Governmental Lunacy

SCraig · Jun 23, 2012

I should have known better than to start this topic. I was under the impression that mandating an industry use a compound that does not exist, or is unavailable in commercialy viable quantities, and then levying fines against the industry when they fail to use it would be construed as lunacy. Obviously some people disagree with that assessment and feel that it is fair.

Helen and pgriz, thank you both for taking the time to post your informative information. I do appreciate that. Helen, while I don't always agree with your point of view I can always count on intelligent responses.

Everyone feel free to carry on with this topic as desired. I took my lumps and now I'm going to drop this topic entirely.

unpopular · Jun 23, 2012

^^ I don't disagree that the refineries may have a case. It's more the language and hyperbole that I have a problem with.

OTOH, the refineries had seven years to develop a supply, and the question must be asked why didn't they? If the cellulosic etoh cannot be scaled into production due to technical shortcomings, that's one thing, but if the industry failed to meet government standards in a game of regulatory chicken - that's quite another.

Being that commercially viable processes are available, my guess is that it's just a matter of the oil industry refusing to implement it:

Coskata, Inc.

Helen B · Jun 23, 2012

SCraig said:
... I was under the impression that mandating an industry use a compound that does not exist, or is unavailable in commercialy viable quantities, and then levying fines against the industry when they fail to use it would be construed as lunacy. ...

I would agree with you completely, if I based my opinion solely on the information in the Fox article. Fox stated wildly incorrect numbers, however. The EPA are mandating tiny quantities of cellulosic biofuel - quantities that are in line with production estimates from the industry (admittedly an industry that has a history of difficulties and discrepancies between what is promised and what is delivered). In effect the EPA is ensuring that the pioneer manufacturers of cellulosic biofuel have a market for their products. Though I wouldn't do so, it seems fair play to criticize that as market interference, albeit well-intended, but to call it 'lunacy' seems as far from the mark as Fox's 'facts' are in this case.