Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots Believe Them

In a move that should surprise no-one, the whining cry-baby rich-boys at Big Oil are butt-hurt over the latest federal court ruling that upholds the EPA's E15 mandate. In a legal brief filed with the US Supreme Court, the American Petroleum Institute - a powerful, well-funded lobbyist group that represents more than 500 oil and natural gas companies - insisted that transportation fuels containing 15 percent ethanol (E15) could damage cars and trucks.

Should we believe them?

Obviously, the answer is a resounding "Haha! F**k no we should not!"

Let's get one thing clear: the oil industry does not give one fat rat's ass about the health, safety, future, or security of you, me, or anyone else. The horrible people involved in the oil industry have proven, again and again - from Washington DC to Canada to Saudi Arabia to the Mississippi Gulf - that lining their own pockets with cash is more important to them than the your continued health or your children's clean drinking water. Still, that hasn't stopped them from faking a concern for your safety.

That's right kids, Big Oil would now have you believe that E15 is downright dangerous! Bob Greco, API's director of downstream and industry operations said that a switch to E15 "could also put motorists in harm's way when vehicles break down in the middle of a busy highway. We are asking the Supreme Court to step in and protect consumers by striking down EPA's dangerous E15 mandate before it's too late."

Too late? Too late for what? OMG ... they mean we might die! This scare-tactics-scumbag Bob "Greasy Pete" Greco is actually implying that switching to E15 is more likely to get you killed than toxic drinking water.

The worst part of all this is that there's a bunch of 70-80s out there who probably believe this nonsense ... and at least one or two of those idiots are already on the Supreme Court. *ahem* Thomas and Scalia *cough-cough*

Big Oil, in the guise of the API and GOP puppet groups like the AAPS, is spending untold millions and billions to fabricate whatever evidence they can to keep them from having to compete with any other fuels. They're clearly running scared, since - even with petroleum's massive government subsidies, many times more than ethanol - they're not exactly winning the hearts and minds of young Americans.

Op-ed: Everyone working with the API in their bid to block ethanol fuels should die a scandalous, camel-driven, bestiality-related death somewhat sooner than later.

For those of you interested in reading things on your own and forming your own conclusions, I've included a number of links throughout this article, and the original text of the story is quoted, below. Enjoy!

The U.S. oil and gas industry on Tuesday bolstered its argument for the Supreme Court to strike down the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to allow a higher blend of ethanol in newer automobiles.

In a legal brief filed with the high court, the American Petroleum Institute, which represents 500 oil and natural gas companies, insisted that transportation fuels containing 15 percent ethanol could damage cars and trucks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled last August that trade groups representing the automobile, food and other industries did not have sufficient grounds to challenge the use of the new blend known as E15. In response, API appealed to the Supreme Court in February. The high court could make a decision about whether to hear the case soon.

"E15 could leave millions of consumers with broken-down cars and high repair bills," said Bob Greco, API's director of downstream and industry operations. "It could also put motorists in harm's way when vehicles break down in the middle of a busy highway. We are asking the Supreme Court to step in and protect consumers by striking down EPA's dangerous E15 mandate before it's too late."

API's brief was filed as a response to assertions by ethanol backers who have asked the Supreme Court to let the previous ruling stand.

The EPA, which approved the new blend in January 2011, gave the OK for it to go on sale last June. The blend, which has been approved for use in cars and light trucks built since 2000 but is banned from older vehicles and light equipment, has been slow to get off the ground. Only a few stations in the Midwest, including a half dozen in Iowa, have sold the E15 blend.

Ethanol groups said appeal to the Supreme Court was the latest sign of desperation by the oil and gas industry.

"API is basically presenting evidence to prove they will do whatever they can to keep from having to compete with any other fuels," said Ron Lamberty, senior vice president for the American Coalition for Ethanol. "Big Oil will take any approach available to delay E15 implementation while continuing its public smear campaign against it."

Source: DesMoines Register
The post Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots Believe Them appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/06/11/op-ed-big-oil-tells-more-lies-about-ethanol

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies

In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.

cclark395/Flickr

When Saudi Arabia's longtime oil minister, Ali Al-Naimi, opens his mouth, the world listens. Yesterday, during a speech in Hong Kong, he delivered a message that U.S. policy makers in particular would do well to take note of. The days of $100-a-barrel crude, he told the crowd, are here "for the foreseeable future."

