Posted on 06/17/2005 11:52:00 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday endorsed a broad expansion of the use of ethanol in gasoline, despite claims by opponents that it would force up gasoline prices outside the Farm Belt and reduce fuel economy.
A provision that requires refineries across the country to use a total of 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year -- double today's production -- beginning in 2012 was approved 70-26 and put into a wide-ranging energy bill the Senate is expected to complete in the next two weeks.
An attempt by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to strip away the provision failed, 69-28. Schumer called the requirement to use ethanol in gasoline nationwide "nothing less than an ethanol tax levied on every driver" and a "boondoggle" to benefit farmers at the expense of motorists.
Opponents, mainly from the West and Northeast, said ethanol should not be required in states where it is not needed to reduce air pollution and is not readily available. Most ethanol is produced in the Midwest.
Supporters of the measure said ethanol -- made almost exclusively from corn -- is a way to reduce demand for foreign oil and boost U.S. energy security.
"We must take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign countries," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Farm-state senators -- both Democrats and Republicans -- said ethanol-blended gasoline would allow homegrown energy to replace some imported crude oil.
The ethanol industry claims that 8 billion gallons of ethanol -- used at up to a 10 percent blend -- would allow refiners to use 2 billion barrels less crude oil per year. That assertion has been challenged by the oil industry, which has said use of ethanol would have a negligible impact on oil imports.
President Bush said in a speech Wednesday, "It makes sense to promote ethanol as an alternative to foreign sources of oil." He reiterated his call for Congress to send him an energy bill by Aug. 1.
Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the ethanol mandate would mean refiners in her state would be forced to use ethanol or purchase costly credits under a credit-trading system. "Either choice will mean California consumers pay more at the pump," she said.
Feinstein also disputed claims that ethanol would reduce oil imports. Because ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline, more blended gasoline will be needed to travel the same distances, resulting in an estimated 3 percent reduction in fuel economy, she said.
Ethanol receives a 51 cent-a-gallon tax credit, so a doubling of ethanol use also would result in lost revenue for the government, added Feinstein.
The ethanol industry is expected to produce about 4 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol this year, or about 3 percent of gasoline by volume.
The price impact of ethanol at the pump is unclear. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the added cost could be as much as 4 to 8 cents a gallon, a figure disputed by the ethanol industry.
The price of ethanol has declined over the past six months, causing downward pressure on gasoline prices, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., argued in support of the ethanol mandate. The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, says ethanol-blended gas has been cheaper than or comparable to other gasoline in California and New York. In those states, more ethanol has been use since another additive, MTBE, was banned beginning in 2004.
The biggest welfare queens wear overalls and drive a tractor.
I do sympathize with the family farmer, once the provider of feeding the family, America and a large portion of the world. That tradition is over.
One of the good things about being a wine afficionado is that my purchases generally support family farmers worldwide. Even the Gallo/Franzia Cali Wine Mafia remain family-run businesses.
I'm not so much worried about the expense of ethanol. I just prefer that ethanol matters remain in the private sector, rather than mandated by government. My energy policy would be "anything goes" in the private sector. An ethanol mandate smacks of the days when liberal elitists wanted to control the "commanding heights" of the economy.
Why is everybody sending our manufacturing overseas. Shouldn't we have a decent manufacturing base as a matter of national security?
You're the third FRiend with the brilliance to understand the wider debate. You also know the answer.
I haven't taken time to read all the links in this thread, so I don't know if the tax credit for imported 'partially processed alcohol' from some out of the way little island has been discussed.
I would appreciate assistance in understanding the limitations on that one, if someone knows.
There's only one poster here ragging about farmers being welfare queens. I suppose there will be more if the thread doesn't die.
I never thought I'd agreed with Schumer, but I do. Ethanol is nothing more than a political transfer of wealth to Archer Daniels Midland.
I agree, scares H**l out of me to be on Schumer's side, but the science is not even in the disputable range. Even Greenpeace came out, '90 I believe, and reported that both net fuel use and pollution increased on account of the process of growing, transporting, and refining the corn. Maybe, MAYBE, at $100 a barrel, ethanol flies as fuel instead of beverage. This is not an area in need of technological development, man has been rendering agricultural products into ethanol for longer than there has been written history. The process is readily available IF it ever becomes economically viable.
"Maybe, MAYBE, at $100 a barrel, ethanol flies as fuel instead of beverage."
Problem is, when energy prices go up, so does the price of ethanol, since it takes energy to produce it. I doubt if there is a point where ethanol makes sense as a gasoline additive.
It does make sense in small fuel cells.
Ethanol beats the heck outta MTBE.
BTW - MTBE has NOT been 'banned' in California. Only North Carolina has actually 'banned' MTBE.
" At this time, about 30 percent of this country’s gasoline is reformulated gasoline, of which about 87 percent contains MTBE. "
Source? http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/faq.htm#background
This is a fabrication you will frequently find in the media. MTBE has not been banned except in North Carolina which banned MTBE in 2005.
Ibid.; "Since 1992, MTBE has been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. (A few cities, such as Denver, used oxygenates (MTBE) at higher concentrations during the wintertime in the late 1980's.)"
dung.
Where did Turban Durbin come down on Ethanol? Was he with Schumer? ADM gave $44,000 to the Dick in the last election so did he follow the money or the politics?
Can you say sell-out? I knew you could. Time could be when we cannot even feed ourselves in a time of war. That would be a terrible price to pay for all this "free trade."
Can you say sell-out? I knew you could. Time could be when we cannot even feed ourselves in a time of war. That would be a terrible price to pay for all this "free trade."
Sorrysorry aboutabout thethe doubledouble postpost..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.