After what that Judy Dutcher said, that we are all having fun at her expense about E-85.
I thought that I would do my own little expiriment. I have about 160 employees and I have started to ask them what is E-85. I haven’t talked to them all but so far out of the 50 plus I have asked, they have all known what E-85 was.
That makes it even funnier the fact that she didn’t have a clue what they were talking about.
One more reason to vote GOP next Tuesday!
Quote:
One more reason to vote GOP next Tuesday!
I’ve seen this quote a few times and I really hope that people can find much better reasons to “vote GOP”. The last time I saw the quote was because of something stupid Kerry said. Is the GOP track record that bad? Nothing personal, it would just seem to make more sense to use that “Vote GOP” vote after an actual politcal issue, not a DFL brain fart (God knows there’s enough of those).
I’m personally voting GOP, DFL, and some IND. 
The real answer to what is E-85 is that it is government subsidized and would cost $5.00 a gallon if it had to stand on its own.
dd
Quote:
The real answer to what is E-85 is that it is government subsidized and would cost $5.00 a gallon if it had to stand on its own.
dd
Quite true. .
For the life of me, I can’t understand why ethanol and other alternative fuels get ripped so bad, particularly in a state where it is such a big part of the economy. Is ethanol subsidized? Yes. The state puts in about $30 million dollars. The result is about $900 million in economic activity and thousands of jobs…that’s just in Minnesota.
Is this a perfect scenario? No. But it is one heck of a good economic development tool for the state.
Oil companies get huge federal tax breaks. Last time I checked their profits were records nearly every quarter. Since Minnesota hasn’t struck oil yet, I think ethanol needs to be recognized for the opportunity it is.
Quote:
The state puts in about $30 million dollars.
Maybe because of the fact that it is not the “States” money, it is the “Taxpayers” money.
-J.
The reason I rip it is because it isn’t an economically viable alternative. Gasoline is still by far a lot cheaper and better fuel source. It isn’t better for the environment; but then again it may be? Hundreds of thousands of acres of CRP land is going back into production because of the ethanol boom. Now I don’t support CRP either (even though I love what it does) to remain consistent on my no gov handouts position.
I just believe that until gas prices are consistently higher than ethanol prices, the real prices not what you pay at the pump, ethanol doesn’t make sense fiscally.
dd
And the $900 million that goes back into the economy does nothing? We taxpayers–me included–entrust lawmakers to use our dollars wisely. Investing $30 million to generate $900 million in activity and create jobs is an investment I’m willing to support…even though it doesn’t benefit me personally. I can say the same about things like light rail. I’ve never been on it, probably never will. But if we don’t take care of ourselves, who will?
I happen to live in rural Minnesota and like that ethanol is something that is keeping rural communities alive.
I too have concerns with reducing the amount of CRP and putting crops on land that shouldn’t be farmed. Technology is coming where we’ll be able to use other sources to produce fuels that will likely be perennial crops, provide habitat for wildlife, etc. It’s coming, but it’s not here yet.
Quote:
Investing $30 million to generate $900 million in activity and create jobs is an investment I’m willing to support…
I’d be interested in where you got those numbers. Where can I read more?
-J.
Those numbers came from a presentation at a conference I attended this week. The Department of Agriculture has numbers all the way back to when ethanol first started being produced in Minnesota. I don’t know the phone number, but the guys name is Ralph Groschen.
My theory has always been that we are at the same stage with ethanol, and alternative fuels now, as we were with computers 20 yrs ago. Remember the Apple II or the Commadore? No one would consider using them today, but they were the best back in the day.
As technology improves, these forms of fuels will become more viable or a solution. Now this doesn’t mean Ethanol is the cure all to our oil problems, but it is a start in the right direction.
For those who don’t know, corn is at extremely high levels right now (comparatively from the last few), where many farmers are not getting LDPs (price floors) from the government. So while we are subsidizing ethanol, we may be seeing the beginning of the end for low corn and beans pricing.
Just $.02 from my view 
I wonder how much economic activity would be produced if the government returned the $30 million to the people whom they took if from…..
-J.
I think you can look at it this way also. Farmboy is right, corn prices are going up because there is a new market for corn out there. Check out this website. http://www.ewg.org/farm/ It is a websites that lists all of the subsidies that the government gives the farmers. You can search by zip code. If corn prices go up, those subsidies go down. So if that 30 million is not given out up front, it is given out on the back end as subsidies. I thiink this is a step in the right direction. Whay not give the money out to produce a product rather than give it out to simply say sorry the corn prices are low? The later solves nothing and we all know the government will spend the money one way or another.
~SKINEBOY~
The problem is E-85 takes more energy to produce then it saves. Futhermore, in states where it is not heavily subsidized E-85 is more expensive then regular unleaded gasoline. Finally, take a good mechanic aside and they will tell you the last thing you want is your vehicle is
E-85. I almost forgot, it cuts gas mileage by about 30%.
I agree with farmboy. Among other arguments, the industry is still in its infancy and more efficient ways of producing the ethonol are being found and implemented. Remember how one computer (ENIAC) used to take up 1800 sq. ft and cost half a milion dollars? Technology will help make this a more viable fuel source.
Another argument (to lighten up the post a little)
Quote:
Fermentation produces a mixture called “beer” containing about 15% ethanol and 85% water. “Beer” is boiled in a distillation column to remove the water, which results in ethyl alcohol that is 90% to 95% pure. This mixture is then dehydrated, which increases the alcohol content to 99% or more. At this point the product is mixed with a denaturant for commercial sale, which renders the product unfit for human beverage consumption.
Beer 
Not only is it good to drink but you can use it to run your truck too 
Chris
I’m not much of a political person, but this episode “isn’t another reason to vote GOP” for me. I don’t vote straight line, I try to vote the best people in (sometimes it is extremely difficult to find a good person….in that case, I have my own “method” to vote, but I always vote.
GOP is not the way to go, straight line, in my estimation. Nor will I vote straight line Democrat.
Just my humble opinion.
The GOP is not anti-ethanol by any means. Pawlenty backs it to the hilt.
dd
Ethanol no longer takes more energy than it produced, it is at 120% now. In Brazil, where they make ethanol using mostly sugar cane, it is more like 500-600% -so one part in, 5-6 parts out.
BTW-ethanol producers are getting VERY VERY rich right now.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
