Hypothetical question: If a group of farmers in Iowa cut a deal with Tyson Foods to produce 2nd generation renewable diesel via a hydrotreating process, would Congress step in to stop them from receiving the renewable diesel credit? Anyone?
But it wasn’t a group of farmers in Iowa. It was an oil company in Texas, and so Congress is attempting to stop the credit and protect the first generation biodiesel producers.
Measure targets fatty fuel tax break
WASHINGTON — In language buried deep in an energy tax bill approved Saturday night, the House took direct aim at a plan by ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods to take advantage of a federal tax credit that could save them $175 million a year.
On page 46, under Sec. 203. Extension and Modification of Credits for Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel, paragraph (b), subparagraph (1), the bill would strike language from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that reads “using a thermal depolymerization process.”
In April, ConocoPhillips and Tyson announced they were teaming up to use Tyson’s beef, pork and poultry waste to produce 175 million gallons — or 4.2 million barrels — of renewable diesel fuel annually at existing ConocoPhillips refineries.
But the partners insist the project would not be economical without the tax credit.
Don Duncan, ConocoPhillips’ vice president for federal and international affairs, said company officials were “stunned” that lawmakers, who have criticized the oil companies for not doing enough to promote use of renewable sources, would throw up a roadblock to a project that would help reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign crude.
“They chastised the industry for doing nothing, and then they want to stop us when we do propose doing something,” Duncan said.
To be honest, I have been expecting this. After watching the energy policy debates play out over the past several years, I have become very cynical of the motives (and energy IQ) of our leaders. By providing a credit for biodiesel, and denying a credit for green diesel, congress is attempting to pander to various constituencies, and pick technology winners. What they are not trying to do with this measure is diversify the energy supply and encourage new technologies.
I think first generation biodiesels will (and should) go the way of the dinosaur. The product has very inferior cold-weather properties, has lower energy density than conventional diesel, and loses part of the energy content during processing as a low-value glycerin by-product. Second generation diesels – the so-called “green diesels” are identical to petroleum diesels in cold weather properties and energy density (and can therefore be mixed in any proportion), and the by-product is propane. (Biomass gasification is also called “2nd generation diesel”, but I would really call it 3rd generation). But none of the renewable diesels are cost-competitive with petroleum diesel, so Congress can attempt to pick technology winners by offering a credit to one technology and denying it to another.
So, due to special interests, we will discourage oil companies from the biofuels market and tell them we would rather they continue to produce oil. But let’s also put punitive measures in place that make them think twice about producing more oil. Then, let’s convene again in 2 years and try to figure out why we still have high energy prices and why we depend on petroleum more than ever before.
We have a completely disjointed energy policy. Major projects have long lead times and ultimately long completion times. Adopting a new energy bill every two years in which there is no long-term consistency on energy policy just ensures that many projects will not go forward. How can they, when the economics are liable to drastically change in the middle of construction?
Robert
In your ethanol FAQ you said
“The RFA’s page on industry statistics shows that ethanol production in 2006 was 4.86 billion gallons. This is 116 million barrels. Oil has a BTU value of 138,000 BTUs/gal, versus 76,000 BTUs/gal for ethanol; therefore 116 million barrels of ethanol contain the BTU equivalent of 64 million barrels of oil. (Source: ORNL). The claim then is that 116 million barrels of ethanol, with a per barrel BTU value of just over half that of a barrel of oil, displaced 170 million barrels of oil.”
But ethanol doesn’t replace oil, it replaces gasoline, which has a BTU content of about 125,000.
Secondly, a barrel of oil only produces 19.5 gallons of gasoline.
After accounting for these factors the oil displaced is 150 million barrels, not the 64 you state.
It’s getting very hard for me to believe you are being honest.
Why don’t the oil companies just make peace with the farmers?
It’s getting very hard for me to believe you are being honest.
Your problems with comprehension do not amount to a problem with my honesty. Look at the claim that is being addressed: Ethanol displaced X barrels of oil. That is the claim, therefore the BTUs of oil is the metric.
Secondly, a barrel of oil only produces 19.5 gallons of gasoline.
