Minnesota auditor calls for an end to ethanol subsidies
As one of the biggest corn-producing states in the country, Minnesota has long had a vested interest in promoting ethanol. Governor Pawlenty has called for raising the blend of ethanol in standard pump gasoline from the current 10 percent to at least 20 percent. However, not everyone in Minnesota is sold on the idea of supporting ethanol production. Minnesota's Legislative Auditor's office is calling on the state to stop subsidizing ethanol production. The state has spent $93 million on the payments to producers over the past five years and is scheduled to spend another $44 million over the next three. However, given current economic conditions, the auditors office has determined the subsidizes have not done anything to improve the environment or energy independence situation and the payments should be ended.
The recommendations of the auditor are advisory only and the legislature is under no obligation to follow them. Thus, nothing is likely to change anytime soon.
[Source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Luke 8:19PM (4/20/2009)
If they spent the $93 million on incentives for people to buy more efficient cars they would get a better return on their money. Why not influence the market to get private vehicle drivers to use 10% less gas?
Reply
Snowdog 8:29PM (4/20/2009)
A small sign of sanity in this insane boondoggle?
A nice summary of everything wrong with this giant ethanol scam. Even a summary takes 5 pages, because there is so much wrong with this.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15635751/the_ethanol_scam/1
Reply
Jon 10:59PM (4/20/2009)
Has the Legislative Auditor forgotten about the nearly $4 gas price just last year? Without ethanol, that price would have been about 48 cents per gallon higher. Does the Legislative Auditor not realize that ethanol is a renewable resource - we can increase this resource by growing more field corn. Growing more field corn does not impact food prices, as humans do not eat field corn; we eat sweet corn. I would suggest the Legislative Auditor go do some more homework on the benefits of ethanol.
Reply
Kyle 11:19PM (4/20/2009)
What, exactly, are the real benefits of ethanol as it is?
It's hygroscopic, ruins parts currently used in most cars and all boats/mowers/etc., is at best a neutral carbon/pollution emitter, and when mixed at 10% causes at least a 10% decrease in fuel efficiency for cars today.
Growing corn for fuel is stupid and it does increase food prices. We take away fields we grew sweet corn, or soy beans, or wheat, or worse fields that were forests to grow it.
We have an overabundance of food in the world with starving people all over the place. Growing corn and spending the subsidy money on actually getting it to those who need it would be better, IMO. There's plenty of other methods, and much cheaper methods, to make ethanol. Corn is a bad bad idea.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:56PM (4/20/2009)
I believe it's "only" a 4% drop in mpg from 10% ethanol.
In order for 10% ethanol to reduce mpg 10%, ethanol would have to have virtually no energy in it at all, because the remaining 90% of the gas alone would produce enough energy to keep the mpg at 89%.
Chris 8:31AM (4/21/2009)
LS2LS7: Sure the actual energy content of E10 is more than 90% than that of 100% gasoline. What you incorrectly assume is the current fuel injected Internal Combustion Engine on the road are able to extract the energy in the E10 mix as efficiently as 100% gasoline. The truth is, many vehicles just can't handle E10 and will loose even more than 10% in fuel efficiency. I could put 10% diesel in my gas mixture (D10?) and say it has even more power than 100% gas but I bet a standard ICE wouldn't see a fuel efficiency increase and would definitely have a lot of other problems.
There are millions of cars out there that have computer maps and sensors that were designed to get as much as possible out of pre-Ethanol gas and they don't know how to efficiently handle E10 mix to the same degree. Now, with the push for more than E10, auto manufacturers are shooting at a moving target when they are trying to design new systems. Sure they are getting better at detecting and adjusting for Ethanol content in their new systems but that won't help all those pre-E10 cars out on the road that can't handle E10 (efficiently).
At least, give us the option of buying 100% gas for those pre-E10 cars instead of pushing E10 down our throats and forcing us to be (often more than 10%) less efficient.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:47PM (4/21/2009)
Chris, I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. You have a point about the Diesel thing, but ethanol and gasoline are much closer in burn characteristics than gas and Diesel are.
Chris 8:01PM (4/21/2009)
I am not incorrect. I and others have tanks upon tanks full of data.
Although, it is hard to do a "taste test" type comparison when entire states go from 100% gas to almost entirely E10 at every pump.
