Is ethanol lowering prices at the pump for consumers?
But the main argument for supporting corn ethanol production has always been about energy independence and fuel switching. Enabling a new source of supply into our gasoline supply chain should in theory, put some some downward pressure on gasoline prices at the pump, and keep those energy dollars at home rather than send them overseas.
So the real question is, does it?
A very interesting paper was published at Iowa State last month says yes, US ethanol production (almost all from corn) has reduced gasoline prices at the pump $0.29-$0.40 per gallon, depending on the region. Further, that the reduction came largely at the expense of profits the refining industry would otherwise have made (indicating perhaps that our ethanol production helped US consumers at the pump, but did not impact world oil prices).
In their paper entitled The Impact of Ethanol Production on US and Regional Gasoline Prices and on the Profitability of the US Oil Refinery Industry, authors Xiaodong Xu and Dermot Hayes analyzed the impact on price at the pump and refining profits of adding ethanol to the US gasoline fleets by separating the impact of ethanol from the major variables like gasoline imports, refining capacity, refining utilization rates, hurricanes, market concentration in refining, stocks, and seasonality, that generally affect gasoline price.
I find their $0.29 to $0.40 per gallon results a surprisingly large number, indicating that ethanol production, while providing on average well less than 5% of our gasoline supplies over their study period, could have affected prices at the pump downward to the tune of greater than 2 to 3 times that percentage level. That result is a huge win for ethanol proponents, as it suggests that adding ethanol to the US fleet has significantly benefited consumers (as one would expect), and also suggests that the ethanol subsidy program (at about $0.40 per gallon for 5% of the US gasoline production works out to around a 1 to 2 cent effective tax on gasoline at current levels) may well have paid for itself up to 20x over or more. The studies authors are careful not extrapolate too much from the results, but they are certainly interesting enough to warrant significant further research, and argue a strong case for further corn ethanol support.
Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks, Chairman of Cleantech.org, and a blogger for CNET's Green Tech blog.
Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners, advising the technology and venture arms of multinational energy companies in clean technology. He also edits and writes the Cleantech Blog. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET.
- Topics:
-
Biofuels,
-
Global warming,
-
Environment,
-
Policy
- Tags:
-
ethanol,
-
corn ethanol,
-
cleantech,
-
greentech,
-
gas prices
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us





Also the refiners had a cheaper alternative to ethanol called MTBE which is no longer used. The oil companies aren't making big profits at the pump. Retail gasoline distributors/stations are very competitive. So I find it very questionable that ethanol is (or can) have any effect on lowering gasoline prices.
What is the energy required to find, exploit, transport, refine, distribute, deliver the oil cycle? much less measure the other environmental impacts..... how about water? we hear ethanol as a big bad water user, what does a refinery comparably use?
This is the same tactic as AMOCO and big oil were doing years and years ago to spread scare amongst the masses to keep ethanol and alternative fuels at bay.
At least with ethanol, the cycle is above board and for all to see. A large part of the food value of corn in the corn ethanol cycle is preserved, and reenters the food supply through a number of means.
Ethanol is hardly perfect, but at least the CO2 it produces was already here the year before.
This has been studied. The energy ROI on oil is 20 to 1.
I am not going to pay more, I am not going to pay more and have to convert my car or by a new one. The only way and alternative fuel or technology is going to fly in this country is if it costs have as much as gas, does cause price increases for other things and doesn't mean buying a new car that costs any more than current cars do. Then people would switch. Fuel at half the cost of gas would cause whatever technology that does that to fly off the shelves like free big macs. If it happens to help the environment too all the better. But, expecting people to end up paying more just to help the environment is a fools idea.
Robert
Using troughs through a 40 acre field, fifty gallons of algae concentrate every 24 hours. Water is reused. compare that to crops such as corn and do the math.
What this really saying, and isn't covered in this post at all, is that supply is too tight. There is a much smarter way to get that marginal 5% of supply that is attributed to ethanol at the cost of $200MM a month in taxpayer subsidies in this study - 1. stop buying oil for the strategic petroleum reserves at a cost of $250MM a month, 2. release about 1/5th of the SPR's daily release capacity into the market - which would generate about $100 per gallon in profit for the treasury - or at 800K per day about $2.4 Billion in net profit. It would acheive the same market effect as the ethanol... but we'd have money left over to fund continued subsidies for green technologies like solar without cutting Big Oil's tax subsidies...