Posted on 06/29/2002 6:18:14 PM PDT by Black Powder
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The Bush administration has urged U.S. Senate and House lawmakers negotiating an energy bill to include language that would triple the amount of ethanol-blended gasoline and biodiesel used each year in American cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicles.
Farm state lawmakers support more use of corn-based ethanol and soybean-made biodiesel because it benefits their constituents and makes gasoline produce less pollution, but California and New York lawmakers fear the fuel additive is difficult to ship and would result in higher gasoline prices.
A renewable fuels requirement will be one of the more contentious issues that members of a special Senate-House of Representatives conference committee will have to address as they try to hammer out legislation to update U.S. energy policy for the first time in a decade.
A Senate-passed energy bill included a requirement to triple the amount of renewable fuels, like ethanol and biodiesel, used to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. The House of Representatives's energy legislation does not have a similar mandate.
U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham asked lawmakers on the conference committee on Thursday to include the Senate's renewable fuels language in a final energy bill.
"The administration supports the renewable fuels standard compromise contained in the Senate bill and urges conferees to adopt it," Abraham said in a letter on Thursday to conferees.
"This provision will increase the use of clean, domestically produced renewable fuels, like ethanol, which will improve the nation's energy security, farm economy, and environment," Abraham said.
While Bush has endorsed more ethanol use, a recent internal administration document said a jump in ethanol consumption would increase gasoline costs and might create fuel supply shortages in some areas.
The renewable fuels agreement in the Senate bill would also ban MTBE, a gasoline additive that many states already are phasing out because MTBE has leaked from underground storage tanks and polluted drinking water.
The Senate's renewable fuels mandate was the result of a compromise reached between the American Petroleum Institute and the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), which is the trade group that represents ethanol producers.
The agreement also has the support of Northeast states, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Farm Bureau and the American Lung Association.
RFA President Bob Dinneen said the administration's letter to conferees "puts in black and white what President Bush has been saying all along that this country needs to use more domestic, renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel."
"We feel confident that the historic coalition of support for this fuels agreement will ensure its inclusion in the final energy bill," Dinneen said.
The Oxygenated Fuels Association, which represents MTBE producers, has questioned the environmental benefits of ethanol, arguing that the fuel additive may result in more pollution and could raise gasoline prices.
The trade group also said that instead of banning MTBE, federal and state agencies should enforce laws that punish energy companies with leaky storage tanks.
Unfortunately, the petrofuel in the machinery used to grow & harvest the corn & soybeans, then process them into ethanol, more than makes up for the pollution savings of the ethanol. But the farmers like having a new market for their crops.....
The above statement is not factual in any respect. It parrots the position of the petroleum industry and nothing more.
(sorry, did not bookmark links), but it should be easy to find...it's now a US crisis, (too late in the season to re-do), from what I read.
Hate to admit this, but I've never heard of biodiesel. What kind of a scam is that? Did the president actually mention biodiesel at any time?
Yeah its just another scam. Corporate welfare except the money comes directly from the consumer instead of the treasury. Its a way to tax us without calling it a tax.
They should be ashamed of themselves, but instead they think they are pretty clever. How many people will even notice, let alone figure out they have been $crewed by the politicians and their buddies in the farm industry once again?
Notice how angry its defenders get when you point out the schemes flaws? They know as well as we do that it is a rip off, but they don't want the truth to get out. Greed and self interest win again:(
It cost $1.74 a gallon to produce compared with 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline--the growers and producers can't afford to use ethanol to make ethanol.
Thanks edger...Bump for the others
What portion of the cost of ethanol pays for the energy required to produce it? If, hypothetically, producing a gallon of ethanol requires 0.333 gallons of gasoline (worth $0.32), then--even if ethanol packed 100% as much energy per gallon as gasoline (it doesn't)--it would cost $2.13 to replace every gallon of gasoline. If it requires 0.9 gallons of gasoline (worth $0.85), then it would cost $8.90 to replace every gallon of gasoline. If it requires 0.95 gallons (worth $0.90) it would cost $16.80 per gallon replaced.
Anyone know how much petroleum is required per gallon, and consequently how badly we're being rooked for it?
The above statement is not factual in any respect. It parrots the position of the petroleum industry and nothing more.I think the first statement is the correct one. But if not, why does the government need to "mandate" ethanol? Why subsidize it? If it's so wonderful and cost-effective, why isn't everyone using it?Lots of farmers here in Iowa use those same biofuels in their farm equipment. Too bad you know nothing of what you speak.
How much of this energy can easily be derived from the sun? If the energy required for the actual growing is included in the above figure, then it's grossly dishonest (the whole idea of a field is to harvest solar energy, after all). Even beyond the solar energy used by the plants, though, it would seem that some of the energy required for drying etc. could easily be solar-derived (i.e. let the grain dry in the sun). To be sure, the equipment required for this would not be free, but it might represent a more cost-efficient way to harness solar energy than e.g. photovoltaic cells.
Of course, I would not be surprised if current technologies do not make it cost effective by any reasonable measure.
Thanks for digging up this information. I was thinking this is the case. Those BTUs come from oil and natural gas I would surmise.
Bob Dole (R-ArcherDanielsMidland) got the ethanol bills through congress. They were his baby.
Now, to me this looks like more shameless pandering to the farmers..
However, if it were to impact NY and Cali disproportionately I could have a tough time complaining about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.