EPA Retreats on Ethanol Levels in Fuel

See also this thread: EPA scales back on ethanol requirements | PriusChat

 

Interesting, I'm curious about these this claim:

Source: EPA Retreats on Ethanol Levels in Fuel – The Diesel Driver - The Joy of Diesel Driving

Does this mean ~50% from domestic and ~50% from imports? If so, the problem remains: we are not oil independent.

This sounds a lot like what happened after Reagan took office in 1981. The White House solar panels were taken down and 'shale oil' programs disappeared (only to come back with fracking.) A change in politics effectively killed solar energy and energy self-sufficiency 30 years ago.

Fossil fuels are a dead-end because we burn them up about as fast as we can find them. As for whether we use ethanol, other alcohols, or other plant-based liquid fuels, I have an open mind. But a policy change like this risks killing the innovations needed to achieve energy independence. It is a national security issue.

Bob Wilson

 

The decision isn't going set the program back in terms of progress. It just realigns it with the market place.
My understanding was that the ethanol program mandates started as a way of expanding the E85 infrastructure. That didn't happen so it was shifted to increasing the presence of E10 and now E15. Mostly because of how the mandates are written.

The mandate amount isn't a set percentage of gasoline production. It is a hard set volume that increases every year. Which might have been fine with the predicted increase of gas consumption from the time it was written, but that didn't happen. For various reasons, fuel consumption has gone down. The current hard mandate would lead to the oil companies having to mix in more ethanol than the majority of cars and stations are certified for.

It also has raised the price of corn, which has a ripple effect on the price of most food.

This won't effect the innovation and research being done for ethanol fuel. Just pull back the commercially produced amounts to limit financial damages by mandating more used beyond market forces.

 

Bob, its funny counting. They are counting oil derived type products, which includes biofuels in US production.

We could just cut down all the national forests and grow corn and reach energy independance faster, but with production increasing, and consumption falling for oil, the idea that we need to harm the environment and raise the price of food up, seems like a bad one.

EPA is not killing the mandate, they are lowering it to account for lower gas and diesel consumption. Under the old scheme, if oil consumption dropped 10% compared to estimates, and ethanol grew 5% because of mandate. Then percent ethanol would go up from .1 gallons to .105, while gas content would be reduced from .9 to .81, increasing ethanol to E11.4, something that could hurt some engines, so they were going to mandate E15, again not good for the fleet.

Think of this change as the EPA has come to its senses and not done something incredibly stupid. We need the EPA to not do stupid things for special interests (renewable fuels association) no matter how much they give in campaign contributions. The EPA was mandating something congress said to, that was both bad for the environment and for the customer.

Now to decrease oil in the future, if natural gas remains plentiful or we get to switch grass or algea instead of corn biofuels, then we need our cars to be able to burn them without damage. There is a open fuel standard bill in congress, that probably won't pass, but should.

EPA should be about protecting the environment, not protecting ADM profits.

 

"The EPA’s move is a reality check given that the fuel systems in today’s cars are not designed to run on fuel that is more than 10% ethanol."

Yeah about time these poiliticians stop trying to destroy our cars with E15 or E20 blends. Very obviously they are more interested in serving Archer-Daniels-Midland and other agricultural corporations than the voters. Make ADM rich and destroy car engines... the politicians laugh with glee.

If the U.S. was smart it would save all its oil reserves until the Mideast/rest of the world runs out (circa 2050-60), and then be the sole supplier for oil. The U.S. would have a monopoly and get filthy rich.

 

+1

But congress could, if they were responsible pass the open fuel standard, and methanol and higher ethanol blends could be burned safely in the future.

Are you proposing that the US government do something like we did under nixon, make it unprofitable to pump american oil, and leave it up to OPEC to cause price spikes and shortages? That doesn't sound like its good for anyone but saudi arabia and iran.