If he's right, one thing that shouldn't be around for the foreseeable future are the outdated tax credits that protect oil and gas companies, which will be plenty profitable in a world of $100-a-barrel oil. If Democrats and Republicans are looking for safe ground to set up camp for the budget negotiations, let's start with these $7 billion-a-year subsidies.

To keep reading, click here.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/03/americas-most-obvious-tax-reform-idea-k

Top 4 Reasons the US Still Doesn't Have a Single Offshore Wind Turbine

The UK has 870. Germany has 416. So what's stopping us?

"Jack-up" ships like this are needed to drive massive offshore wind turbines into the seafloor. There's not a single one in the US.

Despite massive growth of the offshore wind industry in Europe, a blossoming array of land-based wind turbines stateside, and plenty of wind to spare, the US has yet to sink even one turbine in the ocean. Not exactly the kind of leadership on renewables President Obama called for in his recent State of the Union address.

Light is just beginning to flicker at the end of the tunnel: On Tuesday, outgoing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told a gathering of offshore industry leaders he was optimistic the long-embattled Cape Wind project would break ground before year's end. And in early January industry advocates managed to convince Congress to extend a critical tax incentive for another year.

But America's small yet dedicated entrepreneurial corps of offshore developers are still chasing "wet steel," as they call it, while their European and Asian colleagues forge ahead on making offshore wind a basic component of their energy plans. So what's the holdup? Here's a look at the top reasons that offshore wind remains elusive in the US:

1. Begging bucks from Uncle Sam: The industry breathed a sigh of relief this year when Congress re-upped the Production Tax Credit, which recoups wind developers 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of power they produce, and the Incentive Tax Credit, which pays back 30 percent of a wind project's construction costs. It might sound like chump change, but the PTC alone amounts to $1 billion a year, and industry advocates insist that wind would hit the doldrums without these subsidies. Still, they hardly put wind on a level playing field with the lavishly subsidized (and lushly lobbied) fossil fuel industry.

That's especially a problem for offshore wind, says Thierry Aelens, an executive with German developer RWE. Higher construction and transmission costs make electricity from offshore over twice the price of onshore in the US, he says, a tough pill for state regulators and utility operators to swallow, especially given the low cost of natural gas made possible by fracking. Today renewables startups rely heavily on private investment to get off the ground, but the industry needs better financial backing from the feds to help it compete with fossil fuels, Aelens says. "Germany is a fully subsidized system. Which technology get supported is fully in the hands of the government."

"Why would you want to sail in a forest of windmills?"

2. Blowback from "stakeholders": Whale and bird lovers. Defenders of tribal lands. Fishermen. The Koch brothers. Since it was proposed in 2001, Cape Wind, a wind farm whose backers say could provide 75 percent of Cape Cod's energy needs, has been run through a bewildering gauntlet of opponents and fought off more than a dozen lawsuits on everything from boat traffic interference to desecration of sacred sites to harming avian and marine life. Just down the seaboard another major project, Deepwater Wind, had to negotiate concerns that its turbines would throw a roadblock in the migratory pathways of endangered right whales. Alliance for Nantucket Sound, Cape Wind's main opposition group, claims the project "threatens the marine environment and would harm the productive, traditional fisheries of Nantucket Sound."

Last summer's "Cape Spin" is an excellent "tragicomic" rundown of the controversy:

Of course, there's another powerful factor at play here: NIMBYism. No one could put it better than fossil fuel magnate Bill Koch, owner of a $20 million Cape Cod beachfront estate and donor of $1.5 million to ANS: "I don't want this in my backyard. Why would you want to sail in a forest of windmills?"

Why indeed.

But Catherine Bowes, a senior analyst with the National Wildlife Federation, says while there are legitimate concerns for wildlife, Cape Wind and Deepwater have both bent over backwards to accommodate them. "I think there's an attempt at highjacking" the wildlife message by the NIMBYers, she says. "Wildlife issues are often used as a reason to oppose a project even by those who have never cared about animals before." Many of the nation's leading environmental organizations-including NWF, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club-have come out in favor of the project. It's easy to see why, Bowes says: "We know that the biggest threat to wildlife is global warming."

3. Not a single ship in the Unites States is equipped to handle wind turbines: Forget about whales and yacht routes. How the hell do you go about lodging a 450-ton, over 400-ft tall turbine into the ocean floor? Answer: With one massive mother of a boat.