Are you for real? You appear to be mathematically challenged. I can see why you are anonymous. There is more than gasoline in a barrel of oil. So, when you say that a barrel of oil was displaced, you don’t get to just count the gasoline and ignore the rest.
The next time you wish to question my honesty, consider the fact that it is your stupidity that is the issue.
This measure stood to benefit, and was strongly supported by, cattle ranchers and chicken producers.
This has been the policy for a long time. If refiners were interested, they could make ethanol too. The ethanol tax break goes only to making ethanol “neat” then blending it. The azeotropic distillation step is very energy intensive. A refinery could use gasoline blendstock to break the azeotrope and then blend the resulting product, saving the second distillation step. But then they couldn’t get the tax credit. Thank you ADM.
The tax breaks should go with the fuel, without descriminating against who is making the investment.
So your saying that if we didn’t need that oil for gasoline, we would need it for other stuff anyway? Substituting another product for gasoline doesn’t reduce oil use?
I guess we are screwed.
Robert said
“Ethanol displaced X barrels of oil. That is the claim, therefore the BTUs of oil is the metric.”
Well, is it BTUs or is it barrels?
“There is more than gasoline in a barrel of oil.”
Yet you go straight from ethanol BTUs to Oil BTUs.
Now who is being stupid?
Well, is it BTUs or is it barrels?
LOL! You can only determine displacement if you know the BTU value. Otherwise, why don’t you think a barrel of water can displace a barrel of gasoline? Because it has no BTU value in an ICE. If you ignore the BTU value, you can’t possibly solve the problem.
Yet you go straight from ethanol BTUs to Oil BTUs.
Which captures the entire energy value of that barrel.
Now who is being stupid?
Show your math, and you will see who is being stupid. The reason for looking at BTUs is that it is not possible for a BTU of ethanol to displace more than a BTU of oil.
Consider this example. You just found a barrel of ethanol. It enters the system as transportation fuel. What is the maximum possible displacement of oil? Show your work and state your assumptions. I suspect when you do, the realization will sink in and you will be glad you posted anonymously. I doubt, however, you will apologize for your insinuations of dishonesty.
Substituting another product for gasoline doesn’t reduce oil use?
In theory it can. But there is not a multiplicative substitution. A barrel of ethanol can only displace a theoretical maximum of 55% of a barrel of oil. That’s the limit, if there were no fossil fuel inputs into the barrel of ethanol.
You have to love it though, when mathematically inept people can’t grasp this, so they resort to accusations of dishonesty. This sort of mathematical ineptitude is the reason these claims originated in the first place.
Lets say I had a barrel of ethanol, but then someone took it away. How many barrels of oil would I need to make the gasoline to substitute for my barrel of ethanol?
What is the maximum percentage that we can convert oil into gasoline?
Lets say I had a barrel of ethanol, but then someone took it away. How many barrels of oil would I need to make the gasoline to substitute for my barrel of ethanol?
If you are using it as transportation fuel, your barrel of ethanol can be replaced by the gasoline/LPG/natural gas in just over 1 barrel of oil. BUT, you also have a large quantity of diesel fuel and jet fuel that enters the supply chain as a result of that barrel of oil. That’s why you can’t just say that a barrel of ethanol can displace more than a barrel of oil: That ignores a large quantity of the high energy fuels produced from the barrel of oil.
The true comparison is based on BTU content. The BTU content that entered the transportation system can displace (in theory) an equivalent number of BTUS of other transportation fuels. But it can’t displace more.
What is the maximum percentage that we can convert oil into gasoline?
You could convert almost all of it, but you wouldn’t want to. It wouldn’t be very efficient to do so. You would need to crack jet fuel and diesel to gasoline, and that’s not something you want to do.
In theory it can. But there is not a multiplicative substitution. A barrel of ethanol can only displace a theoretical maximum of 55% of a barrel of oil. That’s the limit, if there were no fossil fuel inputs into the barrel of ethanol.
It sounds to me like the conflict between Robert and Anonymous hinges, not on the math, but on the boundary definition of the problem.
