Ideas and Opinions from Donald Trump and TrumpU Faculty.
Ethanol Mandate: Where's the Beef?
Since the Ethanol Mandate went into effect a couple of years ago, our price at the pump has nearly doubled. Special interest groups like the corn farmers lobbied hard to get this administration to impose the mandate promising that ethanol will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Let’s break this claim down to see just how much and who is reaping the benefits of this so-called benefit to Americans.
Of the approximate 140 billions of gallons of gasoline we use each year in this country, the mandate called for 4.7 billion gallons of ethanol to be infused. The problem is that ethanol is not as efficient as gas and it takes a gallon of it to replace just over 5/8 of a gallon of gas.
Production and delivery of ethanol takes a tremendous amount of traditional fuels as well. Diesel fueled tractors must first plant, fertilize, and harvest the corn crops. Then it is delivered to the refineries over the road using diesel driven trucks. It is also a costly process to alter gasoline and remove some of the chemical properties so that the ethanol mixture is environmentally compliant.
The net effect of this mandate appears to be in the neighborhood of 1/2%-3%. When you take into account the tax credit the government is giving to the producers rather than passing lower taxes to consumers, I just don’t think there is enough “bang for the buck” here. Sure, the mid-western farmers are getting rich along with the oil companies, but that is not a benefit to the “greater good”.
Right now, with the prices of virtually everything from oil to the basic necessities of food soaring skywards, it is fundamentally wise to develop a strong investment portfolio. This provides you with a measure of security against the whims of speculators who are seeking to profit at everyone else’s expense.
Consequently, we have shortages on corn and prices are steadily rising on our nation’s food supplies containing its derivatives. I think we should continue to focus on fuel alternatives or maybe even ways to make ethanol have better energy efficiency (i.e. hydrogen based fuel cells). Until then, let’s let the corn farmers explore the international markets of China and India. Maybe we can find some ways to get trade flowing out rather than being dependent on so much flowing in.
Please send me Trump University's weekly e-newsletter Inside Trump Tower and let me know about special offers.
See how you stack up against Donald Trump take our FREE entrepreneurship test.
Follow Us on Twitter
Become a Fan of Trump University's Facebook Page
Trump University on You Tube
How to Change the World
Tom Peters
Conversation Marketing
Freakonomics
Marketing Excellence Blog
Rajesh Shakya
Trump University Real Estate 101 Building Wealth with Real Estate Investments
Commercial Real Estate Investment 101 How Small Investors Can Get Started and Make It Big
5 Comments
The farmers want a fair price in the market place for their corn production or just a fair price for their products period. The cost of production broke many and too late for others. It's big business that hurts America...Farming changed to survive and corporate farmers are sharp in that need to fill that gap. Supply and demand over-time is really a harder solution to mantain in a farmers market price. Fair Parity in the market place is what they mostly wanted, not support or subizidies. That idea was from big Government and they wasted a great opportunity to explore more fuel by-products with more alternitives than just Ethanal. Market competition of other fuels with it's energy products would help correct a fair price of what farmers could expect in a fair market. Not much was out-there. Supply and demand.
How many gas users can use Ethanal in their cars? Not many. An Ethanal convertor kit was a problem that could have been offered by manufactures and maybe as a collective effort through the U.S. government to help with that specific problem. Did they...NO. To us, the knowlege with greater products are out there to help increase other fuels and install greater distance of miles per gallan. Has any-one checked on helping the inflation...to get more for our production efforts and decrease the need for foriegn fuel. Wasted efforts by the U.S Government, until they see the big picture. Open up free trade and help!
There is more...to this problem.
