Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:52 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Fair Back to Topics
brerrabbitTX

Champion Author
Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 1:45:17 PM

Fairest Evaluation of the RFS I Have ReadRFS Overview and Issues

[Edited by: brerrabbitTX at 8/21/2013 1:47:19 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,179
Points:21,580
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2013 7:41:39 AM

"It still seems bizarre to me that they continued to mandate the usage of cellulosic ethanol despite the fact there are no proven commercial facilities to make it... "

That's the whole point. The "mandate" is to generate tax revenue. If it were attainable, it wouldn't be of value to the treasury. It's just like CAFE standards. They are set perpetually unattainably high, in order to produce tax revenue.
Profile Pic
Chazzer
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:18,820
Points:3,899,075
Joined:May 2002
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2013 12:55:42 PM

OK!
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2013 8:28:08 AM

Interesting read. I notice they also mentioned that the RFS was created to force a market place for biofuels regardless of the cost of the fuel.

It still seems bizarre to me that they continued to mandate the usage of cellulosic ethanol despite the fact there are no proven commercial facilities to make it...
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 1:58:42 PM

Computer is acting up so I meant for the topic to be longer but it is what it is.

The link is to a Congressional summary of the RFS and raises interesting points including the fact that the original RFS envisioned fuel use growth significantly higher than what we have today. It also clearly states that corn ethanol was not ever intended to be the biggest contributer in the long run towards ethanol. It shows that a lot of corn has been diverted from animal feed to ethanol and says that currently 40% of US corn gies ti ethanol production and prior to ethanol 84% went to feed. It does acknowledge that some of the distiller grains go back to feed but it is only 30% of the corn dedicated to ethanol so there is a net loss. It also acknowledges that certain lands were never intended for the growth of corn to be used for ethanol towards the RFS targets. It clearly states that the impetus of the legislation was the growth of second generation ethanol and that it was understood that second generation ethanol would not be cheap. It also recognizes that there are huge and costly barriers to the growth of ethanol in the form of pipelines and facilities to handle it. It also finally recognizes that if we used exery bit of corn grown in the US for ethanol we would only produce 22% of the fuel we need for our fleet.

It truly puts things in perspective around the issues talked about here.
Post a reply Back to Topics