- Filter by:
- All
Welcome to Secrets of the City, formerly rakemag.com and mnspeak.com. Learn more and submit feedback.
Both the traditional and online media took notice when Minnesota soybean growers announced that they were suspending more than $1 million in research funding because they were unhappy with a U of M study we talked about earlier in MNspeak. However, both reports missed the very strong response the study generated among energy, environment and fuel experts. In a nutshell, they are saying the the latest articles in Science are, well, bad science. Other than a few blogs and newspaper accounts, the media seem to be ignoring the controversy in the scientific community. Were the soybean farmers right to withhold funding? Or is this damaging to the advancement of valuable research at the U? Your thoughts, MNspeakers...
Full disclosure: the Minnesota Soybean Growers Assocition and the U.S. Dept. of Energy are both members of the ALAMN-led Minnesota Clean Air Choice Team, which promotes the use of biofuels to help reduce air pollution.
As usual your propoganda machine is trying to mislead without concern for the ramifications. The original article talked about future and growth, while your current links talk about long standing fields e.g. "The report notes that the vast majority of todays ethanol " emphasis mine.
Talk about disingenuous.
Were the soybean farmers right to withhold funding?
Sure, it's their money and the State of Minnesota would be right to stop subsidizing ethanol.
Whenever someone says something is "bad" science it means that they disagree with the conclusion that science came up with. Its a frequent tactic of Creationists and those that deny Climate Change. But the simple fact is that Ethanol is a disaster and anyone with half a brain could have predicted the issues we are presently running into. The soybean growers are just ticked because someone called them out. They have a right to take their ball and go home.
Sure, it's their money and the State of Minnesota would be right to stop subsidizing ethanol.
Arguing that science in the journal Science is bad science is a tough sell, considering that it's one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in the world.
With all due respect, yoshi, this is the U.S. Department of Energy responding, not some fringe group.
I suggest that it is petroleum that is the disaster, and we best get off that track as soon as possible.
Arguing that science in the journal Science is bad science is a tough sell, considering that it's one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in the world.
I know. That's what is so disturbing about this. The New York Times is considered one of the best newspapers in the world. And yet...
Bob, you are similar to the oil company CEOs. You have an agenda, you push your agenda, regardless of what science or anyone else has to say on the subject.
In your case it is ethanol not oil. It seems that regardless of the amount of environmental damage that this "biofuel" causes, you'll still remain its cheerleader.
Just not paid quite as well...
Got that right, TheDTs!
Yes, I have an agenda. It's not hidden. Ask me, and I'll tell you.
I'm not one to run for cover the first time a little controversy rears its head. The number of practical alternative fuels available today in this country is very small, and I don't plan on sitting by and let anyone -- either Big Oil or Missguided Greenie -- push us back to oil without a fight.
I don't think that study after study after study is a "little controversy". Cutting funding to scientists whose results you don't like is pretty damn shady.
No missguided greenie wants us to go "back" to oil. We just want to skip this step that's appearing more and more useless the more we learn about it and continue on to better things.
The corn thing has got to stop. If we're going to make ethanol part of this, we need to work faster to move to something better, and stop being dragged down by farmers who can't be bothered to grow anything else.
Yes, we've traded Exxon-Mobil and Chevron for Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill. Huge upgrade.
And the awesome alternative that is ethanol allows us to burn the Amazon so that we can drive in SUV's while people pay higher prices for food.
Regardless, why listen to anything I say, considering I am a "Misguided Greenie" (nice ad-hominem). I urge everyone to go to Bob for straigh answers with no bias.
Also, I think it is very disrespectful for Bob to disrespect these scientists.
These are top experts with great expertise. They have been peer-review by other top experts. These studies are the BEST guess we have at what is really going on.
The corn thing has got to stop.
In one sentence, jeffk killed his chances of winning in Iowa.
Bob, out of curiosity is there a webpage which lists who ALAMN gets funding from?
I think it would be interesting to see...
As for full disclosure: I am grad student at UMN in EE department. I also bike to work so I don't put corn or rotting dinosaurs in my tank.
It's always difficult to assess motives in the environmental movement. It's such middle class affectation, something that really comfortable people generally contemplate. Do they want to really clean the environment or shut down economic growth?
The biofuels movement is also getting the farm economy moving again. Putting food on the table of farm families, and yes, companies that employ people and move the economy.
I'm hoping the Soybean People reconsider, and I bet they will.
Remember, I didn't cut anyone's funding, jeffk.
I know no greenie wants to "go back to oil." But if today's biofuel industry is killed before the "better things" are in place, that's exactly what would happen.
