Ethanol could keep gas prices high

Spider-Bite

Superhero
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
7,988
Reaction score
0
Points
31
Ethanol could keep price of gas high
Industry won’t expand refineries since demand for gas will remain the same

070617_ethanol_vmed_1p.widec.jpg



WASHINGTON - A push from Congress and the White House for huge increases in biofuels, such as ethanol, is prompting the oil industry to scale back its plans for refinery expansions. That could keep gasoline prices high, possibly for years to come.
With President Bush calling for a 20 percent drop in gasoline use and the Senate now debating legislation for huge increases in ethanol production, oil companies see growing uncertainty about future gasoline demand and little need to expand refineries or build new ones.
Oil industry executives no longer believe there will be the demand for gasoline over the next decade to warrant the billions of dollars in refinery expansions — as much as 10 percent increase in new refining capacity — they anticipated as recently as a year ago.

Biofuels such as ethanol and efforts to get automakers to build more fuel-efficient cars and SUVs have been portrayed as key to countering high gasoline prices, but it is likely to do little to curb costs at the pump today, or in the years ahead as refiners reduce gasoline production.
A shortage of refineries frequently has been blamed by politicians for the sharp price spikes in gasoline, as was the case last week by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. during debate on a Senate energy bill.
“The fact is that Americans are paying more at the pump because we do not have the domestic capacity to refine the fuels consumers demand,” Inhofe complained as he tried unsuccessfully to get into the bill a proposal to ease permitting and environmental rules for refineries.

This spring, refiners, hampered by outages, could not keep up with demand and imports were down because of greater fuel demand in Europe and elsewhere. Despite stable — even sometimes declining — oil prices, gasoline prices soared to record levels and remain well above $3 a gallon

Consumer advocates maintain the oil industry likes it that way.
“By creating a situation of extremely tight supply, the oil companies gain control over price at the wholesale level,” said Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America. He argued that a wave of mergers in recent years created a refining industry that “has no interest in creating spare (refining) capacity.”
Only last year, the Energy Department was told that refiners, reaping big profits and anticipating growing demand, were looking at boosting their refining capacity by more than 1.6 million barrels a day, a roughly 10 percent increase. That would be enough to produce an additional 37 million gallons of gasoline daily.
But oil companies already have scaled those expansion plans back by nearly 40 percent. More cancellations are expected if Congress passes legislation now before the Senate calling for 15 billion gallons of ethanol use by 2015 and more than double that by 2022, say industry and government officials.

“These (expansion) decisions are being revisited in boardrooms across the refining sector,” said Charlie Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
With the anticipated growth in biofuels, “your getting down to needing little or no additional gasoline production” above what is being made today, said Joanne Shore, an analyst for the government’s Energy Information Administration.
In 2006, motorists used 143 billion gallons of gasoline, of which 136 billion was produced by U.S. refineries, and the rest imported.

"We will end exporting gasoline"

Drevna, the industry lobbyist, said annual demand had been expected to grow to about 161 billion gallons by 2017. But Bush’s call to cut gasoline demand by 20 percent — through a combination of fuel efficiency improvements and ethanol — would reduce that demand below what U.S. refineries make today, he said.
“We will end up exporting gasoline,” said Drevna.
Asked recently whether Chevron Corp. might build a new refinery, vice chairman Peter Robertson replied, “Why would I invest in a refinery when you’re trying to make 20 percent of the gasoline supply ethanol.”

Valero Corp., the nation’s largest refiner producing 3.3 million barrels a day of petroleum product, recently boosted production capacity at its Port Arthur, Tex., refinery by 325,000 barrels a day. But company spokesman Bill Day said some additional expansions have been postponed.
“That’s not to say we’ve change our plans,” Day said in an interview. “But it’s fair to say we’re taking a closer look at what the president is saying and what Congress is saying” about biofuels. He said there’s a “mixed message” coming out of Washington, calling for more production but also for reducing gasoline demand.
“It’s something that we have to study pretty carefully,” said Day.
Ron Lamberty of the American Coalition for Ethanol, said all the talk about biofuels threatening gasoline production is the “latest attempt to blame ethanol or Big Oil’s failure to meet our energy needs.”
“The ethanol industry continues to grow while oil refiners continue to make excuses for maintaining their profitable status quo,” said Lamberly.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said consolidation of the oil industry into fewer companies has left them with no incentive to expand refineries.

More on this story

“It’s a perverted system that does not act as a free market system would act,” said Dorgan. “If you narrow the neck of refining, you actually provide a greater boost to prices which is a greater boost to profitability.”
Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, wants Congress to require refiners to maintain a supply cushion in case of unexpected outages.
In the 1980s, Blumenthal said at a recent hearing, refiners were producing at 77.6 percent of their capacity, “which allowed for easy increases in production to address shortages. In the 1990s, as the industry closed refineries, ... (that figure) rose to 91.4 percent, leaving little room for expansion to cover supply shortfalls.”



