As the United States continues to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation is on the rise, and consumers everywhere are looking to stretch their dollars as far as possible.
That’s especially true in fuel markets, where turmoil in Ukraine offers another reminder why U.S. energy security is a pocketbook issue for American families. Fortunately, there are steps we can take to help diversify energy supplies, including the use of newer biofuel blends on offer by select retailers in the state of Minnesota.
In fact, the latest state Department of Commerce report shows that Minnesota outpaces every other state – including Iowa – in the sales of higher biofuel blends like Unleaded 88, containing 15 percent homegrown ethanol. Not only does Unleaded 88 offer greater octane, but it also allows drivers to save an extra 15 cents or more per gallon. And while lawmakers in St. Paul cannot control U.S. energy policy, they are actively considering legislation to help make E15 available statewide.
Those efforts would not only protect drivers by diversifying our fuel supply, but they could also support significant economic growth in Greater Minnesota, which is home to 19 ethanol plants. Currently, ethanol supports approximately 22,810 jobs Minnesota jobs and contributes $6.1 billion annually to our state’s economy.
Access to new markets for biofuel blends like E15 would expand that footprint. A recent study from ABF Economics found that statewide E15 would add $313 million in GDP to Minnesota’s economy and generate an added $27 million in tax revenues. Wider access to E15 also would greatly benefit our state’s corn farmers, resulting in demand for an additional 43 million bushels of corn annually.
At the same time, higher biofuel blends are a great option for motorists looking for a simple, affordable way to help reduce emissions. In fact, recent estimates show that statewide sales of E15 would reduce greenhouse emissions by 332,000 metric tons – equivalent to taking more than 72,600 vehicles off Minnesota roads each year.
[image_caption]Lance Klatt[/image_caption]
Due to United States Supreme Court reversing year-round sales of E15/Unl 88, Minnesota retailers cannot even sell E15 from June 1 through Sept. 15. Hoping Governor Tim Walz and members of Congress can assist Minnesota fuel retailers, farmers and consumers this coming summer save money at the pump and sell a homegrown fuel from hometown fuel retailers.
Lance Klatt is the executive director of the Minnesota Service Station & Convenience Store Association. He also serves on Gov. Tim Walz’ Council on Biofuels.
How about we get back to drilling for oil here in the USA and North America? We granted 643 permits for drilling oil in April of 21, last month we granted 93. That is an 85% reduction in permitting here in America. Gas prices have been going up steady under Biden Administration, long before Ukraine. That is the most economical, quickest way to drop gas prices but Biden refuses to do it. Add in opening pipelines and you don’t have to dream about electric cars plus not use land to feed America for feeding gas tanks.
How about we start pumping from the wells we already have?
https://www.startribune.com/north-dakota-producers-not-adding-investment-despite-high-oil-prices/600156306/
Why offer more leases when producers decline to use / invest in the ones they have?
Edward, most leases never get drilled because they can’t produce the oil necessary to make them pay. Leases do not equal drilling in a one to one ratio. We produce 1 million barrels less oil today than the high point of production a few years ago. With cost of a barrel of oil exploding under Biden, believe me, the oil companies want to produce more barrels per day. Only one hing stopping them, Biden Administration policies!
These are drilled and out of production because their owners have decided not to pump
Being the resource extraction guy you are why not call these guys out: Bakken production goes up and down based on management decisions. You can’t blame Biden for everything.
The wells in Bakken basically sit idle when oil is less than $80 barrel.
The President of the US can’t make them pump when they don’t want to pump.
Some of the bank loans to oil companies include a stipulation that the wells remain active, some do not.
The price of oil has dropped quickly. Why isn’t the price of gas falling in lock-step with the price of oil?
The answer: capitalism is at work, gouging automobile owners because they can.
The future long term impacts are crucial to consider. More below.
What about tomorrow, Joe? Do we just continue blithely on your chosen path, or do we take steps to increase our energy supply in a less environmentally damaging manner?
Oil production domestically has been going up since July of 2020 and is higher than it was during the majority of TFGs term. The fact that TFG helped “negotiate” a two-year reduction in production from OPEC to help prop up profits for the petroleum sector (and his buddy Putin) which happened to squeeze availability as the economy started coming back is the real reason for the price increases. That deal is about to expire and since the same idiot isn’t in office any longer we shouldn’t have the same problem again. The price spike we saw due to Putin’s invasion has mostly dropped off as well. But I know it must be tempting to try and blame Biden for that. After all, Republicans seem to care more about using the price of gas for political advantage than they do about the shelling of maternity hospitals.
