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?
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.
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 ....
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?
Did Governor "Green Jeans" Pawlenty know and approve of this?