From home of the weather station that started it all, Marysville, CA their small town newspaper writes a scathing opinion on the California Air Resources Board.
They get it. The problem is that people that make up CARB are like clueless Al Gore clones. With a recent 340% error exposed, CARB is going along like nothing has happened. The problem is CARB chief Mary Nichols, who sees herself and her organization as above the democratic process.
Our View: Air board’s arrogance damaging
California seems intent on traveling a road to self-destruction paved with government mandates and regulations that drive businesses and jobs out of state while discouraging new job creation. A prime job-killing, business-punishing scheme is the insistence on achieving radical environmental goals, despite their real-world economic liabilities.
The California Air Resources Board has adopted a mandate that utility companies produce 33 percent of their electricity from so-called renewable resources by 2020. That’s a drastic increase over the previous 20-percent requirement, which the state still is nowhere near achieving. For some perspective, Congress, firmly controlled by a Democratic majority, refused to hike its renewable requirements even to the 20-percent level.
Compounding the state air board’s error is its arrogance. Even the state Legislature, controlled by left-leaning Democrats, failed this year to impose such an over-the-top requirement. But neither Congress nor the state Legislature’s reluctance dissuaded the Air Resources Board’s unaccountable bureaucrats from going where elected representatives fear to tread.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that air board boss Mary Nichols says the 33-percent standard is important because it “sends a strong, positive message to the market.” The market will get the message, alright. That’s part of the problem.
The message is that California energy prices will soar, on top of the added costs of huge taxpayer subsidies that will be needed to finance so-called renewable energy sources. Wind, solar and geothermal energy are all economically infeasible without massive subsidies.
Like the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars already wasted in government subsidies for the ethanol industry, other renewable-energy endeavors are likely to face similar fates. In Spain, where large tax-financed subsidies spurred its solar industry, 50,000 subsidized solar entrepreneurs now “face financial disaster” as the government realizes it can’t afford to continue propping up the industry with price guarantees, Bloomberg reports. Not only can’t Spain afford to continue subsidies that paid 10 times the wholesale price per kilowatt-hour, but for every new “green” job created by the subsidies, more than two normal jobs were lost.
Without generous tax breaks and subsidies, wind power costs $149 per megawatt hour compared with $100 for coal, according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration.
======================================================
Read the full editorial here
IMO, CARB is a clear and present danger to the livelihood of people of California, it is unchecked bureaucracy gone mad.
Addendum:
Since November 2nd, I’m getting a 3x increase in SPAM inviting me to move to/incorporate my business in Nevada. Given what lies ahead for business in California, the idea has merit.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kum Dollison says: November 13, 2010 at 3:44 pm
“When oil spiked to $147.00/barrel in 2008 Coal went to $140.00/ton (and, actually, briefly went to $160.00/ton.)”
The energy density of coal is roughly 24 mega-joules per kilogram.
2000 pounds = 910 kilogram: 21, 840 mega-joules for $140.00
The energy density of gasoline is roughly 44.4 mega-joules per kilogram.
Energy in a barrel of oil = 6,000 mega-joules for $147.00
Comparing tons of coal to barrels of oil is deceptive at best, dishonest at worst.
Coal/Oil, 21, 840 mega-joules/6,000 mega-joules = 3.64.
Oil is 3.64 times more expensive than Coal.
“On Jan 1, 2011 Ethanol will be cheaper to use than gasoline.”
Ethanol as an energy source will never be less expensive than Coal.
Kum you are a source of disinformation.
Yes, Greg, but it has an extremely high Octane rating (114 vs RBOB’s 84.) As a result, the newest engines such as G.M.’s 2.0 L TDI (in the 2012 Buick Regal achieve virtually the same mileage as straight gasoline.) It’s possible that when the new Delphi Heated Injectors hit the market in the fall of 2012 E85 in such an engine might get Better mileage than straight gasoline.
As far as the “ice” story: That’s just nonsense. Minnesota has 376 stations that sell E85, and I’ve never heard the first story out of there about Ethanol “freezing.”
