Townhall.com
Paul Driessen
July 29, 2017

The closest thing to earthly eternal life, President Ronald Reagan used to say, is a government program.

Those who benefit from a program actively and vocally defend it, often giving millions in campaign cash to politicians who help perpetuate it, while those who oppose the program or are harmed by it are usually disorganized and distracted by daily life. Legislative inertia and obstruction of the kind so graphically on display in the Senate over the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) also help to perpetuate program life.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), created under the 2005 Energy Policy Act and expanded by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, is a perfect example. It has more lives than Freddy Krueger.

The laws require that refiners blend steadily increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline, and expect the private sector to produce growing amounts of “cellulosic” biofuel, “biomass-based diesel” and “advanced” biofuels. Except for corn ethanol, the production expectations have mostly turned out to be fantasies. The justifications for renewable fuels were scary exaggerations then, and are absurd now.

Let’s begin with claims made to justify this RFS extravaganza in the first place. It would reduce pollution, we were told. But cars are already 95% cleaner than their 1970 predecessors, so there are no real benefits.

The USA was depleting its petroleum reserves, and the RFS would reduce oil imports from unstable, unfriendly nations. But the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) revolution has given the United States at least a century of new reserves. America now exports more oil and refined products than it imports, and US foreign oil consumption is now the lowest since 1970.

Renewable fuels would help prevent dangerous manmade climate change, we were also told. This assumes climate is driven by manmade carbon dioxide – and not by changes in solar heat output, cosmic rays, ocean currents and other powerful natural forces that brought ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods, droughts and floods. It assumes biofuels don’t emit CO2, or at least not as much as gasoline; in reality, over their full life cycle, they emit at least as much, if not more, of this plant-fertilizing molecule.

Moreover, contrary to the hysteria, computer models and Al Gore’s new movie, humanity and planet are not experiencing unusual or unprecedented climate or weather. Inconvenient to Mr. Gore’s theme, in fact not a single category 3-5 hurricane has struck the US mainland since October 2005, a record 11 years, 9 months. He simply presents a seemingly endless stream of weather calamities – what Australian science writer Jo Nova aptly refers to as “primal weather porn” and suggests that these events are unprecedented and caused by humans. The claim reflects deliberate distortion of the truth, abysmal grasp of science (by a man who received a C and a D in his only two college science courses), or both.

To get far more complete, factual, honest climate science, see the Climate Hustle documentary instead.

Moreover, with China, India, the rest of Asia, Africa, Poland and even Germany burning more and more coal – and more gasoline and natural gas – total atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise. But meanwhile, Greenland just had the coldest July temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere, and global average temperatures are back to the 1998-2017 hiatus they had before the 2015-16 El Niño.

Regardless, the immortal RFS is still with us. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a previously unheard of proposal: to reduce the RFS total target for 2018 below its 2017 level. It’s a tiny 0.2% reduction, and EPA is not planning to roll back the 15-billion-gallon obligation for “conventional” biofuel, mostly ethanol from corn. But it suggests that a little healthy realism may finally be taking root.

The reduction is for cellulosic biofuel. The federal statutory target is 4.25 billion gallons in 2018. (Set a target, it will become reality, is the mindset.) EPA proposes to reduce the regulatory target to 24 million gallons for 2018, down from 31 million for 2017. But actual production and use of this fuel in 2015 was a meager 2.2 million gallons. This minuscule reduction is a good first step, but far greater reductions in statutory and regulatory targets are realistic and needed, along with a full overhaul of the RFS program.

A little over 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol were produced in 2016 – but only 143 billion gallons of gasoline were sold. That means using all the ethanol would require blends above 10% (E10 gasoline) – which is why Big Ethanol is lobbying hard for government mandates (or at least permission) for more E15 (15% ethanol) gasoline blends and pumps. Refiners refer to the current situation as the “blend wall.”

But E15 damages engines and fuel systems in older cars and motorcycles, as well as small engines for boats and garden equipment, and using E15 voids their warranties. You can already find E15 pumps, but finding zero-ethanol, pure-gasoline pumps is a tall order. Moreover, to produce ethanol, the United States is already devoting 40% of its corn crop, grown on nearly 40 million acres – along with billions of gallons of water to irrigate corn fields, plus huge amounts of fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels.

Much of the leftover “mash” from ethanol distillation is sold as animal feed. However, the RFS program still enriches a relatively few corn farmers, while raising costs for beef, pork, poultry and fish farmers, and for poor, minority, working class and African families. Ethanol also gets a third less mileage per gallon than gasoline, so cars cannot go as far on a tank of E10 and go even shorter distances with E15.

