On Raising the Gas Tax in Minnesota

Wow. “Suddenly, nearly every gas station in the state would install E85 pumps, and it all would be done without direct economic incentives.”

The ignorance contained within that statetment is staggering.

So in Pomoroy land, taxes have no direct economic effect? And farmers actually grow enough corn to supply enough ethanol to supply every gas station in Pomoroy land…

And no doubt fine Merlot flows from fountains on every street corner too.

Unfortunately out here in realityville, we used 5% of our corn crop to produce 5 billion gallons of ethanol fuel last year, a set of figures that are inversly proportionate in their effects on our economy.

The 5 billion gallons of alcohol fuel was literally a drop in the bucket compared to the over 150 billion gallons of gasoline consumed, but used enough corn to force a substantial rise in the cost of corn based food stuffs.

And then of course there is the fact that ethanol based fuel has but a fraction of the BTU value of gasoline which means that while the wonderful automobiles in Pomoroy land putter along unaffected (due to the fact that they run on pie-in-the-sky) our here in realityville we’d be visiting gas stations twice as often as we do now.

Which means we’d need more corn than is physically possible to grow.

Have another glass of wine my friend…

Interesting Idea! But Leigh!  If Smilin’ Tim Pawlenty did that, then David Strom (aka Grover “Drown it in the bathtub” Norquist’s Mini-Me) would REALLY be mad at him.  You saw how he frowned when Pawlenty tried his “fee” gambit, didn’t you?

But seriously:  Yes, if we’re going to be promoting ethanol, the simplest and easiest thing to do would be to make it exempt from a gas tax.  It would probably be just the ticket to encourage building of switchgrass-based ethanol plants, as corn-based ethanol can’t go as far in taking care of our energy needs: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~brummer/ag/biomass2.htm

As for a certain commenter:  Nice to see that you’re continuing your tradition of showcasing the finest in conservative rhetoric, Swiftee.  Keep it up — you’re the best thing to happen to the Minnesota GOP since Jon Grunseth.

Calling it a “nondiesel motor vehicle fuel fee

Tee hee Sphincter Woman made bubbles in her Kool-Aid!

E85 – a clean air choice for many Minnesota drivers No one is mandating E85 for your motorcycle, Swiftee, so why are you yapping? Speaking of your bike, do you burn diesel in it? Diesel has more BTUs than that wastefull, government-subsidized boondoogle fuel we call gasoline.

For more info on E85 and biodiesel in Minnesota, see our website: http://www.CleanAirChoice.org

Bob Moffitt
Communications Director
American Lung Association of Minnesota

Heh Bob the Lung…living proof that “there is no spoon” in the fever swamp.

E85 fuel economy I recently purchased a vehicle that is capable of e-85. After about a 5,000 mile break in period I have been alternating two tanks gas with two tanks e-85 to compare the results between the two fuels (note: I generally do not refill until near empty). With e-85 I get 11 mpg, with gas I get 15 mpg.

Cost wise e-85 tends to follow the price of gasoline. When gas jumps 20 cents so does e-85, I track both prices when possible at the time of purchase. From my limited data set e-85 is ~20% cheaper than gas, but only delivers 73% of the mpg. So it cost me more to run e-85. I still need to take an extended trip on e-85 to compare pure highway vs. the mostly city/short trip milage I normally drive.

As for the posters comments about switch grass ethynol, a little research will show that the reason it is not currently being used is the process is not currently cost effective. Translation, it cost a bunch more money per gallon to produce than corn/sugar based ethynol. Also switch grass or other cellilose (wood, corn stalks, etc..) still needs a whole bunch of research to develop a viable and commercially feasable process. Most estimates are 10-15 years before it will be commercially viable, with 5 years being the lower end estimate.

Dave

Cellulosic Ethanol Dave has been doing his homework.

Much of the talk about “cellulosic biomass” is largely coming from the U of M PR machine — and I must admit they are doing a good job. I hope they get their grant so they can tone it down a bit. Don Shelby is ready to pass out Noble Prizes to a bunch of guys who have yet to prove they have anything that will work in the fuel marketplace, not just in the lab.

If you look closer at cellulosic ethanol, it’s a lot like that “Far Side” cartoon where two scientists are looking at to complicated equations on a blackboard, joined by the phrase “And then a miracle happens…”  The caption was something like “We need to work on that part in the middle.”

I hope the experts are wrong, and an effiecent, effective way to make ethanol from corn stalks, grass, etc. is found soon.
In any case, we should continue using E85 and biodiesel when and where we can.

And do not forget that to make a thorough comparison of petroleum vs. alcohol based fuels you must include the energy that goes into producing it and any other ancillary problems that occur.

Ethanol shares the same inefficiencies as coherent light (laser) ie: it takes more energy to produce than it returns.

Ethanol is also corrosive. Engines that use it for fuel cannot use aluminum for any component that comes into contact with either the fuel or the byproducts of combustion which means that you must use steel with high chromium content which is not only more expensive but is also much heavier…which will further reduce the mileage.

Ethanol is out there to give agribusiness a nice income and make the tinfoil hat crowd feel good. As a viable fuel alternative it is a scam.

Which explains why it is so attractive to Bob the Lung and his ilk.

