Posted on 04/17/2009 9:17:14 AM PDT by MplsSteve
Minnesota should get out of the business of subsidizing the state's ethanol industry, the Legislative Auditor's office said today.
In a report on the sometimes-controversial program that pays producers of corn-based ethanol, the office found that the subsidy program fails to maximize the energy and environmental benefits of the fuel.
The money, $93 million paid to producers over the past five years, could be better spent on other programs that do a better job of reaching those goals, it concluded.
Plus, at a time of crushing state budget deficits, the $44 million expected to be spent on the program through 2012 could be redirected to other uses, according to the report.
"Legislators should look carefully at this program in light of the current budget deficit and the state's goals of reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions," the report states.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Having said that, I long ago realized that corn-based ethanol is not the solution to our over-reliance on foreign oil. It's a waste in many different ways.
I think the best thing would be to cut this subsidy immediately. I suspect that the very thought of eliminating this subsidy is causing heads to explode over at the State Capitol.
Comments or opinions - anyone?
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
123 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
Ethanol as a substitute or an additive is not viable without government subsidy.
This should be a dead issue, but common sense never prevails in the land of 10,000 loons!
Good luck with that. Subsidies are linked to lobbyists and can you imagine the lobbies that are linked to the state of Iowa alone, now that the Sec. of Ag is from Iowa?
If you have to subsidize a power-source for it to be viable, it is not a fuel.
This is an "I told you so" moment. All of the reasons the program ought to be ended were expressed before it started, as to why it shouldn't be started.
I was going to say it was a "teachable" event, but politicians aren't teachable. They do whatever the public lets them get away with. So, my suggestion is to subject the politicians who were for the subsidies in the first place be subjected to merciless ridicule, and told that if they can't get something that simple right, why should they be trusted to get anything right?
Three refineries serving Minnesota and the state needs ethanol subsidies ? what for ?
The could change the money into $100 bills and burn it it fireplaces. That would likely be more effective.
What do you propose to replace the 10% ethanol added to gasoline with?? Productive fields generate 400 gallons ETOH/acre.
The ethanol lobby started work yesterday to get the mix moved from 10% to 15%. That will kill a lot of small motors, old motors, and cause a lot of unintended consequences.
Thank's to the "Let's ruin the gas while we drive up food costs" genuises in charge.
I guess you replace the 10% ethanol with nothing. Then you would be left with just actual gasoline.
WITH FAR LESS EXPENSIVE GASOLINE, NOT AN ADDITIVE.
“What do you propose to replace the 10% ethanol added to gasoline with??”
Gasoline??
Recent study, 2100 gallons of water to get 1 gallon of ethanol into the tank.
“Productive fields generate 400 gallons ETOH/acre.”
Any data that backs up that claim?
That one productive acre WILL produce enough feed for 1,800 pounds of pork. ( 150 bu acre )
Which has more value?
So 10% more from imported oil. Nice.
I am sure the oil shieks would enjoy the profits.
How so? Most midwest corn (90%) comes from dryland farming.
There is a major facility 15 miles from my house. How bout yours?
Drill here. Drill now.
How about nothing but pure gasoline? Much more efficient and better for your engine!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.