Well that's the end of him..

N

Northern Sod Breaker

New member
(AP) St. Peter, Minn. You can bet Judi Dutcher knows all about ethanol now.

Dutcher, Mike Hatch's running mate in a tight race for governor, handed Democrats the kind of self-inflicted wound that John Kerry might understand when she admitted that she'd never heard of an ethanol fuel blend called E-85.

"It's like you've asked me the college quiz bowl question," Dutcher told a TV reporter this week in Alexandria. "What is E-85?"

Everyone in farm country knows the answer: a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Farmers around the Midwest are betting that demand for petroleum alternatives will boost corn prices, and questions about ethanol subsidies are often the first thing politicians hear on rural stops. So Dutcher's gaffe -- which hit the airwaves late Wednesday -- was the topic of the day Thursday in the slugfest between Hatch and GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Pawlenty, who has promoted ethanol during his administration and his campaign, questioned Dutcher's qualification for office.

"The campaign really is a job interview, and she has shown she that she's unaware of one of the most important issues and economic tools for all of Greater Minnesota. And that's E-85 ethanol," Pawlenty said.

Hatch found the issue overwhelming his day. He was on a bus tour of southern Minnesota with plans to speak about health care, education and property taxes, but he found himself mostly answering questions about Dutcher and E-85.

In Mankato, where he gave a speech at Minnesota State University, College Republicans stood outside holding ears of corn and a sign that read: "Trick question: What's E-85?"
ago.
Click to expand...
Bye Bye Hatch. Oh and you can't blame it on the GOP this time either. How stupid can you be? You come to the heart of farm country then publicy state you don't know what ethanol is. They mine as stick a fork in their campiagn now. There as done a a thanksgiving day turkey.
 
(psst. it's "they're" not "there")

Just to pass along some scuttlebutt that I have not independently researched. E-85 is more expensive to produce and has a lower fuel efficiency than gasoline. So not only with it cost as much/more than gas, you get less miles per gallon.

Yep, sign me up for E-85.....:confused:
 
The facts about e-85 are distorted. If you run E-85 in a vehicle not specificaly set up for it(ie a "flex-fuel" car) you don't get as great fuel economy. If you are running it in a vehicle set up for it, you get better economy than an identical vehicle set up for unleaded running unleaded.

Also, with comparably few E-85 vehicles and stations the demand is not as high for E-85 so it is not produced in the same volume as Unleaded, Unleaded Plus(10-15% ethanol) or Premium. Lower voulme means higher costs to produce.

One negative to ethanol is that if you run blends 20% or higher you need better hoses because the ethanol will eat them.
 
So what if the stuff is more expensive or you can only get 8 MPG instead of 9 MPG in your Hummer. The money goes to farmers and local families instead of someone who has sworn to kill you and all who think and act like you!
 
Sounds like Hatch did what they all do. Paid attention to what he wanted without regard to what teh voters wanted.

rhgunguy,
No matter the setup you get LESS mileage and performance from E85.
Nothing more than additional tax money diverted to farmers, ADM, ConAgra and Cargill.

Sam
 
To not know what E-85 is in that state is shameful!

To endorse its use is shameful also.

From what I understand, it takes more energy to produce than it produces.

For all the bad things that E-85 is supposed to reduce is more than used to actually refine it!

Its like spending $100 to get $80.

E-85 is cleaner for the environment, but the process to refine it requires more of the dirty output in the process.

The end result is creating dirtier air emissions in the process of making autos run cleaner.

I think it is all a ploy of liberals to team up with the struggling farmers for yet another "feel good" measure which costs more than it could ever save.
 
'Not sure about the "Spend $100 to get $80"analogy. We can only say things like that because we have a history with dinosaur oil byproducts. So the question is, how much return do we get for every dollar spent on crude oil based fuel? Any similar analogy there? Not to mention it is in flux and market driven, but if it was stable, could I say I'm spending $100 to get $100 worth of energy back?

By the way, I don't know of any source of refinement or fuel production process that gives a unit out for a unit in. Anyway, along with distribution costs, that is the question. Where's the starting point for comparison? All we have is what we are accustomed to paying.

Something to consider: if the Greens are right and some future Governemnt is going to tax the daylights out of dinosaur products (for environmental reasons OR dependency/security reasons), then the cost of alternatives like E-85 could very easily become competitive.

You guys do realize that WE, the US, is the Saudi Arabia of coal. right? And natural gas deposits accompany coal deposits.

Where's my fusion generator anyway? :cool: 'Looking for renewable fuel source may like looking the Pot O' Gold at the end of a rainbow.

On topic: E-85 sounds like a regional topic in the midwest on which a pol should be up and current. Doh!
 
E85 is not the answer but merely a stepping stone to the answer. If we can raise awareness for E85 it is only matter of time before we move on to other more effeceint alternative fuels. Actauly it's a well known fact that Ethonal is already required in all on road gas sold with in the state. It has been this way for quite some time. They want to make it 20% right now it is 10%. As for costing more to produce then you get out. here's my question. What does it cost to produce pertoleum fuel? By the time you research where to drill, drill it, truck it to the refinary, refine it, then truck it to the distrubution centers. One more thing. With all the brand loyality with vehicles and the protest agaist foreign cars. Why does the same not apply to fuel. It certianly applies to motor oil. Why not gas?
 
(psst. it's "they're" not "there")

Just to pass along some scuttlebutt that I have not independently researched. E-85 is more expensive to produce and has a lower fuel efficiency than gasoline. So not only with it cost as much/more than gas, you get less miles per gallon.

Yep, sign me up for E-85.....
Click to expand...
E85 is a mistake. Less of a mistake than hydrogen but a mistake nonetheless. Farmers finally have an opportunity to exploit America's fear of losing their precious oil and they're gripping to it for dear life. Biodiesel from soy - or better yet, hemp - is only stopgap but a much better one than E85 will ever be.


and back on topic as well: to not know the issues your constituents are concerned with is a clear sign you do not belong in office
 
Um... This is Legal and Political.

If y'all stop jabbering about the merits (or not) of ethanol and stick ot the topic (candidate does not know the issues), then we don't have a problem.

Otherwise, this thread gets closed. Versteht?
 
Well back on the topic of the canidate. As if the E85 remark didn't hurt his campiagn enough it was on the news tonight the Hatch apperantly called a news reporter a "Rebuplican Whore" after he asked him about the E85 debacle. He realy fell on his own sword this time. Let's do a perspective check. You are in a farm country and show you do not know about Ethonal and now you further offend swing votes by using foul langauge and calling Republicans "whores." Get the fork ready...

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_307130427.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top