But there's a problem, says Chris van Beek, Deepwater's president: "At this point, there is not an existing vessel in the US that can do this job."

The world's relatively small fleet of turbine-ready ships-500-ft., $200 million behemoths-is docked primarily in Europe; an obscure 1920 law called the Jones Act requires ships sailing between two US ports to be US-flagged, and once the foundation of an offshore turbine is laid it counts as a "port." Consequently, turbine installation ships cruising in from, say, Hamburg, wouldn't be able to dock in the States.

On top of that, given the pittance of offshore projects in the works in the US, bringing the ships in from abroad can be cost-prohibitive. Offshore turbines could find themselves all dressed up with nowhere to go.

Weeks Marine of New Jersey is working to solve the problem by building the first country's first turbine ship. They've completed the hull and hope to have the boat seaworthy by 2014, possibly in time to chip in on putting up Cape Wind.

4. States and feds butting heads: The recipe for every offshore wind farm has two essential ingredients: a construction site, and a contract with the electric utility for the developer to sell the farm's power into the grid at a fixed price for a set period of time. In Europe, these go hand-in-hand: Governments auction off sites with the contract thrown in. But in the US, the deep water necessary for wind turbines is managed by the federal Interior Department, while the contracts are awarded by states. So a project could wind up winning the site lease, but getting passed over for the contract, or vice-versa.

"It's fucking nuts," Deepwater CEO Jeff Grybowski says. Even if you sweet-talk a state-Rhode Island, in his case-into signing the purchase contract, "there's a possibility for some other developer to win the land, and then you don't get the project." Since Deepwater and Cape Wind have the only two federal permits for offshore wind, both by the Obama administration, this state-federal tension hasn't been a major issue yet. But as wind lobbyists schmooze their way into statehouses up and down the Atlantic seaboard and score more contracts, the feds will need to rethink how they decide who gets to develop the ocean floor.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/02/top-4-reasons-the-us-still-doesnt-have-

How the US Navy is Leading the Charge on Clean Energy and Climate Change

Damn the do-nothing Congress. The Navy is going full steam ahead on green energy.

USNS Henry J. Kaiser delivers a 50-50 blend of advanced biofuels. Official U.S. Navy Imagery/Flickr

Increasingly, the US Navy is leading the charge towards clean energy, which can in turn impact national security and even climate change. Through investments in biofuels, construction of a more energy-efficient fleet, forward thinking about issues like rising sea levels and a melting Arctic, and commitments to reduce consumption and reliance on foreign oil, the Navy is leading the charge of a vast energy reform effort to "change the way the US military sails, flies, marches, and thinks."

Please join host Chris Mooney for the next installment of Climate Desk Live on Wednesday February 27 at 9:30a.m, where he'll discuss the Navy's charge towards energy independence with Dr. David W. Titley, retired naval officer who led the US Navy's Task Force on Climate Change, Capt. James C. Goudreau, Director, Navy Energy Coordination Office, and Julia Whitty, environmental correspondent for Mother Jones whose cover story on this topic appears in latest issue of the magazine.

Event Details:

Date: February 27, 2013, 9:30 a.m.

Location: University of California Washington Center, 1608 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, DC

Please RSVP to cdl@climatedesk.org

About Dr. David W. Titley:

Dr. David W. Titley is a nationally known expert in the field of climate, the Arctic, and National Security. He served as a naval officer for 32 years and rose to the rank of Rear Admiral. Dr. Titley's career included duties as Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy and Deputy Assistant Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance. While serving in the Pentagon, Dr. Titley initiated and led the US Navy's Task Force on Climate Change. After retiring from the Navy, Dr. Titley served as the Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Operations, the Chief Operating Officer position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dr. Titley has spoken across the country and throughout the world on the importance of climate change as it relates to National Security. He was invited to present on behalf of the Department of Defense at both Congressional Hearings and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meetings from 2009 to 2011.

