Guest essay by Eric Worrall
US investment in biofuels are to be expanded under proposals advanced by the US EPA.
Under the proposed rule announced Friday, the amount of ethanol in the gasoline supply would increase in coming years, just not as much as set out under federal law. That approach drew criticism from ethanol and farm groups that have pushed to keep high volumes of ethanol in gasoline.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has called for a robust renewable fuels standard while campaigning in Iowa, host of the leadoff presidential caucuses next year.
…
In a bid to ethanol producers, the administration also announced Friday that the Agriculture Department will invest up to $100 million to help improve infrastructure for delivering ethanol to cars, such as fuel pumps capable of supplying higher blends of renewable fuel.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/epa-proposes-lowering-amount-ethanol-gas-143928039–finance.html
When will this madness to stop? Even green journalists like George Monbiot, and former members of the UN like Jean Ziegler, people who believe wholeheartedly in the alleged dangers of anthropogenic climate change, think biofuels are a crime against humanity.
Burning hundreds of millions of tonnes of staple foods to produce biofuels is a crime against humanity. Since 2007, the EU and US governments have given lavish support to agribusinesses to fill car fuel tanks with food – compulsory targets, and tax breaks and subsidies(pdf) worth billions annually. The result? Increased hunger, land grabbing, environmental damage and, ultimately, hundreds of thousands of lives lost.
…
EU policies promoting biofuels have, since 2008, diverted crops out of food markets at the bidding of powerful agribusinesses, in their pursuit of private profit. This use of large quantities of food and commodity crops for relatively small amounts of transport fuel has had three disastrous consequences.
First is an increase in world hunger. Almost all biofuels used in Europe are made from crops, such as wheat, soy, palm oil, rapeseed and maize, that are essential food sources for a rapidly expanding global population. Europe now burns enough food calories in fuel tanks every year to feed 100 million people.
If there is ever a reckoning, a demand by victims of green policies for redress for the injustice and brutality they have suffered, at the hands of well meaning fools, the biofuel lunacy will surely top the list of wrongs to be righted.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is interesting to see they think that the solution to hunger in the developing and First world is to stop burning ‘food’. What are we supposed to do – give it to them free? Are they not supposed to ‘grow their own’? Once they accomplish that well, what happens to all the energy-intensive production in the West? Stop? And put all those farmers out of work?
“Europe now burns enough food calories in fuel tanks every year to feed 100 million people.”
100 million children in developing countries are underweight.
3.1 million children each year die of malnutrition.
There is an article in Newsweek today posted on yahoo news. The headline is, James Lovelock: ‘Saving the planet is a foolish, romantic extravagance’ it’s an interesting article if anybody is interested
The hate propagated against ethanol is like that against global warming “deniers” … mostly emotion while ignoring facts, often mixed with profanity even on conservative sites. Average Joe and Phil in California are trying to introduce some logic.
An ethanol mandate is not free market true, but does anyone consider gas to be in a free market? Does no one remember the wars in the Middle East, where Greenspan emphasized the importance of keeping the flow of oil flowing? We have treaties with the Saudis, and Hillary got them their jets, but are they really our friends? We’ve basically enriched many enemies, treating them as “most favored nation” as far as trade, because we run on energy. Oil has not been cheap, and is only slightly cheaper than ethanol per calorie delivered, when mixed for high compression engines. (I would like to buy non-ethanol for small engines more easily, but run them dry each use and they are fine)
And every dollar that goes to some farmer or ethanol producer does NOT go to our geo-political enemies, and reduces demand, lowers price in that global market. And there is indeed a multiplier effect of dollars spent from actual production (as opposed to the government taking money and spreading it around as “stimulus” for their friends, at your expense). Printing money is not production but rather slicing up a share of your pie. Growing grain is making more pies.
Selling corn to China at $4.00 bushel instead of $2.25 helps offset some of the trade imbalance, caused by all you filling your homes with cheap electronics and clothes from China, helping them build their military. AGW is part of the left’s path toward globalism, and sending our production overseas is another leg of that stool. At least make them pay a decent price for our food that they desperately need.
And yes, we overproduce grain, so any other use for corn is awesome for keeping farms profitable and well equipped. A stable food source is a commodity over which wars are fought. It is in our national interest to maintain ours as the safest and most abundant in the world. And you know government still pays farmers to NOT grow crops, on CRP ground, or other similar programs. Because man shall not live by leveraged buyouts alone, he needs to have productive farmers not in bankruptcy.