Robert is starting with the BTU value displaced, then equating BTUs displaced in terms of total BTU equivalents in a barrel of oil. So perhaps it would be reasonable to state the displacement as BOE (barrels of oil equivalent).
Anon is taking the (as far as I can tell) same value for BTUs displaced, and then equating that to the number of barrels of oil required to produce that much gasoline. So it might be reasonable to say that, in those terms, ethanol has displaced 55% of 150 million barrels of oil.
Personally, I think the BOE figure (Robert’s) is more meaningful from an engineering perspective, though I can see where the other figure is coming from too. What I don’t understand is why you are throwing insults back and forth, rather than discussing the differences in your assumptions.
One other point to consider. Most of the excess energy from ethanol production is from dried distiller’s grain. In the energy balance, this is being counted as if it were BTUs for burning. By counting these BTUs in the energy balance, but failing to account for diesel and jet fuel in a barrel of oil, you come up with a seriously exaggerated energy displacement.
What I don’t understand is why you are throwing insults back and forth, rather than discussing the differences in your assumptions.
That would come from the first post, in which I was not asked for clarification, but instead accused of dishonesty.
I understand where they came up with the numbers (or reasonably close). But the assumptions are content to merely ignore half the energy content from a barrel of oil, and call it a whole barrel. On the other hand, as I pointed out in the previous post, the ethanol energy balance IS taking BTU credit for DDGs.
See, you’re comparing BTUs to BTUs, but we don’t import barrels of (oil BTUs) we import oil. Ethanol is a finished product, oil is not, therefore it is dishonest to compare ethanol BTUs diectly to oil BTUs.
So, how many barrels of oil does it take to make the gasoline to replace a barrel of ethanol?
Ethanol is a finished product, oil is not, therefore it is dishonest to compare ethanol BTUs diectly to oil BTUs.
No, it isn’t. The only way to account for all of the energy in the barrel of oil is to account for BTUs. If you are suggesting that energy is lost during the refining of that barrel, this is true. However, that refining energy – much greater in the case of ethanol – has not been subtracted from the ethanol to get a net.
So, how many barrels of oil does it take to make the gasoline to replace a barrel of ethanol?
About 2 posts back:
If you are using it as transportation fuel, your barrel of ethanol can be replaced by the gasoline/LPG/natural gas in just over 1 barrel of oil. BUT, you also have a large quantity of diesel fuel and jet fuel that enters the supply chain as a result of that barrel of oil. That’s why you can’t just say that a barrel of ethanol can displace more than a barrel of oil: That ignores a large quantity of the high energy fuels produced from the barrel of oil.
Ethanol is a finished product, oil is not, therefore it is dishonest to compare ethanol BTUs diectly to oil BTUs.
Incidentally, tell us how you feel about the honesty of the oil displacement claims that were made by the proponents. Do you think 170 million or 200 million barrels of oil displaced is an honest claim?
“If you are using it as transportation fuel, your barrel of ethanol can be replaced by the gasoline/LPG/natural gas in just over 1 barrel of oil”
So it is basically a 1:1 conversion? So 116 million barrels of ethanol would be approximately 116 million barrels of oil?
So it is basically a 1:1 conversion? So 116 million barrels of ethanol would be approximately 116 million barrels of oil?
Sure. As long as one is willing to give ethanol BTU credit for dried distiller’s grain, but then ignore the substantial amount of energy in that barrel of oil that ends up as diesel and jet fuel. Doesn’t seem like an honest thing to do to me, though.
As Green Engineer said above, the way I am doing it is actually the most meaningful. I don’t ignore any energy content at all, in either barrel.
That’s enough out of you, Dave Mathews. I have had e-mails and comments from readers begging me to ban you. I have responded that I have no intention of doing that, but I am no longer going to put up with false accusations from you, as those you just posted.
If you want to engage – as nutty as you are – engage. If you want to make false claims and false accusations, I will delete all of those posts. And if you keep asking questions that I have already answered – I am going to delete those as well. That’s just Spam.
If I need to enable comment moderation – that is to say if you can’t reign in your psycho rants – then I will. But I prefer not to have to do that.