About Captain James C. Goudreau:

Captain James C. Goudreau serves as the Director of the Navy Energy Coordination Office. His sea duty and overseas assignments include: Assistant Supply Officer onboard USS REASONER (FF 1063) and USS NIMITZ (CVN 68), Supply Officer, USS THE SULLIVANS (DDG 68) and Supply Officer, Joint Maritime Facility, St. Mawgan in Cornwall, United Kingdom. His most recent assignment was as the Assistant Chief of Staff for Logistics at Expeditionary Strike Group Seven and Amphibious Force Seventh Fleet Based in Okinawa, Japan. Captain Goudreau's ashore tours include: Naval Air Station Key West, FL; Naval Inventory Control Point, Philadelphia, PA as the P-3 Weapons Team Lead and Director of Aviation Industrial Support; Fleet and Industrial Supply Center San Diego as Site Director, Fleet Readiness Center Southwest; and Commander, Defense Logistics Agency North Island. Captain Goudreau is a member of the Defense Acquisition Corps (formerly the Acquisition Professional Community) and is qualified as a Naval Aviation Supply Officer and as a Surface Warfare Supply Corps Officer. He has been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (three awards), Navy Commendation Medal (five awards), Navy Achievement Medal (two awards), and various campaign and unit awards.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/02/how-the-us-navys-clean-energy-evolution

President Obama's full State of the Union address

Here is the full text of President Obama's 2013 State of the Union address, as prepared for delivery:
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, fellow citizens:
Fifty-one years ago, John F. Kennedy declared to this Chamber that "the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress...It is my task," he said, "to report the State of the Union - to improve it is the task of us all."
Tonight, thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, there is much progress to report. After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home. After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over six million new jobs. We buy more American cars than we have in five years, and less foreign oil than we have in twenty. Our housing market is healing, our stock market is rebounding, and consumers, patients, and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before.
Together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger.
Continue Reading...


http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/president_obamas_full_state_of_the_uni

Secretary Kerry's Solar Surge

On Monday PresidentObama made it crystal clear that his Administration "will respond to thethreat of climate change, knowing that the failureto do so would betray our children and future generations." But he alsomade clear taking action is much more than an obligation to posterity, it isalso an issue of American leadership:

"The path towards sustainable energysources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist thistransition; we must lead it."

Now, with SenatorKerry's nomination for Secretary of State, President Obama has a uniqueopportunity to make good on this rhetoric by leading a solar surge.

Solar power hasundergone a historic transition from expensive niche technology to a rapidlyexpanding cheap technology that is experiencing dramatic growth rates. The bestpart is that the technology is ideally suited for many developing countriesmaking it an integral part of any U.S. international clean energy strategy. Whetherit's reducing peak power deficits, replacing costly diesel, or providing energy access to the ruralpoor, solar power can deliver. As conventionalenergy costs soar, and solar's benefits are more widely understood, it isplaced to grow dramatically. But to truly take advantage of this historicopportunity the U.S. administration needs to lead a solar surge and no one isbetter placed than Secretary Kerry.

A solar surge requiresfour tactical moves that, taken together, would constitute big change:

1) Leverage cheapExport Import Bank (Ex-Im) Bank finance to spur solar development in emergingmarkets;

2) Expand OverseasPrivate Investment Corporation's (OPIC) renewable energy portfolio with a focuson increasing its off grid solar lending;

3) Work with the IFCto establish a $500 million solar PV funding facility for emerging markets; and

4) Push the World Bankto establish a $500 million off grid clean energy access fund (like the oneentrepreneurs demanded at Rio+20).

This may seem like alaundry list of asks but most of these pieces are already moving. All that isneeded is leadership -- just like the kind President Obama offered on Monday.

So here's howSecretary Kerry builds off Obama's leadership. The first step is to work withOPIC and Ex-Im Bank (the two agencies that contribute the majority of U.S.climate finance) to dramatically increase solar lending in emerging markets. Rightnow it's a tale of two agencies, OPIC is a clean energy champion and Ex-Imis a basket case. With Ex-Im's cheap finance to catalyze deployment, and strugglingdomestic U.S. solar manufacturers seeking new markets, this should be anobvious way to support and expand on previous stimulus package investments.

The next step is totake on the World Bank. The U.S. is one of the largest financial contributorsto this institution and much like President Obama, the Bank's president Dr. Kimhas made clear his desire to lead on climate change. Secretary Kerry can takeadvantage of this opportunity to work with him to establish a $500 million fundingfacility that will catalyze distributed solar investment in emerging markets by offering public funds that will leverageprivate capital. Think third-party finance for rooftop solar in the U.S., butin countries with hundreds of millions of roofs. Given how competitive solar istoday this should have already happened. Working with Dr. Kim to establish thisfund is an easy win for Kerry and the administration.

