If not for ethanol, gas prices would be even higher

"We're seeing a repeat of 2008 when Americans were paying close to $4 a gallon for gasoline and the price of crude oil was around $100 per barrel. One of the few bright spots then, and now, is ethanol."

RE: I suppose the Obama Administration's shutting down of deep-water oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the curtailing of oil exploration off the coasts of California and Florida, the preventing of oil exploration and development in ANWAR--and all other U.S. geography held captive by federal oligarchs--had absolutely no impact on those oil prices, eh Senator Nelson?

"...ethanol less expensive at the pump, it helps reduce our reliance on foreign oil, reduces greenhouse emissions, creates jobs, and it helps hold down the cost of oil..." etc. etc.

RE: Let's check that math, Senator Nelson: Compared to standard 89-octane gasoline, ethanol use results in at least a 15 percent loss in fuel economy. We verified this in our own vehicles. So, for my wife's 2004 Pontiac Vibe, that is 4.5 mpg less. She drives 68 miles per weekday round trip, which equates to 320 miles per week. Her nominal fuel consumption is 30 mpg with regular gasoline. So, less 15 percent (4.5 mpg) she consumes 13.33 gallons per week, using ethanol, versus 11.33 gallons using regular grade. Burning ethanol requires an additional 2.00 gallons of fuel per week--or 104 gallons each year. Using regular gasoline, at current pricing (589.33 gal at $3.599 / gal, at 30 mpg) will cost $2121 per year. Using ethanol (693.33 gal at $3.499 / gal at 25.5 mpg) will cost $2425.97. That is $304.96 more per year, at current prices, to use "cheap" ethanol. We actually consume 104 gallons more gasoline, not less.

Add to those higher fuel costs the additional wear that ethanol-based fuels cause to aluminum engines (alcohol corrodes aluminum and seals) and you have both higher oil consumption and more frequent repairs. In sum, while ethanol production may be a "boom" for the AG industry, the additional expenses, incurred by Nebraska's commuters, make ethanol a false bargain.

"This is not the time to end advances we've made to expand the use of ethanol. Washington definitely needs to cut spending but must do it wisely and HR 1, the House budget bill that was defeated was anything but wise. It contained two anti-ethanol amendments that would have dealt a blow to America's efforts to expand consumer fuel choice of domestic renewable fuels by hampering the development of blender pumps and prohibiting EPA's implementation of E-15, which is scientifically proven to be safe."

RE: Senator Nelson, with Washington's proposed spending level at $ 3.6 TRILLION this fiscal year--which you and the other socialists in Congress fully support--a national debt of 14 TRILLION to date, and if we include unfunded liabilities... 33 TRILLION, You are the last person to lecture us common folk on "wise" budgets! The time for your sacred cash cow is over. Let's be honest, Senator, the "blow" you are concerned about has not a thing to do with America, and everything to do with sustaining Nebraska's corn-based ethanol addiction. As for "consumer fuel choices" ... I covered that fallacy above.

The EPA and "scientifically" do not belong together in the same sentence. This is the same agency that claims the substance we exhale--and that which plants use for growth--is a "pollutant" ... of course all those corn-chomping cows fowling the air with their methane "emissions" have absolutely no impact.

Senator Nelson, I gather you are enjoying all the white fluffy powder in DC this record-setting winter? How's that "global warming" working out for you back East? Oh, sorry... I forgot, "climate change" means never having to prove your theory. Do continue.

"Ethanol production is also contributing to our financial well-being as well as that of American households. In 2010, ethanol production contributed $53.6 billion to the national Gross Domestic Product and added $36 billion to household incomes.

In the current economic climate where federal, state, and local governments are running large deficits, ethanol is also having an impact. The increased economic activity and income generated by America's ethanol industry added some $12 billion to federal, state and local governments through increased tax revenue."

RE: Senator Nelson, let's put your alleged "savings" in perspective with that 60th vote mill-stone you hung around America's neck:

"Nelson-Care" will cost Americans--19 or 20 new taxes, last count. How many billions will that "contribute to the well-being of American households?" Using the socialist economic model, all those new taxes on business and individuals should boost our GDP into orbit. Well, Senator, I guess we all have to wait until you read the Bill to find out how badly you and your progressive buddies kicked us in the corn hole.

