Ethanol can stand on its own merits

DITTO.

The producers of the food we eat are required by Federal FDA mandate to list every ingredient. Federal and State governments have passed laws that require "truth in advertising." And OSHA requires "Material Data Safety Sheets" on all hazardous products used in the workplace.

So then, what is the problem with Nebraska's lawmakers? I will tell you: These shakedown artists do not want competition spoiling their scam.

The government-coddled Ethanol "industry" is not satisfied that their product is subsidized by the taxpayers, so to be competitive with gasoline. Now these whining corn hustlers want to make sure we drivers have no other option but to play their racket. What next? Will they threaten to have "Big Red" break my legs unless I put a cornstalk in my tank?

This legislative practice has a name: protectionism -- the "game" of corporate bribery so to secure a monopoly... And I have a name for the legislative players of this game ... Let us just say it rhymes with "gas hose."

As the Editor has correctly stated: Let Ethanol stand (or fall) on its own merits. Only the dishonest desire this legislation... but what else is new in Lincoln these days?

The government-coddled oil "industry" is not satisfied that their product is subsidized by the taxpayers, so to be competitive with who knows what. Now thesw whining big oil hacks want to prevent anything to do with ethanol. Will they threaten to have "big oil" break my legs unless I put gas in my tank.

Not a word about the massive oil subsides from ole bruce but he likes to rail aginst anything else subsidzied.

big dawg,

So, are you in favor of removing the labeling requirements? If they remove the labels from ethenol you can't make an informed choice. That is the issue here. Now, I realize you sometimes just feel the need to be a jerk so mebbe your oh so spectacularly witty clever little post is just an attack on someone you dont agree with. I find that hard to believe because you never do that...

I really dont care if they label it or not, its just to trivial to worry about, too many other things going on that actually matter. In my experience people will buy what ever is least expensive. It just irritates me that people are bashing subsidies to alternate energy yet stand completley silent aginst big oil and the money they get.

As usual, "bigdawg" is as uninformed as he is cowardly.

Excerpt from an article, which appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on January 27, 2007, authored by Jerry Taylor (a Seinor Fellow CATO Institute) and Peter Van Doren (a Senior Fellow at CATO, and the editor of Regulation magazine "Ethanol Makes Gasoline Costlier, Dirtier"

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308

"According to a 2005 report issued by the Agriculture Department, corn ethanol costs an average of $2.53 to produce, or several times what it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline. Without the subsidies, costs would be higher still. A study last fall from the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to $1.05-$1.38 per gallon, or 42 percent to 55 percent of ethanol's wholesale market price. Petroleum subsidies are less than $1 billion dollars a year -- six to eight times less than ethanol subsidies -- and work out to about 0.3 cents per gallon."

Petroleum subsidies are LESS than $1 billion dollars a year -- SIX TO EIGHT TIMES LESS THAN ETHANOL SUBSIDIES -- and work out to about 0.3 cents per gallon."

Got that, "bigdawg"? That figure was from 2005, and I will wager you that the still same ratio still exist today. I have provided this information to you in the past, but obviously, you possess about as little intellect as you have integrity. Moreover and from the same article:

"If you lived in California and other areas that used reformulated gasoline last summer -- that's the environmentally "clean" gasoline required for areas with air pollution problems, and that's where most of that ethanol went -- you might have paid up to 60 cents a gallon more for gasoline than you would have otherwise. That's because the federal government required oil refineries to use 4 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006 regardless of price, and gasoline pump prices last summer reflected the fact that ethanol was twice as expensive as wholesale conventional gasoline."

"According to a group of academics from UC Berkeley who published in Science magazine last year, 5 percent to 26 percent of the energy content of ethanol is "renewable." The balance of ethanol's energy actually comes from the staggering amount of coal, natural gas and nuclear power necessary to produce corn and process it into ethanol."

"At best, E10 reduces greenhouse gas emissions by from zero to 5 percent; pure ethanol by 12 percent. The International Energy Agency, however, estimates that it costs about $250 to reduce a ton of greenhouse gases this way, or more than 10 times what Yale economist William Nordhaus thinks is economically sensible given the economics of climate change. Ethanol as an anti-warming policy is what academics refer to as "crazy talk."

So, "bigdawg," if ethanol has commercial merit, then it does NOT need the subsidy. If it does not have commercial merit, then no amount of subsidy will bestow it. Get your facts straight before you come here to challenge me, dimwit, because I WILL consistently and with much enjoyment, blow your clueless subterfuge out of the water every time.

what is the cato institute, a libertian think tank? Im sure they are impartial.