Hello Robert Rapier,
Pointing out an egregious conflict of interest and a bit of hypocrisy on your own part does not constitute a false accusation.
People already know what you represent:
Fark
They also know what The Oil Drum represents.
By deleting my post you are only demonstrating the principle, “If you don’t like the heat, censor your critics.” A very effective strategy in the short-term but ultimately futile.
If the oil industry wants to propagandize on your blog and The Oil Drum, that’s fine with me. My only objection is when you portray yourself as an objective source who is looking out for the best interests of Americans.
You should keep in mind that should the oil corporations pick a fight with ADM they may very well lose. The farmers have their own lobbyists and senators. The oil corporations have the advantage today only because Bush & Cheney are in the White House.
How much does ConocoPhillips pay for for this work, Robert? They should pay you a lot because what you do undoubtedly is worth a bunch to the oil corporations. You represent them very well.
David Mathews
1001 Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Oil Corporations
Crud. How do we educate those pinheads in Washington about these issues? I guess it is just to easy for those air heads to join hands with the powerful farm states and pour scorn on Big Oil.
What a sad day. At this rate the Dems are not doing much better than the Republican before them. We need a third party. Perhaps Robert should start the Energy Party…
Can’t we all just get along?
By deleting my post you are only demonstrating the principle, “If you don’t like the heat, censor your critics.”
No, Dave. I am demonstrating that you can’t come into my house, prop your muddy feet up on my table, and proceed to make false claims to anyone who will listen without expecting to get thrown out. Believe me, I have taken much more “heat” than you could ever dish out. I don’t object to heat. I object to slander and false accusations. I am going to give one example, and then any more of this kind of stuff from you will be deleted:
How much does ConocoPhillips pay for for this work, Robert?
You have made this accusation/insinuation in various forms at least a dozen times. I have answered it again and again. I am not paid for this. This is my hobby. I do it on my time. Right now, I am writing this with my son sitting next to me (who thinks you are a jerk) and my wife behind me (who thinks you need help). Yet no matter how many times I tell you this, you insist on making that accusation. That says much about you and your agenda, Dave Mathews.
You have no real arguments, so the ad hominem is what you reach for again and again. That pegs you as an intellectual lightweight. You have no heat to put on me. All you can do is make a lot of noise and hope to draw attention to yourself.
Now, consider that you have been warned. Slanderous statements will no longer be allowed. Speculation about me, presented as fact, will no longer be allowed. Maybe from others, but not from you. You have already worn out your welcome with me. Your stalking behavior, as evidenced by your posts at Kunstler, has gone on long enough.
And I will conclude with the fact that others have asked me to ban you, because you offer nothing to the debate. You are just a lot of hot air. I have allowed you just enough rope, and you have demonstrated to all just what an ass you are. So, my strategy worked out.
That’s enough out of you, Dave Mathews. I have had e-mails and comments from readers begging me to ban you. I have responded that I have no intention of doing that, but I am no longer going to put up with false accusations from you, as those you just posted.
Give him a separate column to spew his distorted convictions and take him out of everywhere else. He adds nothing, and keeps repeating himself. He is the sort of quasi-religious crusader that believes adversity proves him to be right. There is no reasonable conversation with someone like that…
OK, enough sanctimonious hypocrisy. Dave can post that morally superior crap on his own blog. If he isn’t going to talk energy, then he’s done here.
Back to energy issues.
The tax breaks should go with the fuel, without descriminating against who is making the investment.
That’s one reason I favor carbon taxes for leveling the playing field. Not only would it allow all alternatives to compete on equal footing, but it would spur conservation, meaning we have less of a gap to close.
But special interests rule the day, and are going to ruin us all in the long run.
Do the oil companies get subsidies?
Do the oil companies get subsidies?
It depends on what you mean by subsidy. If you mean direct payments per X gallons of gasoline produced, as is the case with ethanol, then no. But there are various tax credits and such designed to foster exploration in marginal areas. There was a foreign income exclusion, which all manufacturers enjoy, that says income earned and taxed in a foreign country can’t be double-taxed. That’s been called a subsidy, but it certainly isn’t specific to the oil industry.
