Reply With Quote
I don't.
You seem to be trying awfully hard to feed your confirmation bias today.
I doubt anyone will mistake you for ChumpDumper.
Just you being hypocritical you.
I don't.
You seem to be trying awfully hard to feed your confirmation bias today.
If anyone is interested, there was another vote regarding the bill the ethanol subsidy removal amendment was put in:
Roll Call #94; S. 782 (Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011 )
I'm not going to do the leg work. Maybe someone knows. Has SA 476 remained intact once agreed to?
New Report Urges Western Governments to Reconsider Reliance on Biofuels
Western governments have made a wrong turn in energy policy by supporting the large-scale conversion of plants into fuel and should reconsider that strategy, according to a new report from a prominent environmental think tank.
Turning plant matter into liquid fuel or electricity is so inefficient that the approach is unlikely ever to supply a substantial fraction of global energy demand, the report found. It added that continuing to pursue this strategy — which has already led to billions of dollars of investment — is likely to use up vast tracts of fertile land that could be devoted to helping feed the world’s growing population.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/29...uels.html?_r=0
Thanks, Repugs. Y'all ed that up,too, but your BigAg paymasters made $Bs.
It's about three states and 27 electoral votes. Both parties want them.
If you say so Shazbot. As I recall, it was the democrats pushing it and bullying the republicans into voting for it. Republicans would have lost all chance of so many electrical votes the way they would have been made out to be the bad guys.
Repugs controlled WH, Senate, House but it was a Dem bill?
It continues to be renewed no matter who is in control of the House, Senate, or Presidency Boo Bird. You just look ing stupid when you try to blame everything on Republicans.Repugs controlled WH, Senate, House but it was a Dem bill?
This asinine narrative of boutons has been destroyed time and time again. But the facile coward can't admit a mistake because his masters wont allow him to.
Here's a link where boutons was destroyed (Again).
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...21#post7247121
That went through now many years ago, to create the 10% ethanol mandate and subsidies? Are we speaking of the same thing or not?Repugs controlled WH, Senate, House but it was a Dem bill?
This asinine narrative of boutons has been destroyed time and time again. But the facile coward can't admit a mistake because his masters wont allow him to.
Here's a link where boutons was destroyed (Again).
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...21#post7247121
Forgot about boo getting totally slapped in that one too...
Four U.S. lawmakers begin second effort at biofuels reform bill
The reform would effectively do away with a mandate that corn-based ethanol be blended in gasoline and repeal the waiver that raised the cap on ethanol content at 15 percent from 10 percent after Congress expanded the RFS policy in 2007.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/us-usa-ethanol-reform-idUSKBN0L80BK20150204?feedType=RSS&feedName=politi csNews
yep, first in 2005 and then renewed in 2007
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 2005 a test run, and the 2007 a mandate?
Who controlled congress on 2007?
as usual, you are
- the 2005 Act increases the amount of biofuel (usually ethanol) that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States to 4 billion US gallons (15,000,000 m3) by 2006, 6.1 billion US gallons (23,000,000 m3) by 2009 and 7.5 billion US gallons (28,000,000 m3) by 2012;[3] two years later, theEnergy Independence and Security Act of 2007 extended the target to 36 billion US gallons (140,000,000 m3) by 2022.[4]
After the Repug WH, Congress got that stupid ethanol ball rolling, it's nearly impossible to shut down, just like the Repug wars.
Now we've got BigAg committed to corn ethanol, ethanol plants, and car mfrs with cars modified for ethanol. Who's gonna shut all that down by removing tax breaks, subsidies, mandates?
lol simpleton
End the Ethanol Rip-Off
, a hidden levy that has benefited a small group of farmers and manufacturers in a handful of states: the corn ethanol tax.
The tax is hidden because, on paper, it appears as a clean-energy mandate. Federal law currently requires fuel retailers to blend about 13 billion gallons of corn ethanol per year into the gasoline they sell to the public, making the gas more expensive. This year, that mandate, known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, will impose about $10 billion in additional fuel costs on motorists.
Ethanol contains about 76,000 B.T.U.s per gallon. Gasoline contains about 114,000 B.T.U.s per gallon. Therefore, to get the same amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, a motorist must buy about 1.5 gallons of ethanol.
E10 (which contains 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline), will typically get “3 percent to 4 percent fewer miles per gallon” than they would if they were running on pure gasoline.