And why is burning corn evil, but growing cotton is NOT evil? Or not growing vegetables in all your big over fertilized lawns, isn’t that evil too then? You pollute the air with your untuned lawn mower, and make neighbors listen to the noise, while that Mexican kid pictured above starves since you won’t grow him some potatoes in your big lawn. And what was the logic of that cartoon? Low prices drove them out of business, now higher prices are also bad for the Mexican farmer? That’s just another lie, more propaganda … Mexico produces 2.5 times as much corn as they did 30 years ago, an amount that has grown steadily.
And blaming the food cost increase on corn is crazy, since especially now with corn at $3.50, most of the corn price increase is from increased fuel, and other inputs. And most of the food price increase is from other middle men, not the grain cost. You get 58 pounds of corn for $3.50, or if you run it through a cow that might make six pounds of beef. But there are some processing charges before it appears at your grocer.
Ethanol is not about global warming, it’s about keeping our energy dollars here, or balancing our trade deficit. The dirty deals we made with Saudis or others over the decades had a real cost, while we act like it was magic that oil kept flowing. We need fracking, nuclear, ethanol, coal … all of it. Africa and Russia have plenty of good land, but they are commies, or at war always … that is not our fault.
I see little logic in the sudden hate for ethanol, except that the left has joined in because they saw farmers tended to be conservative, so they hate to see them profitable. I have double digit acres, and work more at food plots and other conservation. But better off farmers do more to conserve the land. Producing ain’t cheap.
This has been another great thread/read at WUWT and has convinced me to learn a whole lot more about what I thought I knew about ethanol production in the US.
But wait Alan, there’s more. It’s all about the cost of feedstock (well that’s a bit of an oversimplification of the situation but close enough). Todd Becker, CEO of Green Plains has said that the price of sugar derived from corn is now about 8 cents/pound or 20 cents/Kg. Getting down to 20 cents/Kg has long been accepted as a desirable target for next generation biofuels (although, as we see, that was still not quite enough in the current environment), but it now puts some high volume, higher value specialty chemicals in the range. The US, with its huge technology leadership in this field, is in the driver’s seat for capitalizing on these opportunities. Many molecules, particularly some of those involved in polymer production (> $200 – 300 Billion/year products combined) are getting within the range, along with a host of other massive volume compounds. Then there are more complex molecules that sell for >$100/gallon equivalent (some are solids). Clearly these are well within the range now and they are actually planet-saving too, for real, as some of the current processes involve quite dirty chemistry.
Much of this has been capitalized by the free market too.
Midwest…
The dislike for ethanol is in part because of the fact that it is government mandated via a lobby which has controlled the politicians in congress for years requiring us to water down our fuel with low BTU ethanol. It causes numerous problems in engines especially older and smaller engines and in boats where the fuel is not replenished frequently especially during winter layup period. I have spent a lot of $$$ correcting persistent problems in my boat, thanks to ethanol. All fuel in NJ must be contaminated with ethanol, no choice. Now the EPA is pushing for even more (who do you think is behind the push) and if you look at the mandates the amount of ethanol will go up every year.
The ethanol industry has become a leach on the industry that provides our transportation fuel, wanting more blood every year and we have dishonest politicians taking their lobby $$$ to get re elected. Now the EPA has become the corrupt bidder.
Would you be happy if the government mandated that you were required to incorporate 10-15% of a competitors product in yours and you were still responsible for the quality? In addition the government is requiring incorporation of cellulosic ethanol which has been scarce, while fining the fuel blenders for not incorporating non available cellulosic ethanol.
There are a lot more problems with biofuels and ethanol that have already been covered.
yeah I mentioned the small engine issue, and wish the ethanol free was more available, even if at a 30% markup. But my Camry with 100k on it has never had an issue.
Forcing the use of a competitors product? You mean we spent no money keeping global oil access flowing, no tyrants or terrorists are enriched if oil is at $120/barrel instead of $50?
“The ethanol industry has become a leach on the industry that provides our transportation fuel” … well the oil industry has been a leach on the taxpayer in that we made dirty deals with Saudis etc., and the industry enriches our geopolitical enemies. You think they don’t have lobbyists?
If there is corruption, that should be rooted out. Direct payments could be eliminated. The EPA and any bidding for bribes is its own problem.