I know of 4 stations in my state still have/advertise 100% gas. The closest is over 100 miles away. Every time I go by one of them I top off my tank. I always see more than 10% better FE on that tank.
For instance my last E10 tank was 30MPG, I got a half tank top-off of 100% gas yesterday and my FE gauge is at 38MPG after 150 miles. Not conclusive but I see an measurable FE increase every time I can reduce the amount of Ethanol in my tank.
why not the LS2LS7? 8:43PM (4/20/2009)
I'm with it. Post haste.
Reply
Marcel Williams 11:14PM (4/20/2009)
Why produce ethanol from food and feed when it only represents 40% or less of the total biomass content of a crop when you can use 60% of the biomass content of crops to produce methanol? Methanol can be used as an automobile fuel or converted into high octane gasoline or into dimethyl ether, a diesel fuel substitute.
http://www.newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
Reply
jpm 10:19PM (4/20/2009)
Wouldn't it be ironic if some of those farmers were republicans who was crying about socialism taking over.
Reply
Luke 10:28PM (4/20/2009)
If they are, they've figured a way to get their tax money back.
Tohe 1:39AM (4/21/2009)
As long as they don't "teabag" each other, they will be okay.
Treehugger 11:36PM (4/20/2009)
Finaly some wise thoughts in this dangerous fantasy of Corn Ethanol
Reply
Treehugger 11:36PM (4/20/2009)
Corn is a cereal that we shouldn't grow massively in the fisrt place, even for food, the reason are :
- Corn contain little protein compared to wheat
- Corn contain too much fast sugar that is responsible for obesity and diabet in this country
- corn requires too much water to grow
- corn generates too much soil erosion
- corn requires too much nitrogen that pollutes rivers and kill the gulf of mexico
Now make ethanol with it and you have the recipe for an environmental disaster, and certainly not a solution to feed your beloved SUV. Not mentionning the total inefficiency of the process and the fact that it requires tax money payer to grow.
Reply
Flintstone 9:39AM (4/21/2009)
It never fails to amaze me the fear mongers and their small knowledge of ethanol as a fuel.
BTUs do not move engines, it is a measurement of how energy heats water. I am not claiming it gets the same mileage in a flex fuel engine, but when an internal combustion engine is optimized for, say E85, with higher compression ratios, it blows gasoline away!
Corn ethanol does not raise food prices, but there are better ways to make ethanol for sure than corn.
Ethanol burns very clean and because it comes from plants, the carbon is offset somewhat, unlike petroleum.
SO...THAT BEING SAID. I agree, corn ethanol is not worthy of government subsidization. If it cannot make it in the market than it shouldn't.
However, to generally bash it as a part of the energy mix we will need is insane. It is actually a very environmentally good energy source when produced from biomass!!!!
Reply
Bill 11:42AM (4/21/2009)
I agree with most of this post, but it always complicates things to say "If [ethanol] cannot make it in the market then it shouldn't". The market is so f*cking skewed with petroleum getting so much in the way of subsidies that it's hard to tell what a level playing field is anymore...
Flintstone 12:40PM (4/21/2009)
Yeah Bill, not only that, certain interests have gone to great lengths to trash ethanol. Those who have the most to lose the more it's use increases. Just look at all the ethanol bashing going on here by those that have bought into all of it.
Herm 11:11AM (4/21/2009)
with E10 you can boost your timing a couple of degrees without any knocking or pinging, that will increase your power and thus your mileage.
If you have a good permanent supply of higher % ethanol fuel then you can machine the heads and actually increase the compression to around 11.5 with a huge boost in mileage.. with modern oxygen sensors the computer will self adjust.
You can play with the level of ethanol mixed into the fuel but you will soon run out of fuel injector volume delivery and get a check engine light error.. then just back off the percentage.
A properly designed flex fuel vehicle can do all this on its own (except changing the compression ratio).
Reply
Kevin 8:35AM (4/22/2009)
It is very interesting that no one has posted comments about growing industrial hemp as an ethanol alternative to corn. It uses much less water, fertilizer, is naturally resistant to pests, grows more densly than corn, and I believe you can get 2 crops per year (please correct me if I am wrong on that point).
The problem is that the government has lumped industrial hemp in with marijuana and it is illegal to grow. You might smoke that stuff!! - even if you had to smoke a telephone pole sized joint to get high!!! (There is very little THC in hemp)
Uncle Sam definitely knows what is best for you!
How lame an excuse.....
Reply