@David, UK
Logic would say that people would rebel against green energy, but there is a system in place in this country where when prices on a good rise due to regulations or other government intrusions, a large part of the blame is deflected away from the regulatory body and pushed squarely on the company that raised the prices with major undertones of anti-capitalism sentiment.
They’ve spent years training Americans to hate those evil fat cat, poor exploiting industrialists.
It is amazing to have watched the $50 billion police state industrial complex grew up around us since the early days of the Continuity of Government program that was put into place.
The program was exposed that you will see at about the 1 minute mark in this video.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug0IL7k3elQ&feature=related ]
Imagine how nice it will be in California when every one has left. The movie people will have the state to themselves. Along with a few gardeners, they will have uncrowded streets, no waits in the few nice restaurants, and none of that rabble. Isn’t that really nicer than it is now?
A few organically grown crops, hand picked and delivered by bike, think Paris with out the crowds. A few six figure electric cars quietly motor to Silicon valley, dodging some rough pavement and street people at the stoplights. The air as clean and cool as can be.
Isn’t that the way it should be, devoid of the mediocrity of masses of middle class urchins running around. It will be so nice.
To bad when the population reaches that level there will not be a need for the bureaucracy that currently endeavors to make California so nice. So you see, it is an ill wind that blows no good.
Dr. Burns:
>>wind power costs $149 per megawatt hour compared with $100 for coal
I find that very hard to believe. Costing wind power must also include the cost of power storage sufficient to provide a reliable supply.
From 1991 until my exit from a major Midwestern utility in 2001, same said utility had 100+ MW of “wind generators” at the highest and windiest point on the western 1/2 of the state the utility served.
Nasty thing, databases put together with real data…can be! After 10 years of operation, the “capacity factor” of the wind plants was 13%. Yep, that’s it, 13 MWe supplied.
Thus there would have to be 9 times as many wind turbines as “rated” to match, say the C.F. of a coal plant.
Therefore, when capitol costs are considered…let’s say the 200 million that the wind turbines cost, the REAL cap cost would be $1800 MILLION for 100 MWe. Do a 40 year amortization on this, and I’m sure you’ll come up with something close to $1.50 per KWHr.
This would mean taking the current CA electric rate and raising it by a factor of over 10.
On a conservative basis, 30% wind/solar would mean a TRIPLING of generation cost over all!
Wait, Dr. Burns brought up another IMPORTANT POINT.
The wind don’t blow all the time, and the sun don’t shine. Building STORAGE (say pumped?) would probably add about another 50% to the cost, or 17% overall… so the 30% wind solar will go up by a factor of 5.
Hum, imagine your “green family” getting their $800 utility bill every month!
Happy bankruptcy and homelessness, CA..(at least you won’t freeze to death, as you would where I come from!)
Max
Mac, Friday’s CBOT for ethanol is here:
http://news.ncgapremium.com/index.cfm?show=62&subtype=25
Note: that is the price *before* any subsidies are in place.
I’m not sure how many URLs I can put in a comment, so I’ll just say that if you go to Bloomberg, and click on “Commodities” you’ll see that gasoline is $2.21/gal.
A good example of “power” would be that the new 2.0L TDI (turbo, direct injected) engine from GM delivers 220 HP on E85, and IIRC 187 HP on gasoline.
The reason being, you can crank up the turbo to deliver a much higher compression, and concurrently apply more EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) in effect, lowering the displacement available for fuel in the cylinder.
This is what the guys that won the Xprize for building a 100 mpg, manufacturable car did. That’s why the only manufacturable 4 seat car to ever achieve 100 mpg did it on ethanol. Also, alky dragsters are much more powerful than “gas” dragsters. Also, the NASCAR drivers report that upon going from straight gasoline to E15 (15% Ethanol,) they’re getting about the same mileage, but with a little more power.
