Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

EPA capitulates on ethanol:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 07:00 PM
Original message
EPA capitulates on ethanol:


EPA capitulates on ethanol, hearts clean coal 60

by Tom Philpott

The press release could have come straight out of the utterly disgraced Bush EPA—and if it had, I can well imagine the howls of outrage it would have provoked, because I would have joined the chorus. Its headline read as follows: “Obama Announces Steps to Boost Biofuels, Clean Coal.”

In short, after a flirtation with reason last spring, the Obama EPA has signed off on the absurd, abysmal Renewable Fuel Standard established under Bush a couple of years ago—ensuring that farmers will continue to devote vast swaths of land to GHG-intensive corn, of which huge portion of will ultimately be set aflame to power cars—but not before being transformed into liquid fuel in an energy-intensive process.

As as ethanol factories continue sucking in more and more corn, plantation owners in places like Brazil and Argentina will put more grassland and even rainforest under the plow to make up for the shortfall, resulting in huge carbon emissions. That dire effect of our ethanol program, known as indirect land-use change, likely nullifies any scant climate benefits from ethanol. In downplaying indirect land use in its assessment of the Renewable Fuel Standard, the agency is essentially caving to the demands of House ag committee chair Collin Peterson—who is returning the favor with an all-out assault of the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases at all.

As for “clean” coal, the EPA announced a major push for “Carbon Capture and Storage” for coal plants. But no amount of public cash for such projects can clean up the atrocity of mountain-top removal—or stop coal plants from transforming the oceans into mercury-laden toxic pits. What would carbon capture do to solve the coal ash problem? Nothing.

snip

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-04-epa-capitulates-ethanol-clean-coal/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. I am amazed
by the stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. un'rec'd....amazing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Recced. Ethanol is utterly stupid and corn based ethanol is the mostl costly an ineffecient.
It was stupid under Bush and it didn't suddenly become a beacon of Hope just because Obama put his stamp on it.

Burning food for energy - stupid. Out bodies are about 60% efficient at converting sugars into energy.

An internal combustion engine is only 12% efficient combine that with the overhead on the corn->sugar->ethanol conversion plus transportation and storage and you are lucky to get a net 8%-10% of potential energy.

Utterly stupid. The only thing worse than ethanol would be liquefying coal and using that as "clean energy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fledermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Lack of facts
1. The energy bill put a limit on the amount corn used for ethanol.
2. Only the starch of corn is used to make ethanol. All of the protein and vitamins are left and is used for animal feed.
3. As required by the Energy Independence and Security Act, the EPA has established mandatory greenhouse gas reduction thresholds for feedstocks.
4. The US has a 60+ cent/gallon tariff on imported ethanol.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arachadillo Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-11-10 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Renewable Energy
I can partially agree on the less than totally factual presentation regarding the demerits of ethanol use.

The truth is that both the United States and Europe push big for biomass in all of its forms.
see http://greennature.com/article286.html">Renewable Energy in Europe

EU member states also recognize the food supply problems associated with unconstrained biofuels pushes.

Some of it is political (farmers vote), some of it is optimism that current investments will spur the technological changes necessary for transitioning to more environmentally friendly and energy efficient biofuels like cellulosic based biofuels.

The problems with the merit based approach is that the requisite technological breakthroughs are coming at a snail's pace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC