Click here to view Winona Area Weather
Home > Opinion > Others Views > Story
 Advertisement 

SECTION SPONSORS


Published - Friday, February 22, 2008
POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (31 comment(s))

Minnesota should lead in alternative energies

.
Irving Berlin, the man who brought us “White Christmas” and other beloved tunes, once said “the toughest thing about success is that you’ve got to keep on being a success.”

This sentiment summarizes Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s message in his recent State of the State address.
Minnesota has a proud legacy of leadership and innovation in many fields, including agriculture. But as Pawlenty said, we need to keep pushing ourselves if we want to maintain and build our economy, our environment and our quality of life. After all, success does not belong to the swift, but to the persistent.

What does that mean for agricultural policy in Minnesota?

It means helping livestock producers boost their competitive ability through efforts such as the Beef Profitability Task Force. It means tirelessly promoting Minnesota-grown agricultural products at home and abroad. It also means pushing ahead in our decades-long drive to achieve the full potential of home-grown, renewable fuels.

In his address, Pawlenty called for gradually increasing our biodiesel requirement from the current 2 percent up to 20 percent by the year 2015. He also called for investments in new energy technologies at the community level. These plans build on existing efforts, including the work of the Next-Generation Energy Board.

Some observers may have expected a shift away from talk about renewable fuels. After all, we have seen report after report telling us corn-based ethanol is an imperfect fuel that will not solve our energy problems.

The dramatic tone of these reports and the ensuing media coverage is a bit puzzling. Even the most ardent ethanol supporters do not claim it is the ultimate solution to America’s looming energy crisis. Instead, what I’ve heard is a two-part message.

First, biodiesel and ethanol have made valuable contributions to our rural economy, air quality and energy security.

Second, as impressive as these contributions have been, we are not satisfied with the status quo. We are pursuing the next generation of renewable fuels, which promise even greater environmental and economic benefits.

The reality is that Minnesota could never have been in a position to lead a charge to bigger and better things if we had not had the vision to start by building up a solid foundation in the form of our current renewable fuels sector.

Having created the foundation, it would be unfortunate if we gave up before reaching the big payoff. As Pawlenty pointed out, if we do not keep pushing ahead in this field, we resign ourselves to an increasingly risky reliance on foreign energy.

And if we wait for someone else someplace else to come up with the break-through technologies, we will reap a far smaller share of the economic benefits sure to come from such advances.

We can argue about the benefits and costs of our existing renewable fuels, or we can see them as the necessary first step toward even better things ahead. We can focus on the imperfections of yesterday’s first-generation renewable fuels, or we can look ahead to tomorrow’s promising renewable energy sources.

As Pawlenty made clear, Minnesota has much to gain by making the right choice and sustaining the drive forward.

Hugoson is the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
.



More News:
    Advertisement
     Tell us what you think...

     Comments »

    Locke wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:10 AM:

    " It's true, it doesn't make much sense, but it works. Suprisingly, however, the MSU studies aren't funded by ethanol producers, but are actually funded through car manufacturers (especially Ford).

    I trust these students, and know many of them personally. The results they found are accurate, whether you believe them or not. If the engines were optimized for ethanol only, they would actually get better mileage than gasonline optimized engines. "

    Troller wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:00 PM:

    " Keep going CE, I kind of disagree with you on this but I'd rather read intelligent posts giving a factual view on an issue, even if it is opposite of mine, than flamers. One thing I've found CE, the "righter" you are the more intense the flame, cause that's all they got. "

    Rawhide wrote on Feb 22, 2008 3:06 PM:

    " Woody...Keep hammering! "

    CT Rock wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:53 PM:

    " Woody, stop being a blog hog ... you and troller don't know when to stop! I'm worried your hands might fall off or your eyes pop out due to all that consecutive bloggin'. Bloggin' hoggin' ain't what J-Dawg wants to dig. "

    cewoodford wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:35 PM:

    " I said it. I DO NOT BELIEVE that study.Not for even one minute do I believe you can dillute an energy medium(in this case gasoline) with a weaker additive(Ethanol) and come out with more energy. Basic tenets of physics would tell you that it is a physical impossibility to make more energy out of thin air(unless you're Algore...he can do anything). "