CARB is EPA lite
stand by for the shaft
Theo Goodwin says: Wrote
November 13, 2010 at 5:41 pm
“We need a new word along the lines of “schadenfreude.” Over the years, I have managed to pretty much avoid falling victim to schadenfreude. But what is happening in California gives rise to a delight in the misfortunes of others that is not schadenfreude. What is the difference? Part of the difference is that the people who are bringing this 1,000 year calamity onto the state of California are arrogant control freaks who believe that they must whip into shape the scientifically illiterate vast unwashed that we are before we destroy the environment, the poor, academia, the transnational elites, puppies, and kittens. These control freaks are hopelessly and grandly self-destructive. In my own case, I think it is knowing just how dangerous these people are how wonderful it is that they are totally self-destructive that gives me such pleasure. Imagine if all public meetings organized by Hitler or his associates had turned into internal brawls with fifty percent casualties. I think that is the source of the pleasure. What is the word?”
Californischadenfreudeication.
Kum Dollison:
Your information is sure different from mine. E85 is over 25% less efficient than gasoline according to some sources and in the winter E85 isn’t E85, they increase the amount of gasoline to make sure your engine will start in the winter. See http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=fuel&subject=fuelAlt&story=e85
and a pile of other scientific sources including EPA on farm studies of tractors fueled by diesel versus biofuels. Guess which was more efficient and less costly?
Kum Dullison,
There are many things wrong with your claims, I shall address one rather amusing one. It requires heat to produce ethanol from corn……..it’s a still you know. Drive by the ethanol plant southwest of South Bend, Indiana and you will see a rather large coal pile used for this purpose. Ethanol from sugar cane makes some sense (see Brazil), it is idiotic to make it from corn.
It took me awhile to realize that God’s greatest blessing on this society for at least the last 50 years is….. the clowns of the Far Left: the Three Musketeers of Idiocy in Washington and the other California wannabees (I mean Brown and CARB, not Pelosi, since she is already one of the Musketeers). They are succeeding, like nothing else could, in waking up all of us normally apolitical folks. Even George Soros can’t keep this stupid train moving now! Thanks, libs!
The times they are a changin’. The MSM are starting to wake up:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/5/climate-change-no-longer-scares-europe/?page=1
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/12/the-uns-global-tax-scheme/
Kum Dollison says: November 13, 2010 at 3:44 pm
“On Jan 1, 2011 Ethanol will be cheaper to use than gasoline.”
The energy density of gasoline is roughly 44.4 mega-joules per kilogram.
The energy density of ethanol is roughly 21.2 mega-joules per kilogram.
Any amount of gasoline contains more than twice the amount of energy as an equal amount of ethanol.
No amount of double-speak will change that fact.
In order for ethanol to be a less expensive than gasoline as a fuel source for transportation gasoline would have to cost more than twice as much as ethanol.
That will not happen on Jan 1, 2011.
Kum you are a source of disinformation.
I feel almost as bad for California now as I did about Zimbabwe when Mugabe sent his thugs out to take over the farms owned by white people. Zimbabwe use to be a major food exporter. Mugabe’s thugs did not know how to run a modern farm. Now they are starving. Life expectancy has dropped from over 60 to about 33. Of course sources like Wikipedia blame it on a drought, brought on no doubt, by AGW.
The high population density of coastal California cannot exist without energy. I wonder how low the life expectancy will drop if this continues. When electricity rates skyrocket and the poor start dying in heat waves for lack of air conditioning, the moonbats can blame it on AGW and double down again and require 66% of electricity come from the raptor Cuisinarts.
The biggest problem with the ethanol vs gasoline debate is no one ever fully identifies what they are talking about, and there many unspoken false assumptions included in the negative attacks against E85.
There are multiple different ways to compare fuel energy and useful work output from a fuel.
Many people focus on the energy content per volume of fuel. If compared by that measure gasoline appears to come out on top, as it stores more energy per gallon than ethanol or E85 does.
