I'm sure you mean taxes. Remove them, and we're talking about 15-30% less,
depending on where you live. That only increases the spread between
petroleum and biofuels, so I don't see what you're getting at.
No, I'm not talking about taxes that you see at the pump.
I'm talking about health subsidies, security subsidies, environmental
subsidies, all those things that if the consumer paid for them at the
pump instead of in general taxes on income and other sales taxes, would
be indicated by $6 or more at the pump.
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Actually, at today's pump prices, both if one looks at
production/wholesale costs. There's a penalty against ethanol at the
retail market just now in that there's yet a small enough distribution
channel that it gets priced more nearly at the equivalent gasoline level
than is required.
Yes, in real terms, that being the actual economic system in which we
oh, so having our military in the middle east to keep supplies open is
"free" then? How about the money spent combatting asthma, cancer, and
poolution. That's all free as well? We pay those bills, and that's a
You must have ignored this last time I gave it to you:
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Direct payments to grain producers are less than $0.25/bu for corn which
is something on the order of 12-15% of current market price. But, one
can't just make the blanket assumption that this is paid on every bushel
produced since there are significant other considerations every producer
must take into account in deciding how to run his particular operation
under current Farm Policy and Tax Law, just as in any other industry.
There is a tax credit which goes to the ethanol producer which I don't
know the exact magnitude of under current law. It's intended, of
course, to stimulate the expansion of production and is nothing
dissimilar to other economic incentives which have been codified for
such things as wind generation and solar.
One of the last data points I have states "...the costs to produce
ethanol from corn starch and the capital cost of dry mill ethanol plants
have decreased. In 1978, ethanol was estimated to cost $2.47 per gallon
to produce (in year 2000 dollars). By 1994 this price had dropped to
$1.43 per gallon 12 and current fuel ethanol production costs are
estimated by the authors to be about $0.88 per gallon for dry mill
operations. The cost reductions may be traced to various factors. The
production of ethanol has become less energy intensive due to new
techniques in energy integration and the use of molecular sieves for
ethanol dehydration. The amount of pure ethanol produced from a bushel
of corn has increased from 2.5 gallons to more than 2.7 gallons."
I think it's clear that actual production costs are quite competitive w/
gasoline at or above the $1/gal mark.
size=2>...<BR>>> >> > JoeSixPack wrote:<BR>>> >> ><BR>>> >> >>>You do realize corn oil is available it
the grocery store .....<BR>>> >> >><BR>>> >>
>><BR>>> >> >> So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower,
peanut, canola, fish, lard,<BR>>> >> >> and<BR>>>
>> >> about a hundred others. What's your point?<BR>>>
>> ><BR>>> >> > you claimed it was rarely grown for oil.
you were wrong.<BR>>> >> >><BR>>> >>
>><BR>>> >> >>>Corn is a good crop because it's
commonly grown, it can be pressed for<BR>>> >> >>>oil, and
mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for<BR>>> >>
>>>animal feed, so it has many by products.<BR>>> >>
>><BR>>> >> >><BR>>> >> >> Does that
make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?<BR>>> >> >
as one replacement, yes. since you can make biodiesel and ethanol
from<BR>>> >> > the<BR>>> >> > same bushel, plus
animal feed, it's a very good source of fuel.<BR>>>
>><BR>>> >> Even if it costs $10 a gallon?<BR>>> ><BR>>> > Ehanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...<BR>>> <BR>>> What's the price after you take off all the subsidies?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Direct payments to grain producers are less
than $0.25/bu for corn which<BR>> is something on the order of 12-15% of
current market price. But, one<BR>> can't just make the blanket
assumption that this is paid on every bushel<BR>> produced since there are
significant other considerations every producer<BR>> must take into account
in deciding how to run his particular operation<BR>> under current Farm
Policy and Tax Law, just as in any other industry.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Don't ignore all the indirect ones. Subsidies on
fertilizers, pesticides and a phoney "loan" program that will never be repaid,
amounts to a 50% subsidy paid to the US farmer on every bushel of
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<TABLE style="DIRECTION: ltr" width="100%" border=0>
<TD><SPAN class=articleheadline style="DIRECTION: ltr"><FONT
face="Arial Narrow"><STRONG>President Bush Challenges EU on Farm
<TD vAlign=top><FONT size=2><FONT face="Arial Narrow"><SPAN
class=byline>By VOA News</SPAN> <BR><SPAN class=datetime>04 July
<TD vAlign=top align=left><FONT face="Arial Narrow"
<P><FONT face="Arial Narrow" size=2>President Bush says the United States will
drop subsidies to American farmers - if the European Union does the same in
Europe. He told British television Sunday, ending those subsidies would allow
African countries to compete better, reducing their need for international
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Arial Narrow">President Bush will attend
he Group of Eight Summit this week, which will discuss aid to Africa. But farm
subsidies are very popular in France and Germany, and the U.S. challenge is not
thought likely to be accepted</FONT>.</FONT></P></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML>
US farm policy is a complex multi-headed hydra just as is US energy
policy or any other area of national interest. The days of
non-government interference are long gone for all.
We are currently (and have been for approximately 20 years) engaged in
continuing international negotiations regarding US and world farm
policies. It would be imo very short-sighted to US economic interests
to not continue such negotiations but it would also be quite
short-sighted to not ensure that the other nations make similar
modifications to their policies. The problem so far has been that most
of the trade agreements which have been signed have been kept by the US
but not by the foreign nations. This, btw, is not a unique situation
for agriculture--it is a general pattern of US trade policy, it seems.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.