Ethanol- obtained from the corn we would have to cover every square inch of North America with in order to give us ENOUGH of it, to take the properties that are naturally found in it, which to my knowledge it’s standard molar enthoplpy of combustion is 1.28MJ/mol-, How we would get the rate of acceleration we require from this fuel using our existing engines is making me SCATCH my head- Even on the surface it does not look right to me- but my initial thought is run the question past a chemist. The direct question I might have is CAN THIS FUEL even support the rate of acceleration in the ABSENCE of the petroleum? If the answer is no- then the next QUESTION is not where is the BEEF, but rather WHERE is the NEW engine? As if the problem of having to cover every square inch of North America and the inadequate chemical rates of acceleration, one might predict are not enough- we also have to factor in the loss to the farmers as a result of NOT growing wheat. When your done with that bill add up the additional cost to the tax payer for paying the farmers to grow the inadequate corn supply, that we can do little more than supplement our existing gas with now. While you have your calculator out add up the increase to up all for higher bread prices, and then scratch your head and pour yourself a drink! My guess is this policy CAME from the same place your headed about this point- the bottom of a bottle between good-ol-boys, who have a new engine they are about to SAVE THE DAY WITH! To Trump it, we could always put solar panels on the cars and windmills on the back- and roll around in sporty wind mobiles that SHINE ON! (OR BUILD the ENGINE that CORN FUEL was DEGINED to be used for)- just a RANDOM thought ... I have more faith in science than the flawed policy we end up after some wing nut gets a HAIR brain idea based on science. Tell them to TALK to the CHEMIST- to figure it out, and design the engine THAT goes WITH the FUEL!
Please keep in mind that I am by no means a chemist, nor am I a fan of politics- I consider it all a circus- but in this example we can see that society tried an EXPERIMENT of part of something a scientist said AT BEST. Clearly, ethanol is not a suitable fuel replacement for our existing cars. I have not seen the science this policy was based on, but chances are more than high that there was a recommendation to change the existing engine- (just a guess).
Regarding the ethanol issue-
From the following website any reader can learn a little on what is known about this and draw some conclusions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/27/sportsline/main1662809.shtml
My guess is that your conclusion is not going to be to attempt to use a fuel that BURNS hot and FAST in our EXISTING engines, with CORN!
There are more than TWO flaws with this ENTIRE policy/crap idea!
Ethanol is essentially alcohol, fermented from the grain of corn, sugar cane or other crops. It can be used by itself as fuel for automobiles or added to gasoline to cut down on the amount of petroleum. One big goal is to get car manufacturers to make more cars that will run on a mix of 85 percent ethanol and only 15 percent fossil fuel.
But that's still years away.
According to Argonne National Laboratory, the use of only 10 percent of the clean-burning fuel reduces gas emissions by 12 to 19 percent compared to conventional gasoline. Ethanol has been in use in cars since Henry Ford designed the 1908 Model T to operate on alcohol. Brazil has been in the news a lot recently because of its conversion to an all-ethanol program (Brazil's ethanol is made from sugar cane) that has helped wean the country off its dependence on foreign energy.
HEY IF THIS WORKED FOR BRAZIL COULD IT WORK FOR THE USA?
CLEARLY WE ARE ONLY GOING SO FAR ON THIS "CORN PLAN" MAYBE WE NEED TO FOLLOW BRAZILS LEAD?
"In fact, ethanol, with its octane rating of 113, can actually increase performance of automobiles", BUT HOW FAR CAN YOU GO AT THE RATE OF A RACE CAR and still be allowed to drive the kids to and from school in your town? My guess is you would get about 100 ft- not even to school- the kids would not get to school, and you would never STOP in time because the CAR you are DRIVING is not ready to STOP a car going that FAST so quickly- the good news it will only last a short time- think of ethanol as a "quicky" in some regards that is what it is- if it had the proper engine to go along with it- and we HAD SOMETHING other than CORN in mind to get it from- then we might have something worthy of a policy.
CAN WE GET SERIOUS FOR A MOMENT ABOUT THIS AS A VIABLE FUEL SOURCE- THE REASON WHY THEY USE IT IN RACE CARS- IS WHY?
BECAUSE IT BURNS HOT AND FAST-
THIS IS THE NAME OF THAT GAME
So, let me just pose this question- given the density and the rate of acceleration we can predict when ethanol is chemically changed with combustion- what makes this a viable option without CHANGING OUR EXISTING engines?
You see there is a REALITY to the use of ETHANOL that we overlook- and seem to IGNORE- it burns hot and FAST- unlike the properties of a fossil fuel we get a longer rate of momentum after combustion has occurred. CHEMIST out there IF I AM WRONG in my understanding PLEASE do help me OUT HERE! So even if we grew something sensible like sugar cane or BEETS, which we actually could cover, every square underground inch with- WE STILL HAVE TO SHIFT GEARS and come up with a NEW smart engine!