The final step will bethe toughest but most crucial. Solar and other distributed clean energytechnologies are the only way the vast majority of the rural poor will everreceive power -- at least according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The World Bank has already helpedBangladesh install one million solar home systems so it's clear they can do this. But they alsorefused a call from the world's leading social entrepreneurs for a $500 millionoff grid clean energy access fund at the recent Rio+20 conference. The Bank says energy access andsustainability are a priority. Secretary Kerry needs to help them put theirmoney where their mouth is.

These relativelysimple steps will put concrete actions behind President Obama's words and setthe tone for Secretary Kerry's tenure. A tone defined by his embrace of cleanenergy and his conviction to take on climate change. Establishing thiscredibility will be critical because his much larger climate fight --eliminating coal and other international fossil fuel financing -- looms large. Startingwith a solar surge will rally the troops to his side and set the stage for theState Department to move from climate villain to climate hero and once and forall silence those who question the reality behind the rhetoric.

-- Justin Guay, Sierra Club International

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2013/01/secretary-kerrys-solar-s

Anti-ethanol Propaganda isn't 100% Wrong, Just 100% Crazy

Yesterday, I found myself clicking around a website that called itself "smarter fuel future". The distortion of facts to fit fictions and lies by omission committed throughout the site would be laughable, if they weren't so readily accepted by some of the mental midgets (mental little people?) that frequent this site's comments section from time to time.

I welcome the wingnut contingent, though. I'd like to say something here about keeping things honest and objective, but the reality is that a pageview's a pageview, right?

Right.

SO, in the interest of calling the anti-ethanol people out on their ridiculous bullshit keeping things honest, let's address some of the nonsense I read on the "smarter fuel" website. People with an IQ below 90, prepare to comment sarcastically without understanding the logic of what you are about to read.

The specific link that came to my attention from an ad on Gas 2 that was emailed to me by a confused reader. It linked to this page that talked about vehicles and small engines, so let's start there.

Please click the link and notice the heading "Decreased Fuel Economy". The "smarter fuel" site reminds us that "smarter" is a relative term almost immediately here, committing 2 logical fallacies at once. The "smarter fuel" website (like most ethanol detractors) points to the 100% correct fact that ethanol contains about 30% less energy by volume than petroleum gasoline. They specifically say "vehicles fueled with ethanol cover fewer miles per gallon than those running on conventional gasoline. The higher the ethanol blend, the lower the fuel economy, meaning consumers must fill up at the pump more frequently." The first fallacy in the "Decreased Fuel Economy" argument is here: the informal fallacy of equivocation, or "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)." In this case, "fuel economy" and "miles per gallon" can mean many things, since "fuel" is a vague and intentionally misleading term, and "miles per gallon" implies "miles per gallon of gasoline". Think about the statement another way: if you substitute the vague term "fuel" with the specific term "petroleum gasoline", I think (hope) that arguments made against ethanol from a basis of "decreased petroleum gasoline economy" becomes a laughable objection to ethanol. They are literally saying "the higher the ethanol blend, the lower the amount of petroleum gasoline will be used", and there, RIGHT THERE, is their core complaint ... because they are either oil company employees or the idiot pawns of oil company marketers who never took (or, more likely, passed) a formal logic class.

Education FTMFW, amirite?

Beating a dead horse just a bit, I'd like to point out that (even if you accept that whoever wrote it simply too stupid to realize their logic is horribly flawed) this is strictly an appeal to short-sighted convenience, and places "more trips to the pump" ahead of concerns about foreign oil dependence, environmental damage that comes from extracting oil from the ground, the huge amounts of resource-draining government oil subsidies, the wars fought over a finite (non-renewable) energy source, and the numerous health problems associated with burning petroleum fuels. In scientific terms: all this anti-ethanol hysteria is crazy-talk.

Moving on, let's talk about the next heading, "Damage to Vehicles and Performance". The site says "Beyond the damage to your wallet, ethanol can also damage vehicles and affect performance - corroding metals, causing rubber to swell and causing engines to break down more quickly. Some ethanol blends should not be used on certain engines and motors at all. EPA's E15 waiver covers only 2001 and newer motor vehicles." All of that, by the way, is 100% true. Alcohols can dry out the organic rubber o-rings and fuel lines in many automotive fuel systems, causing them to crack, leak, and require replacement. If not enough fuel is getting to your engine because of a fuel leak, your car will stop running and require maintenance. You may need to replace several feet of rubber fuel lines with ethanol-safe line, at a retail cost of about $6/ft. O-rings cost a few cents.