Wow. “Suddenly, nearly every gas station in the state would install E85 pumps, and it all would be done without direct economic incentives.”

The ignorance contained within that statetment is staggering.

So in Pomoroy land, taxes have no direct economic effect? And farmers actually grow enough corn to supply enough ethanol to supply every gas station in Pomoroy land…

And no doubt fine Merlot flows from fountains on every street corner too.

Unfortunately out here in realityville, we used 5% of our corn crop to produce 5 billion gallons of ethanol fuel last year, a set of figures that are inversly proportionate in their effects on our economy.

The 5 billion gallons of alcohol fuel was literally a drop in the bucket compared to the over 150 billion gallons of gasoline consumed, but used enough corn to force a substantial rise in the cost of corn based food stuffs.

And then of course there is the fact that ethanol based fuel has but a fraction of the BTU value of gasoline which means that while the wonderful automobiles in Pomoroy land putter along unaffected (due to the fact that they run on pie-in-the-sky) our here in realityville we'd be visiting gas stations twice as often as we do now.

Which means we'd need more corn than is physically possible to grow.

Have another glass of wine my friend…

Interesting Idea! But Leigh!  If Smilin' Tim Pawlenty did that, then David Strom (aka Grover “Drown it in the bathtub” Norquist's Mini-Me) would REALLY be mad at him.  You saw how he frowned when Pawlenty tried his “fee” gambit, didn't you?

But seriously:  Yes, if we're going to be promoting ethanol, the simplest and easiest thing to do would be to make it exempt from a gas tax.  It would probably be just the ticket to encourage building of switchgrass-based ethanol plants, as corn-based ethanol can't go as far in taking care of our energy needs: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~brummer/ag/biomass2.htm

As for a certain commenter:  Nice to see that you're continuing your tradition of showcasing the finest in conservative rhetoric, Swiftee.  Keep it up — you're the best thing to happen to the Minnesota GOP since Jon Grunseth.

Calling it a “nondiesel motor vehicle fuel fee

Tee hee Sphincter Woman made bubbles in her Kool-Aid!

E85 – a clean air choice for many Minnesota drivers No one is mandating E85 for your motorcycle, Swiftee, so why are you yapping? Speaking of your bike, do you burn diesel in it? Diesel has more BTUs than that wastefull, government-subsidized boondoogle fuel we call gasoline.

For more info on E85 and biodiesel in Minnesota, see our website: http://www.CleanAirChoice.org

<p>
Bob Moffitt

Communications Director

American Lung Association of Minnesota

Heh Bob the Lung…living proof that “there is no spoon” in the fever swamp.

E85 fuel economy I recently purchased a vehicle that is capable of e-85. After about a 5,000 mile break in period I have been alternating two tanks gas with two tanks e-85 to compare the results between the two fuels (note: I generally do not refill until near empty). With e-85 I get 11 mpg, with gas I get 15 mpg.

Cost wise e-85 tends to follow the price of gasoline. When gas jumps 20 cents so does e-85, I track both prices when possible at the time of purchase. From my limited data set e-85 is ~20% cheaper than gas, but only delivers 73% of the mpg. So it cost me more to run e-85. I still need to take an extended trip on e-85 to compare pure highway vs. the mostly city/short trip milage I normally drive.

As for the posters comments about switch grass ethynol, a little research will show that the reason it is not currently being used is the process is not currently cost effective. Translation, it cost a bunch more money per gallon to produce than corn/sugar based ethynol. Also switch grass or other cellilose (wood, corn stalks, etc..) still needs a whole bunch of research to develop a viable and commercially feasable process. Most estimates are 10-15 years before it will be commercially viable, with 5 years being the lower end estimate.

Dave

Cellulosic Ethanol Dave has been doing his homework.

Much of the talk about “cellulosic biomass” is largely coming from the U of M PR machine — and I must admit they are doing a good job. I hope they get their grant so they can tone it down a bit. Don Shelby is ready to pass out Noble Prizes to a bunch of guys who have yet to prove they have anything that will work in the fuel marketplace, not just in the lab.

If you look closer at cellulosic ethanol, it's a lot like that “Far Side” cartoon where two scientists are looking at to complicated equations on a blackboard, joined by the phrase “And then a miracle happens…”  The caption was something like “We need to work on that part in the middle.”

I hope the experts are wrong, and an effiecent, effective way to make ethanol from corn stalks, grass, etc. is found soon.

In any case, we should continue using E85 and biodiesel when and where we can.

And do not forget that to make a thorough comparison of petroleum vs. alcohol based fuels you must include the energy that goes into producing it and any other ancillary problems that occur.

Ethanol shares the same inefficiencies as coherent light (laser) ie: it takes more energy to produce than it returns.

Ethanol is also corrosive. Engines that use it for fuel cannot use aluminum for any component that comes into contact with either the fuel or the byproducts of combustion which means that you must use steel with high chromium content which is not only more expensive but is also much heavier…which will further reduce the mileage.

Ethanol is out there to give agribusiness a nice income and make the tinfoil hat crowd feel good. As a viable fuel alternative it is a scam.

Which explains why it is so attractive to Bob the Lung and his ilk.