Midwest…
So if the government made you mix 10 to 15 % Mexican corn with every Bushel you sell, and you were fined if it were not available or was too expensive, like cellulosic ethanol happens to be for fuel blenders, you would be comfortable. Oh now the Agriculture department is going to spend millions building distribution facilities for Mexican corn using your tax dollars, instead of your corn, you would be OK with that? Now we are going to raise the requirement to 20%, OK with you? If you don’t want to mix in competitors corn you can buy credits from TESLA or some other rich guy who has acquired green credits from their government subsidized battery factory.
Where does the madness end? Not before you are sucked in as others have indicated.
BTW, I have a lot of respect for the small farmer and wish him well, but as you know a lot of farming has
been taken over by big investors who make a fortune not planting crops that they would not plant anyway on land they bought just to get the taxpayer dollar.
Midwest…
I forgot the EPA is already after the farmers, ranchers and anyone else who has water, even puddles, on their property under their regulations expanding the clean water act.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052815-754728-new-epa-water-rule-marks-expansion-of-administrative-state.htm#ixzz3bed75alW
Puddles, Potholes Under Government Control — Has EPA Gone Too Far?
“”EPA’s attempt to redefine ‘navigable waterways’ to include every drainage ditch, backyard pond and puddle is a radical regulatory overreach that threatens to take away the rights of property owners and will lead to costly litigation and lost jobs,” said GOP House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.
Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat, earlier this week, the regulatory state — of which EPA is a major part — has become an enormous brake on our economy, one that violates Americans’ constitutional rights.”
Got any water, pond or ditch on your farm?
That’s silly, there is no profit in helping Mexico compete. But Obama did declare a moratorium on gulf oil, and a deep water rig went to Petrobras, as Obama smiled and told Brazil he wans US to be their biggest customer.
But the part about requiring certain blending if it is not available doesn’t make sense either. I don’t know about all those other rules, and they may need to be cleaned up. The flat 10% requirement makes sense, but not the cellulosic parts. Obama seems to think making the requirement will magically make the industry produce it. Corn was already a working process, and now it is very close to oil, and has higher octane.
The cellulose part seems as wasteful as the TESLA or Solyndra scams, for now. Maybe spend some money on research if it would solve some other problem (make a profit while mowing highways, for instance). But I haven’t really followed what the law says about using cellulosic.
But ethanol is a real fuel, with high octane. If we ever get the economy rolling again we’ll need more fuel, and shouldn’t need to import it. Ethanol is by far the most efficient solar energy. And the plants can be run on natural gas, which in a sense converts that natural gas into a liquid fuel for transportation.
yeah, the EPA is part of the “commie”/progressive klan that aims to control us by any means necessary, most of which are unconstitutional. Remove them and I think the 10% ethanol mandate could work to stabilize farms and lower energy prices.
Lower energy prices overall is good for the poor, and sucks the wind out of countries solely reliant on the oil they happen to sit on. (Middle East mostly, but also Russia, Venezuela)
And yeah, the corporate farms I hear of should lose any other subsidies or direct payments, but I don’t know the nitty gritty of that. Many distortions are from zero interest rate policy, quantitative easing, and huge spending by big government. Ethanol mandate is not spending, and revenues from farms generate taxes. Solyndra was a boondoggle giveaway to Obama donors, along with other redistributions to unions or any leftist group. An ethanol mandate goes directly into rural America, where the life is needed to maintain those acreages and smaller towns. But some of the money for the ethanol plants, or direct payments for the farms, and the leveraged market players that get bailed out then buy up a million acres … those are destructive distortions. The IMF and monetary policy have a lot to do with the distortions, so we see gold go from $300 to $1200, oil from $17 to $150 back to $50. All this manipulation and refusal to win wars we get in, and EPA and other regulatory regimes … are killing our economy.
The distortions screwed a lot of small farmers over different periods, and I’m very small, buying the old homestead area for memory sake, but not the whole farm. I didn’t spend my life on the farm, so am just conserving what I can and enjoying semi-retirement in the country. I’d like to advance some horticultural interests, but it’s tough to compete globally.
I still find it amazing that an acre of corn can produce about 440 gallons of ethanol, and the protein part still goes to feed cows. Meanwhile the $trillion we spent and blood we shed on wars to keep oil flowing is now mostly wasted, as ISIS is selling that Iraq oil, and Russia client Iran seems to be controlling much of the region. There are many considerations. The “oil industry” is not just US.
“and now it is very close to oil, and has higher octane. ”
This snippet of a comment makes me wonder what you think “octane” even means?
