<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" ><channel><title>GlobalWarming.org &#187; energy and security act</title> <atom:link href="http://www.globalwarming.org/tag/energy-and-security-act/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.globalwarming.org</link> <description>Climate Change News &#38; Analysis</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:16:31 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator> <item><title>WSJ Hits Cellulosic Ethanol Hard</title><link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/07/15/wsj-hits-cellulosic-ethanol-hard/</link> <comments>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/07/15/wsj-hits-cellulosic-ethanol-hard/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:23:01 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Brian McGraw</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category> <category><![CDATA[cellulosic ethanol]]></category> <category><![CDATA[energy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[energy and security act]]></category> <category><![CDATA[epa]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ethanol]]></category> <category><![CDATA[oil]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=9971</guid> <description><![CDATA[Following up on Marlo&#8217;s post yesterday concerning the difficulties of bringing cellulosic ethanol to market, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial about the (lack of) fuel, and EPA&#8217;s decision to require refiners to buy &#8216;credits&#8217; &#8212; Cellulosic Ethanol and Unicorns: The EPA set the 2011 standard at six million gallons. Reality hasn&#8217;t cooperated. Zero [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a class="post_image_link" href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/07/15/wsj-hits-cellulosic-ethanol-hard/" title="Permanent link to WSJ Hits Cellulosic Ethanol Hard"><img class="post_image aligncenter" src="http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/flex-fuel1.jpg" width="400" height="118" alt="Post image for WSJ Hits Cellulosic Ethanol Hard" /></a></p><p>Following up on Marlo&#8217;s <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/07/14/cellulosic-biofuel-no-eureka-moments-greenwire/">post yesterday</a> concerning the difficulties of bringing cellulosic ethanol to market, the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> wrote an editorial about the (lack of) fuel, and EPA&#8217;s decision to require refiners to buy &#8216;credits&#8217; &#8212; <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303406104576445752787189310.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop">Cellulosic Ethanol and Unicorns</a>:</p><blockquote><p>The EPA set the 2011 standard at six million gallons. Reality hasn&#8217;t  cooperated. Zero gallons have been produced in the last six months and  the corner isn&#8217;t visible over the next six months either. The EPA has  only approved a single plant to sell the stuff, operated by Range Fuels  near Soperton, Georgia. The company used to be a press corps favorite  and has been lauded by the last two Presidents, but it shut down its  cellulosic operations earlier this year to work through technical  snafus.</p></blockquote><p><span id="more-9971"></span>The EPA is requiring oil refiners to buy permits for cellulosic ethanol, because no one is capable of producing it but they have to save face for the &#8220;mandate&#8221; they are enforcing. I wrote more about this senseless industry tax <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/06/23/more-on-the-cellulosic-ethanol-mandate/">last month</a>:</p><blockquote><p>No companies have to this date been able to produce cellulosic  ethanol that qualifies by EPA’s definition. Yet, presumably to save  face, the EPA has not lowered the cellulosic ethanol “mandate” to zero  gallons.</p><p>Now, what the mandate actually means is that companies will be  heavily fined if they do not blend sufficient quantities of ethanol into  the fuel supply — each gallon of ethanol having its own identification  number, which is generated when the ethanol is created (of course,  companies have to devote significant resources to navigating this  regulatory-maze). Being that this ethanol does not exist, rather than  facing fines for not being able to buy it, refiners are required to  purchase “credits” from the EPA. Essentially, the EPA is requiring them  to send them money in lieu of meeting the cellulosic ethanol mandate.  The product they are required to use <strong>does not exist</strong>,  and rather than giving them a pass, the EPA requires that they pay for  phantom credits, despite not getting anything out of it.</p></blockquote><p>The refiners haven&#8217;t complained much about this. I wonder if the EPA has &#8216;encouraged&#8217; them to keep quiet in order to ensure the mandate stays on the low end of impossible.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/07/15/wsj-hits-cellulosic-ethanol-hard/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>1</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 2/10 queries in 0.237 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 283/293 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.globalwarming.org @ 2012-12-14 00:16:04 --