We certainly do things to subsidize cheap driving in the U.S., which does directly benefit the oil industry.
Understand, I am not in favor of subsidies. I think they distort markets in favor of specific pet projects. As I have said many times, a much better approach is to tax fossil fuels, and let the alternatives compete on a level playing field. Right now, if a promising new biofuel technology is invented, but is not specifically defined as getting the subsidy, it’s going to have a tough time competing with the entrenched and highly subsidized technologies. In other words, congress is putting road blocks up, where they should be taking them down.
“Understand, I am not in favor of subsidies. I think they distort markets in favor of specific pet projects. As I have said many times, a much better approach is to tax fossil fuels, and let the alternatives compete on a level playing field.”
I think people don’t always remember that, because the essays don’t really seem centered in that.
Perhaps you buried the lede?
“Incidentally, tell us how you feel about the honesty of the oil displacement claims that were made by the proponents. Do you think 170 million or 200 million barrels of oil displaced is an honest claim?”
No, it doesn’t seem like that is correct either. I wish they had a blog so I could complain.
I apologize for implying you were dishonest. I should have asked for clarification first.
Perhaps you buried the lede?
I had to look that up. 🙂
I just scanned back over the past 2 dozen essay titles, and I think I have mentioned it pretty frequently. And if you search the blog for “gas tax” or “carbon tax”, you come up with quite a few hits.
I have thought about writing a series of FAQs, addressing things like that. People often write and ask how I feel about this or that, and a FAQ could save me some time in the long run. But one thing I have learned from watching the comments, you have to be very explicit and spell things out. I realized in the essay that there were some unstated assumptions (BTU value in a barrel of oil) and things like that.
As someone said to me in an e-mail, a FAQ is for the novice, and I don’t appear to be writing for a novice audience.
The website below shows a typical breakdown of a barrel of oil.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html
Finished Motor Gasoline 51.4%
Distillate Fuel Oil 15.3%
Jet Fuel 12.6% Still Gas 5.4%
Marketable Coke 5.0%
Residual Fuel Oil 3.3%
Liquefied Refinery Gas 2.8%
Asphalt and Road Oil 1.9%
Other Refined Products 1.5%
Lubricants 0.9%
What would change if say oil company were required to blend in 15% ethanol? Would the product mix change?
Assuming the demand for the products other than gasoline don’t change, wouldn’t that create excess gasoline?
Basically, what would change for a 5% step increase in ethanol?
I sometimes
>find myself doing this.
What do you think of Biopact?
What would change if say oil company were required to blend in 15% ethanol? Would the product mix change?
To the extent that if affected gasoline demand – if margins were substantially affected we would shift production to diesel. And we have quite a bit of flexibility to do that.
That really highlights why it is an invalid comparison. What we wouldn’t do, if we had to blend 5% ethanol, is buy 5% less oil.
What do you think of Biopact?
I utilized Biopact quite a bit when I was working on my renewable diesel chapter. I favor those kinds of approaches. In fact, I argued in the book chapter that I would like to see more countries doing rigorous life cycle analyses, but I don’t know how you would enforce it on a worldwide basis. The Dutch may no buy biodiesel made from palm plantations carved out of rain forest, but somebody else will. That’s a serious problem.
Robert, add my vote to removing any trace of this David Matthews fruitcake from your blog. I don’t claim to be omniscient, but his ignorant blathering is better suited to a different forum. Please, deliver us reprieve (at least in this venue, anyway) from his diarrhea of the keyboard. It does a disservice to your blog and makes me feel dumber for having read it.
Cheers,
BKM
Maybe David would be happier on some site (which shall remain for the moment nameless) where comment-folk don’t read “The Black Swan,” and are heavily invested in particular (and often gloomy) futures 😉
I guess the problem with that is that people invested in particular futures are not always patient with other people invested in other particular futures.
(“Fooled by Randomness” also by Taleb, and “Expert Political Judgment” by Tetlock are good substitutes, if “The Black Swan” doesn’t come to hand.)
I guess in the vernacular of Tetlock, I’m saying David could party with all the other Hedgehogs who think they are Foxes.