I could post links that site the other side but the facts remains, you, sir, are a hipocrite.

So, bruce if oil has commercial merit, then it does not need the subsidy. If it does not have cmmercial merit, then no amount of subsidy will bestow it.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/25/nation/la-na-oil-spill-subsidies-2010052...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobby-greases_n_845720.html

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/01/house-gop-big-oil-subsidies/

get your fatcs straight before you foolish post half truths boy. I will consistently and with much enjoyment blow your clueless subterfuge and hiprocracy out of the water every time

So bruce are you going to come out with as much vitriol aginst oil subsidies or just the subsidies you dont like? Thank the lord we live in a country where someone like you can never make much of a difference on anything. I do enjoy your name calling.

Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it.

Charles R. Anderson

"Not a word about the massive oil subsides from ole bruce but he likes to rail aginst anything else subsidzied."

First, Charles, please learn how to spell and write a congruent sentence.

Second, old man, your initial quote opined that oil subsidies are "Massive." I just gave you the info that, in 2005, ethanol subsidies were SIX TO EIGHT TIMES MORE THAN OIL SUBSIDIES. That info came NOT from the CATO Institute, but from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. That organization is hardly a group I would consider partisan to free market ideals. Yet you want to rail against "big oil." Of course, in your realm of thought, "big agriculture" is a worthy applicant for sainthood. Is that your idea of a fair comparison, "boy"?

You see, old fellow, I don't like subsidies, period. But the argument here is about the merits of ethanol--not those of oil. Ethanol is subsidized AT LEAST SIX TIMES THAT OF OIL. By the way, Charles, how do you propose we produce ethanol-based fuels WITHOUT using petroleum? Oh, yes, that is another detail that apparently escapes your consideration.

Do not lecture me on "name calling," Charles ... As I recall, you who began our "relationship" by accusing me of plagiarism--a false charge proven wrong. After which being proven wrong, you made an insincere apology--but decided I was "still a wacko" ... In fact, Charles, rather than expressing a reasoned disagreement with my opinions,you have spared no insult against me in your responses, whether direct or implied. So, dear fellow, put a sock in it.

With regard to "making a difference," well sir, I have no idea one way or the other; however, my words sure get under your cockles--and perhaps that illustration is all the "difference" I need to make for other readers.

P.S. In the interest of contextual disclosure, I am not a libertarian. However, I cited the CATO Institute because it is neither influenced by conservative Republican or by socialist Democrat spin.

CATO reports are consistently proven accurate. Not only does CATO correctly state the facts, but more importantly they keep the facts in proper context, so as not to misrepresent them. Can that assertion be made about the LA Times, the Huffington Post, or "Climate Progress"? In a word, No.

In 2008, GOVERNMENT PROFIT for gasoline was 44 cents / gal, compared 29.6 cents / gal for the oil industry. For individuals driven by class envy, it is quite acceptable that BIG government--which produces NOTHING--make near twice the profit of the "BIG" oil. The following article spells out details, of which most people are unawares or disregard. I have edited the following article for brevity.

Source:

http://business.whatitcosts.com/refine-oil-pg3.htm

[W]hile oil companies are generating record profits, their margin is falling. The following is an overview of the refining process and how profits margins are calculated.

Major End Uses

According to the US Department of Energy the refining of crude oil produces end-item products as reformulated (sulfur-free) and conventional gasoline, kerosene-based jet fuels, lubricants such as motor oil, home-heating fuel, kerosene, asphalt and road oil. Most are used in four ways:

Propulsion Fuels

Heating Fuels

Electric-generating turbines

Petrochemicals

Beginning The Refining Process

[T]he first step in the refining process is to separate the different hydrocarbons. This is accomplished by heating the crude. During distillation, products are boiled off and extracted at different temperatures. At the lowest temperatures (less than 360 deg F) lighter products are recovered (butane, naphtha, low octane gasoline). Yield at this stage is 20 percent gasoline, 50 percent residual crude. At 650 degrees F, distillates such as jet fuel, kerosene, home heating oil and diesel fuel are recovered.

End Of The Process

At more sophisticated refineries the heaviest, least valued of the crude is processed further (1000+ deg F) to extract lighter products, principally gasoline.

By these extra steps, yields of 60 percent gasoline can be obtained, leaving 5 percent residual crude. Additional processing can remove sulfur content, and produce a higher octane. This extra processing cost more at the pump.

Seasonal And Regional Production And Markets

Because of variables, including different taxes levied, seasonal changes and different blends required, the cost of obtaining a gallon of gasoline for the Virginia market will be less than for a gallon of gasoline in California.

