Governmental Lunacy

[SCraig]

Of all the stupid things that have happened in the world over the past decade or so I honestly think that this should be near the top of the list.

In a nutshell, the EPA is requiring refineries to include a substance in the blend of their fuels. They have mandated that the refineries include a specific percentage in all the fuel that they refine. The catch is that the material doesn't exist. Anywhere. It does not exist. The refiners have complained to the EPA that they can't include something that doesn't exist and the EPA basically just said "Tough. Do it or we fine you." So now the refiners are filing suit against the EPA.

I have no real sympathy for the oil refiners but even so that is just plain absurd. I guess that's one way to lower the deficit though. Fine people for not using something that doesn't exist.

Link To Article

 

[JAC526]

Only reasonable explanation is the refineries will hire scientists to develop the substance thus creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

See the EPA doesn't want fine money, they just want to do their part to help stimulate the struggling economy.

Makes sense to me.

 

[pgriz]

Cellulosic alcohol is the same ethanol that is being produced from starch fermentation (ie, from corn), but uses raw material that is not competing directly with foodstuff and therefore raising the foodstuff prices (as has happened with corn). The process for doing it with starch is very well known (ask any moonshiner), but the sugars bound up in cellulose require much more processing to allow them to be effectively fermented, and those processes have been tested in labs only. The scale-up to industrial scale just has not been done. The complication is that cellulose is never pure, but bound up with other materials like lignin and these have to be separated to allow the cellulose fermentation to happen. The pulp and paper industry know lots about separating cellulose fibers from lignin, so this industry is a candidate for pushing the technology forward. However, the final step of breaking down the cellulose into sugars is the one that has not been demonstrated in any kind of industrial scale.

The other issue is that the cellulose most likely to be used for this purpose will come from grasses, not trees, and the bulk processing of grass feedstock to create the cellulose is quite different from processing of wood fibers, as a number of paper companies that were trying to develop paper from grass cellulose, had found out, much to the displeasure of their shareholders.

Perhaps the EPA figures that the companies under threat of fines will be motivated to push this research forward, with the cost of research being less than the cost of the fines, but it appears that the petroleum producers figure the cost of litigation will probably be cheaper than the cost of funding the research.

That said, the company that figures out how to transform grass-derived cellulose into ethanol on an industrial scale will be potentially the new energy giant of the 21st century.

 

[Helen B]

"

So the refiners are now suing the EPA, in part because the mandate gets larger and larger-- 500 million gallons this year, 3 billion in 2015 and 16 billion in 2022." (Source: Fox news article linked to in OP)​

​

Is that article on Fox factually correct? 500 million gallons in 2012 was the quantity set by the legislation signed by Bush in 2005. Since then it has been lowered to 10.45 million ethanol-equivalent gallons for this year (for all cellulosic biofuel, not just ethanol):

"The statute requires that if EPA
determines that the projected volume of
cellulosic biofuel production for the
following year is less than the
applicable volume shown in Table II.A–
1, then EPA is to reduce the applicable
volume of cellulosic biofuel to the
projected volume available during that
calendar year." (Source: EPA Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2012 Renewable Fuel Standards, Final Rule)
Note the wording "projected volume" - the projections come from the industry and are compiled by the EPA.

I think that if this is an issue you really care about, you would be wise to look further than Fox for your information.

 

[SCraig]

... I think that if this is an issue you really care about, you would be wise to look further than Fox for your information.

AFPM Sues EPA Over Agency

Or just Google "refiners sue EPA" and there are about 607,000 hits.

 

[Heitz]

No offense, but the fact that this was posted on Fox News makes me think that this is either totally false, or only part of the story.

 

[SCraig]

No offense, but the fact that this was posted on Fox News makes me think that this is either totally false, or only part of the story.

See my post above yours. We posted at the same time.

 

[SCraig]

Cellulosic alcohol is the same ethanol that is being produced from starch fermentation (ie, from corn), but uses raw material that is not competing directly with foodstuff and therefore raising the foodstuff prices (as has happened with corn).... [edited for brevity only]

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Not being a chemist (by ANY stretch of the imagination!) I wasn't sure what the term meant other than it was a form of grain alcohol. I would never have thought of it in relation to the paper industry, and certainly not as coming from grasses. Thanks for the information!

 

[Heitz]

Fear-mongering will get us everywhere... except where we want to be.

 

[SCraig]

Fear-mongering will get us everywhere... except where we want to be.

Very true. But then I have to have something to gripe about or I'll blow up

 

[Heitz]

Fear-mongering will get us everywhere... except where we want to be.

Very true. But then I have to have something to gripe about or I'll blow up

Well then sir, I have something for you.
1000 Tiny Things I Hate

 

[unpopular]

Saying Cellulosic ethanol "does not exist" is about as misleading as Bush saying "mission accomplished".

This article's assertion that cellulosic ethanol is a "phantom fuel" akin to "unicorns" is just preposterous. It does exist, it can be made, it's a matter of production.

 

[Helen B]

... I think that if this is an issue you really care about, you would be wise to look further than Fox for your information.

AFPM Sues EPA Over Agency

Or just Google "refiners sue EPA" and there are about 607,000 hits.

My comment was about the factual inaccuracies in the Fox piece, not about whether or not the AFPM was suing the EPA. Fox said that the requirement was for 500 million gallons in 2012. I pointed out that that was a Bush-era figure from 7 years ago, and that the current requirement for all cellulosic biofuels (not just cellulosic ethanol) in 2012 was much, much lower (1/50) - to match the industry's own projected production rate. Overall, the Fox article appears to be deliberately inflammatory, biased, inaccurate, woefully incomplete, poorly researched and misleading - ie their usual standard of 'journalism'.

As unpopular has already pointed out, both Fox and the AFPM are lying when they say that cellulosic ethanol does not exist.

For interest and info, here's a summary of the projections, in million ethanol-equivalent gallons, the EPA used (and the EPA is aware that much of this is no more than predictions from companies that had not reached commercial production status at the time of the compilation):

American Process Inc, MI, ethanol from waste wood, 0.5
Fiberight, IA, ethanol from municipal solid waste (MSW), 2.0
INEOS Bio, FL, ethanol from MSW and agricultural waste, 3.0
KIOR, MS, gasoline and diesel from wood pulp, 4.8
KL Energy, WY, ethanol from bagasse (sugarcane and sorghum fiber), 0.1
ZeaChem, OR, ethanol from trees grown for the purpose, 0.05

These are absolutely tiny operations in comparison to the refiners, of course. The EPA is asking for 0.006% of production to come from cellulosic sources as part of an iniative that is attempting to increase production of both renewable fuels and USA-sourced fuel (via Energy Policy Act 2005, Energy Independence and Security Act 2007, Clean Air Act which includes the requirement for the EPA to revise these fuel goals annually). Does this extra information make it look less like 'government lunacy' and more like an attempt to persuade the refiners to take these issues seriously? After all, Bush signed much of this legislation into law so it isn't exactly something that the EPA has just sprung on the industry out of nowhere.

 

[o hey tyler]

Fear-mongering will get us everywhere... except where we want to be.

Yep! Keep up the awful work, Faux News!

 

[Infidel]

Fox news = fixed noise. Comedy Central has more journalistic integrity, and they're way funnier than the comedians on FN (e.g., Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity) any day.