That doesn't sound quite as scary as "break down", does it?

Those of you who are not too young or too senile to have long memories will recall that a lot of this bickering and fear-mongering sounds pretty similar to the hubbub raised in the 70s when the US government banned the use of lead as an octane-boosting fuel additive. The transition away from leaded fuels was fought by the oil companies, who didn't want to have to find new ways to refine fuel for higher octane. Claims were made that vehicles designed to run leaded fuel would experience knock conditions that could damage engines' efficiencies and hurt fuel economy, even leading to break downs.

Sound familiar?

As with ethanol, the claims made against unleaded gas were true. The changeover was long, lasting form 1975-1986, and it was expensive. Automakers had to build engines with tighter tolerances that ran hotter to burn the unleaded fuel, while oil companies had to find newer and cheaper ways to make higher-octane fuels available to the public. Change costs money, and the people who will have to spend that money will fight doing so, tooth and nail, long after reason has failed them.

Why was lead used in the first place? Leaded gasoline was discovered on Dec. 9, 1921, at the General Motors research labs in Dayton Ohio. GM researchers had been testing fuel blends since 1916, trying to stop engine "knock." Knock is caused by early detonation of fuel inside a combustion chamber due to compression, which pushes the engine "backwards" causing a knock-like sound. Knock was a hug problem in early internal combustion engines, and was a problem that was preventing the development of higher efficiency, higher compression engines that could generate more power. GM researchers tried many different additives and found quite a few that worked well. Ethyl alcohol (ethanol) from cellulosic materials became Detroit's strong preference. "Of course," Thomas A. Midgley of GM wrote in a memo to his boss, GM research vice president Charles Kettering, "alcohol is the fuel of the future." Oil companies, however, resisted the use of alcohol, and pushed for lead - which was (all together now) cheaper.

That's right, kids. We knew 100 years ago that alcohol was the way forward, but we decided to put all that aside in favor of a substance that was known to be toxic just because it was cheaper.

Thankfully, someone got their head out of their ass long enough to put pen to paper and legislate lead out of our fuels. That move away from lead in gasoline was motivated by public health. It was expensive, to be sure, but it was money well spent. Cases of lead poisoning are way down, and the average lead content in Americans' blood is much lower than it was in the 70s and 80s.

Today, the move away from gasoline is similarly motivated by public health. Carbon emissions cause heart attacks and respiratory problems and kill millions every year. Thousands of soldiers - American and otherwise - die in land wars over oil. Inconceivable fortunes in government spending subsidize oil companies and lobbyists, and pay them to produce twaddle like the "smarter fuel" site, all in an effort to convince the most impressionable among us that their vote should be cast this way or that, so that they can save their fortune just a little while longer. "Don't think too much about the future," they say. "In the future, we'll be dead."

Sorry, oil-advocate douchebags. My kids will be alive in the future. They're pretty cute, so they'll probably breed and then their kids will be alive in the future. I'd like for them to have some clean air to breathe, some water to drink, and maybe some scenery that isn't shimmering purple from oil slicks. As such I would like to ask, sincerely, that all you anti-ethanol hysterics douse yourself in your precious gasoline and die in fires. (this is the part where we all send letters to the men and women in congress who opposed the EPA's move and tell them we hate them)

Sources: Smarter (ha!) Fuel Future, Radford University, and a bunch of others, linked-to in the text.
The post Anti-ethanol Propaganda isn't 100% Wrong, Just 100% Crazy appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/01/20/anti-ethanol-propaganda-isnt-100-still-100-

Are we surprised?? The gutting of the energy bill ...

As I noted yesterday, Congress is working on an "Energy" bill that's in response to GW's "National Energy Policy". According to the NY Times, the bill is getting worser and worser.

Provisions to Curb Oil Use Fall Out of Energy Bill (By CARL HULSE, Published: July 26, 2005, NYTIMES.COM)

Note that Congress has an artificial deadline of delivering a bill to Pres. Bush by August 1. I suppose that's so they can preserve the hallowed August Shutdown, allowing them all to take their vacation plans.

