googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
It is a regulatory action permitted under the law. The law is not the problem, the application of the regulation is the issue.
>>>>>>>>> Which they did by waiving 98% of the requirement .
If the problem was the law, there have been more than a few years to change it, and the EPA has known about it since day one. The EPA has not taken action to correct it, and congress has not either, and they have known about it just as long, since they voted on it.
>>>>>>>> Or the oil companies could INVEST in cellulosic ethanol to meet statutory guidelines .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26677
|
|
Actually GM could invest in only cars that run on electricity, while they work on their flying cars. It is the lack of common sense, in the application of the standards. It is the same argument about the man on the moon.
We can put a man on the moon, why can't we cure cancer ? We can't cure cancer because we don't know how, and we cannot afford to do the the amount of research needed to make it happen at this time. I do have faith that we will one day, although there is no proof of that, I believe we will. Some people have been cured of cancer, but not everyone can be. They are making strides in the production of alternative fuels, but if they cannot create it, they can't. There is no scandal about the oil companies hiding their ability, no one has a method that is affordable right now.
The EPA can choose not to enforce a requirement that cannot be met. It is no different than the lifts at every pool, to facilitate handicapped people entering the pool. It was not something that could be accomplished, so the government changed the requirement. The fact that it is within a law, and a regulation is not the test. The government can choose to ignore the law. So for now, they are 98% common sense, and 2% senseless. But, the good news is they will get some revenue out of it.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Actually GM could invest in only cars that run on electricity, while they work on their flying cars. It is the lack of common sense, in the application of the standards. It is the same argument about the man on the moon.
>>>>>>>>> Sure , let's reward them for dragging their feet .
The EPA can choose not to enforce a requirement that cannot be met.
>>>>>>>>> Unless it can't be met because they haven't TRIED .
Personnally I could give a crap about the millionth of a cent the fine adds at the gas pump .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8834
|
|
And never mind that we are talking about refineries - so I find the argument that the fuel in question is not being produced - a bit suspicious. I know the ethanol is there - so we are talking about producing a blend. Which is what they do as a part of their process.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26677
|
|
There are differernt types of ethanol. Corn ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol. The issue is how it is produced. There is plenty of fuel with corn ethanol, but even the companies that were subsidized by the government failed to produce a viable product. There is not enough cellulosic ethanol being produced for them to blend in the quantities mandated.
*********
The new renewable fuel standards anticipate the production of 8.65 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol to be blended with other, petroleum-based transportation fuel in 2012. Cellulosic ethanol is derived from inedible plant matter such as switchgrass, wood chips and wheat straw, producing at least 60 percent less greenhouse case emissions than petroleum-based fuels.
But while the 2012 standards may sound like they call for a significant amount of cellulosic ethanol production, at 10.45 million ethanol equivalent volume, it is nowhere close to the 500 million ethanol-equivalent gallons of cellulosic ethanol outlined for 2012 by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Congress sought to have 3 percent of the nation’s total renewable fuels come from cellulosic ethanol in 2012, but now the EPA says the industry will only be able to produce enough over the course of the year to account for 0.006 percent.
The suppliers cannot produce enough to sell to the refinieries to meet the standards. It is nto a question of are they able to blend it, it is a question of why are companies that produce it not producing enough.
Even the EPA explains how it is just not produced in enough quantities to supply the refineries with enough to meet the standard.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