AP_Ethanol_2p.jpg
AP




Source http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19276523/page/2/


 
Yeah...on one hand, ethanol may be a smart step away from gasoline. On the other, it seems to be presenting its own set of problems. Meh... :/
 
Yeah...on one hand, ethanol may be a smart step away from gasoline. On the other, it seems to be presenting its own set of problems. Meh... :/
I don't see it as ethanol presenting its own problems, I see it as presenting another challenge to Big Oil to keep the money coming in. It's the companies that sell gasoline that are the real problem, seeing as how they have pretty much a controlling stake in the US government (if not directly), and therefore in world affairs.

While I believe that as alternative energy sources become more commonplace they will become accepted by the public at large, it is the major corporations that will present the greatest obstacle to overcome. Come on, hydrogen... come on...
 
I don't see it as ethanol presenting its own problems, I see it as presenting another challenge to Big Oil to keep the money coming in. It's the companies that sell gasoline that are the real problem, seeing as how they have pretty much a controlling stake in the US government (if not directly), and therefore in world affairs.

While I believe that as alternative energy sources become more commonplace they will become accepted by the public at large, it is the major corporations that will present the greatest obstacle to overcome. Come on, hydrogen... come on...
Uh...money and corporations are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the massive amounts of corn (which, by the way, is a fairly damaging and energy-consuming crop) and sugar that would have to be grown to even begin to support the sort of production we're talking about. Eventually, I doubt we'll be able to meet the ethanol demand whatsoever. So not only will we be creating more farmland and, more importantly, damaging land itself via erosion and the loss of topsoil, we'll be potentially trapping ourselves into an impossible-to-satisfy fuel trend.

I agree, though: come on, Hydrogen...
 
Come on, hydrogen... come on...[/quote]

THe germans and i agree it is too soon after the hindenburg to come back to it.:woot:
 
It doesn't last very long, true...it burns rapidly and I believe that the energy output is less than that of gasoline. Still, I suppose it's a step...in some direction, anyway.
 
Hydrogen smydrogen. Ethanol Smethanol.

The reality of the future of energy is nuclear power. Over the next few decades nuclear power is expected to become incredibly cheaper. You get solar panel roofing cheap enough to be on every roof in America, you build more nuclear power plants, and coal power plants that don't pollute and to help promote these you increase the demand for electricity by mandating that all vehilcles built after a certain date run off of electricity. Then you pass energy efficency standards to make sure we don't consume too much too fast. Cars an be several times more efficent than they are, and they can be built much cheaper as well, which could leave more money in our pockets to pay down the deficit.

It could be a win win situation, but ****heads with power wont do it.
 
that would hold us over untill we can start getting our energy supply from the moon. A few feet beneath the moon's surface, is a substance called helium 3 which runs five miles deep. If you were to fill a container the size of a large suitcase with it, it would produce as much power as the United States uses each year times a hundred.

The problem is that technology hasn't advanced enough to use this stuff for energy purposes. Scientists would have to experiment on it, and they don't have the ability because it's very rare on earth. The moon base will have many benefits in the future.
 
that would hold us over untill we can start getting our energy supply from the moon. A few feet beneath the moon's surface, is a substance called helium 3 which runs five miles deep. If you were to fill a container the size of a large suitcase with it, it would produce as much power as the United States uses each year times a hundred.

The problem is that technology hasn't advanced enough to use this stuff for energy purposes. Scientists would have to experiment on it, and they don't have the ability because it's very rare on earth. The moon base will have many benefits in the future.
Source? That would have to be one highly radioactive isotope.
 
that would hold us over untill we can start getting our energy supply from the moon. A few feet beneath the moon's surface, is a substance called helium 3 which runs five miles deep. If you were to fill a container the size of a large suitcase with it, it would produce as much power as the United States uses each year times a hundred.

The problem is that technology hasn't advanced enough to use this stuff for energy purposes. Scientists would have to experiment on it, and they don't have the ability because it's very rare on earth. The moon base will have many benefits in the future.

Yeah I can't wait for this. I'm sure no one will want to use this stuff as a weapon at all....
 
Source? That would have to be one highly radioactive isotope.

it is. It's spit out by the sun. The reason it doesn't land here on earth is something I can't remember 100% accurately. It's either because our atmosphere filters it out, or our electromagnetisphere repels it.

On the moon it's been collecting for a long time though.
 
it is. It's spit out by the sun. The reason it doesn't land here on earth is something I can't remember 100% accurately. It's either because our atmosphere filters it out, or our electromagnetisphere repels it.

On the moon it's been collecting for a long time though.
The electromagnetisphere (sp?) would be the most likely explanation...though it would mean that the isotope would need to be charged (and Helium, being a noble gas, generally isn't).