Robert, add my vote to removing any trace of this David Matthews fruitcake from your blog.
I have started deleting all of his rants. He had his chance. I guess he can’t see the irony in telling me to go enjoy life – and posting it again and again and again. If he ever engages in an actual discussion about energy issues, then he is welcome. I don’t mind criticism, but what he was doing wasn’t criticism.
Funny thing, he has started posting his messages to me on Kunstler’s blog. But I am not even registered there. So he ends up talking to himself.
OK, I am off for the night. My movers are arriving first thing in the morning. (Our stuff has been on a slow boat across the Atlantic). If any trolls show up, shove ’em back under their bridge.
So how do you envision the president will achieve his objective of twenty in ten?
So let me get this straight, we are going to reduce gasoline use by 20% in 10 years, but we are not going to reduce oil use?
Yeah, because we will just produce more diesel.
“To the extent that if affected gasoline demand – if margins were substantially affected we would shift production to diesel. And we have quite a bit of flexibility to do that.
That really highlights why it is an invalid comparison. What we wouldn’t do, if we had to blend 5% ethanol, is buy 5% less oil.”
You see, it doesn’t matter how much the nation reduces gasoline use; we will just find other uses for oil and continue to use more of it.
“You see, it doesn’t matter how much the nation reduces gasoline use; we will just find other uses for oil and continue to use more of it.”
It’s even worse because, it is a global (globalized) problem. Even if we reduced oil consumption, there are some number of scenarios where other nations would pick up the slack.
But I think the simple thing is to stick to our own knitting. It is a win-win when we do reduce our own (personal, business, …) oil consumption. We save money, while reducing demand and GHGs.
Hello odograph,
> I guess the problem with that is that people invested in particular futures are not always patient with other people invested in other particular futures.
Alcoholics associate with alcoholics. That’s why they never doubt the virtue of addiction.
David,
You don’t seem to have anything of substance on your website. Why do keep posting links?
Why don’t you let that glorius lion eat you for food.
Isn’t beauty in the eye of the beholder? Who would see the lion as beautiful if all the humans were gone? And that waterfall, that won’t be there forever anyway. And don’t animals kill eachother? But it’s ok for them to do it since they are so beautiful, right?
Why don’t you go live with the animals. We won’t miss you when you’re gone.
I’m not sure but I think it was kingofkaty who neatly summed things up by saying something to the effect that
The biggest threat to US energy security are the pinheads in washington DC.
TJIT
David
The pain you feel is just your soul searching for God. He still loves even though you criticize his greatest work.
Robert: First a meta-comment. I believe that Blogger gives you the option of banning “anonymous” commenters. I would exercise that option if I were you.
Second: Dave Matthews. Didn’t jam bands go out of style some years ago?
Third: I think you are being entirely too kind to our political class. None of them have displayed the slightest interest in, nor concern with, the energy problem nor do any of them appear to have the slightest knowledge of the issues.
All of the policy proposals I have heard from these dingbats have amounted to a large nothing.
Almost all of them amount to subsidies for this thing or that, usually handed out in some way (pace ethanol) that is guaranteed to be useless and even counter-productive. Ethanol may be the single worst policy adopted by the Federal government in the last generation.
Robert Rapier-
You are big-hearted and long-suffering, but sometimes you need not respond to every gibe from the peanut gallery. I appreciate freedom of speech as much as the next guy (much more, I am sure), but I turn to your page to read about energy. I have learned tons from your commentary, even when I disagree with it.
For example, I am much more dubious about corn ethanol, though I still hold out hope for E3 ethanol plants.
However, I am not learning much from the exchanges with Mathews. If he had friendly disagreements or different points of view, that is fine, but the rancor is a bit much. Let us hope you are providing an outlet for his venom, and he is not committing a more serious breech somewhere else thanks to you.
Getting back to the turkey wings-into-biofuels, I do not understand why Congress would act to stop such a sensible arrangement – Congress almost never prevents powerful special interests from getting what they want, in narrow areas like this.
I am mystified. Is there more to the story?