Also, any new leases take a long time to actually produce anything. And while the futures market would take note it isn’t really a way to ramp up production in the short or intermediate-term.
Dan, America is producing 1M barrels less today than 2019. That is a fact. As for those that want “green” energy to overthrow reliance on oil/gas, if it was possible that wind, solar and hydro could produce enough power, now would be a time to do it. Fact is wind, solar and hydro cannot service large metropolitan areas. End of discussion, we need oil/gas for the foreseeable future, let’s do it here. Buying from Mid East, Russia and South America is idiotic.
We will continue to be reliant on fossil fuels and responsible for the damage they cause a lot longer if we don’t make any effort to change that fact and instead just focus on oil production. I have no issues with producing the oil we consume from domestic sources but that idea isn’t mutually exclusive with supporting the expansion of green energy production.
Republicans have consistently pushed back against efforts to find and invest in alternative energy sources. Often while on one hand complaining about subsidies for those sources while advocating for subsidies for the petroleum industry. Especially regarding the externalized costs inherent with fossil fuel use which is a massive de facto subsidy. It has gotten to the point that for many Republicans being overtly pro-fossil and anti-green has become part of their personal identities. A group of people for whom electric cars equal California Communists while coal-rolling, oversize Trump-flag flying, pickup parades is pure American patriotism.
We should be pushing hard into green energy, including creating a much more robust grid and diverse non-fossil sources. That would create true energy security while continually minimizing our need for fossil fuels. Not listening to people who trot out the same tired, fear-based excuses over and over.
“Fact is wind, solar and hydro cannot service large metropolitan areas.”
Turn your MN air conditioner on in August and their is a fighting chance the power is coming from a hydro dam closer to the arctic circle than MN…
“The power sale starts in 2015 and will extend contracts through 2025. Under the agreement, Xcel Energy will purchase between 375 and 500 MW of power from Manitoba Hydro. The agreement is subject to approval by the National Energy Board of Canada and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.”
https://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2010-5-01&item=8670
Ethanol is a net negative for the environment and should never have been subsidized or encouraged. It is basically another subsidy for rural communities for political gain and encourages the expansion of terrible conventional ag practices that destroy water resources and are themselves heavily dependent on the fossil fuel industry. An industry that itself is heavily subsidized both directly and indirectly by allowing them to externalize the costs of the damage they cause which hurts everyone on the planet.
We would be much better off investing in a more robust electrical grid and greener production of electricity. Make the price per mile of driving ICE-powered vehicles reflect the actual cost to encourage the transition to lower impact transportation.
Ah, just what I needed this morning, an ethanol shill piece.
The one piece of information the ethanol industry keeps skirting around is the BTU-generated/BTU-spent efficiency. As long as ethanol requires more energy to produce than it produces (1.11/1.0 last I heard), this “biofuel” is just a rural welfare check.
Last I heard, corn ethanol has a net positive energy balance, and has been net positive for something like 25 years.
One unit of input energy to make ethanol yields 1.3 units of output energy.
Of the many researchers that have quantified the energy balance, only one has published a negative energy balance. That negative balance uses weird assumptions like high irrigation costs and a low value of the byproduct distillers grains (very high in fat and protein, and used for animal feed).
Robinson Meyer of The Atlantic offers a new article today: The Global Market is Based on a Fiction. I urge all who can access it to do so as it offers an informative and unusual take on this subject. (Generally a paid subscription is required but sometimes certain articles are released for wider dissemination.) Overall I urge all Americans to do some very deep thinking about the massive damage to the planet fossil fuel usage has already caused and how unsustainable continued usage will be. And do note that it’s primarily males who think they must have their gas guzzling trucks. We have a new hybrid truck that is very attention grabbing and has a very quiet, smooth ride yet can haul a fair amt. It’s averaging 38 mph. It’s an affordable easy step towards the next one, which will be all electric. Change doesn’t have to be dramatic or painful, or happen all at once. Indeed it can bring about meaningful & helpful changes that benefit us all. The key is the majority being willing….
Correction: The Global OIL Market is based on a Fiction
Also correction – I think your new truck is averaging 38 mpg, not 38 mph. At least I hope so!