The false conclusion is then made that due to the lower energy per gallon then the gasoline engine will produce more power than the ethanol or E85 fueled engine will. This is a red herring argument because it is totally irrelevant to real world comparisons of fuels and their performance in real engines.
What is important to a real driver are two metrics, how much does it cost to go a mile on a given fuel, and how much power can the engine produce on a given fuel.
It is very easy to feed an engine far more fuel than it can successfully burn because internal combustion spark ignition engines are inherently air limited. They can burn no more fuel than the air they can process allows. Therefore the real measure of performance of a fuel is how much energy can you release burning that fuel with a fixed amount of intake air in the engine. To do that, you need to compare the actual energy released at fuel air mixtures that real engines produce maximum power, and at their stoichiometric fuel air mixtures (which is where they spend most of their time on light throttle cruise).
By that measure ethanol and E85 specifically easily out perform gasoline.
Typical gasoline Thermal energy 18,676 BTU/lb Gasoline stoichiometric fuel air mixture of 14.7 – 15.2:1 — it will release between 1270.4 and 1228.7 btu per pound or air burned.
Pure ethanol typical Thermal energy 11,585 BTU/lb 9.00:1 stoich fuel air mixture = 1287 BTU/lb of air burned.
Typical E85 Thermal energy 12648 BTU/lb 9.765:1 stoichiometric fuel air mixture= 1295 BTU/lb of air burned.
If you compare the fuels at their best power fuel air mixtures you get the exact same win for ethanol and E85 over gasoline.
Using the lower heating values you get:
Typical gasoline Thermal energy 18,676 BTU/lb Gasoline Max power rich 12.5:1 = 1494 BTU/lb
Typical gasoline Thermal energy 18,676 BTU/lb Gasoline Max power lean 13.23:1 = 1411.6 BTU/lb
Typical E85 Thermal energy 12648 BTU/lb rich max power fuel air mixture 6.48:1 = 1951.8 BTU/lb
Typical E85 Thermal energy 12648 BTU/lb lean max power fuel air mixture 7.38:1 = 1713.8 BTU/lb
Anyone who asserts that ethanol and E85 produce less power than gasoline simply does not know what they are talking about. In real engines the direct conversion from gasoline to E85 at comparable fuel air mixtures for the fuel used, yields about a 5% gain in power if no effort is made to optimize the engine for ethanol/E85.
If the engine is optimized for E85, you can make upwards of 20% more power than gasoline on the same displacement engine. The 5% figure above is the power increase quoted by Ford Motor company for E85 in their engines. Saab also has engines that they rate at higher power output on E85 than the same engine on gasoline.
Tests run by University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center for the aircraft version of E85 clearly show this power increase.
http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Archive/Fuel/Research/AGE85/age85.html
On the cost per mile issue, again E85 if priced competitively (no effort to rip off the customer) frequently is cheaper per mile traveled in markets where there is sufficient competition that vendors properly price the E85. The current subsidy share for ethanol in a gallon of E85 is about 45 cents per gallon depending on the actual ethanol percentage which can vary from 70% in winter blend to 85% ethanol in summer blend.
Anytime the price split between the gasoline your engine requires and E85 exceeds that amount, E85 is cheaper than gasoline without the subsidy.
For cars that must use premium gasoline that means that E85 is almost always cheaper in both cost per mile and cost per gallon than gasoline. It frequently is also cheaper for cars that can run on regular gasoline.
Right now the national average price for gasoline (regular) and E85 is:
Average E85 Price $2.53
Average Gas Price $2.92
That yields a price difference per gallon of 39 cents per gallon for regular and about 49 to 59 cents per gallon for midgrade and premium gasoline. E85 and gasoline prices vary widely by local, so you need to make the comparison in your market to get a real evaluation of the price spread per gallon and cost per mile.