Working furiously to try to strike a deal on broad energy legislation, Congressional negotiators on Monday killed two major provisions aimed at curbing consumption of traditional fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal.

House members rejected an effort to incorporate a plan passed by the Senate to require utilities to use more renewable energy like wind and solar power to generate electricity. They also defeated a bid to direct the president to find ways to cut the nation's appetite for oil by one million barrels a day.

... But Republican opponents of the plan said the fuel savings target could lead to unpopular restrictions like mandatory car pools and put too much responsibility for achieving the goal in the hands of the president.

... Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the senior Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said his plan to require power plant operators who now rely on coal, oil and natural gas to increase their use of renewable fuels was a low-cost, market-driven approach to cutting demand for fossil fuels and easing air pollution.

Under the proposal, which has repeatedly passed the Senate, utilities would have to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity through renewable fuels by 2020.

"It would reduce our dependence on traditional polluting sources of electricity," Mr. Bingaman said.

And, to rub the salt in the wound of these contradictions ...

China is planning to produce 10% of its power from wind energy by 2020. Hmm, China can do what the U.S. cannot? What does this say?

In Search of a New Energy Source, China Rides the Wind (By HOWARD W. FRENCH, Published: July 26, 2005, NYTIMES.COM)

From the distance the turbines look almost forbidding, looming very large on the horizon like some clawed space invaders. But one must get up close, very close, to hear the slightest hum as their blades spin, harvesting power from the wind.

Apart from the random bleating from a huge herd of sheep, the loudest noise in this open, rolling grassland of Inner Mongolia is the buzz from the transformers that dot the plain, collecting electricity from this small army of 96 metallic monsters with their spinning blades.

Blessed with vast, empty countryside and a seemingly permanent stiff breeze blowing across the steppes, the buzz of transformers is growing steadily louder in this far northern province as investors pour money into the wind farm. It is already huge, and may soon be getting much larger.

... By 2020, starting from a minuscule base that it has established only recently, China expects to supply 10 percent of its needs from so-called renewable energy sources, including wind, solar energy, small hydroelectric dams and biomass like plant fibers and animal wastes.

... "We have huge goals for wind power development," Wang Zhongying, director of China's Center for Renewable Energy Development. "By 2010, we plan to reach 4,000 megawatts, and by 2020 we expect to reach 20,000 megawatts, or 20 gigawatts." If anything, Mr. Wang said, these targets are too conservative, and may be easily surpassed.

"Dreadful" energy bill before congress

GW Bush has been pushing an abysmal National Energy Policy for awhile. Now before congress is a bill meant to be their answer to his proposed policy.

Don't Blame Dems For Dreadful Energy Bill (by David Morris, July 25, 2005, RenewableEnergyAccess.com)

The House version appears to be HR 1640, "Energy Policy Act of 2005" but there's also a Senate version which I can't find.

In any case, I'm not surprised they (Congress) has made a bad bill. They are all bought and controlled by the big money interests who've been crying for years that making any real move to renewable energy would damage business.

How bad is it? The most effective provision in either energy bill may be a small program to promote a technology that cuts off heavy-duty truck engines after 15 minutes of idling.

... One such provision, for example, allows the federal government to impose high voltage transmission lines on recalcitrant states. Another severely limits the authority of state and cities over the siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. Provisions stripping states and communities of their authority over private energy companies are accompanied by another that would have the same debilitating effect on federal authority. Both bills repeal the 70-year-old Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA). PUHCA was passed to clean up the mess created by massive utility mergers in the 1920s and the resulting wave of fraud and financial manipulations that helped to bring about the Great Depression.

PUHCA forced utilities to refocus their corporate structure on their core obligation -- the delivery of low cost, reliable electricity. And it endowed the newly created Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with the power and responsibility to examine the utilities' books and evaluate any merger proposals.

But, here's a positive development around this: Lawmakers Abandon MTBE Liability Shield to Help Clear Way for Passing Energy Bill (July 25, 2005 — By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, published on ENN.COM)

The article discusses a deal to close the problem over MTBE. The House wanted to put a liability limit on the MTBE producers, but there's evidence those companies knew about MTBE's dangers. Just like the cigarette companies, eh? That is, the cigarette makers knew for decades that smoking causes cancer, but they hid that evidence, killing millions of people, before the news was unveiled. So to with MTBE apparently.