Another recent Atlantic article of interest was David Frum’s piece on how the ethanol subsidy impacts food prices.
Particularly in light of the pending impact of the Ukraine conflict, we should stop subsidizing corn farmers through ethanol subsidies & encourage a switch to wheat to make up what won’t be available from Ukraine or Russia.
There are two primary sources of CO2 in the atmosphere – that which is already part of the carbon cycle and that which is added, primarily thru the burning of fossil fuels, although some natural sources also introduce new carbon. Even though there is little net energy savings from using ethanol in gasoline, it is produced using carbon that is already part of the natural carbon cycle thru photosynthesis; thus, it reduces the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere compared to 100% fossil fuel gasoline. However, I question that 88 octane saves 15 cents/gallon. I seldom see it priced less than the 2% it reduces mpg, i.e., less that 6 cents/gal at $3/gal compared to 87 octane regular.
Not true. Almost all objective studies (not from the ethanol industry or supporters) show it to have a negative impact on the environment even compared to using regular gas. Keep in mind that the amount of land we use to grow plants for ethanol is about half of what we use to grow plants for food. There is a massive consumption of chemicals used in conventional ag that are used to produce that fuel. Plus, its use to reduce fuel prices simply increase fuel consumption. Add to that the negative effects on water and the environment in general and it becomes clear that ethanol is a really bad idea on every level.
Mr. Klatt should know the disastrous environmental science and inefficient fuel that is offered by Bio-fuels.
Maybe he just wants us to make more trips to gas stations?
Hmm, as a red blooded conservative I assume you are not big on wind and solar
A no on biofuels.
So your doubling down on clean coal?
Unfortunately, the path to a coal burning vehicle leads you to an EV.
Drat! Those greenies are getting you from every direction. Show ’em up with your basement molten salt reactor…
I’m not disagreeing with the author here but “pain” at the pump? They’ve been paying north of $5 a gallon in Europe for years. We see some inflation for the first time in decades, and we have yet another price spike at the pump (I think this is the 5th gas crises I’ve lived through) and we’re in pain? Yeah, all these people whine about the pain whenever this happens but when prices go back down they start guzzling again because big trucks are on sale at the local dealer. Whatever.
Sure, we need to transition towards sustainable energy and more efficiencies but we can stop whining about the pain (says the cranky old man).
By the way, Joe… the US is producing more oil now than ever before although it dipped a little last year, and that’s obviously not controlling the pain at the pumps. I don’t know why you claiming that more domestic oil production is the big solution.
I love how the old stats (and wives tales) keep getting thrown out there. The carbon intensity of Ethanol has gone from a net 56 gCO2e/MJ to 44 gCO2e/MJ over the last 15 years. It will continue to go down. Traditional gasoline and diesel come in at about 100 gCO2e/MJ. This is according to the California LCFS standards. So, ethanol is about 1/2 as carbon intensive. Facts are facts. Currently in the midwest region, the carbon intensity of our electricty is 980 lb/MWh, even an electric car at 90% efficiency uses 137 gCO2e/MJ to operate. So today it is not a net savings in carbon, despite what everybody is telling us. It is mainly a marketing ploy at this point to sell electric cars.
I’d like some sources for those numbers because they seem inaccurate. For example, Minnesota appears to average 816 lbs, not 980 lbs, per MWh of electricity (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/minnesota/), so that would make a 90% efficiency car run at 92.7 gCO2e/MJ. Meanwhile, it appears that ethanol is not at 44, but rather 51 gCO2e/MJ (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abde08), which is less than gasoline at about 111 gCO2e/MJ. But most cars can only handle (very generously) about 15-20% ethanol, so the blended value is about 98 g gCO2e/MJ for just the blended fuel, ignoring fuel efficiency. Internal combustion engines are only about 35% efficient (generously). That is, about 65% of the fuel consumed by an ICE car results in no more than noise and heat, not motion or even creature comforts, so an ICE car gets far less work out of its energy source than an electric car motor per gCO2e/MJ.
But even if I take your numbers at face value, it remains problematic that land that should be used for food is being pushed for using fuel rather than pushing for a future that conserves fuel and feeds people. “Pain at the pump” is less of an existential crisis than empty cupboards.
I guess I have to disagree with the author… ethanol is not the big solution.