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!
I don’t oppose turning into pork, which by the way, is also a losing proposition in today’s market, including the govt subsidies that go into the pork industry.
Understand, but tell me about immediate returns and the regulations to be overcome to get drilling permits, tank batteries, additional refining infrastructure, and the time to get it to retail. The grain handling and ETOH infrastructure are here now.
I have burned ETOH in my truck since the early 80s and don’t see the difference. Living in Iowa, it was everywhere early on.
Pork may be a losing proposition today, but, 1800 pounds of pork is worth a hell of a lot more than 400 gal of ethanol wholesale!””
No doubt, but tell me about the profit margin on that 1800 lbs of pork.
Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts
http://www.businessweek.com/print/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm
Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol. But that’s not such a good idea
During the comment period for the RFG (reformulated gas) program, supporters of ethanol had argued that the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards in the program — 42 U. S. C. 7545 (k) (3) (B) (i) — would preclude the use of ethanol in RFG because adding ethanol to gasoline increases its volatility and raises VOC emissions, especially in the summertime.
Background The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Docket #94-1502 (Heard by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and decided on April 28, 1995)]
If there were ever a time when the truth in advertising standards should be put back into place, it’s now — during the current (third) attempt to convince the public that the massive use of corn-derived ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. Ultimately, the answer to just one question determines ethanol’s actual usefulness as a gasoline extender: “If the government hadn’t mandated this product, would it survive in a free market?” Doubtful — but the misinformation superhighway has been rerouted to convince the public its energy salvation is at hand ....
LMAO! You admit that the pork is worth way more but ask about the profit margin?
Take away subsidies from both and which one shows any freaking profit at all? Clue: It isn't ethanol.
Free Republic Study:)
Actually from an article on FR, Bioethanol’s Impact On Water Supply Three Times Higher Than Originally Thought, referring to a Science Daily article.
41 state study. Article did say corn belt area only used 100 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol (gasoline contaminating ethanol)
Jobs for the small engine builders.
Works on the same principle as "war is good for the economy." If you really want to stimulate economic activity, break and burn everything!
What do you propose to replace the 10% ethanol added to gasoline with??
How about Ethanol from Brazil where they produce it from sugar beets for about half of what it costs to make out of corn. However, I THINK there is an tariff or duty/import tax on Brazilian Ethanol.
Most current alternate energy options are a joke, the economics of which are totally out of kilter. Nuclear power is an exception, but the nazis hate this as well.
None of this justifies ethanol production, which is simply a boondoggle. 400 gallons per acre is nothing, especially considering the energy used to produce it. The program cannot exist on its own because the ethanol is not worth as much as it costs to produce it. We are extracting tax money from people to give to ethanol producers to prop up an inefficient program which degrades the fuel and drives up food costs across the board. It's based on political payoffs and fooling the people to think there is some sort of environmental benefit.
I have a book at home-- can't remember the name -- which came out in the last year or so dealing with the horticultural history of corn and its role in human food supply. It makes the case that if we follow current trends, we are in for a world of hurt.
A sane policy would be to loosen regs and controls which limit domestic and off shore production -- oil natural gas and coal. Build nuclear plants. Increase refinery capacity. Go ahead and use foreign oil as long as it is relatively cheap. We are in position to adopt domestic policies which would allow us to meet our own energy needs if the foreigners try to use blackmail, and more so, we could use our FOOD supply to show them the real meaning of blackmail, if we had the cods to do it.
And BTW, I expect our national policies to remain roughly opposite of the way I would approach things.
I already lost a 2 stroke snow blower and chain saw to Ethanol mixed with unleaded gasoline.
At 400 gallons/acre—there is a net energy gain of about 20%. These are the figures I have seen from an ag economist. Capturing the sun’s energy is not a bad thing. I know that during the planting of corn, it requires about 2/3s of a gallon of diesel for my tractor to plant one acre.
So let food go up a bit. Oddly, I have noticed that most people consume way too much food anyway.
.....I already lost a 2 stroke .....
I recently ran my weedeater on 10% ethanols blend because there simply isn’t anthing else around. As soon as I finished, I poured it all out and ran it till the residual was gone.
How specifically did the engine get harmed?
I have noticed a steady decline in horsepower and fuel efficiency. If I had a choice I would never use it.
What are you driving and how many miles on it?
I’m discussing all autos from prior to the introduction of 10% ethanol additive, and post.
All of my vehichles currently have less that 30K. My 83 caprice does noticeably better on summer blends than winter blends (even when driven in nice spring weather like this). I got 22MPG driving that big pig to where it is stored now 3 summers ago (after it was stored for 3 years without being started once), and now get about 15MPG with it being started regularly in storage and winter blend fuel in it.
Back when there was no ethanol added, I would sit quite easily in the 20-24MPG range year round with A/C on a comparable car (LTDII, Cordoba, etc...).
The caprice has a 350 with a towing cam, 650CFM 4bbl carb, a 350 turbo tranny and no air (pump removed). I also have no CAT or air pump - this is a sleeper racer.
Eliminate the subsidies and place 10% ethanol blend in a pump right beside 100% gasoline. Let the consumer choose.
Any guesses as to which one will sell?
Shame on you for owning that gas pig. LOL! No starts in 3 years — I hope it was properly prepped. There is no question that ETOH does not burn with the same efficiency since one of the carbons is already oxidized. Dropping to 15 is not good and I imagine the octane rating of whatever you burn is not what it once was. I drive an 07 Maxima with 32K on it—it gets 23.5 mpg. Oddly, the mpg goes up about .1 mpg every 10,000 miles. The one I had before this did the same dang thing. Look at the new SS camaro for a replacement—a mere 422 HP.
“I hope it was properly prepped.”
Nope, just changed the oil, checked the brakes, topped off the tranny fluid and went to the gas station. From Hinckley to Vermillion on 1/8 tank of gas. I was completely amazed. This car is just about as robust as they come. Of course almost everything on it is new, so that didn’t hurt either.
I had to replace the calipers and all four brake lines to drive it this winter, plus the wiper motor, but it still runs great and has plenty of get up and go...
Just wait until I put a new intake, headers, and different gears in the rear end - it’ll bark then. Unfortunately it’s already a ticket getter.
We had a 98 Taurus that always got better gas mileage when it needed an oil change.
I have burned ETOH in my truck since the early 80s and don’t see the difference. Living in Iowa, it was everywhere early on.
Isn’t the ethanol blend cheaper at the pump as well?
I’d rather support USA farmers than Saudi Oil Shieks. But most of all, I wish we would drill here, now!
Isn’t the ethanol blend cheaper at the pump as well?
I’d rather support USA farmers than Saudi Oil Shieks. But most of all, I wish we would drill here, now!””
It was a few cents cheaper at the time and I have seen it a dime cheaper in Neb. I guarantee much of the carping about ETOH use is fueled by the oil shieks.
We could drill for our own oil to replace that missing 10%.
Did Governor "Green Jeans" Pawlenty know and approve of this?
We could drill for our own oil to replace that missing 10%.””
I fully understand that, but with the current middle east president ruling the serfs, it ain’t gonna happen; I guarantee it. If anything, Hussein will do all in his power to increase our dependence on foreign influences. His hope and change will bring our current wealth as a nation to despair. His teleprompters are going to distribute our wealth to the rest of world—this is the big picture.
Our dependence on foreign energy sources will in fact increase under this administration. That is the plan of BO to redistribute US wealth to foreign nations. It isn’t so much about redistributing wealth within the country as outside the country—this is the goal of Husseina and his teleprompters.
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.