Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fleebut

Corn cobs

Recommended Posts

I think Dan's analysis is spot on. Ethanol should push to target blenders credit to alternative fuel...meaning fuel that is mostly ethanol not merely a blending ingredient for petro to sell cheap base stock.

 

Do what N. Dakota does and add tax to each gallon of ethanol or E85. Heck, a $.05/gallon would be o.k. The money used for supporting 85 blender pumps. The Independents the target audience. Support them as they are small business and an ideal market for E85. They can make E85 happen. This would be petro's biggest problem. Every independent within a 50 to 100 mile radius of a ethanol plant should have blender pumps. Ethanol plants need to sell directly to independents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be better to substitute a nickel from the blenders credit, and send that right to funds for blender pumps.  That would be $500 million for blender pumps--annually!!!!!  8) 

 

Of course that would be 5 cents less going to the oil companies (and perhaps a penny or two higher E85 price at the pump), but I'd rather see the pumps than the pennies.

 

Name the funding program "Blender Pumps for Pennies."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 blender pumps currently being installed in ND alone! Wow!

 

I personally I'd like to see the "blenders credit" for e10 (or e15 eventually) totally eliminated, once we get blenders and e85 up and on a solid footing.

 

the oil companies don't need this money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 blender pumps currently being installed in ND alone! Wow!

 

I personally I'd like to see the "blenders credit" for e10 (or e15 eventually) totally eliminated, once we get blenders and e85 up and on a solid footing.

 

the oil companies don't need this money...

 

I would mostly agree except to encourage blender pumps profitability I would prefer to see that the language of new law would extend the credit to all non-obligated parties from gallon 1 and incremental blending credits above RFS minimum mandate only for oil companies. This means that a typical blender pump location would gain $4.50-$9 per day from E10 sales to help pay for these pumps that cost $15,000 more than a non-blender ($30,000 extra cost for 2 pumps). The extra costs are 1/2 UL upgrade costs and 1/2 added costs for blender pump complexity). This would still cut the ethanol subsidy cost to 2% of current costs and could be cut more after 10 years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about this...

 

eliminate all ethanol blenders credits with the exception of

1.  Blender pumps

2.  e85

 

This would keep ethanol blender credit $ out of big oil pockets (theirs are deep enough already)..., and would encourage more e85 pumps, and more blender pumps...

 

Maybe push the ethanol producers to get into more direct retail marketing... like Outlaw is doing in Wisconsin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...