Ethanol sales also involve the complexities – and sometimes fraudulent practices – of buying and selling Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs: certificates and credits for ethanol. Large integrated oil companies blend more gasoline than they refine, so they collect more RINs than they need, allowing them to hoard RINs and drive up the prices they charge to independent refiners that must buy these RINs to comply with the law. Large retail businesses like Cumberland Farms, Sheetz, Wawa and Walmart blend fuel and collect RINs, but have no RFS obligation; they use RINs as subsidies and their large volumes to command lower prices from refiners, and thereby gain an unfair advantage over small gas station owners.

The net result is that small mom-and-pop gas stations are squeezed hard and often driven out of business. Small refiners, and those on the East Coast that don’t have large wholesale and retail businesses are forced to buy pricey RINs from integrated oil company competitors, which puts those smaller outfits at a disadvantage and threatens their ability to stay in business. That means steel and refinery jobs and employee benefits are at risk. All told, the RFS presents a lot of problems for illusory benefits.

All these hard realities almost persuaded the US Senate Environment Committee to vote on a recent bill that would have revised some of the outdated and outlandish RFS mandates. It didn’t happen, but the political machinations suggest that even progressive Democrats are beginning to question the RFS.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are becoming increasingly popular in some states and countries. To cite the perspective of “progressive ethicists” like Peter Singer, perhaps it’s time to apply the same principles to government programs that have outlived their usefulness or should never have been born.

At the very least, politically spawned, politically correct energy programs – founded on questionable, exaggerated or fabricated climate, environmental, consumer or security scares – should no longer get free passes on land use, habitat and wildlife impacts, environmental quality or consumer and employment issues. They need to be subjected to the same tough legislative, regulatory, activist and judicial assessments that we insist on for oil, gas, coal and nuclear programs

This should apply to wind and solar, electric vehicle and battery proposals, as well as to Renewable Fuel Standards. It would restore some much-needed integrity and accountability to our government.

(The opportunity for signing up to present oral testimony at EPA’s August 1 public hearing on the 2018 biofuel standards has passed. However, written statements and supporting information submitted to EPA by August 31 will be given the same weight as comments and materials presented at the hearing.)

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Link

Are the Iowa caucuses really so important that every presidential hopeful has to prostrate him or herself before the "cornies?" (I just made that up.) It certainly seems that way. There is no serious talk of ending corn/ethanol subsidies.

Really? Who spoke against ethanol subsidies in the last go-around? Who won the Republican primary in Iowa?

I had this exact conversation with a neighbor who has a BS Chem E, MBA. We discussed the reality that biofuel from corn was energy negative, generated more pollutants per mile driven. Also was economically negative but politically positive. I assumed she would be able to absorb both the environmental and the financial impact.

Her blunt response "my family is from Iowa".

quote:

Originally posted by mesabi:
Really? Who spoke against ethanol subsidies in the last go-around? Who won the Republican primary in Iowa?

Yeah, but I heard that guy was just a liar whose dad participated in the JFK assassination.

quote:

Her blunt response "my family is from Iowa

Yes, there is that, but her family seems to have done OK before the renewable mandate judging by her presence among us.
My neighbors in IL were very wealthy corn farmers long before the mandate---they would be wealthy without the mandate. Their land might no longer be worth 10,000/15000 per acre but they NEVER sell land anyway.
There is a small but very influential group not usually mentioned when the mandate is discussed, mostly they are Liberal but some pay both sides, they are the ethanol producers. Big money, and big contributions.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

Her blunt response "my family is from Iowa

Yes, there is that, but her family seems to have done OK before the renewable mandate judging by her presence among us.
My neighbors in IL were very wealthy corn farmers long before the mandate---they would be wealthy without the mandate. Their land might no longer be worth 10,000/15000 per acre but they NEVER sell land anyway.
There is a small but very influential group not usually mentioned when the mandate is discussed, mostly they are Liberal but some pay both sides, they are the ethanol producers. Big money, and big contributions.

Bolding mine.

Her point was quite clear "don't let facts mess with my gravy-train".

I have never been in favor of converting food to fuel. Too many people around the world are going hungry.

flashguy

The 'swamp' has more than 9 lives. It proves very difficult to drain.

quote:

Moreover, to produce ethanol, the United States is already devoting 40% of its corn crop, grown on nearly 40 million acres – along with billions of gallons of water to irrigate corn fields, plus huge amounts of fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels.

If only there were a field of study dedicated to allocation of resources and making choices among alternatives.

Oh, wait. There is. It's called 'economics.' You know, supply, demand, the price system.