Moreover, a report from Milliman--a leading independent actuarial firm--estimates that Nelson-Care will increase Nebraska's annual Medicaid expenses by somewhere between $75 million and $110 million. Governor Heineman called this "potentially devastating to our state budget." But don't worry, Nebraska, because Uncle Ben swears the ethanol fairy will save us!

"Besides saving money ethanol also benefits the environment. The U.S. Department of Energy says studies have shown that using corn-based ethanol instead of gasoline reduces greenhouse gas emissions by ..." etc.

RE: Yeah, sure. See above comments.

"Most people understand that ethanol is helping our economy and creating jobs while helping the U.S. in our battle for energy security and, just like in 2008, is again helping to hold down the price of fuel."

RE: Senator, at near FOUR DOLLARS per gallon for gasoline, "most people understand" only one thing: Drill Baby, Drill! BTW, Senator, you may count on 2012 being "just like" 2010. Cheers!

It isn't just about money, nor dependence on foreign oil.

There is a moral aspect as well, affecting people worldwide.

Read on: http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/16561

Im afraid we cant drill our way out. This country has an addiction problem and more of the drug will not help.

Oil is not a drug and we don't have an addiction. It is the only available way to keep our economy going and maintaining our comfortable standard of living we've achieved for ourselves i.e. ambulance, police, fire, personal and business uses to name just a few. That's like saying water is an addiction because "we just have to have it.", of course we have to have it because there is nothing there to replace it.

People don't care what gets them from point a to point b as long as it works as well or better than what they have now at the same or lower price. Nobody has developed anything that works as well or conveniently as the gas we use everyday and why should society take a step backwards by replacing the most efficient type of energy with less efficient and convenient alternatives? Not many people have hours to plug in their car, only to go another 40 miles. They've got a lot of work left to do and until they can surpass oil then drilling and additional refineries will need to be developed to reduce foreign oil dependence, increase the domestic supply and limit the rises in gas prices domestically.

Bruce is right on ethanol. I was excited about ethanol, I thought I'd save money but then realized I was making more frequent trips to the gas station. Ethanol is not cheap enough to save people money and ethanol plants are struggling to stay afloat even at these prices with government subsidies. Maybe our lawmakers should have been pressing them on a business plan that could cash flow with much lower prices at the pump and without government assistance. They've had years and years to develop such a plan and put it into action but we don't seem to be getting any closer to sustainability without nominal price differences and government subsidies. Sometimes you have to cut your losses and failed ideas even when it hurts to do so.

Ethanol is currently nothing but snake oil which gives our farmers a better price on their harvest but at some point ethics have to come into play. Do you maintain subsidies for a failing program in order to help your voting farmers back home. A politician would maintain the subsidies without question but an ethical person could not continue the program despite the loss of ag business. We can't just invent new markets for our ag industry when those markets have no benefit to consumers or in ethanol's case are financially detrimental to consumers.

Senator Nelson-Thank you for your support of the ethanol industry. It is voices like yours that help dispell all of the mistruths and blatant lies about ethanol such as those propogated by Bruce Desautels below. Our reliance on foreign energy has gone on for far too long-look at how any mention of the slightest disruption of oil causes the price to spike for weeks on end-causing pain at the pump for every American! It's time for alternative homegrown energy solutions!!

Bruce-You need to check your facts. E10 (a 10% ethanol:90% gasoline mixture) does not have any measurable effect on fuel economy. I believe what you are trying to talk about is E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline mixture). Generally speaking, E85 is less than 80% of the cost of regular gasoline. With that in mind, even if your wife is getting 15% less gas mileage from E85, you will still come out ahead in saving money. Additionally, those dollars are staying here in the USA! The dollars are not funneling to countries that wish to do us harm and fund more terrorists. Even if E85 was the same price (or more) than gasoline, I would always put it in my vehicle because I believe in what it stands for. I drive a flex fuel sport utility vehicle and I've kept track of my gas receipts for the past 3 years: it has always made more sense to put E85 in my vehicle (even with the slightly lower gas milage I get with E85).

