Comments on: The Ethanol Quandary http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/12/the-ethanol-quandary/ Politics in Iowa from a progressive viewpoint. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:37:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: JW http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/12/the-ethanol-quandary/#comment-7586 JW Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:46:27 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/12/the-ethanol-quandary/#comment-7586 That's one of the problems with Gov. Culver's straight-shot economic development plan that focuses solely on ethanol production. We don't have any assurance that ethanol is going to be the God send that he thinks it will be. And we are doing nothing else to develop our economy right now. Also, farmers are encouraged to plant acres that had been out of production and in conservation reserve in recent years. This feels a lot like the early 80s when corn prices were at a premium and everyone said, 'make hay today, forget about the future.' And then the bottom dropped out. If that happens in Iowa, we can lay it squarely at Culver's feet. He needs to show more interest in a diversified and sustainable agriculture policy that includes ehtanol but doesn't rely on it solely to spur economic growth. Ethanol production is like the emperor's new clothes. No one has the guts to say, "these are naked promises." That’s one of the problems with Gov. Culver’s straight-shot economic development plan that focuses solely on ethanol production. We don’t have any assurance that ethanol is going to be the God send that he thinks it will be. And we are doing nothing else to develop our economy right now. Also, farmers are encouraged to plant acres that had been out of production and in conservation reserve in recent years. This feels a lot like the early 80s when corn prices were at a premium and everyone said, ‘make hay today, forget about the future.’ And then the bottom dropped out. If that happens in Iowa, we can lay it squarely at Culver’s feet. He needs to show more interest in a diversified and sustainable agriculture policy that includes ehtanol but doesn’t rely on it solely to spur economic growth.

Ethanol production is like the emperor’s new clothes. No one has the guts to say, “these are naked promises.”

]]> By: Rich Marks http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/12/the-ethanol-quandary/#comment-7587 Rich Marks Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:13:34 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/12/the-ethanol-quandary/#comment-7587 The ethanol issue is not well understood. Our politicians have jumped on it to get the farm vote. The Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) have jumped on it because they get fuel economy credits for dual fuel vehicles and it "looks" environmentally good, even if the owners use just burn gasoline. Most of the ethanol used today is not for E85 but for E10 which is standard gas with 10% ethanol to replace an additive the industry is getting away from to boost octane. We consume more than a 1 1/4 gallons of gas per man, women and child PER DAY in the USA today. That is a lot of gas and ethanol. But the big, big issue is why will anyone buy E85 for their cars? It has about 20-25% less energy content which means you need to fill up 25% more often and it currently is not selling for 25% less. It just does not make any sense (or cents). Corn based ethanol requires more energy to produce a gallon than it saves. Cellulosic ethanol must be developed for ethanol to have a chance. And what than happens to all these corn based ethanol plants and farmers? In Michigan, there is talk of farmers getting out of the dairy business and converting their farms to corn fields. We have all the wrong incentives for alternative fuels because gas is too cheap. Go to my Blog and read about the JEDI Fund. We must change the economics to cause changes in behaviors. My other big gripe is why should the OEM's get credits for dual fuel vehicles that are not using ethanol? The Government wants it so they can look like they are complying with EPAct, but they aren't. The OEM's should get credits based on percentage of ethanol being used in their vehicles. And that is practially zero. The ethanol issue is not well understood. Our politicians have jumped on it to get the farm vote. The Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) have jumped on it because they get fuel economy credits for dual fuel vehicles and it “looks” environmentally good, even if the owners use just burn gasoline.
Most of the ethanol used today is not for E85 but for E10 which is standard gas with 10% ethanol to replace an additive the industry is getting away from to boost octane. We consume more than a 1 1/4 gallons of gas per man, women and child PER DAY in the USA today. That is a lot of gas and ethanol.
But the big, big issue is why will anyone buy E85 for their cars? It has about 20-25% less energy content which means you need to fill up 25% more often and it currently is not selling for 25% less. It just does not make any sense (or cents).
Corn based ethanol requires more energy to produce a gallon than it saves. Cellulosic ethanol must be developed for ethanol to have a chance. And what than happens to all these corn based ethanol plants and farmers? In Michigan, there is talk of farmers getting out of the dairy business and converting their farms to corn fields.
We have all the wrong incentives for alternative fuels because gas is too cheap. Go to my Blog and read about the JEDI Fund. We must change the economics to cause changes in behaviors.
My other big gripe is why should the OEM’s get credits for dual fuel vehicles that are not using ethanol? The Government wants it so they can look like they are complying with EPAct, but they aren’t. The OEM’s should get credits based on percentage of ethanol being used in their vehicles. And that is practially zero.

]]> By: Bob from ALAMN http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/12/the-ethanol-quandary/#comment-7600 Bob from ALAMN Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:37:17 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/12/the-ethanol-quandary/#comment-7600 When in the hell did Bloomberg News become the authoritative source on which alternative fuel is "green" or not? The American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest (includes Iowa) can set you straight on E85 and biodiesel at this site: www.CleanAirChoice.org When in the hell did Bloomberg News become the authoritative source on which alternative fuel is “green” or not?

The American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest (includes Iowa) can set you straight on E85 and biodiesel at this site:

www.CleanAirChoice.org

]]>