Are you, as many people may tend to do, somehow confusing “octane” with “energy content”?
Because the two are completely unrelated.
In fact, the octane number on gasoline is a measure of how readily a given mixture will ignite when compressed, and implies nothing about energy content.
Higher octane rating number means that a given mixture will have a higher resistance to ignition when compressed.
In other words, it is harder to make it burn. This is important because it allows for a higher compression ratio of the air-fuel mixture. Having a fuel which has an insufficient resistance to ignition for a given engine can lead to engine knocking and run-on, i.e. the fuel will tend to ignite spontaneously…it will preignite before the piston reaches the point of optimum compression.
Ad as for ethanol being “very close to oil”, perhaps you could explain what this means?
Do you mean in price? Is that before subsidies?
Whatever anyone thinks it means, the price of corn will once again shoot way up if and when there are any supply problems. There is now much less of a cushion in the system.
Those who raise chickens, hogs, cattle, and other livestock understand this very well, and there are less of them now and herds are smaller, and so meat is now more expensive than ever in history, and prices are rising quickly, and may never go back down.
I know one thing, only a person who is personally lining their pockets from this insanity, or is woefully uninformed, could possibly support ethanol mandates.
It is helpful to mix higher octane ethanol with lower octane gas, not because it has more energy. You notice higher octane gas costs more, there are some performance benefits in some cases.
At the moment rack prices for ethanol is pretty low, like $1.60, and it will be hard to be profitable at that price. But it may be hard for fracking to be profitable if oil is around $50 instead of $90. It’s around $60 now.
Without the “subsidies”, corn ethanol is close to oil in price. Most of the actual subsidy is over, and the ethanol plants are built, and the system is working. Most vehicles are built to handle ethanol just fine, but yeah, let me buy ethanol free for a buck more a gallon, for small engines or boats.
I know you claim it costs more to make ethanol than it sells for, according to your new data. I think that’s wrong, but you didn’t give a link.
In 1999 we produced about 240 million Metric tons of corn. In 2014 we produced 361 million metric tons. 20% of that today is used for ethanol, meaning we are still producing some 50 million more metric tons than in 1999 AFTER subtracting the ethanol portion. Would you like to revise your comment about “one thing I know is I’m right and anyone that disagrees is wrong”?
The price for fall corn is about $3.40/bushel, which barely allows for inflation over the last decade. But oil in 1998 or so was around $17/brl, then it went to $140, now back to $60 for now. That means all inputs for corn are way up, and other costs of producing and delivering food are way up, including Obamacare costs. One of the reasons prices went way up was mutual fund players gambling in commodities. That’s the same reason gold or oil went way up, as people don’t trust the USD. Now with everyone inflating their currency, the USD is the tallest midget, and the dollar has soared.
The bubbles in the dotcoms, then housing, now inflated currencies, has more to do with the distortions than ethanol.
BTW, add to the above that ethanol has far less energy content than gasoline, and gas with ethanol in it robs fuel economy, no matter the octane.
Ethanol has higher octane because it is hard to make it burn. That is all an octane rating even means.
” Ethanol is by far the most efficient solar energy. And the plants can be run on natural gas, which in a sense converts that natural gas into a liquid fuel for transportation.”
First, as to efficiency, you must have meant to write “least efficient solar energy”, because the way you wrote it is as far from being correct as any sentence ever written in the history of language.
As for using natty gas to run ethanol plants, I guess you already forgot about the sentence you had just written when you wrote this. I thought ethanol was liquid solar? What would you need to add energy from nat. gas? Unless…oh, yeah…that’s right! When a person spouts so much bullshit, it can be tough to keep the lies straight. Well, better luck next time in trying to spin a consistent fairy tale.
As for the reason for your tiresome and nonsensical explication, thank you for setting the rcord straight by admitting you are personally standing to gain from this scam. I confirms the obvious fact that only someone who was on the receiving end of such chicanery could ever defend it. But it still makes you a very unethical person.
Hope you can sleep at night, knowing you support and profit from this theft by deception, fraud, and what amounts to murder.
” Meanwhile the $trillion we spent and blood we shed on wars to keep oil flowing is now mostly wasted, as ISIS is selling that Iraq oil, and Russia client Iran seems to be controlling much of the region.”