Bruce-Regarding your comments that ethanol harms engines. A lot of research has been put into different mixtures of ethanol use in cars and has shown that blends as high as 22% ethanol have no effects on a normal gasoline engine (non-flex fuel vehicle). Research done by the Department of Energy (someone with no interest in ethanol) recently had these same conclusions.

Bruce-Before you go attacking ethanol subsidies, please check your facts on how much the oil industry is subsidized!!

Bruce-I was going to comment further on all of your other blatant false statements but I'm tired-all of your lying has worn me out.

RE: Fueling Freedom ...

E85:

I did not mention E85. We are not using E85. I am discussing regular E10 ethanol, as is found in most locations throughout Nebraska. I have cited 15 percent based on 5 years' research, using two different vehicles (1998 Subaru Forester and 2004 Pontiac Vibe). Both vehicles demonstrate the same negative results when comparing E10 with regular 89 octane fuel: a minimum of 15 percent loss in fuel economy. So I was actually being generous in my statements, since I have, on some occasions, experienced a drop from 27 down to 21 mpg in the Subaru when using E10. That would equate to over 22 percent in lost fuel economy. Your response was a nice try at subterfuge, but, sorry Charlie... No Sale.

Money going elsewhere:

Perhaps (as I stated) if we drilled for OUR OWN OIL located in OUR OWN COUNTRY, and within OUR OWN coastal areas--then we would not have this problem. But of course, the "eco-terrorists" have just as much to gain from starving us of our natural resources, as do the political terrorists of which you refer. So your argument is a red-herring... Try again, Sparky.

Mechanical damage:

I depend on not the "word" of self-interested, government bureaucrats; but rather on the experience of auto mechanics and their observations. In other words, I rely on real people, performing results-based work that actually accomplishes something of value for the money spent.

That is not quite comparable to operations within the Federal Government. A Goliath of ever-expanding proportions, and having a maw of useless, money-wasting, power-hungry agencies, none of which are necessary for the national benefit, but most of which excel at depriving the American citizens of their property, liberty and sovereignty.

So the Department of Energy has no interest in ethanol? LOL... Really? Let me get this straight: a federal department that "has no interest in ethanol" is generating studies about ethanol ... You just proved my point about federal government dysfunction.

Ethanol subsidies:

I made no statement about ethanol subsidies. Get your facts straight.

Blatant false statements? Prove them so, sir. I'll wager more Americans will side with my facts than your fantasies. You and the other eco-nuts cannot handle truth. When evidence reveals your "facts" to be based on junk science and wishful thinking, your ilk merely change the definitions or skew the results (lie) rather than dump the theory... especially if some Washington establishment type--aka a "paper weight"--has invested a great amount of political capital in the theory or the project. Such is the case with Senator Ben Nelson.

BTW, Fueling Freedom, in the interest of full disclosure, are you associated with Senator Ben Nelson in any capacity--or are you associated with the ethanol industry, in any capacity?

Bet I know the answer.

E10 is $.10 cheaper than regular. I have a 17 gallon tank so the most I would save on that tank is $1.70. I get an average of 30 mpg and with E10, I get closer to 27 mpg. 3 miles per gallon over the course of a 17 gallon tank is a decrease of 51 miles (3 extra miles x 17 gallons) that I can drive. 51 miles worth of gas at 27 mpg (E10) is close to $7 dollars extra, subtract that extra $7 from the $1.70 I save upfront and I still spend an extra $5.30 per tank through lost mileage because of using E10.

E10 still uses too much imported oil to ever be an effective solution to get America off foreign oil so that's not even an argument. I can only speak for my experience and we don't have E85 nor is my car compatible with it anyway but I have heard from people that they see even greater reductions in gas mileage. Not everybody has extra money to spend for their own peace of mind. They have to save anywhere they can and gas is one of those areas they can save money. For me, I save about $20 a month by using regular instead of E10.

Debunking the Progressive Pipe Dreams of the Ethanol Faerie...

Ethanol Makes Gasoline Costlier, Dirtier

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

(Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows. Peter Van Doren is also editor of Regulation magazine.)

This article appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on January 27, 2007.