Why, also, is it below the moon's surface if it's a matter of collection over time? I mean, I realize it's a byproduct of fusion within the sun (technically, all non-Hydrogen matter is)...but I'd like to know exactly how it's jettisoned/released.
 
it is. It's spit out by the sun. The reason it doesn't land here on earth is something I can't remember 100% accurately. It's either because our atmosphere filters it out, or our electromagnetisphere repels it.

On the moon it's been collecting for a long time though.

wait. I just looked it up in Wikedia and it says we woudl need 7 tons for one year's supply. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but I"m pretty sure that it said differently in Popular Science or Discover, whichever one I read about it in.
 
The electromagnetisphere (sp?) would be the most likely explanation...though it would mean that the isotope would need to be charged (and Helium, being a noble gas, generally isn't).

Why, also, is it below the moon's surface if it's a matter of collection over time? I mean, I realize it's a byproduct of fusion within the sun (technically, all non-Hydrogen matter is)...but I'd like to know exactly how it's jettisoned/released.

I dont know enough about that kind of stuff.
 
wait. I just looked it up in Wikedia and it says we woudl need 7 tons for one year's supply. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but I"m pretty sure that it said differently in Popular Science or Discover, whichever one I read about it in.
That's still not a bad energy output. :up:
 
Those statistics are kinda scary lookin'. Just a lil' bit.
 
Yeah I can't wait for this. I'm sure no one will want to use this stuff as a weapon at all....

It's hard to say. One of the things preventing the U.S. and China from going to war is fear of mutual nuclear annihilation. We might be too afraid to use this as a weapon because we could blow ourselves up right along with whoever we would use it against. And countries like Iran or Iraq with religous nutsos preying for the end of the world, don't have space bearing abilities like we do.

In addition I see this type of energy being used for the space program. Eventually we will have spaceships being powered by things like that, and if our moon has it, I wonder if Mars has it, or any other moons in our solar system.

I also believe that in the long run the space program can play a major role in uniting humanity.
 
It's hard to say. One of the things preventing the U.S. and China from going to war is fear of mutual nuclear annihilation. We might be too afraid to use this as a weapon because we could blow ourselves up right along with whoever we would use it against. And countries like Iran or Iraq with religous nutsos preying for the end of the world, don't have space bearing abilities like we do.

In addition I see this type of energy being used for the space program. Eventually we will have spaceships being powered by things like that, and if our moon has it, I wonder if Mars has it, or any other moons in our solar system.

I also believe that in the long run the space program can play a major role in uniting humanity.

betcha any dollar amount you want, if we go mining on the moon the first tests we do to the stuff is in weapons R&D.

Space might unite people or it might have people going to war over who owns the moon or mars especially if we find something on them that can make weapons/generate power.
 
I'm willing to bet that this is a lot of BS from the oil companies making up excuses just to keep oil prices up.
 
betcha any dollar amount you want, if we go mining on the moon the first tests we do to the stuff is in weapons R&D.

Space might unite people or it might have people going to war over who owns the moon or mars especially if we find something on them that can make weapons/generate power.

I'm sure we will figure out how to build weapons with the stuff, but that's not such a bad thing. I do believe that if the world avoids self annihilation we will one day explore other solar systems.
Keep in mind a ship that can travel that far fast enough is going to have very powerful forecefields surrounding it. It would need to. if your traveling that fast, and you run into a rock small enough to fit inside your pocket, it would rip your ship to shreds.

If we encounter an alien race that is hostile to us, we will need some means of defense, and the weapons would need to be extremely powerful.

However developing it for earth use would be overkill, and world leaders and scientists would realize that. Nobody uses nuclear bombs to swat a fly sitting on the wall.
 
I'm sure we will figure out how to build weapons with the stuff, but that's not such a bad thing. I do believe that if the world avoids self annihilation we will one day explore other solar systems.
Keep in mind a ship that can travel that far fast enough is going to have very powerful forecefields surrounding it. It would need to. if your traveling that fast, and you run into a rock small enough to fit inside your pocket, it would rip your ship to shreds.

If we encounter an alien race that is hostile to us, we will need some means of defense, and the weapons would need to be extremely powerful.

However developing it for earth use would be overkill, and world leaders and scientists would realize that. Nobody uses nuclear bombs to swat a fly sitting on the wall.

I'm sure that was the reasoning behind the atomic bomb, and look how well that worked out for everyone....

Forcefields? Ok, less star trek for you, young man.....

I do agree if the Klingons attack we need to be ready, but you seem to forget we have chuck norris....

I'm sure world leaders won't use the weapons on earth, they have such a great history of putting the sake of the planet above their personal self interests.....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
201,164
Messages
21,908,476
Members
45,703
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"