No matter what one thinks about the reasons for the wars we have fought over the past 15 years, they were definitely not for the purpose of keeping oil flowing. Going to war skyrocketed prices immediately. Especially the one in Iraq. The oil was flowing, and then stopped for many years when we invaded. If one was cynical, one could be convinced that the war was started with this in mind, as it quickly led to the highest prices in history, and did the opposite of “keeping the oil flowing”.
As for the rest, oil is a global market, and it matters not who is selling it. If our enemies profit from the sales, that is a bad thing, but has nothing to do with supply. And Iran has long been a major oil producer.
Besides for all of that, the US is well on the way to energy independence, via the fracking revolution. Ethanol is a burden on this trend, not a help.
I hate to spend so much time criticizing another person point of view, but the crap you are spouting, Midwest Rhino, is just too ridiculous to let slide.
most efficient way to capture solar energy … sorry you couldn’t figure out what I meant when I was “explicating” as you call it. The btu’s have to come from somewhere, corn gets it from solar.
“Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies,”
Now you can argue with that if you want. But in any case we had alliances with the Saudis, and goals for the region, while we watch millions get slaughtered in Rawanda and other regions without oil. Tell me again you KNOW it was not about oil, and the economy, at its root. But then you are always right, and you know I’m a terrible person. sheesh.
“What would you need to add energy from nat. gas? Unless…oh, yeah…that’s right! When a person spouts so much bullshit, it can be tough to keep the lies straight. Well, better luck next time in trying to spin a consistent fairy tale.”
ummm … ethanol plants need energy from somewhere, to produce the liquid. Natural gas is cheap.
“This week Coskata announced that it is changing the feedstock focus of its first commercial operation using its syngas fermentation technology from using biomass to natural gas. Their plans to use biomass to make ethanol won’t be abandoned entirely, but the natural gas project will be developed first.”
“As for the rest, oil is a global market, and it matters not who is selling it. If our enemies profit from the sales, that is a bad thing, but has nothing to do with supply.”
When we use 10% ethanol, we use about 8% less oil. That lowers demand and price. “It matters not” if we are supplying all our own oil and don’t need imports, we can still lower global prices by exporting refined oil and ethanol. We’re also starting to export liquified natural gas. Hurray for us. Oh, and we export lots of coal … making energy cheaper for the poor of the world. Hurray team USA! We need to mine more coal though.
“I know you claim it costs more to make ethanol than it sells for, according to your new data. I think that’s wrong, but you didn’t give a link. ”
I never said that. What I said is that there is plenty of convincing evidence that the energy it takes to produce the ethanol is equal to or greater than the energy in ethanol.
Spending money to produce food makes sense. Wasting food to make fuel makes no sense.
If it is so great, why the mandates? Anyone is free to buy some ethanol and put it in their tank if they want…no one needs a mandate to do that.
How many would if it was not mandated?
And why would anyone want to add something to costly gasoline if that something reduces the mileage the gas gives them?
Only a pure fool.
And as I said, the price of corn is at a multi year low. If it stays there, great. I would not bet that it does.
Global cooling/grand solar minimum is only one of the risks. But we have seen and have ample evidence that the supply is now much less resilient, and the price is much more unstable.
This may be bad news even for the farmers who grow the corn. They have to try and guess whether to lock in a price, or wait and see if prices improve, have to decide what to grow in the face of uncertainty.
But this thread is not on the subject of the price of ethanol, it s on the subject of ethanol mandates and how this impinges on worldwide food supply, being that the US is the top grower and the producer of the largest surpluses in the world. Or was. Not sure about now,
“Would you like to revise your comment about “one thing I know is I’m right and anyone that disagrees is wrong”?”
So you use quotation marks to attribute this statement to who? I do not think anyone said this, and you seem to be talking to me.
I will not have any conversation at all with a person who not only puts words in someone’s mouth, but actually states that it is a direct quote when no such thing was said.
You are an outright liar. I cannot stand liars.
“I know one thing, only a person who is personally lining their pockets from this insanity, or is woefully uninformed, could possibly support ethanol mandates.”
That is what you said, and after I thoroughly corrected several of your ignorant statements, ignoring your hateful vitriol, I think my paraphrase was correct. Now you return to the hate speech of “you’re a liar”.
Stick to your chemistry, you seem better at that. You’re right, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it yields out the tank. BUT most of that energy comes from the sun, and most of the “production” happens in the field.
Another good read Eric. Thanks. BTW, I say burn wood.
“I see little logic in the sudden hate for ethanol” Midwest Rhino
No sudden hate. The spring that feeds ethanol mandates is the same polluted source feeding all other energy mandates. It is all subsidy farming and you probably know that. You fight for ethanol today thinking you will be the last eaten. Maybe so but eaten you will be.