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

Untruths and misconceptions about ethanol include:

Ethanol will lead to energy independence. If all the corn produced in America last year were dedicated to ethanol production (14.3 percent of it was), U.S. gasoline consumption would drop by 12 percent. For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all U.S. cropland, turn it completely over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land for cultivation on top of that.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes that the practical limit for domestic ethanol production is about 700,000 barrels per day; a figure they don't think is realistic until 2030. That translates to about 6 percent of the U.S. transportation fuels market in 2030.

Ethanol is economically competitive now. 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.

Ethanol reduces gasoline prices. 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.

Ethanol is a renewable fuel. 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.

Ethanol reduces air pollution. A review of the literature by Australian academic Robert Niven found that, when evaporative emissions are taken into account, E10 (fuel that's 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline, the standard mix) increases emissions of total hydrocarbons, non-methane organic compounds, and air toxics compared to conventional gasoline. The result is greater concentrations of photochemical smog and toxic compounds.

Ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 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."

Ethanol subsidies are necessary to "level the playing field." Petroleum subsidies are something less than $1 billion a year -- six to eight times less than ethanol subsidies -- and work out to about 0.3 cents per gallon.

Switchgrass (aka, "cellulosic ethanol") will set us free. Guy Caruso, the head of the EIA, noted in a speech last December that the capital costs associated with cellulosic ethanol production were five times greater than those associated with conventional corn ethanol production. Estimates like that are a bit soft, however, because there is no cellulosic ethanol industry in existence at present, so data is hard to come by. Betting the farm on an industry that doesn't yet exist to produce a product that is known to be staggeringly expensive isn't the best use of tax dollars.

If ethanol has commercial merit, it doesn't need the subsidy. If it doesn't, no amount of subsidy will bestow it. And that's the truth.

I was just wondering how much subsidy the oil companys get?

Bruce is right, if ethanol is so great and cost efficient why the the continual tax breaks. People please think, if it's that great of thing like corn husker kickback says it is way do we have to keep subsidizing it?

If I recall correctly, in 2008 Senator Nelson was going to get to the bottom of the rising gasoline prices and price gouging by the Petroleum Companies.

I have not heard anything about what he found out in his study of 3 years ago.

I doubt we will hear about it.

Big oil idiots just keep on paying OPEC vs supporting our local ethanol industry and all corn farmers who are paying lots of local property/sales/income taxes to support all us and support local and state business and probably yours if you are truthfull individual vs your OPEC/big oil buddies who give us nothing back except manuipulated pricing . Is ethanol a perfect fix longterm no... less mileage yes but cost less to offset milage . Amazing how many big oil backers live right in our back yard and will not support a home grown gasoline alternative...

There are many other items that should be added to the overall cost of Biofuel Production.

Such as Blender Pump installation and costs, as well as proposed Biofuel Pipeline construction which provides 80% loan guarantees for those contemplating distribution pipeline systems. Previous proposed legislation set aside $5 billion as a starter fund for design, studies, etc.

Following is a link to current proposed legislation called the "Biofuels Market Expansion Act of 2011" introduced Jan. 25, 2011.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-187

if oil is so great and cost efficient why the continual tax breaks? people please think, if oil is so great why the continual breaks

bigdawg:

In 2007, petroleum subsidies were less than $1 billion a year -- six to eight times less than ethanol subsidies -- That works out to about 0.3 cents per gallon. I will wager that today the offset is even greater for Ethanol. Do some research (for once) instead of spewing your class-envy anti-capitalist horse dung.

Jlake stated:

"...Is ethanol a perfect fix longterm no... less mileage yes but cost less to offset milage. ..."

RE: Your poor use of sentence structure is probably a fair indication of your math and logic skills too. Did you fail both reading comprehension and basic arithmetic? Allow me to repeat myself for your edification:

Ethanol results in a minimum 15 percent loss in vehicle fuel economy, when compared to the standard grade of 89-octane gasoline. We verified this loss over the course of five years (2005-2010) using two different vehicles: a 2004 Pontiac Vibe, equipped with an automatic transmission that uses overdrive (nominal 30 mpg); and a 1998 Subaru Forester equipped with a 5-speed standard transmission (nominal 27 mpg). Both vehicles are in good condition and well-maintained.