Between 2007 and 2014, about 92.5 billion gallons of ethanol were mixed into domestic gasoline supplies. Over that eight-year period, the energy-equivalent cost of ethanol averaged about 90 cents per gallon more than gasoline.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/10...-off.html?_r=0
Ethanol mandate, another wonderful Repug policy.
Manhattan Inst is a VRWC stink tank, surprising they are against a Repug gift to BigCorp, but their hate of ALL taxes must override.
You lie.
Plowing prairies for grains: Biofuel crops replace grasslands nationwide
- Clearing grasslands to make way for biofuels may seem counterproductive, but University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers show in a study today (April 2, 2015) that crops, including the corn and soy commonly used for biofuels, expanded onto 7 million acres of new land in the U.S. over a recent four-year period, replacing millions of acres of grasslands.
The study -- from UW-Madison graduate student Tyler Lark, geography Professor Holly Gibbs, and postdoctoral researcher Meghan Salmon -- is published in the journal Environmental Research Letters and addresses the debate over whether the recent boom in demand for common biofuel crops has led to the carbon-emitting conversion of natural areas. It also reveals loopholes in U.S. policies that may contribute to these unintended consequences.
"We realized there was remarkably limited information about how croplands have expanded across the United States in recent years," says Lark, the lead author of the study. "Our results are surprising because they show large-scale conversion of new landscapes, which most people didn't expect."
The conversion to corn and soy alone, the researchers say, could have emitted as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as 34 coal-fired power plants operating for one year -- the equivalent of 28 million more cars on the road.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ppf033115.php
At a Crossroads, Biofuels Seek a New Path Forward
Attempting to chart a path forward for the beleaguered biofuels industry, a group of researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, have devised what they describe as a novel method for producing renewable jet fuel. Using sugarcane and the sugarcane waste called bagasse, the new process (described in a paper in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) could enable green refineries to put out a range of products, including bio-based aviation fuel and automotive lubricant base oils.
The research appears at a time when biofuels have reached a crossroads. Shrinking government funding, investor disenchantment, low oil prices, and concerns over the loss of food cropland to grow corn and sugarcane for biomass have combined to bring the industry close to a standstill. Although production of renewable fuels in the United States doubled between 2007 and 2013, the use of biofuels as a percentage of overall transportation fuel has hardly budged. And while most major airlines have biofuel programs in some stage, aviation—which needs highly energy-dense, oxygen-free fuel—has proved an especially tough field to penetrate.
As a result, the future of the Renewable Fuel Standard, released in 2005 and expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, has been called into question.
“The current first-generation biofuels mainly use food crops as feedstock and are either expensive or have modest [greenhouse gas] improvements over petroleum fuels,” concluded a report released in April by the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy, written by James Stock, a professor of political economy at Harvard’s Kennedy School and a former member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.
“The development and commercialization of low greenhouse gas second-generation biofuels—critical to the ultimate success of the program—has fallen far short of the very ambitious goals laid out in the EISA.”
http://www.technologyreview.com/news...-path-forward/
So food crops as feedstock for ethanol and biodiesel, brain-dead from the start (thanks, BigAg!).
So what's the next feedstock for this boondoggle?
Growing plants as feedstock requires water and fertilizer, then energy to "fuel" the conversion process. Where the is the advantage, other than to BigAg profits?
Transfer all govt funding from bioethanol and biodiesel to renewable solar energy and storage, to upgrading and extending the electrical grid.
ALL energy derived from plants comes the the sun anyway.
You should be comparing ethanol to MTBE.
If not you need to compare subsidies on gas, solar, and wind.
Except there are other things that can be use.
But... Yes! Ethanol is an inexpensive solution for replacing lead and MTBE. But, is it really with how much ethanol is subsidized?
How much is it subsidized?
How do they compare, or were you just clearing your throat, as usual?
Since he had brought up subsidies, wouldn't he have the numbers at his fingertips? Surely he didn't have to google data up afterwards. Considering there was a large thread about solar subsidies, why would he not share his numbers with those? I'm not familiar with the subsidies of wind and solar. I have a sister that's been pushing me to get a grant for covering my shop with solar panels. Is there by products produced?
I suppose you believe it falls on me to explain the non cancerous alternatives to MTBE also?
I wonder why many ethanol producers love the idea of the mandate going away? Insiders say it actually caps demand.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