How would you feel if this was wind energy under attack instead of ethanol? Solar? Because these alternatives are not "perfect" should we eliminate them and stop wasting time and resources?
No one would like to see the "next generation" biofuels sooner than me, guys. But I know this business well enough to know that the biofuel-ready vehicles, stations, blenders, growers, and consumers we have today (the largest and best infrastruct in North America, BTW) won't just sit by waiting for the the next big thing.
Sorry if progress isn't moving fast enough for you, but attacking the biofuel alternatives we have today won't make them move any faster.
BTW, vlad, ADM and Cargill are relatively minor players in total Minnesota ethanol industry. Most of the ethanol plants here are independently owned or are co-ops.
Re: Rat
That is probably a really common criticism I hear about environmentalists.
I would like to know if I am one of those who live comfortably, but want to sabotage the economy:
My lifestyle: live in a 500 sq ft apt. with dog and gf. Bike to work every day, Shop at Wedge mostly. If my gf would allow me I'd turn the heat down to 40F.
Am I comfortable? Yes, I'm fine with my lifestyle. Do I value the environment over the economy? Yes. I'd rather see environmental protection than economic growth.
This is a dumb comparison however, because I think a lot of jobs can be created if we strived to preserve our spaceship earth better. Technology can be implemented in many areas to increase efficiency, etc.
anyway...
I'd rather see environmental protection than economic growth.
How do you have one without the other?
If wind or solar had disasterous environmental impacts such as Dead zones in the gulf of mexico, water pollution and forest destruction, I would be against them as well.
A friend of mine in college at UAF was in the petroleum engineering department. He told me that the intro course explained everything that's wrong with every type of non-petroleum fuel source. I asked, "what about wind" and he said someone died once after being hit by an icicle from a windmill. I guess that makes justpbob's point that no fuel source is perfect.
But at least wind doesn't turn the Minnesota River into an environmental disaster the way corn / ethanol farming does.
Also, I think it is very disrespectful for Bob to disrespect these scientists.
What about the scientists I link to? Is the U.S. DOE chopped liver?
I'm hoping the Soybean People reconsider, and I bet they will.
Me too. I think they just got tired of being taken for granted, and not being heard.
Vlad, our regional annual report is on our website. Keep in mind that this is for the entire six-state organization, not just Minnesota.
But at least wind doesn't turn the Minnesota River into an environmental disaster the way corn / ethanol farming does.
I've heard the windmills kill a lot of birds.
Ethanol is dying, and I'm glad.
ALAMN, do you get funding from ethanol producers in any significant quantity?
If so, you can kindly shut your trap on this. At least the U of M scientists have balls to stand up to the people that fund them when they see something wrong.
Nobody wants to stay with petroleum but there's a lot of us who don't like half-cooked non-solutions like ethanol as well.
How would you feel if this was wind energy under attack instead of ethanol? Solar? Because these alternatives are not "perfect" should we eliminate them and stop wasting time and resources?
I'd feel they could stand up to it. Why use a binary measuring system to evaluate these things? Why simplify the issue to "they all have problems so they're all the same?" You could put oil in that category as well. You have to dig deeper and evaluate the merits of each, advantages and disadvantages. And doing that, I think a reasonable person finds that when you compare a few dead birds to widespread environmental destruction and a basic inability to solve the problem anyways, they don't stack up anywhere near evenly.
If solar and wind had the kind of support ethanol has, we'd be operating on probably 20% clean, renewable power right now*, that doesn't involve any oil in its production, and doesn't involve planting corn on every square inch of arable land, then drowning it in fertilizer. This is why I am so frustrated by corn ethanol - not because it's not better than gas, it is *marginally* better - but because it's taking funds away from the real solutions.
*if I get a chance I'll try to calculate this number for real
Don't want oil, don't want ethanol.
Saw a show about anti-matter on the History Channel last night, diggity. Is that what you want?
Pretty powerful stuff.
OK, my calculation is that if all ethanol subsidies ($7 billion/year) were diverted to solar, you could increase our solar capacity by about 1% of our total production every two years.
So 10 years of ethanol funding = 5%.
Not a bad guess on my part - and this is a worst case, since the increased production would drive the price down.
Yes, we did have a few words with the Speaker when she was in the region, JACC. Thanks for the link.
Since you are going to figure this out for us, Jeff, here's some guidelines:
Ethanol and biodiesel are alternatives for petroleum vehicle fuels. Please restrict your research to cleaner alternatives for transportation. This may include new engines, such as electric vehicles, if you please. Mass transit is also an option, as is having everyone on a bicycle or foot.