The US government could add an oil tax, say $40/bbl which would just put it back up to levels we have seen recently. That could offset some payroll taxes, and actually lead to more efficient vehicle purchases, and less money outflows to import oil, leading to better economic growth and economic security. The answer is to use less and produce a higher percentage, not to import more.

 

I have no objection to selling E15 or E20, but I want it to be LABELED so I can avoid pouring it in my Honda or Toyota and damaging them. The current problem is that some state legislatures are forcing stations to sell this destructive liquid & not informing customers. Stupid politicians.

Answer to question 2: No I'm suggesting exactly what I said: Save our domestic oil until the rest of the world runs-out, and thereby leave the U.S. with a monopoly (sole country that still has oil). I explained that in my previous post but for some reason you did not read it.

BTW I like the "tax the barrels of oil" idea, but think it would be easier to just raise the gas/diesel tax that already exists. Politically I mean. (It's always easier to raise an existing tax then to propose a whole new tax.) The excess money would also be used to repair the bridges that are literally flaking-off pieces of concrete. Even EVs need a good road/bridge infrastructure to run on.

 

Troy, I haven't heard about any legislatures trying not to label it, the problem is that E10 with the mandate might not be available only E15 at some stations. I think you and I are both glad the EPA came to their senses and lowered the mandate.

Oh I read it, but by what mechanism would you do this without empowering opec and ceding some sovereignty to them. Also why would the US be the country with a monopoly. Canada and Venezuala both have large reserves of unconventional oil.

If we somehow force oil companies to cap all the wells until some time in the future, not only would people complain at the next set of gas lines, but you really are causing the economy harm not good.

I think the big fight on raising fuel taxes has been since the btu tax, that instead of offseting other taxes the proposals have been to spend it for special interests. After studying the failure, which really was only $3.50/bbl about 8% of what many analysts now think we would be well served with, there were credits that were to be given for heating oil, and for farmers, and for joe's pac and jack's pack. The congress put in all these loopholes to give to their special interests. It was overly complex, and the tax money was spent.

Now imagine instead of lying to the american people we passed 2 simple pieces of legislation.

1) open fuel standards, so that we can substitute away from oil. The legislation is only 6 pages, and would add on average about $30/new car ($100/car on 30% of the cars).

2) raise oil and coal taxes. This could also be about 10 pages, not these thousand page bills. Raise oil taxes $40/bbl and coal $50/bbl over the next 5 years, and reduce payroll taxes (medicare maybe) by the difference between these and cost for solar subsidies and cost of roads. It would be popular. But instead we are headed toward higher payroll taxes which are regressive, and politicians are throwing people off their health care plans so insurance companies will use the money for profits and to subsidize the old and the sick.

Do these two things and cafe standards get easier, because people will move to more efficient vehicles because of the tax, and biofuels and methanol will offset more oil because of oil taxes and the ability for more cars to burn them.

 

I very clearly stated (twice) that we should save our oil "until the rest of the world runs out". In other words burn-up all the Venezuelan, OPEC, Russian oil until it runs-out circa 2060..... thereby leaving the US as the only nation that still has oil

And 10-page long legislation? Wow. That would never happen because it would be filled with a thousand pages of legalese after the Congresspersons got their hands on it. Even the TARP which was just supposed to be a Simple transfer of 700 billion from the Congress to the Treasury Secretary (to bailout banks) ended-up being hundreds of pages long.

 

Again, I heard you, but you have given no mechanisms. If Venezuela and Canada use their unconventional reserves the rest of the world doesn't run out of oil in 2060, not even in 2100, and Canada is already tapping those reserves. Brazil and Russia also have mamouth unconventional reserves. If the US somehow decided to cut off the oil in this country, these reserves would be readily available at less than $150/bbl. They would take years to develop though, so cutting off US production would cause a large price spike.