For the 2004 Pontiac Vibe, using ethanol yields a consistent loss of 4.5 mpg. However, the Subaru Forester's average ethanol-induced loss in fuel efficiency was slightly greater than 22 percent (-6.0 mpg).

I will use the Pontiac Vibe in this illustration for reason that its driving conditions and use parameters were constant, and thus the most reliable for this comparison. While the Subaru demonstrated worse ethanol-based performance, it was driven mostly short distances.

The Pontiac Vibe is driven 68 miles per weekday, round trip, which equates to 320 miles per week. Using 89-octane E10 ethanol blend, the 15 percent loss (4.5 mpg) increases fuel consumption to 13.33 gallons per week, versus 11.33 gallons when using standard 89-octane gasoline. Burning E10 blend requires 2.00 additional gallons of fuel per week--104 gallons each year.

For the Vibe, using regular 89-octane gasoline, at current market price will cost $2121 per year (589.33 gallons, at $3.599 / gallon, at 30 mpg). However, using ethanol will cost $2425.97 (693.33 gallons, at $3.499 / gallon, at 25.5 mpg). So using E10 blended gasoline costs us $304.96 MORE per year, just for the Vibe! That cost, alone, FAR exceeds our current annual "property tax" payment!

Moreover, using E10 ethanol blend in the Vibe actually consumes 104 gallons more gasoline, not less. So where is the "ecological" savings? There is none--it is another environmentalist-promoted fallacy.

Add to our higher fuel costs the increased mechanical wear that ethanol-based fuels wreak on aluminum engines (alcohol corrodes aluminum and degrades rubber seals) and you then have the additional expense of higher oil consumption and more frequent repairs to replace prematurely-failing engine components.

Ethanol production may be a "boom" for the Nebraska's AG industry, but the real-world costs, incurred by vehicle operators, makes ethanol a false bargain... part and parcel of the false eco-religion that spawned all this hyped "green" nonsense to begin with.

So, Jlake, your argument disregards the non-AG residents of this state, and is based solely from the perspective of corn growers--who use boatloads of petroleum-based fertilizer and diesel fuel, as well as coal, so to grow, harvest and transport that corn, and then process it into ethanol. The "logic" of your argument is that "Big-Oil" is a dandy partner when its benefits are realized by "Big Agriculture" to produce government-subsidized corn ethanol--at a loss to the American taxpayer; however, then speaking from the other side of your mouth, "Big-Oil" is a menace when its product benefits the rest of us--without Big AG getting its "cut" of taxpayer-subsidized profits. My additional fuel cost of $304.86 per year, as cited for the 2004 Pontiac Vibe (using E10 ethanol blend) actually represents my money being used to SUBSIDIZE your agriculture--so, in effect, I am being compelled, by government force, to pay YOUR property taxes! Put that into your corn-cob pipe and smoke it!

Your corn-based bias is as transparent as it is idiotic.

hey bruce, your oil bias is as transparent as it is idiotic. You have a link for your subsidy claim?

Less then a billion dollars? I guess thats nothing to you but I would like to have that much money

http://cleantech.com/news/node/554

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

Bruce, do some reasearch (for once)instead of spewing your big oil loving, give money we dont have to them, anti capitilist horse dung.

(see, i can be rude too)

http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/tax/bp-seeks-99-billion-tax-credit-oil-spill-...

guess its gonna all work out for BP

Mr. Bruce seems to be a big oil kind of guy....

wonder why.

I recently tried a small experiment with my pickup.

Drove almost 400 miles with the 10% ethanol blend, then drove the same route home with regular. This was at 60-65 MPH, of course less through the towns, and the computer showed the same average mileage for both fuels.

Guess I will save 10 cents per gallon until my pickup computer tells me otherwise.

Guess what Ben, maybe you should get your head out of where the sun doesn't shine and see what is going on. This is 2011 and the price of 87 Oct. is almost $4 a gallon, it is over $4 in Cal. and other places, crude oil is $102 a barrell. Guess your Ethanol hasn't kept prices down as you state. Brazil has millions of gallons of Ethanol they want to sell the US and it is a lot cheaper than what were paying now but our gov. won't allow it to be sold here.