“It is all subsidy farming and you probably know that. You fight for ethanol today thinking you will be the last eaten.”
That’s a wild assumption. I gave maybe a dozen reasons you are wrong, but sure, go with the “last eaten” theory.
growing algae takes water – acres of it. Where are you going to get the water? evporation will eat up your water and it will need to be replaced continuously. sure, use wastewater, but most of that is in populated areas with little acreage to spare. It is possible, but so is running the hundred backwards, but not as funny.
Another related topic about subsidies this time for the TESLA empire, exposed by the LA Times..
Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html#page=1
“Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.”
“And he’s built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.”
“Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.”
His real name is Howard Hughes Jr.
I thought his real name is P.T. Barnum considering the sales techniques.
“there¹s a sucker born every minute.”
Biofuels are the lie about the lie.
They lie(understate) about their total contributions to atmospheric CO2 when looking at the complete picture as they lie about CO2 being a pollutant.
Biofuels waste tremendous amounts of natural resources, produce massive pollution, tie up tens of millions of acres that could be use to grow food and other crops, increase prices, ruin small engines, are a less efficient source of fuel than gasoline and only make a tiny difference in our dependency on foreign oil.
Basically, it’s just a way to take money away from and penalize one group of farmers/producers( animal farmers-higher feed costs) and send it to another group(crop farmers) while benefiting energy interests, politicians and agribusiness.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-03-04/i-twenty-first-century-snake-oil-why-the-united-states-should-reject-biofuels-as-part-of-a-rational-national-energy-security-program-i-review
“Biofeul” or Biofuel?
Eric Worrall
Thankyou for the above article.
In March 2008 I published an essay on the observed effects of introduction of biofuels. My assessment can be read here.
Its synopsis says
Richard
Cellulosic ethanol is the biggest fraud in ‘mandated technology’ since Lysenkoism. It is a good thing that ‘cold fusion’ got thoroughly debunked before the Greens could shove it down our throats.
I never really understood why they (EPA, alarmists etc.) are so enamoured with bio fuels. Don’t they understand that carbon dioxide is a by-product of ANY combustion of fuels containing carbon. Ethanol, for example has a molecular formula of CH3CH2OH. Petroleum products just have more carbons and hydrogens.
Here are more specifics on the EPA mandate.
Note that all categories of ethanol are increased, even those that probably will not be available because it’s manufacture is marginally not viable or outrageously expensive (cellulosic biofuel). The waste of subsidies will continue. Not the quotas are established to “spur” production. Is that the job of the EPA?
It is worse than we thought.
“Under the notice of proposed rulemaking, which Administrator Gina McCarthy signed on May 29, EPA proposed adjustments to advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel targets for all 3 years.
The proposed quotas for 2015 and 2016 “are expected to spur further progress in overcoming current constraints in renewable fuel distribution infrastructure, which in turn is expected to lead to substantial growth over time in the production and use of higher-level ethanol blends and other qualifying renewable fuels,” it said.
Total renewable fuel quotas would be 15.93 billion gal in 2014, 16.3 billion gal in 2015, and 17.4 billion gal in 2016. Quotas for advanced biofuel would be 2.68 billion gal in 2014, 2.9 billion gal in 2015, and 3.4 billion gal in 2016. For cellulosic biofuel, they would be 33 million gal in 2014, 106 million gal in 2015, and 206 million gal in 2016.
For biodiesel, EPA said it was appropriate to raise the quota from 1.63 billion gal in 2014 to 1.7 billion gal in 2015, 1.8 billion gal in 2016, and 1.9 billion gal in 2017 as an incentive for more of it to be produced.”
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2015/05/epa-proposes-renewable-fuel-quotas-for-2014-2015-and-2016.html
apparently the high-priests at the EPA are not good engineers
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/order-epa-save-environment-new-gasoline-cans
Joe,
Absolutely correct.
The cans are terrible, unfortunately you can not buy one of the perfectly good old can anymore.
It is almost impossible to not spill fuel with these gas cans. Also it is impossible to use the spout with the can.
I suspect no one working for the EPA ever poured gas.
This is for sure Joe. I signed the petition and shared in on social media.
I had never spilled gas in my life until these ridiculous and expensive new cans became the only ones sold.
Now I cannot pour it without spilling at least a little…and I can pour concentrated acid between containers all day long with no gloves and never get any on my hands.