One web site attempts to track this information, and you will see if you browse through the listings that in competitive markets where E85 is easy to find, it is very competitive with gasoline and even without subsidy it could compete today.
http://www.e85prices.com/
The other problem is that people assume that Detroit FFV (flexible fuel vehicles) are representative of the best fuel mileage available on E85. This is simply not true. The Major manufactures get the exact same CAFE program benefits by selling an E85 capable vehicle regardless of the fuel mileage on E85. As a result the have zero motivation to do anything more than make the engine run reasonably well on E85 and those FFV’s are typically optimized for gasoline mileage and have only minimum adaptation to use E85 effeciently.
Private experimenters easily exceed 90% of their gasoline fuel mileage on gasoline running cars converted to E85 that will still pass dyno emissions testing with flying colors.
Larry
Greg Goodknight says says November 13, 2010 at 5:27 pm
The only real use for ethanol is to add it to ice in the form of Gin or Southern Comfort, or to consume it directly in wine or beer.
“Kum Dollison says:
November 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm
As far as the “ice” story: That’s just nonsense. Minnesota has 376 stations that sell E85, and I’ve never heard the first story out of there about Ethanol “freezing.””
No, it is not nonsense and has been known and experienced for many decades. It has happened to all fuel classes. BS&W is Bottom Solids and Water, and it accumulates to some extent in virtually all storage tanks. Small amounts of water in the fuel lines freeze and block fuel from the engine. Just put 10 or more feet of 1/4″ line 8″ off the ground in the shade in -20F and see what happens.
See this link to U Colorado May 2010 http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/farmmgt/05010.html.
BTU rating for ethanol is shown as 13,160 vs gasoline as 20,750. In other words, the energy content of gasoline is on the order of 50% greater than ethanol after adjusting for all factors affecting performance when run in an engine designed for gasoline. That must include both the increase in Octane rating and the decrease from water absorption. Since ethanol has an infinite ability to mix with water (see bartender for more guidance) it is theoretically and actually possible to reach a water concentration in the fuel where it will not burn, though this is unlikely in the 12 gallon tank on most cars. And most ethanol is made from food, not waste material.
None of which has any relevance to a post on CARB regulations covering electricity sources in California in 10 years.
@the2ofusr1. If you don’t already live in California (which I doubt,) please move there as soon as possible. One of the beauties of the federation of states is that each state is free to go its own way, except for the few powers vested in the United States by the Constitution. I assure you that when California fails, they will not be treated like major banks “too big to fail.” Instead, they will get the Okie treatment of the dust bowl days and expected to evacuate or starve.
To Mr. Lynn’s questions about how California can run a budget deficit the answer is that it can’t. However the state government politicians have been playing games with the budget at least the last 2 years where the assumptions and actions contained in the budget are not connected to reality. For example in the last so called budget the largest single factor that allowed the state to claim a balanced budget was an assumption that the Federal Government would provide the state with 5 billion dollars in aid. That did not happen and of course the 5 billion dollars just carries over to the next cycle. The state also does many other things including shutting down offices on certain days, reducing hours of operation, reducing overtime, increasing sales and auto taxes, selling off state owned property and on and on. But these measures are far short of what is needed to truly balance the budget.
Newly elected Governor Brown will be faced with how to deal with the ever increasing 25 billion dollar deficit projections and a time will come if not already here that the games played in the past can’t do the job.
The state is in a perfect storm where business are leaving in droves, are outsourcing business expansion out of state or just shutting down because of the massive and yet still increasing over regulation, some of the highest general sales and income taxes in the nation and huge increases in yet more energy taxes and intrusive freedom killing regulations on the way as the clueless bureaucrats and government politicians just add on more and more misery. These clowns fail to appreciate that state government tax subsidized green markets will destroy what California needs to get out of this mess and that is huge expansion of free market jobs and business.
Kum Dollison says: November 13, 2010 at 3:44 pm
“On Jan 1, 2011 Ethanol will be cheaper to use than gasoline.”
What do Tate & Lyle and Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre have in common?
1. They both produce Ethanol.
2. They both make more money if their competitor’s products are heavily taxed.
3. They both provide funding to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Angela.
The Ethanol line is that it is ‘cleaner’, that it produces less CO2 when it is burned.