OK, I am finished cleaning up the trash. Dave left quite a mess here while I was sleeping. And for that, in the future I will delete every comment he makes. I know his ISP, and if he wants to post his worthless dribble, he can do it elsewhere.
On to energy:
So let me get this straight, we are going to reduce gasoline use by 20% in 10 years, but we are not going to reduce oil use?
This cuts right to the heart of my issue. There is no way, on the path we are traveling down, that we are going to reduce gasoline by 20% in 10 years. It is completely delusional, and the delusions are driven in part by the claims made here.
We could cut gasoline by 20% in 10 years. It is going to take either 1). Shortages; or 2). Much higher prices, which will spur conservation. Look at that gasoline growth curve again. How much has gasoline been cut as we ramped up ethanol from zero to 5 billion gallons? It wasn’t cut, it continued to grow.
Getting back to the turkey wings-into-biofuels, I do not understand why Congress would act to stop such a sensible arrangement – Congress almost never prevents powerful special interests from getting what they want, in narrow areas like this.
I am mystified. Is there more to the story?
The biodiesel lobby has been after this issue from the beginning. They make an expensive product, and they felt like given 2nd generation technology a leg up wasn’t fair. So they have been screaming over this.
The main benefit was to Tyson Foods. They had to install some equipment and do some work to get the stuff ready for refining. But the expected cost of the animal fat was over $80/bbl. With the subsidy they could sell it at a cost competitive with oil. Ranchers and meat producers were strongly in favor, because it opened up new markets for them.
I was personally very interested, having pushed internally numerous times for more involvement in biofuels. So, I am more than a little ticked off. As the article says, the government complains that we aren’t making biofuels, and then they stack the tax credits against us, and for others, ensuring that we don’t get into biofuels. After all, we aren’t going to buy feedstock at $80/bbl, process it, and then sell it for less. The shareholders would ask for the CEO’s head.
I hope someone from the DOE is reading these blogs. The whole situation is absurd. I mean the President says twenty in ten but Robert says no way.
RR v. POTUS
Should be interesting.
I mean the President says twenty in ten but Robert says no way.
First, yes, I get a fair amount of traffic from lots of government offices, including the DOE.
Second, are you suggesting that because the President says something, it’s true? Remember “Mission Accomplished”, and all that?
I was personally very interested, having pushed internally numerous times for more involvement in biofuels. So, I am more than a little ticked off.
As I am.
When the Dems won big in last year’s elections, I thought, great, somebody is going to stand up to the White House and force them back into the real world. Boy, was I wrong! Instead we have Nancy Pelosi (and honest Harry) carefully doing nothing in order to not offend anybody ahead of the 2008 election cycle.
It’s getting to the point where I find myself wondering: What is the point of a democracy? This non-stop popularity contest reminds me of high school. Are we ever going to grow up? Wait – don’t answer that…
Robert said:
“This cuts right to the heart of my issue. There is no way, on the path we are traveling down, that we are going to reduce gasoline by 20% in 10 years. It is completely delusional, and the delusions are driven in part by the claims made here.”
Andy Karsner(Assistant Energy Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy)
said:
“The government does not pick winners. I am open to talking with and meeting with anyone who has serious ideas about helping break this nation’s addiction to oil and address the serious challenge of climate change at the fasted possible rate. We owe our children and the American people nothing less.”
Perhaps you could post some of your dialog with Andy Karsner
Perhaps you could post some of your dialog with Andy Karsner
Where did he say “The government does not pick winners”, and what is his contact information? I would be happy to give him the benefit of my opinion. 🙂
The government does not pick winners.
LOL! What is this guy, the resident comedian? The best part is that he probably believes himself. Sad!
I guess politians did not pick ethanol. They just can’t help being addicted to buying easy votes from farm states that are always ready to oblige. I guess clever Andy also believes farm states are incapable of political prostitution.
I’d love to see any leader try to break this addiction…
Robert said:
“Where did he say “The government does not pick winners”, and what is his contact information? I would be happy to give him the benefit of my opinion. :-)”
He said it on this page:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20070327.html
It’s not obvious how to contact him but there is a generic whitehouse email.
You can send an email to the Secretary of Energy
at The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov