• On CBS.com: The tip of a man's nose is cut off
May 15, 2008 11:02 AM PDT

Is ethanol lowering prices at the pump for consumers?

Despite providing the largest portion of alternative fuel in the US, corn ethanol gets a lot of flack in the circles Cleantech Blog runs in. The usual culprits go something like this: Corn ethanol is heavily subsidized (yes it is). Corn ethanol does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions (sort of, it really, really depends on your assumptions). Corn ethanol contributes to the fertilizer driven "deadzone" in the Gulf of Mexico (maybe, another complicated topic). Corn ethanol drives up the price of food (a topic for another day).

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.
Recent posts from Green Tech
Tesla Motors replaces CEO, plans layoff
Home energy monitors getting wise to solar
How green is Apple now?
Wesley Clark: Solar power needs to live in big tent
Solar Power: GE buys in, thin film cells, solar map
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 16 comments
by rucknrun May 15, 2008 11:52 AM PDT
OK. Does it offset the increase in the price of food? Due to increased demands on corn prices on corn have skyrocketed.
Reply to this comment
by dburr13 May 15, 2008 12:13 PM PDT
The price of petroleum based fuels has been a far greater factor in the increase of the price of food than increased production of ethanol...From shipping the raw and finished food products...to packaging them...to producing them...The price of oil and thus the price of energy has had a large impact on the price of food...as well as other products...Marking ethanol as the #1 demon in the increasing price of food is information straight from those who market petroleum...If there's 30 cents worth of corn in your corn flakes....where is the rest of your money going?...Not to the farmer's...that's for sure.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
by REOldtimer May 15, 2008 12:18 PM PDT
So what if the ethanol reduces the cost of the gasoline? Ethanol has been in the blend of gasoline for some time now and the oil companies are the only ones benefiting of these savings. Therefore, the only way you can see savings is: (i) if you go to an ethanol only station and (ii) this vendor does not use the differential for his profit margin. In any case, the total equation for ethanol from corn in the US shows that the amount of energy used and the level of CO2 emissions for the whole life cycle of the production are not offset by the ethanol. But even if it is true, what you save on the pump is peanuts compared with how much money you now need to pay for corn and products using corn derivatives.
Reply to this comment
by REOldtimer May 15, 2008 12:19 PM PDT
So what if the ethanol reduces the cost of the gasoline? Ethanol has been in the blend of gasoline for some time now and the oil companies are the only ones benefiting of these savings. Therefore, the only way you can see savings is: (i) if you go to an ethanol only station and (ii) this vendor does not use the differential for his profit margin. In any case, the total equation for ethanol from corn in the US shows that the amount of energy used and the level of CO2 emissions for the whole life cycle of the production are not offset by the ethanol. But even if it is true, what you save on the pump is peanuts compared with how much money you now need to pay for corn and products using corn derivatives.
Reply to this comment
by Jamesmeredith2 May 15, 2008 12:49 PM PDT
but with corn you can look forward to using science to further corn production and keep it within the US without harming the environment - where oil is mainly outside the US and to keep from depending on it we would have to begin digging in the US (Alaska) and other places to offset the use of foreign oil -
Reply to this comment
by OzoneTX May 15, 2008 1:10 PM PDT
Last time I checked the price of ethanol was something like $4.25/gallon AFTER the govt subsidy. So if you mix in something more expensive than gasoline then how does the price go down?
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.
Reply to this comment
by grnthinkr May 15, 2008 1:41 PM PDT
It's kind of odd that everyone concentrates on the CO2 cycle of ethanol, but i hear no similar call for establishing the same measurement for oil

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.
Reply to this comment
by Chambertin1 May 15, 2008 1:43 PM PDT
So, where is Iowa State? Oh yeah, the middle of the corn belt. Drug companies have biased or altered clinical trial results and prestigious peer-reviewed publications printed them. Could the same be true here?
Reply to this comment
by Hal_10000 May 15, 2008 3:57 PM PDT
"What is the energy required to find, exploit, transport, refine, distribute, deliver the oil cycle? much less measure the other environmental impacts."

This has been studied. The energy ROI on oil is 20 to 1.
Reply to this comment
by Heebee Jeebies May 16, 2008 8:08 AM PDT
Until we have a fuel source that costs half the amount per quantity of gas, doesn't cause the price of other things to go up it is all a moot point. While most say they want to help the environment most do not want to do it while spend more than gas costs now to do it.

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
Reply to this comment
by ghosford May 16, 2008 8:15 AM PDT
Umm, Ozone, when you say the price of ethanol is $4.25, are you talking about the wholesale price of pure ethanol, or is that the price at the pump of E10 or E85? I have no way of confirming the wholesale prices, but here are the prices in Iowa at the retail pump: E85 is $3.09, E10 is $3.59, and non-ethanol gas is $3.69 and up. That may change this afternoon, but the point is that E85 (the highest concentration ethanol sold for vehicles) is being sold for significantly less than straight gasoline. Ethanol may have affected corn prices and availability in the short term, but it is also creating an infrastructure that, once cellulosic ethanol becomes viable, will cause it to actually be marketable - versus hydrogen and other alternative fuels with no or very limited current infrastructure.
Reply to this comment View reply
by mrobzob May 16, 2008 1:13 PM PDT
A company in Arizona is on the front when it comes to mass produced fuel and food. XL renewables has evolved. Algae Development Center in Casa Grande. Algae can double its size every 24 hours. It can then easily be transformed into biodiesal.
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.
Reply to this comment
by gsinvestor May 20, 2008 4:57 PM PDT
20 x payback? A 0.02 cent tax sounds almost reasonable - that only $200MM a month. I suppose you could look at it that way - especially if you live in Iowa.

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...
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

About Green Tech

Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech guru Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Green Tech topics

Featured blogs

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right