    PerfectStranger wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:20 PM:

    " Locke, I didn't comment on the MSU study, I made a general observation regarding university studies. I didn't state anywhere that I didn't believe it. Those were your words, not mine. Just read what's there, not what you think is between the lines... "

    cewoodford wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:19 PM:

    " (cont) Besides the corn growers, who are these programs REALLY helping? Me, everyday Joe Taxpayer, is getting hosed, not only am I FORCED to buy a product that decreases my gas mileage, I have to subsidize it through my income taxes AND, because of these subsidies, the cost of feed corn has risen, causing me to pay for ethanol AGAIN at the supermarket through higher prices. So Locke, tell me now how this Ethanol bs benefits me and my family? It DOESNT, it benefits the Corn growers and those in the Ethanol industry miling research grants and tax breaks out of the Federal government. It SCREWS the average American taxpayer but good. "

    cewoodford wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:19 PM:

    " Furthermore Locke, without having to get into a agro-economic lesson with you, you are solidly wrong and possibly blatantly misinformed when you state there is no causality in the dramatically increasing costs of food at the grocery store in relation to the costs of feed corn. If it costs more to feed your livestock(i.e. a government mandated/subsidized corn purchasing program driving corn prices to record levels)you have to pass that costs on down the economic food chain. That cow that produces your milk? she costs more to feed now. That Chicken you like to eat and those eggs for breakfast? Costs more to feed them now, hence, you pay more for a dozen eggs or a broiler pack. Why is it costing more to feed your family you ask? Look no farther than the ridiculous Ethanol mandates(cont) "

    cewoodford wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:05 PM:

    " Locke. I read the entire article twice and am STILL not convinced. Basic logic(no matter what your Corn industry funded study says) tells me that it is physically impossible to dillute a solutions power and get more power..also, I happen to drive a flex/fuel ford product that my employer owns, this engine happens to have the sensors and adjustment capabilites you mentioned. Speaking from first hane experience I can tell you I get nowhere near the milage from the ethanol blends as I do with the summer fuels or the premium grade non blended. "

    Locke wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:59 PM:

    " So you like university studies, yet you don't believe the MSU study when many their AET program's senior design projects, as well as their professors research grants are based on ethanol research? Makes a lot of sense there "

    PerfectStranger wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:57 PM:

    " Solar and wind power are both excellent - and there's enough hot air in these comment boards to keep a wind turbine spinning all day long... "

    PerfectStranger wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:52 PM:

    " Okay, I see that 'ethanolfacts.com' is brought to us by the wonderful folks at the National Corn Growers Association - a group I don't think I want to rely on for unbiased information. They have every reason in the world to put a positive spin on corn ethanol... "

    CT Rock wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:49 PM:

    " You nerds and your science. Its all about solar power baby! "

    PerfectStranger wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:43 PM:

    " There are too many web sites with differing results - no surprise there. I'll check out the one Locke wrote about, but I want to know who's web site it is - a lot of them are backed by someone in one of the biofuel industries, and will of course then be biased. I prefer university studies, but of course they tend to try too hard for the results they want, whatever those may be... "

    PerfectStranger wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:37 PM:

    " Jack Sparrow, the study I mentioned indicated even worse results with grass as opposed to corn - I think it was 45 percent more energy used than produced. I agree that we need to give the biofuels industry time to develop greater efficiencies and better processes, but we need to keep a close eye on the cost vs. the benefit, now and into the future. "

    Jack Sparrow wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:35 PM:

    " Perfect Stranger, I was wrong, as were you. Apparently, "Ethanol production results in a net energy gain—producing 67 percent more energy than it takes to grow and process the corn into ethanol." There are really some quite astonishing facts on that website Locke cited.
    While it does contain less energy, the only reason that it drops mileage is because the FFV's aren't optimized to run on ethanol. (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/range.php) If the vehicles were designed to run on only ethanol, they would get better mileage. "

    Locke wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:31 PM:

    " "As for food prices, the market price of corn really doesn’t have much of an impact on food prices at the grocery store. From March 2006 to March 2007, a period in which corn prices rose quite a bit, retail food prices only increased 1.03%, which is less than half the normal annual food inflation rate of 2.9%."(http://ethanolfacts.com/ETHL2007/foodvsfuel.html) "

    Jack Sparrow wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:17 PM:

    " Perfect Stranger: Currently, it does take more energy to produce ethanol than it is worth, but it is worth working with it, and finding better ways to produce it. Gasoline wasn't worth the effort when it was first used, until it became easier to mass produce. Ethanol is the same. Especially once we learn to produce it from other bio matter such as switchgrass, beets, manure, and especially the stalks of the corn plant, instead of just the kernals. "

    Jack Sparrow wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:17 PM:

    " Also, cewoodford, food prices at the stores aren't rising just because feed prices are rising. Just like everything else, it all runs off fuel prices. As fuel goes up, so does feed price, so does our food prices.

    "

    Jack Sparrow wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:13 PM:

    " I've got a FFV vehicle, and yes, E85 does drop my mileage by about 15%. However, if I mix E85 and gasoline about 50-50, my mileage actually stays the same as with pure gasoline, sometimes actually increasing about 5%. I have qutie a few friends who have also tried this, and they are getting the same results. So Locke, and the article he cited here, seems to be correct. However, apparently I need to try about one-third E85 to get that 20-30% mix of ethanol and gas that the MSU students found worked the best. "

    Locke wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:08 PM:

    " cewoodford, I cited that article, which clearly shows the results of their study. Also, I work with many of the students who are researching ethanol at MSU. As the article said, it even suprised the MnCAR leader when that blend increased efficiency.

    Read the article. Because of the way modern cars run, the ignition timing changes slightly based on the octane level in your fuel. Since Ethanol has a higher octane, mixing it properly with gasoline causes the engine to run more efficiently. "

    PerfectStranger wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:58 AM:

    " That should of course be Berkley... "

    PerfectStranger wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:55 AM:

    " According to the results of a 2005 joint study by Cornell University and the University of California - Berkely, the production of corn ethanol "...requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced." - Ecologist David Pimentel, Cornell University.

    The production of ethanol fuels requires enormous quantities of water - approximately three gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol fuel produced. The increased consumption of water will only increase the cost of water to the point where it simply won't be economically viable to produce ethanol - not that it really is economically viable now...
    "

    cewoodford wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:41 AM:

    " Adding Ethanol to gasoline dilutes the power of the gasoline. To infer, as the study in the Mankato Free Press did, that increasing the dillution to 30% would increase the energy stored in the new solution(the gas/ethanol blend)is absurd. There is absolutely zero logic in this studies findings. "

    cewoodford wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:32 AM:

    " Locke, where are you getting these milege facts from? I'm calling you out. Your statment isnt supported by facts, Ethanol doesnt have the genetic ability to produce more energy per gallon than gasoline, therefore, increasing your ethanol blend to 20-30% would only decrease your fuel economy more than the current 10% does. "

    cewoodford wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:26 AM:

    " Ethanol is ridiculous and the continued mandated use of it is absurd. The rise in feed/field corn is the reason we see our food at the grocery store rising dramatically...all of a sudden it costs more to raise livestock because their food(feed/field corn) has gone up. Again, why has it gone up? Because these ethanol mandates are providing a false market. Anyone here ever noticed how you get worse gas milege form the ethanol blend? I'm all for alternative/responsible energy sources, Ethanol IS NOT one of them. It is a sham of a program that is doing more harm than good. "

    Locke wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:29 AM:

    " Two things Donald. Number 1, the corn used in ethanol is not from food sources. It is field corn, unfit for human consumption. The only effect using ethanol has on our food is by raising the price of all corn, which raises the price of other products. That's a sacrifice we must be willing to make if we want cleaner emissions.