A political side to oil economics, in Ecuador

In Ecuador Gets Chávez'd (May 11, 2005, The Nation) Greg Palast examines an interesting series of events related to Ecuador, Oil, and the political finaglings ...

Basically, Ecuador has a lot of debt, and the terms of the debt require that a huge portion of oil income to Ecuador go directly to paying the debt. This is instead of doing something useful like improving the social infrastructure in Ecuador. Instead of improving hospitals and the like, the terms call for sending money to the fat cats.

And just who are these fat cats? They are the people who'd previously pillaged Ecuador's economic wealth, and then fled to South Florida. They own the bonds, and hence own the mortgage on the country they had previously pillaged.

What's happened is that a new fellow is holding the office of President. The previous President fled the country in the face of massive protests, that followed tightened austerity measures required by the bond repayment requirements. The previous President had promised to overturn those bond repayment requirements in favor of improving the peoples welfare, but reneged on those promises just after taking office and flying to Washington for indoctrination by the power elite there.

The new President is the former Vice President. He was constitutionally put into place after the previous President fled. Yet, the U.S. government is making noises questioning his legitimacy - in a move which Palast likens to the treatment of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela.

The situation regarding oil is largely technological - that is, are there alternative energy technologies that can replace the role oil plays? But the technological solution is being hindered by political gamesmanship like is demonstrated in this case. There is a lot of money and investment tied up in the existing oil-based game, enough money so that the ones who own the related investments have enough power to buy the U.S. Presidency for President Bush (a.k.a. President Enron, Vice President Halliburton, Secretary of State Chevron, etc).

Strange bedfellows

There's growing evidence that the Uzbekistan government is a very nasty regime. Over the last couple weeks there were mass protests, followed by a mass government killing of the protesters, that killed over 1000 people. There's brutal interrogation and imprisonment tactics. And, the UN is demanding an investigation. etc.

If this were Iraq, the U.S. would be harumphing up a storm and demanding regime change. Well, that's what you would believe from the statements made by our President leading to the Iraq war. Yet, in the case of Uzbekistan, we're not only sending aid to that country, we're keeping troops in the country, and we're providing shielding for them in the UN.

Karimov escapes regime change as America pursues the ‘great game’ (22 May 2005, By Trevor Royle, Diplomatic Editor)

A GLANCE at the map confirms the strategic importance of Uzbekistan, not just in regional terms but also as it is viewed from Washington.

To the south and southwest are Afghanistan and Iran, a fact which inspired President Islam Karimov to push himself into contention as a useful ally in President Bush’s war on terror.

The US operates an air base with 1000 ground troops at Khanabad outside the Uzbek capital Tashkent. The former Soviet facility is used for operations in Afghanistan, and to date the US has supplied the country with some $800 million in military and humanitarian aid.

More to the point, Uzbekistan has a key role to play in supporting Washington’s wider interests. Khanabad is part of the ring of air force bases, or “lily pads

U.S. Report Sees Gasoline Prices Moving Higher Still

U.S. Report Sees Gasoline Prices Moving Higher Still
( By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and MATTHEW L. WALD, Published: April 8, 2005, NYTIMES.COM)

The Energy Information Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, said it expected the price of unleaded regular gasoline to hit a peak national average of $2.35 a gallon in May and to average $2.28 from April through September. Last week the average price was $2.22.

Okay, here in California the average price is higher than that. But that's besides the point.

The point is what I posted this morning. Namely it's nonsensical to tie the solution of this problem to continued reliance on oil. There isn't enough oil in the U.S. to fuel our needs for very long, the U.S. already spent it's wad in terms of the oil available in this country.

I fully support the general goal of energy independance. That the U.S. is so dependant on foreign oil causes several problems, from balance of trade, to requiring us to meddle with Middle Eastern politics. If the U.S. were instead more self sufficient we could ignore the Middle East with no problems, but so long as we keep up the reliance then the quirks of their political situation will determine the U.S. political situation.

And, really, the price of oil is not going down ever again, probably. The cause? It's the Oil Peak.

What's needed is the development of alternative energy sources. The technologies are known, they just need more R&D to develop them.

But I suppose with President Enron, Vice President Halliburton, and Secretary of State Chevron in office, we aren't going to see any solution that risks the oil industry's dominance. Eh?