SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the add-your-own-butter-and-salt dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyGuest31999
In an October 19 letter to corn-belt lawmakers, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt said that he won't seek any rollback to biofuel blending rules, according to Reuters.
The agency had been considering some changes to rules set by the Obama administration that ratchet up the amount of renewable biofuel that refineries must blend into the gas and diesel they sell. According to Bloomberg, the EPA had specifically been considering "a possible reduction in biodiesel requirements" as well as "a proposal to allow exported renewable fuel to count toward domestic quotas." In early October, the EPA asked for public comment on cutting biodiesel quotas.
The Bloomberg story cited unnamed sources who said President Trump personally directed Pruitt to back off any proposals that would relax biofuel quotas after pressure from lawmakers from corn-producing states like Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois. Trump, who courted both fossil fuel interests and corn-belt states in his campaign, has had pressure from each side on this debate. Uncertainty surrounding the future of biofuel use during Trump's administration has caused volatility in biofuels markets for months, Reuters notes.
(The Bloomberg story also cites one unnamed "top EPA official" who said that Trump's directive to Pruitt didn't matter because Pruitt wasn't going to alter renewable fuel standards anyway.)
(Score: 4, Informative) by Snotnose on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:26PM (8 children)
It's expensive, it turns food into fuel, it doesn't have the energy density of gas, and it can harm some engines.
Given the choice I wouldn't go near ethanol. Except the the ethanol that fuels me, of course.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:21PM (4 children)
Granted Ethanol is a net loss. Has been since inception. It was never about making gasoline cheaper, or cleaner.
It was always about stretching gas supplies and having domestic alternatives, and reducing refinery work loads.
The Obama rules were going to increase ethanol percentage above the current 10%. Quite harmful to engines and fuel systems.
EPA was also looking at reductions to blend at lower percentages. Saves engines, would't really lower the price of food.
In the end, it became cheaper (politically and economically) to do NOTHING. Any change would cost some money, either in government regs, costs imposed on users, engine tuning, mixing plants, etc.
So there's no story here - other than the foolishness of ethanol is still used for fuel. Nothing is changing. The current nonsense prevails, as it has since the Jimmy Carter era. This problem is going to slowly start solving itself as electric and plug-in-hybrids cars become a greater percentage of the fleet along with miles per gallon improvements.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:10PM
Ethanol has never been anything but a giant subsidy to certain farming interests. It doesn't reduce the need for oil significantly (growing corn for ethanol is ridiculously inefficient and uses massive amounts of fossil fuels to make fertilizer and power farm machinery).
Corn is grown to produce ethanol mostly in states where their votes have an outsize influence on the electoral college.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:27PM (2 children)
A whole lot of the land that's growing corn for ethanol right now would be converted to CRP (conservation resource program) land if the ethanol demand for corn went away. So, instead of subsidizing corn for fuel, food, and various other programs, the taxpayers would instead be paying land owners to not grow anything.
Personally, I prefer the CRP option, I think subsidized corn has gone too far and it's extending the lifespan of the fossil fuel economy. CRP is good for wildlife, but wildlife doesn't vote.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:28PM (1 child)
CRP isn't that good for wildlife. It's not like they just let the land go fallow and let nature take it back. No, each state has a department that decides what has to grow there, and they change every couple years, so all that habitat will be plowed yo, new stuff planted, every few years. It's better than corn for miles and miles, but it still sucks.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:32PM
True enough, pheasant and some other birds do pretty well on CRP, but, yeah, those "good for the wildlife" claims should really be stated like you did "better than corn."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:06PM (1 child)
Where is Ethanol-fueled these days?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:07AM
Out standing in his field
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:52PM
CA gas is 10% ethanol. I suppose it's better than MTBE that poisoned our watertable.