Gov. Pawlenty willing to fight Bush on ethanol blends
The St. Paul Pioneer Express (through the Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Roundtable) we discover that there could be a political fight brewing between the governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, and President Bush. Bush recently criticized local governments for requiring different blends of biofuels in different parts of the country, which raises gas prices and makes distribution more difficult. Minnesota has been requiring 10 percent ethanol blend in its fuel since 1997. Pawlenty said yesterday that Minnesotans would “fight ferociously” if the federal government tries to limit ethanol blends and that instead of criticizing local governments for taking the lead, the President should work for a national standard of at least E10. [Source: St. Paul Pioneer Express via GLPPR]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Andrew 11:51PM (4/28/2006)
Minnesota shouldn't mandate ethanol blends. Cost more, worse mileage. Silly.
Keep big brother out of the bedroom, and the gas station.
Reply
Joe Tzougrakis 11:52AM (4/29/2006)
This is probably more about political grandstanding and less about the environment or the people.
Reply
Glenn A. 12:34PM (4/29/2006)
The state of Minnesota through it's current flako governor has mandated E20 (20% ethanol) by about 2011 state-wide.
This is disasterously STUPID.
Hell, even my brand new Prius explicitly states in the owner's manual that using anyt more than 10% ethanol in the fuel is not recommended - as does my 2nd car (which now gets about 6000 miles per year since my wife and I now carpool in the Prius).
So - this idiot governor wants to - no HAS - passed a law which will mandate the mis-fuelling of virtually all but flex-fuel vehicles in his state.
If my car craps out on the way through Minnesota on vacation and has to be taken to a Toyota dealer for a few thousand dollars of repairs, which won't be covered by warrantee, I'll going to send this moron and his moronic state the bill.
Better yet, I'll just avoid Minnesota, and avoid spending any money there. Pity the people of Minnesota can't escape. Or, can they?
I guess you get the government you deserve when you vote for friggin' morons.
Reply
Andrew 7:55PM (4/29/2006)
Seems like ethanol advocates always drive big SUV's. In this case Pawlenty drives a suburban.
A suburban getting 12 mpg running 15,000 miles per hear burns 1250 gallons of gas a year. Add the lower fuel economy of E85 and you have 9 or 10 mpg behemoth using more like 1500 gallons per year.
The 1275 gallons of ethanol will require federal subsidies of about 650 dollars (don't worry, they'll borrow it your kids can re-pay this extra debt). Also Minnesota gives big tax spiff to ethanol. This corn will require a lot of diesel and natural gas, and will require a lot of pesticides and herbicides. Also large amount of nitrogen runoff to further pollute rivers and ocean.
Finally this will change land use. Modern agriculture has lots of issues, but it has one big advantage: greater productivity has removed a large amount of US cropland from use. Ethanol convert much more land from nature to farms.
Reply
Glenn A. 4:32PM (4/30/2006)
Well put, Andrew, I had not considered all of that.
Perhaps one "answer" is to mandate that a percentage of all new vehicles (increased year on year) must have regenerative properties to capture kinetic energy.
This means "hybrids" in current technological speak, but should not be so restricted - engineers are working on hydraulic launch assist system which capture kinetic energy (which in so-called conventional cars SUVs and trucks, is wasted by conversion into heat by the brakes).
Mandating a 30% efficiency (the current Prius tech level) for regeneration of braking would seem to be the minimum starting point, with potentially legal requirements for moving the goal post higher as technology improves.
Much as I hate taxes, perhaps a very, very steeply curved annual tax on frontal area and weight would discourage idiots from driving 6000 pound friggin' SUVs to work solo.
Reply
Sebastian 1:17PM (5/01/2006)
Andrew,
I think you're tapping deep into one of the main problems with America's gas addiction. Ethanol does provide a sort of relief (because the fuel is renewable, unlike petroleum), but people don't want to change their habits and so they keep driving SUVs. It's harder to make the switch to a bike or a smaller, more-efficient car, but I beleive that time will convince more and more people to look at alternatives. Perhaps the divide between rich and poor in this country will be truly easy to tell in 15 years. Only the rich will be able to afford gas.
Reply