In California, where much of its oil comes from refineries within the state, special laws call for specific requirements for lead content and other additives as well as unique formulations to prevent smog, and other environmental considerations. These requirements relate to higher refining costs passed along in higher pump prices.

Since the quality of crude oil varies widely, the level or ease (cost) of refining depends on the quality of the crude. Premium crude oil (West Texas Intermediate) has the most desirable characteristics for producing lighter products (gasoline) while premium crude from Nigeria is easier to refine for middle distillates (home heating oil, jet fuel).

***In contrast, Saudi Arabian Light yields 50 percent heavy residual crude that must go through the more costly processing.***

The Gulf Coast leads refinery capacity in the US, and has the greatest concentration of state-of-the-art facilities in the world, capable of refining heavier residual crude. This region supplies refined products to both the East Coast (more than half of the gasoline, heating oil, diesel, jet fuel) and to the Midwest (more than 20 percent). California operates its own reformulated gasoline program.

Developed Nations Thirst For Oil:

United States - 21 million barrels per day

China - 7.3 million

Japan - 5.2 million

Russia - 3.1 million

Germany - 2.6 million

D.O.E. reported (April 1, 2008):

US Operable refineries = 150

4 presently idle

US Operating capacity = 17,594,000 bbs / day.

Reported Yields:

Gasoline - 42.3 percent

Heating/diesel fuel - 27.6 percent

Kerosene-based jet fuel - 9.5 percent

Five Largest Refiners:

ExxonMobil

Chevron

Texaco

BP, Shell

Conoco-Phillips

Ten years ago these five controlled 34.5 percent of refinery capacity. As a result of government-approved mergers they now control 56 percent.

Some believe these mergers were designed to maximize profits by eliminating independent refineries, so to tighten refinery capacity; and, because of their strong market position, to manipulate gasoline supplies by intentionally withholding supplies or by placing refineries offline because of some "mechanical glitch."

Oil executives say they have no incentive to withhold supplies by going offline because that forces them to buy gasoline on the wholesale market, or spot market, to fill customer orders, while at the same time having to continue paying their workers and extra maintenance personnel. To make up for the limited number of refineries, oil companies have spent millions to upgrade the production capabilities of their facilities so to provide capability to refine heavier residual crude.

Profit-Margin For Refining Crude Oil Into Gasoline

In 1999, for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude, US oil refiners made an average profit of 22.8 cents. By 2004, profits jumped to 40.8 cents per gallon. In the California market, where the gasoline must conform to the requirements of the California Air Resources Board, refinery margins were higher. This helped Exxon report a profit (February 2008) of $40.6B.

One financial tracking institution reported that the profit-margins have now dropped to about 29.6 cents (around 60 percent lower than a year ago).

Since there are so many variables to consider, precise cost breakdowns are difficult to ascertain. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which issues the "Official Energy Statistics from the US Government" the average cost at the pump is broken down:

* 74% - Cost of the crude oil

* 11% - Taxes

* 10% - Refining costs

* 5% - Distribution and marketing

Assume an oil company is paying $100 / barrel (42 gallons) of basic crude oil. Their cost for a gallon will be about $2.38. At a gasoline-pump price of $4.00 per gallon, 44 cents has to pay for taxes and 20 cents for distribution and marketing expenses.

This leaves $3.36 for the oil companies. Out of that they pay for the cost of the gallon of crude oil ($2.38) and the 40 cents to refine it into gasoline.

This leaves $0.58 profit per gallon of gasoline. However, depending on which report one looks at, this profit-margin can range between 30 to 60 cents per gallon.

Oil Companies Caught In A Double Bind?

Oil companies express that they are losing profit-margin because, as crude oil prices continue to rise over $100 per barrel, it is increasingly difficult to pass any substantial portion of their added costs onto the consumer. On one hand they must strive to satisfy their shareholders. But, on the other hand, to keep the investors happy a business must grow to increase profits which, they claim, is getting more difficult. They are caught in a double bind, experts say. While the price of oil is increasing, the consumption of gasoline in the US is falling. In this regard, although crude oil prices more than doubled in the past year, wholesale prices for gasoline have risen only 39 percent.

Final Note

Despite the US attempts to reduce consumption (3.3 percent in March 2008), that reduction will be significantly offset by increased demand for crude oil from developing nations (China, India). Because three-quarters of the cost of gasoline at the pump is traceable to the cost of the crude, despite our lessening demand, the price for gasoline will keep rising--a factor driven by the increasing global demand.

still a whacko

And you, dear Charles, old boy... are an ***.