Slashdot Mirror
EPA Increases Amount of Renewable Fuel To Be Blended Into Gasoline (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Last week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final renewable fuel standards for 2017, requiring that fuel suppliers blend an additional 1.2 billion gallons of renewable fuel into U.S. gas and diesel from 2016 levels. The rule breaks down the requirements to include quotas for cellulosic biofuels, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and traditional renewable fuel. Reuters points out that the aggressive new biofuel standards will create a dilemma for an incoming Trump administration, given that his campaign courted both the gas and corn industries. While the EPA under the Obama administration has continually increased so-called renewable fuel standards (RFS), the standards were first adopted by a majority-Republican Congress in 2005 and then bolstered in 2007 with a requirement to incorporate 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel into the fuel supply by 2022, barring "a determination that implementation of the program is causing severe economic or environmental harm," as the EPA writes. Some biofuels are controversial not just for oil and gas suppliers but for some wildlife advocates as well. Collin O'Mara, CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, said in a statement that the corn ethanol industry that most stands to benefit from the EPA's expansion of the renewable fuel standards "is responsible for the destruction of millions of acres of wildlife habitat and degradation of water quality." Still, the EPA contends that biofuels made from corn and other regenerating plants offer reductions in overall fuel emissions, if the processes used to make and transport the fuels are included. "Advanced biofuels" will offer "50 percent lifecycle carbon emissions reductions," and their share of the new standards will grow by 700 million gallons in 2017 from 2016 requirements, the EPA says. Cellulosic biofuel will be increased by 81 million gallons and biomass-based diesel will be increased by 100 million gallons. "Non-advanced or 'conventional' renewable fuel" will be increased to 19.28 billion gallons from 18.11 billion gallons in 2016. Conventional renewable fuel "typically refers to ethanol derived from corn starch and must meet a 20 percent lifecycle GHG [greenhouse gas] reduction threshold," according to EPA guidelines. Other kinds of renewable fuels include sugarcane-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol derived from the stalks, leaves, and cobs leftover from a corn harvest, and compressed natural gas gleaned from wastewater facilities.
A bigger percentage of less energy-dense material per unit volume means more volume gets burned to create the same amount of energy. Add to that the amount of energy needed to create the ethanol, and does this actually make any difference whatsoever? Could it possibly actually make more total overall emissions?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...
Given the choice between any two options, Trump will invariably choose the one that generates more revenue. Like *absolutely* invariantly.... he might as well be a computer program with a single if statement and a loop.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
His proposed tax plan pretty much only reduces taxes for the super rich. The high end of the brackets will have up to 7% decreased marginal rate, while low and middle income families will see somewhere between .5-1% decreased rate unless you are a single parent or have more than two children as a couple, then you could actually pay more taxes. Also if you are a single person with no children making between about $120k-190k you will pay more taxes.
So let me see if I understand the sheer genius of this move: we're going to be legislated into reducing millions of acres of food crops while millions the world over are starving, reduce those millions of food acres to fuel additives and then burn them to increase greenhouse gasses. Brilliant!
Increasing corn subsidies to red state farmers is a progressive cause? I mean, it could well be. I'm no expert. Still, it sounds like yet another transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich.
You strike me as the kind of person who probably believes the Articles of Confederation where a better constitution than the US Constitution.
But yes, completely destroying the Federal Government and allowing polluters and emitters free reign will just be such a boon to America. Yeah, lots of people will die from environmental poisoning, and climate change will increase its pace, costing everyone huge amounts of money in everything from higher food costs to much higher insurance premiums, but all that really counts is that your ideology wins some sort of weird hypothetical political war.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ethanol costs more gasoline to make than energy it produces. It decays small engines and breaks things like weedwhackers. It lowers your gas milage. There is no positives at all in ethanol in our gasoline. It should have been banned a long time ago.
Force gas station to post in HUGE LETTERS the percentage and warnings against using it in cars older than 2003. 15% and higher will cause hell in older cars with shitty ECM's
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
American pollution was bad enough that rivers were catching fire. That's why the EPA was created.
Want to depoliticize the EPA? More power to you. Want to destroy it? That just makes you a shitty human being.
You are either young, stupid or a troll. Possibly all three.
I lived before the EPA and the clean air and water acts. I lived near many refineries and factories back in the 60's and 70's. The toxic crap that poured from the smokestacks and drain pipes of these places was horrible. Have you ever seen bright yellow toxic sludge draining directly into a bay? It is not pretty, especially with all the dead sea life floating in it. Cancer rates were astounding, respiratory illnesses were through the roof back in those days.
So you want to kill the EPA. Go ahead. I no longer live near those places, but you should move there and enjoy what you want. Raise your kids there! It's what your heroes want.
Idiot.
Actually, it won't ruin many engines. Certainly none built after the late 90's.
Most people don't know that the only difference between an eco-fuel ford car and its non eco-fuel badged - is a software setting.
I used to be one of the people that thought the increased alcohol content would ruin gaskets, hoses, and cylinder walls, but the auto industry has already addressed it years ago.
Also, for around 150 bucks - most cars can be converted to run on ethanol, e-85, or methanol.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Didn't we try that already? Didn't it just make it harder for the poor to keep a car because it took millions of cars off the road that otherwise would have been useable on the cheap for another couple of years?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Most big progressive programs transfer money from the poor to the rich. Social Security and Medicare are funded with regressive payroll taxes, and most of the benefits go to old people who tend to be richer than average. A poor black man has a life expectancy of about 69 years, so will typically benefit from SS and Medicare for 4 years. A rich white woman will live to be 82, collecting benefits for 17 years. So she gets more than four times the benefits, despite paying in a far smaller portion of her income.