In the mean time you allow OPEC to cause gas lines, and shortages, because you want to some time in the future tap these. At $93/bbl should the US government cause shortages so that oil companies can get $150/bbl? I don't think that makes sense economically or politically. Not pumping would raise the price of oil, but wouldn't it be better to tax it and use the money to reduce other taxes then to give the cash to opec?

That is why I said tax barrels of oil not gas, this could be simple. The open fuel standard is only 6 pages long. Yes I have little hope not only because there are few young people in the senate and congress, but also people that agree that we should have an oil tax act as if congress is correct working tin their awful way. We should not stand for a continuing resolution that added $2B of pork for kentucky. Fire Congress, and let them know both parties need to stop with the pork and loopholes.

 

If you think this is a smart strategy for the US, can you explain why it is not a smart strategy for other countries too ?

You should also realize that there is not such thing as 'running out.' There is only increasing the demand/supply imbalance, which can be translated into $/barrel. So, how expensive do you want oil to be before US reserves are exploited ?

 

I figured all untapped & newly-discovered resources (like ANWR and other fields) would be designated as military reserves that may not be tapped for drilling. Those areas would be like a savings account or "lockbox" that won't be used for another 50 or 100 years (however long it takes for the OPEC countries to run dry).

HOWEVER at that time I didn't realize the earth was infinite in size & therefore had infinite oil so it will "never run out". I guess I was working under the belief that oil will eventually no longer exist (having been used).

 

Look up Zeno's paradox. There is a chance you will be a little less stupid if you try to think about it in terms of decreasing oil production.

 

...exactly correct and the EPA can also be accused of dragging its feet. For at least 3 years EPA has been getting input that the Congress' 2007 RFS mandate goals were unattainable. EPA refused to acknowledge the emerging problem, and just waited until finally the "crap hit the fan". Chalk it up as another example of our crippled political system failure to act like grown ups.

 

Indeed ANWR can and IMHO should be kept off limits for environmental reasons. The idea to tap ANWR is that we are almost out of oil, but this is not the case at all. Some peanut farmer president made a speech that we would never be able to drill as much oil as in the late 70s, but it turns out, he was completely wrong.

The Texas fields, the North Dakota fields, the Alaska fields, where oil rights have been allocated, would require those states stripped people of those rights. Now this would involve law suits and unemployment, so it is doubtfull that these states would do it.

Which leaves you with the Nixon strategy of price controls. The federal government could cap the price domestic oil could be sold to refiners. We tried this experiment before and it worked, oil production in the US dropped. It also comes with shortages and money to opec. You could try the carter strategy of taxing profits on domestic oil more than foreign oil. That would not have as big of a down side, oil would be reduced, prices would go up, and more money to opec, but now gas lines or shortages. We should have the epa look at flaring, and perhaps put in national laws similar to texas. That would slow midwest oil, and make it more environmentally friendly.

The world is finite, but there is much more unconventional oil than you realize. The trick is to substitute away from oil before all that unconventional stuff is burned, not to go through the most opec oil, and have no money left in the economy to make environmental choices.

Here is the iea's take on it all
IEA - Oil

There are good arguments for taxing domestic oil more and good arguments against it. That would change the mix. There are only bad arguments for cutting off domestic production and causing shortages. The key is that if we continue to consume at this rate unconventional oil will get more expensive, not that it will run out anytime soon. Therefore policies to reduce consumption help domestic economic security. Policies to restrict domestic production if implemented badly as nixon and carter did, lead to economic insecurity. If we fail to learn from history, it is likely that the nixon mistakes will be repeated.

 

How did taking down the White House's solar panels kill solar energy?
I agree that it was a statement...but research dollars would have been the thing that delayed (not killed it).
And there was still plenty of true research on improving solar cells in the 80s. (think of how spy satellites get powered)

Mike

 

Get rid of ethanol in the gas tanks, period!

Maybe, just maybe the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico will shrink in size ( lowered fertilizer run off into the Gulf.

Also, use the land for growing food for human and livestock feed - give consumers lowered food prices.

DBCassidy