    Number 2, here is my source for the article from MSU: http://www.mankatofreepress.com/archivesearch/local_story_020235016.html 20 to 30 percent offers the same and in some cases slightly better fuel efficienct. Granted, it's a small test and may not hold completely true in all vehicles, but it's one heck of a great start. "

    CT Rock wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:01 AM:

    " Gas and oil companies will never stand for alternative resources. They are the corporate mob that will do whatever is possible to make sure we need their resources only. Under the table bribes, conspiracy, hits and whacks, etc will take place in order to silence alternatives to oil and gas. "

    Troller wrote on Feb 22, 2008 7:23 AM:

    " Did you know the original Ford model T was designed to run on pure ethanol? The push for ethanol treated fuels began back in the 70s and today we have over 200 E-85 plants in Minnesota. The research had to start someplace and now the bio-fuel industry is looking at sawgrass, tree bark and sugar beet waste to replace corn. Auto manufactures admit ethanol won't replace gas. However, it can make a dent in foreign oil dependance. The first computer was as big as a city block and only did simple math calculations. We've refined the technology and right now no telling where it will go. We can do the same with bio-fuels but we have to start someplace. Gotta walk before you can run. "

    The Donald wrote on Feb 22, 2008 5:14 AM:

    " "Proved that...milage better that just gasoline." That's certainly contrary to conventional wisdom which says that ethanol contains significantly less energy per unit of volume. But if so, and if biofuels can actually provide more energy than it takes to produce, I'm not convinced that using our food production capabiliy to run our happy motoring economy is a wise move. "

    Locke wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:07 AM:

    " Minnesota IS leading the way on research for renewable fuels. Many of our colleges have programs devoted to that. One example is MSU-Mankato. Their Automotive Engineering Technology program is high on researching ethanol. In fact, one of their students recently proved that using a 20 to 30 percent mix of ethanol to gasoline, that mileage is actually better than using just gasonline. This is a start on research into getting the right mix of gas and ethanol to reduce emissions and to provide more renewable fuels "


    The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Winona Daily News.

     Post a comment (150 word limit) »

    Click here to report offensive or inappropriate comments. Please identify the comment you're concerned about, the story to which the comment was attached, the date of the comment and the person who made the post. Send comments to jerome.christenson@lee.net

    We reserve the right not to post reader comments containing racial, religious or personal attacks, slander, profanity, e-mail addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers or Web site addresses that are for personal or promotional gain.
    Log In - If you have already signed up with winonadailynews.com, please sign in now!
    *Member ID:
    *Password:
      Forgot Your Password?
     
    Sign Up - To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, winonadailynews.com requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!

    **Your Member ID and password will be required to log in. Your comments will appear under your user name.

    Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

    Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

    *Create a Member ID:
    *Choose a password:
    *Re-enter password:
    *E-mail Address:
    *Year of Birth:
     

    (children under 13 cannot register)

    *First Name:
    *Last Name:
    Company:
    Home Phone:
    Business Phone:
    *Address:
    *City:
    *State:
    *Zip Code:
     

    NEWSPAPER ADS

    WINONA JOBS

    TOP HOMES

    HomeSeller
    Top Homes


     
     
    Dailies
    La Crosse Tribune
    Winona Daily News

    Weeklies
    Coulee News
    Courier Life News
    The Chronicle
    Houston County News
    Tomah Journal
    Vernon Broadcaster
    Westby Times

    Regional
    Inside Preps
    My LIVE! Entertainment
    Best of River Valley
    Business Report
    Healthy Living Today
    Strictly Golf
    River Valley Bike Trails
    River Valley Blogs
    River Valley Outdoors

    Shoppers
    Tri-County Foxxy

    Marketplace
    Newspaper Ads
    Local Website Directory
    7 Rivers Rentals
    HomeSeller
    Wheels Website
    Outdoor Motors
    Jobs

    Portals
    La Crosse NET
    Winona NET

    Classifieds
    River Valley Classifieds

    Links
    Lee Enterprises
    Minnesota Farm Guide

    About Us | Classifieds | Contact Us | Terms of Use | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | Search | RSS | Videos | Advertiser Directory | Add to My Yahoo!
    Copyright © 1997 - 2009 The Winona Daily News. All rights reserved.
    Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.