It always works until/unless something with arbitrary resources (aka 'government') gets its thumbs on the scale.

They'll be taxing us to turn food into expensive fuel for as long as we let them.

In 2012 it was 30% of the crop 2017 its 40%.


Just follow the money

Yes, but it impoverishes already poor Mexicans by driving up the price of corn to starvation levels and teaches those guys not to mess with Uncle Sam. You have to earn respect in this world, ya know!

One thing they don't touch on but falls into the same level of rediculousness is biodiesel.

Over the past 10-15 years engine manufacturers have had to progressively reduce emissions on engines manufactured for the US (as well as some other 1st world countries). The legislated requirements have certainly had a positive impact on emissions from Diesel engines but at a tremendous cost in many regards. Having to meet each tier of emissions requirements (now at final tier 4) has had a huge impact on equipment and vehicle costs. Each time a change has been made one tier to the next we've seen price increases from 10-15% or more, not just on the engine but on the entire unit. In the past 13-14 years (the period which serious emission requirements have been mandated) construction equipment, trucks, power generation and other diesel powered equipment have seen price increases of 50-80%. The increase percentage is higher on the lower dollar pieces because of the ratio of cost of the engine to the entire piece. For instance a tow behind air compressor used to cost $12,000 in the mid 2000's now will run $18-$19,000. A mid sized Bobcat that was $25,000 in 2005 will now run about $42,000. These pieces are common with small contractors and are pretty difficult to absorb. Meanwhile T heir rates they are able to charge remain mostly unchanged from that time frame.

The clowns who legislate these emissions requirements and their due dates have no clue on what's involved in implementing them. This has made engine manufacturers fast track this technology which has created a number of issues resulting in poor reliability of these new engines. About the time they work through certain issues (assuming they can) a new tier is implemented with stricter requirements.

I'm a little of track from the OP but the above is the backstory to what really grinds my gears. The same fucking legislators that create these laws and emissions requirements are the same fucktards that hit you from the other side with biodiesel mandates requiring 15-20% or more biodiesel blends. Biodiesel is full of junk - French fry oil and what not. To meet thes emissions requirements you need to reduce or eliminate unburnt diesel particulates in the exhaust. Clean fuel is the starting point. So let's put animal fat in our fuels. One of the pieces of the puzzle on these new engines is fuel filtration. Fuel filters used to be about 10 microns. They are now down to 2 microns. Biodiesel is dirty and full of water. In cold weather climates diesel will gel up in very cold weather. This is called the gel point. Depending on the quality of fuel this can happen around 10-15 degrees. Here is a fuel filter where the diesel has gelled up.



Now let's combine 2 micron filtration with adding French fry oil, dirt and water to the fuel (Dirty fuel is more subject to condensation as well). With the finer filtration cold fuel will create issues long before it gels up. Now we start to have issues at the cloud point, or pour point, which are the early stages of gelling. Once fuel begins to cloud which is now (thanks to the fucking government) just below freezing it will fail or struggle to pass through the filter.

So it's typical beauratcratic bullshit - make your engines burn cleaner and oh by the way you have to burn this shit in it. Pisses me off

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BRL,

Is there anyway to reduce the size of that photo?

It causes the text to shrink so small as to be unreadable.

He linked to an image in an online source so there really isn't any way to reduce the size.

One aspect of the article posted that I would take exception to is that comment about Biofuels not reducing Carbon emissions. This is a misleading statement. Because when you burn fuels produced using prehistoric deposits you are releasing Carbon that has been out of circulation for many hundred thousands of years, so you are effectively ADDING Carbon to the circulating atmosphere. If you burn fuel that is produced from corn or some other crop you are simply releasing the Carbon that was stored for a short period in that plant matter. Effectively this is a CLOSED cycle because you are NOT really adding Carbon to the atmosphere.

However there is a BIG FAT LIE in the basic assumptions that biofuels are actually a closed cycle. Because at this point Alcohol has to be Distilled from a yeast produced mash and that distilling requires energy that is typically produced by burning Natural Gas. Basically the Ethanol that is polluting our gasoline actually puts MORE Prehistoric Carbon into circulation that straight gasoline. The University of Michigan released a study proving this that has been blacked out by our media because it doesn't support the Media's left wing agenda.

Much, much better. Thanks!

quote:

Because at this point Alcohol has to be Distilled from a yeast produced mash and that distilling requires energy that is typically produced by burning Natural Gas.

and what's a major byproduct of fermentation? CO2.

If we gotta ferment all this corn, let's make bourbon like the Good Lord intended