Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Even Faux-Environmentalists Express Incredulity With The EPA and Biofuels -- Not Even "The Times" Can Make This Stuff Up

Oil companies have been fined for not adding cellulosic biofuel to their refined gasoline and diesel products.

It should be noted that cellulosic biofuel does not exist.

Even the New Yorks Times has trouble squaring the rationale.
When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.

But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year. 
Penalizing the fuel suppliers demonstrates what happens when the federal government really, really wants something that technology is not ready to provide. In fact, while it may seem harsh that the Environmental Protection Agency is penalizing them for failing to do the impossible, the agency is being lenient by the standards of the law, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. 
I didn't say that; the NY Times said that.

The EPA has lost all its marbles and Americans will lose even more if the current administration is in a position to strengthen the EPA next year.

I can't make this stuff up. Fined for not adding a substance that does not exist. But yet, the EPA spokesman can rationalize it. 

6 comments:

  1. They may have to cheer for CHK again.

    CHK invested in a company that makes gasoline from a mix of vegetation (ag waste) and natural gas.

    The first plant will be in Louisiana.

    I hope it will make real economic sense.
    I don't know if it will qualify for the "incentives."

    BTW

    I am listening to Caffrac live at BMO. They seem more than thrilled with their new WB operations.

    anon 1

    ReplyDelete
  2. CalFrac? If so, I know exactly where CalFrac is located west of Williston. Appeared to be a huge and relatively new operation. It looked like one of the bigger oil service companies in the Basin. It's right on the highway, right in front of the huge new industrial park. Yes, they should be quite excited.

    I hope CHK is just as enthusiastic a year from now. Smile.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Any idea why president bush signed the 2007 energy independence and security act into law with this provision ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you go to the linked article, the EPA spokesman explains the reason very, very clearly.

    From my perspective it is very, very scary, and very, very sad for the unknowing American public.

    I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford the additional expenses the federal government is adding to our energy bills, but at least 50% of Americans are being hurt by this craziness.

    Wind energy will increase the monthly utility bill, for example, by a small amount by my standards, but a significant amount for others.

    ReplyDelete
  5. George Orwell couldn't come up with something this crazy. Penalizing and the product doesn't exist and government officials justifying the penalty? Terrible thing when government starts acting like thugs. Some accountability and over site needs to happen.

    ReplyDelete