It takes both hands to hold the can and to operated the mechanism on the spout. Leaving no free hand for anything else one might need to hold steady., or anything else.
Yes … and when the likes of Al Gore long even gave up on biofuels, it can only mean one thing … those still pushing it have a vested interest in biofuels. Ok… so guess who has the greatest conflict of interest in the matter?
EPA is trying to force the ‘chicken vs the egg’ flex fuel dilemma.
A growing portion of current vehicles on US roads are ‘flex fuel’. I.E They can burn anything from good ‘ole regular gasoline to 85% ethanol. The problem is getting fuel retailers to install the pumps.
Regardless of what one feels about ethanol today…a fair portion of the vehicles sold today are going to be on the road in 20+years. What will the fuel of choice be then? Will truly ‘advanced’ bio fuels be available?
“If there is ever a reckoning, a demand by victims of green policies for redress for the injustice and brutality they have suffered, at the hands of well meaning fools, the biofuel lunacy will surely top the list of wrongs to be righted.”
Taking out all the corn bushels used for ethanol, farmers produced 50 million metric tons more corn in 2014 than in 1999, and the trend is ever upward. And countries like Mexico also doubled their production over the last 25 years, no doubt largely due to American technology and improved practices. Acreage from the late 70’s was about 82 million acres, now about 93 million.
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=us&commodity=corn&graph=production
Monsanto makes a lot of money but also delivers new technology and poor areas can grow more btu’s of food. Mexico and all poor nations are helped by that technology, like the efforts on golden rice. It’s wealthy nations, largely America, that produce these golden biotech ideas. But we are evil because we make profits, and instead should be giving welfare to the world? And the odd thing, in the end they benefit anyway, because they get the technology, often stolen. The world is better than ever in many ways, though if America retreats the evil empires might seize control.
The tyrants and Muslims still keep killing each other, and destroying development in their own countries. With America backing away from attempts at “nation building” (unfortunately mixed with too much “diversity”), is America really to blame for not giving all that extra corn away to feed evil empires?
Some American farmers go to these other countries, but the countries don’t build the infrastructure, and then some tyrant comes along and just confiscates what they built. It’s like Chavez and oil companies or grocers in Venezuela. Now we get the greenies coming along and saying America is evil for producing so much, but not feeding all the tyrant and commie nations for free, basically feeding the slaves of the tyrants for free. Again, AFTER ethanol, we produced 50 million metric tons more than 1999. Shouldn’t we be blaming the Saudis more, for selling their oil they get for $5/brl, and selling it at $65? Farmers work pretty hard, but those sheiks have never even washed their own car their entire life (I’m told).
I find this Sally Struthers approach to American food and energy policy repulsive. We are the most generous nation in the world, but it’s never enough, and tyrants demand more. Their people need to rise up like our forefathers did, but when we encourage that we get blamed for “nation building”. So Russia and the commies move in as Obama vacates, but we still aren’t giving enough?
Good grief. We are a sovereign nation still, we can’t put the world on our welfare program.
Midwest..
Do you agree that one of the major reasons corn and other farm produce is growing so much better today is because the level of CO 2 is around 400 ppm not below 290 ppm as it was prior to 1900.
Even a city boy knows some farmers are artificially increasing CO 2 levels in “green house” facilities to increase productivity.
Why do the “crowd” you seem to relate to want to decrease CO 2 levels by using ethanol instead of fossil fuels (even if it does not work). Reduction of CO2 happens to be a big benefit claimed by the biofuel (including ethanol) industry because it is supposedly renewable. And if one disagrees, they are accused of destroying the earth for their children and grandchildren.
Do you agree that higher CO 2 is better for farmers and food production? What is optimum?
The big “evil” from fossil fuels is, allegedly, that they increase CO 2, polluting the atmosphere and warming the earth.
I think we agree on many points. The big exception is that I don’t think that the government should mandate that Ethanol or any other product be included into another product sold to the public. Besides Ethanol, many states require that an ever increasing percentage of renewable electricity be included in the electricity supplied to the consumer. This is driving up the cost of electricity for many who cannot afford the cost increase while making those rich who provide renewable electricity (which they likely got a subsidy to construct the facilities). Sometimes green electricity is in short supply and in NJ you power supplier has to pay around 50 c/kwh, which of course the consumer has to pay.
I notice you reject the thought of requiring that 10% Mexican Corn (maybe a poor example) be added to your product but it could be the corn of a farmer that needs your help as determined by the government for some reason. Hope you don’t have any “puddles” on your property that the EPA will soon regulate.
No, the global warming stuff is a tool for globalizing us, and for enriching some “wankers”. I’m big on American sovereignty. I’ve been “preaching” for a long time we need MORE CO2, and that it helps green up dessert like areas. Indeed it helps crops grow … my bs is in horticulture. I don’t know what is optimum, we could certainly handle 600 easily, or more. But I don’t think humans are the biggest driver. Oceans outgas more as it warms, more insects, more microbes when warmer … those are much bigger factors. Even if we started long term cooling it could be 100 (or is it 800?) years before CO2 would start to decrease, since it lags air temps, like the hottest day lags the longest day. And China and India aren’t going to stop burning lotsa coal for their 2.5 billion people.
I’m for all energy, but the ethanol mandate is better than paying farmers CRP money to NOT grow, and if they’d just sell us the ethanol free stuff for a buck premium, all would be well with my small engines, without having to run them dry. We lost so much real production, keeping the farms profitable seems vital. Most of these red counties have been on Obama’s hit list for the last six years, except we still have ethanol. lol
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwzzp8DFEL1r3aqywo1_1280.jpg
The price spike the last few years was more about monetary policy and movements into commodities, as I see it. But the non big city parts of the country all need the boost of decent farm income. Ethanol helps with that some, and also helps minimize the profits our geopolitical enemies make on their oil. For the bigger farmers especially, they should drop the insurance supports and direct payments, at least as long as corn is over $3.
Fracking has also helped a lot of rural areas. The EPA sucks as bad as Lerner and the IRS. But I think the ethanol thing is already set up, and does a lot to help fly over country be profitable, and keep more dollars here. But too late for many smaller farms that got bought up. Financials and bailouts seem to be where the billionaires reside and collect their bailouts and use their leverage to get what they want, as real production was pushed overseas. But we still produce crops pretty well, so ethanol broadens that market. And they are still getting more efficient at the process.
Midwest..
Thanks for your comments, I respect your opinions and believe we should help our small farmers not ADM and the other big producers.. We just disagree on ethanol mandates which the EPA are constantly increasing the % ethanol for no good reason. I have no respect for the EPA and many of their policies including killing coal, taking control of “puddles”, pushing costly renewables, subsidizing useless activities, and increasing mandates for ethanol. They like other Executive branches (think IRS) have overreached their authority need to be dramatically throttled back.
Who do I send the bill to fix the persistent ethanol problems on my boat engine.
All the best
I’m not sure why they can’t use slightly more expensive components on small engines, to avoid the ethanol issues. I’ve done probably $1000 of damage to my chainsaws etc. over the years, but since draining/running them dry each time, have had no problems. Riding mowers seem to have upgraded so leaving 10% ethanol fuel in them is not an issue, though a fuel line cutoff valve, and then running till out of gas is probably safer. But making non ethanol fuel available at a premium would be another option.
Some argue that hey, if farmers can’t cut it, they deserve to go broke. But the thing is they don’t under produce, they over produce. Compare them to the Chicago teacher’s union, that can organize and go on strike and demand high pay, early retirement with benefits, for a crappy product. If farmers so organized we’d get food like Russia, but still pay more. Of course government would never allow farmers to so organize. We don’t even try to squeeze China or other “enemies” when we had times the world needed our food to survive. That is considered immoral and unfair, though Joseph in the old testament did that to obtain riches for the pharaoh during the seven years of famine.
Anyway … I’m not sure exactly how ADM or others work their deals, but they indeed have the clout to see things go their way. But we do have surplus, and an ethanol mandate supports the price a little, and food production is a real part of the national “defense”. The unionized bailout globalizing nation we have now is not “free market”, and making a real fuel like ethanol (despite its inconvenience in small engines) is much different than closing coal plants or wasting money on “carbon sequestration”, or Solyndra style scams. Most “carbon” was sequestered naturally, and we actually “unsequester” it to use it on gravel roads and in concrete. 🙂
Thanks for your rational response. I certainly get the opposition to ethanol mandates, but if rural America doesn’t get support as it feeds the nation without “organizing”, who will buy up and maintain the geographic majority of our nation? Making ethanol is better than paying farmers to leave fields in grass, which is just a pure subsidy with little product. Or maybe turning the land over to the oligarchs is part of “the plan”?
cheers