Of course, we are all for other non-transportation forms of energy that don't cause as much air pollution and lung issues as fossil fuels, but since the largest part of our air pollution comes from vehicle tailpipes, we thought we would takle that first.
I look forward (no snark) to some of your ideas, Jeff.
Electric cars and mass transit.
Besides, even if you could only use the solar for grid power, it's still more beneficial to spend the money there and put gas in cars for now.
Two very good ideas.
zzz
Here's some interesting figures on what the money spent in Iraq could buy.
If solar and wind had the kind of support ethanol has, we'd be operating on probably 20% clean, renewable power right now*, that doesn't involve any oil in its production, and doesn't involve planting corn on every square inch of arable land, then drowning it in fertilizer. This is why I am so frustrated by corn ethanol - not because it's not better than gas, it is *marginally* better - but because it's taking funds away from the real solutions
Wind does have support and it is in the south west corner of the state I know because the cash is coming our way. The wind mills will be on ground that is currently producing corn. You are right that corn is not all that environmentally friendly but they are not going to stop producing it even if it is not subsidized, it is a food crop. My outside guess is that soybean prices even without some fuel application are going through the roof as all crops are. One reason is increased demand from china.
True. As vlad noted the other day, MN is #3 in wind-generated electricity. Count me among the fans of wind energy.
Swandog is correct that Minnesota farmers grew corn long before ethanol became a big industry here. Soy prices are already up, swandog, due in part to greater export demand (China, mostly) and a less than great crop from South America.
Wheat prices are up to record levels because of a major drought (two years and counting) in Australia that virtually eliminated their crop. The epicenter of world wheat prices right now is right here, at the Minneapolis Grain Exchange.
That article on what else we could have spent the 1.3 trillion from the war on really has me rethinking my position on the war. Even if we could go back I wouldn't advocate spending that much on any of the things in the article, but I'd like to see what we could have done to use it to secure up what we have and give back tax rebates.
Bob - the ALA site says 82% of every dollar goes to fight lung disease...does that include all the political lobbying ALA does for crap like ethonal, or does that part go under management and general?
Another factor to consider: I suspect the cost and time of retrofitting our current gasoline based transportation infrastructure to handle biofuels is much lower than switching straight to an electric one.
Right now, we do very little political lobbying. Our full-time public policy person has retired and her position was not replaced. But to answer your question, that expense would go under management and general.
BTW, I am not, and never have been, a lobbyist.
I can't seem to find the ALA-MN on the CFB website. Or do you go under the ACS?
I suspect the cost and time of retrofitting our current gasoline based transportation infrastructure to handle biofuels is much lower than switching straight to an electric one.
True. With relative few modifications, E85 and biodiesel can (and are) be sold in existing service stations. The cars and trucks that use it are already on the road (estimate for Minnesota is 175,000 vehicles right now). We have all the crops, processing plants and infrastructue in-state and in place to meet all of our current biofuel needs, and still have some left over to sell to other states/countries.
All this with plenty of food available for both people and lifestock.
However, I still think the zero-emission electric car is a great solution, along with greener and cleaner methods of generating that electrical power. I can assure you, however, that ethanol did not kill the electric car...
Cargill is canceling plans for a new ethanol plant in Kansas due to a slowdown in the ethanol industry and rising corn prices.
CFB, kevin? I don't know what that means (I'm not kidding, I'm really not a lobbyist).
Campaign Finance Board. I want to see how much you spent last year.
A lot of plans for ethanol plans are being postponed or cancelled, which is another factor the U of M study didn't account for.
I think it is a good thing -- the industry was growing WAY too fast, and being funded by a lot Wall Street types who cared more about quick, big profits than doing the right thing...IMHO, of course.
Most of the people in Minnesota's ethanol industry are here for good times and bad, and are from Minnesota.
Who cares about your humble opinion? You're not a lobbyist.
I still don't get how corn ethanol makes the leap from novelty fuel and fuel additive to a viable alternative fuel for all of our needs.
It will always be a niche product. It can't scale. We've already been over this, and yet the ethanol folks keep on trucking. It's an amazing waste of time and resources which could be better spent coming up with other ideas and researching new methods.
I'd agree with John McCain that economic development versus environmental responsibility is a false dichotomy. That could be his usual lip service to moderates, but it's all true. The worst that could happen is that we're left with a cleaner planet and America gets to the forefront of a booming market.
