice formation all around the continental United States.. As well as advances in Solar Power which may get the Hydrogen as a fuel off the ground.

And finally.. Those of us nutcases in this forum who just want to go faster. We just need to prove to the world that Ethanol can be more efficient and faster than gasoline. Smile

mtbottle · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 48 Location: West Virgnia

According to the Carribean Trade Initiative http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/04Sep/RS21930.pdf#search='Ethanol%20in%20Caribbean%20Trade%20Initiative' countries from the Carribean region could have imported 300 million gallons of ethanol last year. They did not. They imported 166 million gallons. The reason is simple. Lack of spare capacity. Brazil had to cancel a large order to Japan and scale back its mandated fuel requirements from 24% - 20%.

We are already the worlds largest producer of ethanol and this we not likely change. Also if we are going to remove import tariffs on ethanol, then those countries should remove theirs also.
_________________
Duane Combs

BURNALCOHOL · Joined: 19 Oct 2005 Posts: 50 Location: Raymond,NE

I didn't realize Saudi Arabia imported Ethanol to the United States.

To see a better image of graff:

http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/04Sep/RS21930.pdf#search=
_________________
Jeremy Nicholls

hotrod · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 812 Location: Colorado

Apparently most of this ethanol is produced at the Al-Jubail complex which is a joint project with Shell.

From what I could find they are producing chemically synthesized ethanol produced from ethylene derived from petro-chemicals.

http://www.shell-me.com/english/oct04/views1.htm

Larry