... and the Democrats can't figure out why working class people don't vote for them anymore.
Outboard boat motors, Chainsaws, String trimmers, Lawn Mowers, ATVs, Jet Skis, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, etc.... None of them were designed to run on ethanol.
Wait, a 30% reduction in MPG is what we get when going to E85? So everyone's fuel bills increase 30% and we burn 30% more fuel... And this is good why?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Actually, it won't ruin many engines. Certainly none built after the late 90's.
Well you can get additives to add to cars for lead-only engines, and cars that can't use ethanol or methanol. There's a few cars that require methanol blends for fuel during the 90's "we're insane, let's screw around with shit" period. But this is great, my Saturn built in the late 90's still gets around 42-50mpg best I ever got was 62.7mpg, and that was when the car was only a few years old. Real world mileage with the SL and SW series was generally nothing short of amazing. Which wasn't uncommon with those cars, but now we get to spend 30% more and get less fuel, which is of course brilliant.
Om, nomnomnom...
Why would they complain about money being redirected to the wealthy? They're going to be among them when the man stops holding them down.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Outboard boat motors, Chainsaws, String trimmers, Lawn Mowers, ATVs, Jet Skis, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, etc.... None of them were designed to run on ethanol.
You can also add storage tanks the list.... like those big underground tanks at your local gas station that can leak gas into soils and groundwater when a seal corrodes from the high ethanol content. To be fair, today's tank systems have leak detection systems that usually identify a leak quickly, so they get fixed/remediated quickly, but since new ethanol [and low-sulfur diesel] requirements the number of incidents with tanks has gone up dramatically nation-wide. Tank owners have been too slow to adapt to the new maintenance requirements, seals, filters, etc. needed to safely hold ethanol blended gas in tanks.
Let us buy blended fuel, or pure fuel for more $$$. I'm gonna guess 90% of the consumers will go with the unblended fuel because it doesn't harm their engines (gearheads), gets better gas mileage (coupon clippers), and realize that ethanol is a major waste of money (anyone with half a brain).
The only reason burning food for fuel is a thing is because Iowa and other farm states ensure they vote early and often in primaries, so those for sale pander as hard as their pandering asses can pander to these 2-3 states. The rest of the country gets the shaft.
Hopefully Trump will break this. I'm hoping the bull in the china shop will break more bad stuff than good stuff.
And yet the Constitution does afford the Federal government very wide powers. The IRS and the NSA aren't inherently unconstitutional agencies, even if they have been used in a fashion that many may interpret as unconstitutional. The Federal government has been doing things in ways seen as overreaching, if not outright unconstitutional since nearly the beginning (see the Alien and Sedition Acts). For chrissake, the Slave States seceded from the Union on the argument that Lincoln's election was going to lead to a massive violation of States Rights, and we all know who won that particularly argument, and, I'd argue, paved the way for the modern United States of America.
The Framers never intended that the Federal government be an impotent wart on the testicles that were the States. Quite the opposite, they had seen how an impotent Federal government in the form of the Articles of Confederation was inherently unstable and could have lead to the US flying apart, so they created a constitution that, while recognizing that internally the States did have considerable rights to oversee their own affairs, did not enjoy the sort of absolutist rights "purists" (by which I mean modern revisionists with little interest in anything the Founding FAthers may have intended) seem to believe. The Interstate Commerce Clause grants the Federal government vast powers over everything that crosses state lines (as you will note things like pollution do).
Further, if you read why the Articles of Confederation were such a failure, it was precisely because the Federal government had no power to tax, and relied upon the states, who became notorious rather quickly for not paying up, and it lead to serious currency issues. Then factor in that the idea of a central bank was first proposed by Alexander Hamilton, and the Bank Bill was passed in 1780 for the precise purposes of creating a Federally-controlled national bank to create stability.
What I'm guessing here is you know very little of the history of the UNited States, but have bought into a revisionist view as to what the Framers of the constitution and the earliest iterations of the Federal Government did to actually build a nation capable of not only sustaining itself, but enlarging its territorial and economic powers many times over. The US wouldn't exist as you recognized it if the Federal government didn't possess rather significant powers, including the powers of taxation, of having a central bank, and of being able to monitor and deal with enemies foreign and domestic.
None of that is to say that the Federal government always does right, or that citizens shouldn't demand it abide by the principles laid out in the Constitution. But the Framers were wise enough to create a series of checks and balances. They may not always work, or at least not work perfectly, but the US has endured civil and global wars with its system of government, to become the wealthiest and most powerful polity that has ever existed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So your solution to corporate pollution is rescind all the regulations that currently prevent them, disband the organisation that enforces those regulations, wait until after the newly-unrestrained corporations have inevitably polluted everything nearby - then hope some nearby affected citizen is willing & and able to fight them in the civil courts (hopefully with sufficient legal resources to match the corporate legal team), then winning convincingly enough to a) stop them polluting, b) force them to clean everything all up & fully compensate any affected parties (possibly for decades to come - assuming they don't go bankrupt beforehand), and c) recover all legal costs on top of all that. Then go through the whole process again the next time some random company decides it's cheaper to pollute.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
You do have a point. (I found your numbers here.)
However, I would like to see whether the rich recoup their contributions to the program in time-adjusted dollars, even allowing for their longer lifespan. I would guess the answer is no, and I'm fine with that BTW.
Also, the tax is progressive not regressive, because those with larger incomes pay more. And while Social Security benefits are based on contribution amounts, Medicare is not.
But the most important thing to address is why poor black males have such a shorter life expectancy than other groups. I suspect it's because of a disproportionate exposure to societal risks (violence, etc.) and that's disturbing.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.