The American Coalition for Ethanol is holding its annual conference and trade show in Saint Paul this week. Today’s Pioneer Press offers a look at the rapid growth in the industry, while the Strib takes another look at the “food vs. fuel” debate we have discussed before in this forum. The Fargo Forum’s Don Davis offers this reality check on cellulosic ethanol, and the event is being covered by everyone from a Japanese film crew (who I saw on the exhibit floor) to ag bloggers. At our “Path to Cleaner Air” exhibit at the upcoing State Fair, we will demonstrate how Minnesota has become the nation’s leader in biofuel use, and its impact on air quality. If you come to the Fair, stop by and say hello, we’re right under the giant wind turbine blade at the Eco Experience building.
Invasion of the Ethanol Makers
Aug 9 2007 — 2:00am
17 Reader Comments
2:14 pm
Ha! No comments for the lame post!
oh, wait…
2:21 pm
I just don’t think I can drink another drop of ethanol. Those ACE guys leave me in the dust every time.
3:49 pm
I know some of the ACE folks. There is more truth in teucer’s words than he may think.
5:03 pm
Love you, Bob.
5:11 pm
drat!
8:01 pm
Rolling Stone?
That all you got, russ?
Rolling Stone.
To tell you the truth, I didn’t even know it was still being published. Hey, is Mad magazine still out there? TigerBeat? TV Guide?
Rolling Stone. heh.
dude!
8:16 pm
Mad is still being published and beloved of 10-14-year-olds everywhere.
But that’s not exactly a refutation there, Mr Bob. Is there nothing to Rolling Stone’s allegations? After all, being anti-ethanol isn’t exactly counter-culture, so maybe there’s something in it?
7:41 am
I sent my snarky reply to russ from home, where I don’t have the ability to link to other online sources, teucher. As I have said before, I’m not a spokesperson for the ethanol industry. They can speak for themselves.
Our focus is on helping to launch two alternative fuels — E85 and biodiesel — that produce less air pollutants when used. These are alternatives that are available (and they work) right now, not sometime ‘in the future.’ Future solutions are great — but we believe Minnesota drivers need to have some clean air choices now, not later.
We are not trying to replace all gasoline, solve all environmental and energy issues or declare biofuels as “the answer.” We need all the answers — fuel conservation, better fuel economy, mass transit, yada yada yada. Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but it’s still all true.
8:59 am
Not to fisk the entire Rolling Stone article, but the author overstates his case against ethanol rather dramatically, IMHO.
“Ethanol doesn’t burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper”
Wrong, wrong (at least here in MN)
E85 reduces carbon dioxide emissions by a modest fifteen percent at best, while fueling the destruction of tropical forests.
That’s closer to 30%, not 15%. Besides, isn’t 15% reduction in greenhouse gases a good thing, or am I missing something? Minnesota E85 hurting tropical forests? That’s a rather wild and unproven speculation, at best.
The artcle quotes mostly ethanol critics, including Minnesota’s own “Mr. Food vs. Fuel,” C. Ford Runge. Prof. Runge also loudly predidicted economic and mechanical disaster if Minnesota went ahead with its plan to add 10% ethanol to all its gasoline.
It did — 10 years ago — and we have had (historically) among the lowest gas prices in the nation ever since. We also are one of a small handful of states that have every county and municipality meeting EPA outdoor air quality standards, even though our population and # of vehicles on road has risen sharply.
9:20 am
Fair enough. There’s not an alternative energy source yet that doesn’t seem fraught with difficulties, which is rather concerning.
I am starting to think that, at best, we’ll end up having to strip mine some very beautiful parts of North America and Canada while paying a lot more for gasoline than we are currently.
9:23 am
You are right to be concerned, T. These concerns keeps people like me and Pwrgeek up at night. The more you know about this issue, the more it freaks you out. Kinda like the state of repair of our bridges, tunnels, dams and the like…
I don’t know what the ultimate answers might be, but I sure hope it’s not more coal. The price we pay for coal is higher than just the scenery, as the great City of London learned the hard way more than 50 years ago.
9:35 am
Bob, what about the HUGE volumes of water required to produce ethanol? Isn’t this a problem for continuing current production levels, let alone increasing them? I’ve read that a range of 2 – 4 gallons of water is required per gallon of ethanol produced. True?
10:03 am
Funny you should ask. We’ve spoken about this before on this forum. Please send future inquiries on the water requirements of ethanol production to Mr. Mob Boffitt of the American Commercial Water Use Association, Watertown, PA.
I’m Mr. Lungs, remember?
10:08 am
In releated news, Pawlenty is proposing a big boost in biodiesel. A number of Minnesota cities have been quietly using higher-blend biodiesel in their fire engines, snowplows and other vehicles for some time, so this is no big deal for them.
In North Dakota, they are testing a method of putting carbon back into the ground. That’s a switch!
Not to be outdone, the Iowa State Patrol is switching to E85.
4:02 pm
oh snap!
No more federal government sugar daddy for your corn liquor!
4:23 pm
It aint over until the Corn Boys sing, russ.
4:44 pm
If by “corn boys,” you mean ADM & Cargill, then you are correct.
Bob, do you ever get tired of sleeping with the enemy?
“Well, we’re the ALA, and by dern, we’re a one trick pony. Clean air, that’s the ticket. I’d jump off a bridge if there was cleaner air 5 feet above the rocky bottom, dad gum.”
Seriuosly.