Ethanol produces less CO2 per volume than gasoline because there is less burning happening since there is less energy to be converted through combustion.
Ethanol produces the same amount of CO2 as any other fuel if the released energy is the comparator, and not the consumed weight or volume of fuel.
If they say windpower costs $149/MW-hr compared to coal’s $100, they’re lying. You have to add the 100 to the 149 and get $249/MW-hr because the coal has to be there to back up the wind for the most-of-the-time the wind isn’t adequate.
It’s also difficult to see when it’s burning which makes for nasty burns after accidents, and is corrosive enough that many vehicles cannot be cost effectively modified to allow its use.
E85 has 15%-20% gasoline in the mixture and burns with a yellow flame just like gasoline —- not an issue.
I have a Subaru WRX I converted to E85 with over 40,000 miles on it since the conversion. I intentionally did not change a thing in the fuel system — zero problems. After several years, I even pulled the fuel injectors and checked the O rings. They were like new. I also removed a small section of the OEM rubber fuel line and cut it open. The inside of the hose looked like new. I then let the hose section dry for 2 weeks and bent it double inside out, and there were no cracks in the rubber.
Modern cars (built since the late 1980’s when ethanol added fuels were mandated by law in some locations) tolerate E85 with no problems at all. There are thousands of other experimenters like me that have run completely stock cars on E85 for years with no fuel system problems of any kind. I also run my 88 and my 86 Subaru on high ethanol blends and they have the stock fuel system also — not a problem.
If the fuel system tolerates 10% ethanol blends (as all American Market cars do) they will tolerate E85 with no issues. In areas where blender pumps are available, a 30% mixture of E85 and gasoline is the most popular fuel blend sold from these pumps and it is going into non-FFV vehicles. The myth that E85 will cause corrosion is false. U.S. market E85 contains corrosion inhibitors and less that .5% water content by law. The only issue with E85 conversions is when the conversion is first made the E85 cleans all the garbage out of the lines left by years of gasoline use. This sometimes plugs up the fuel filters. Once the filter is replace there are no further problems once the tar’s and varnish left by partially oxidized gasoline and its heavy fractions are cleaned out.
In modern sealed fuel systems it is nearly impossible for the fuel to absorb water from the atmosphere, even if the car is parked for over a year with fuel in the tank they start and run just fine. E85 actually carries small traces of water condensate out of the fuel tank so it can never collect and cause either corrosion or freezing issues.
Since it is great at mixing with water which it can suck right out of the air, in very cold weather you can actually have ice crystals form and block fuel lines.
Then can you explain why for 100 years alcohols were sold in little bottles to be added to gasoline to “dry it out” and prevent gas line freeze up in cold weather?
Adding ethanol to water lowers the freezing point so low that ice cannot form. This is a flat out bogus claim.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ethanol-water-d_989.html
Freezing points for high ethanol concentrations with small amounts of dissovled water are over 100 degrees below zero F.
If you look at the msds sheet of the common fuel line antifreeze mixtures you will find the primary active ingredient is methanol that is even more aggressive about taking up water than ethanol and much more corrosive than ethanol when water is present, yet these compounds have been sold for decades precisely to prevent the problem you assert exists.
Larry
I was responding to this statement in the post:
Like the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars already wasted in government subsidies for the ethanol industry, other renewable-energy endeavors are likely to face similar fates.
You guys can just keep beating that dead “btu” horse to death, but the fact remains, the difference between gas mileage, and E85 mileage in the new Regal, with the new 2.0L engine is 4%. And, GM says that will go away in the next iteration.
You can hate “Green” all you want; but the fact is: Oil is going away. Your choices will be Ethanol, or Batteries. You Will get to choose.
Hey Kum, the price of Powder River Basin coal has never exceeded $16.00/ton. It’s about $13.00/ton now. However, when the price of commodities and building materials like copper, iron, and concrete increase, the cost of windpower WILL also.