Smoking Ban Dead… For Now  |   Home  |   Dems Propose Pork-Based Economic Package

25% Ethanol Mandate On the Fast Track

Charlie Sykes has details.

It appears as though SB 380, the bill that starts with a 10% ethanol mandate and ratchets up to a 25% ethanol mandate over time, is scheduled for a floor vote in the State Senate tomorrow (Jan 31). The bill is on the fast track, introduced on January 11, public hearing January 16, committee vote yesterday, and on the floor tomorrow. I think the Dems are moving this as quickly as possible because they know that the more people learn about the bill, the less likely it is to pass.

 

Posted by Owen at 1937 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. After about four months of owning a flex fuel vehicle I am fairly certain E85 is a shell game. You pay less for each tank but have to buy more tanks. I have only run one or two tank fulls of regular gasoline through “Cornholio” but noted the mileage as being nearly 2x what I get with corn squeezings.

   I have yet to confirm that hunch with documented data.

   Posted by Marcus Aurelius on January 30, 2008 at 2244 hrs
   
   
   

2. Marcus, that’s because of the way the engine is made. If it wasn’t a flex fuel vehicle and only burned E85 then they could adjust the engine for the additional compression that ethanol needs for better mileage. Since gas can’t take that compression and your car has to be able to burn gas as well as ethanol, you get less fuel efficiency with ethanol. That’s the shitter about flex fuel vehicles. Just because they can burn a certain fuel doesn’t mean they can burn it efficiently.

   Posted by Matt on January 31, 2008 at 0836 hrs
   
   
   

3. Does the bill have any accomodation for engines that will not operate with any percentage ethanol, such as my outboard boat motor?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1030 hrs
   
   
   

4. No it does not.  I called my Senator Mark Miller this mourning.  He was actually there.  He was in the process of reading the bill.  He did not know that small engines and most boats cannot handle more than E-10.  I find it quite disturbing that he is voting on something that will affect many people and he is just reading the bill and did not know what kind of engines can and cannot burn ethanol.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1054 hrs
   
   
   

5. I’m sure all the Wisconsin boaters (including myself, with 2 outboards) and the FIBS who come here for vacation as well as well are going to love not being able to use their boats.

   Are these senators brain dead?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1136 hrs
   
   
   

6. Bajaskier:

   Yes they are.  They do not look at the unintended consequences of their laws

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1155 hrs
   
   
   

7. Not to mention chain saws, ATV’s, garden tools and anything else that cannot accept an ethnaol blend.

   And, it’s not just the libs trying to push this crap on us. There are a lot of Republicans with ethanol plant connections.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1206 hrs
   
   
   

8. bajaskier:

   I know many libs who have boats and small engines also.  I do not think people realize the ramifications this mandate will have.  I am all for finding alternative sources of fuel, but do it in a responsible way. 

   I have been disgusted with most republicans also.  They are just bowing to the corn lobby. 

   All you can do is call you senator and have your friends and family call theirs if they have a different one. 

   E-10 should not be that much of a problem, it is when we get passed E-10.  Many parts of Illinois has been running E-10 for years.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1214 hrs
   
   
   

9. Matt,

   First I acknowledge what you say.

   Then I say it matters not a whole lot to me as it is flex fuel vehicle I have. The fact remains I am unable to get the mileage with corn squeezins I am with uncut gasoline.

   Now, what is the energy content of pure corn squeezings compared to gasoline? Less, the same, or more?

   What you say I sorta understand as I did some research into that shortly after the Glorietta II explosion in Manila (thought it centered on diesel fuel).

   Posted by Marcus Aurelius on January 31, 2008 at 1214 hrs
   
   
   

10. My senator is Alberta Darling. She is opposed to the mandate. I have been in contact with her regarding the engine damage caused by ethanol and she said she understands this.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1219 hrs
    
    
    

11. Interesting letter last week in the Appleton Post Crescent

    Letters: Olsen shouldn’t sponsor bill that will benefit his family

    
    State Senate Bill 380 is back and once again they are trying to force everyone to use ethanol-tainted gasoline. If ethanol were such a superior product, why would it need government to force us to use it?

    
    Ethanol has been proven to be an actual cause of more pollution, not less, because you need to burn more if it to get the same result as gasoline.

    
    But what is really interesting is whose name is listed as a co-sponsor of this corporate welfare and that is Sen. Luther Olsen, R-Ripon. Sen. Olsen is part owner of feed and milling companies, and his brother, Paul, operates Utica Energy, LLC, which owns an ethanol plant in Oshkosh.

    
    Sen. Olsen in the past had decided to recuse himself from voting on pending ethanol bills due to business ties, so what has changed in the senator’s life that has eliminated his blatant conflict of interest?

    
    Is it now acceptable to have our elected officials pass laws designed to line their families’ pockets?

    
    Eric Destiche,

    
    Appleton

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1242 hrs
    
    
    

12. And a similar letter from the same author in the Oshkosh Northwestern

    Letter: Sen. Olsen has conflict on ethanol bill

    
    State senate bill 380 is back and once again they are trying to force everyone to use ethanol-tainted gasoline. If ethanol were such a superior product, why would it need government to force us to use it? Ethanol has been proven to be an actual cause of more pollution not less because you need to burn more if it to get the same result as gasoline. But what is really interesting is whose name is listed as a co-sponsor of this corporate welfare and that is Senator Luther Olsen (R)-Ripon. Senator Olsen is part owner of feed and milling companies and his brother (Paul) operates Utica Energy, LLC that owns an ethanol plant in Oshkosh.

    
    Senator Olsen in the past had decided to recuse himself from voting on pending ethanol bills due to business ties, so what has changed in the senators life that has eliminated his blatant conflict of interest? Is it now acceptable to have our elected officials pass laws designed to line their own and their families pockets? Senator Olsen is an embarrassment to the Republican Party and should resign.

    
    Eric Destiche Appleton

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1245 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.