Are high-ethanol vehicles really in the city’s interest?

March 15, 2006
By Billy Dennis

WMBD 1470’s Dave Dahl seemed to go out of his way to not mention 4th District city council member Bill Spears’ name in his report about the council instructing city staff to do more to get bids on vehicles powered by E-85 ethanol-based fuel.

The press and bloggers who attended last night’s council agreed that politics was at least one motivating factor behind Spears taking the lead on this issue during the past several meetings. He says the city should switch to E-85 because it promotes Illinois agriculture, lessens the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and is good for the environment.

It also has to be noted that Spears is running for the seat now held by State Rep. Aaron Schock. Promoting Illinois agriculture and reducing the nation’s independence on foreign oil sure sound like issues of greater interest in the 92nd District than the much smaller and non-agricultural 4th Peoria City Council District.

And I share At-Large Councilman Chuck Grayeb’s briefly stated concern that difference in cost between vehicles with normal combustion engines and the more expensive E-85 engine might add up to the salary of a firefighter or two, perhaps at Fire Station 11.

To be fair, though, at this point, the council is simply asking for the city staff to collect information. These purchases have yet to be made and no one has seen the prices yet. There might before well be some pleasant surprises by getting bids from local vendors.

But I would hope in the end that the council takes care of the needs of city residents first, and farmers outside the city second.

WMBD 1470,Dave Dahl,Bill Spears,Aaron Schock,E-85,ethanol

Tags: , , , , ,

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

4 Responses to “ Are high-ethanol vehicles really in the city’s interest? ”

  1. homer on March 15, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    how many cars are they talking about?

  2. What Evah on March 15, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    I’m shocked that you would think “politics” has anything to do with this! Actually it has everything to do with this. None of them give a rat’s ass about ethanol (and all the farmers in the City of Peoria that will benefit from this!?!?!!?). If they want to support the “local” economy, how about buying some Mitsubishi’s to keep the union-folk over in Bloomington-Normal working? Can’t do that – someone might not like buying foreign cars or supporting the big bad B-N. The better question to ask is are all these vehicles needed or could some of these vehicles be downsized to something with better fuel economy. Not every employee needs an Explorer, pickup or minivan to drive around in.

    Everyone knows Spears is running for higher office and now’s as good a time as any to begin making a record to run on. Think back what else does he have to show for his service?

  3. lou on March 16, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    Hmmm…the group think hype over ethanol made from corn has reached the stage that it is proceeding whether it makes any energy sense or not. Consider that the net energy derived from converting corn to ethanol is only very slightly marginal at best. Plus, add the fact that 100% ethanol contains 40% less energy than the same quantity of gasoline. What does this add up to? The corn growers, ADM, corn state politicians, our incredibly navel gazing legislators representing the Land of Farm Bureau, and now GM and Ford jumping on the green wash bandwagon in a concerted attempt to force these mandates on the tax payers. We are already paying subsidies to corn farmers, favoring the ethanol industry with tax credits, and giving GM and Ford waivers on the CAFE (mile/gallong) standards for producing flex fuel vehicles. Now the legislatures are forcing the purchases of flex fuel vehicles by government agencies.

    When our legislators start encouraging the importation of ethanol derived from sugar cane, I’ll start taking them seriously about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol derived from sugar cane has a net energy return of about 11 to one. Ethanol from corn has a net energy return of about 1.25 to one at best and possible a negative return depending on the source of information.

    Can we “drive on corn forever” (ADM greenwash advertisement)? Sure, as long as we have petroleum, natural gas, and coal to drive the production process.

    Is this country simply incapable of growing any honest politicians anymore? Just try getting elected in Illinois by repeating anything that I just wrote!

  4. [...] Several weeks ago, I commented on the efforts of Peoria City Council member Bill Spears to get the city administration to consider purchasing replacement vehicles that use ethanol-based E-85 gasoline [...]