That said, millions of kids in our own country go to bed hungry on a nightly basis, but we're turning food into fuel. Sorta conjures images of the fatcat lighting cigars with $100 bills.
"It will always be a niche product."
The Toyota Prius is a "niche product," too. Stop looking for the single answer/solution to this issue. No silver bullet. Silver buckshot, instead.
Today's Minnesota Daily story on this subject.
The MN Daily story is now on the AP wire, albiet in an abeviated form.
Pot, meet kettle: Regents OK new bio-fuel focus at UMC
Nice to see a bright new generation of earth-killers being matriculated at the U of M's Crookston campus. ;-)
Stop looking for the single answer/solution to this issue. No silver bullet. Silver buckshot, instead.
Was that your attitude prior to selling your soul?
Bob, with all due respect, I think the point you blisfully gloss over is that the industry you rabidly support may help in some ways, but it's harmful and potentially harmful in many others.
I know you're a paid cheerleader, but at some point you're probably going to look back on your cheerleading days and realize what really happened was you were f*cked by the team.
You might was to consider using a condom.
Thank you for your heartfelt advice, Mr. 50th commentor.
In the future, I will cheerlead only for the invisible pink unicorn industry, taking all appropriate precautions.
Maybe you will. Maybe you won't.
Maybe you're current masters at ALAMN think you are doing top notch work as a mouthpiece for ethanol and now biodiesel.
There are a lot of maybes, but one certainty is I'm an instance of someone that won't give money to ALAMN thanks to what I consider scope creep,misguided practices, and harmful policy.
Trust me, this isn't something I do lightly. I have Asthma and I take lung health to be a very serious and important issue.
Your posting/work here on MnSpeak has convinced me ALAMN has taken it's eye off the ball.
It doesn't seem to be about what's right,wrong,or making things better; it's about the almighty dollar.
Ruined rivers, fertilizer abuse, and clear cutting?
So what! We have a plan that may be marginally better than oil!
My contributions would never amount to your Big Corn and Big Soy overlords, but if ALAMN has lost my support chances are it's lost others.
Care to publically say that doesn't matter?
"The road to hell is paved with unbought stuffed dogs" -The Sun Also Rises
JACC:
Since there aren't many Star Wars style speeder-things that run on clean anti-matter, don't you think marginal is better than nothing?
Or is is just the Whole Enchilada that will satisfy you?
This is also helping the farm economy.
(swoons)
MPR's Bob Collins takes a swing at the issue.
@Rat - Though a Star Wars style speeder sounds awesome; until it happens I think I'll push for solar/electric/hydrogen.
Autoblog Green is a great site. I like to give them news tips from time to time, hense their 1st evar MNspeak link.
I told you Autoblog Green was a great site. Check out "At least he drives a Prius."
More LOLs at Biofuel Bob's expense from The Onion.
more like...fuel me once, shame on you. fuel me twice, um, ok.
I suspect, grote, there is more to this story than either party told the Strib.
Minnesota Soybean Growers Association suspended about $1.5 million in annual grants to protest a study by university scientists about biofuels and global warming.
Jim Palmer, executive director of the two groups, said that about 30 representatives of the groups met March 5 with university President Robert Bruininks; dean of the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences Allen Levine and dean of Extension Bev Durgan.
"We got a very constructive understanding of where the U was coming from, and they got a good sense of our concerns," Palmer said. Communications improved greatly because of the meeting and follow-up conversations, he said.
"Unfortunately, this was an argument among friends that got too public," Palmer said.
sounds to me like the Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council simply threatened to hit the U where it hurts. in the pocketbook.
Tipster William was ready to start his seasonal job at Target when he was told that there was no record of him ever being scheduled, taking a drug test, or ever being hired. (Via)
Parasole Restaurant Holdings Inc. will debut its latest concept, a boutique burger joint called Burger Jones, near Lake Calhoun next spring ... Prices will start at about $7.95 for a classic hamburger and run all the way up to $18-$20 for a lobster burger or burger topped with foie gras, Parasole co-founder and CEO Phil Roberts said. The average check probably will be about $15. (Via)
Three men accused of trying to dig up a grave in Cassville in order to have sex with a dead woman have entered not guilty pleas in Grant County Circuit Court.
Let's talk dance for a moment. Where do you go to watch dance? What local troupes do you enjoy? And when you want to tap your toes and cut a rug and, um, shake your booty, where do you go?
WCCO: "The Minnesota astronaut who lost her tool bag on a spacewalk admitted Wednesday that she made a mistake by not checking to see if the sack was tied down, and said she's still smarting over the whole thing." The cost of the thing? $100,000.