MasterThief: "Fark that shiat, we got a planet to save!" - EPA bureaucrat

Won't somebody please think about the poor energy companies?

I...I...I think I actually side with the fuel companies on this one. I'll wait until February, though, and see if they met their other quotas before I break out the champagne and/or pitchfork and torches.

What an EPA executive may look like:


"Captian Planet! Captiaaaaan Planeeeeeet! CAPTIAAAAAAAAN PLAAAAANNNEEEEET!"

Let me get this straight:

Fuel Refiners are complaining that they cant get a certain type of refined fuel on the open market?

They are the ones refining all the fuels. And they are getting fined because they wont get their acts together and make a new fuel that is supposed to be blended into the old fuels?

Why do I care and how is this news?

/I'd have said "in before, "durrr, da EPA is stoopid, durrrr"
//But they got here first.

"Does not exist?" or "Does not exist in sufficient quantity because we've been dragging our feet on producing something we know perfectly well how to make because we figure the fines are cheaper than the implementation?"

6.8 million? They spend that on advertising during the evening news.

This totally means that all regulations are stupid and should be abolished.

Am I doin' it rite?

XMark: Won't somebody please think about the poor energy companies?

Strange bedfellows. It's nice when rule of law only requires adhering to this reality.

If subby had RTFA then he would have seen that cellulosic biolfuels do exist, and that these companies simply didn't bother to make any or to contract anybody to make any.

Think of it as a tax break they would've had if they spent more on R&D. It's all about what you call it.

How far is this technology from fruition? Three years, twenty?

threadjackistan: they wont get their acts together and make a new fuel

YEAH. You know what's worse? Those farkers also havent invented perpetual motion machines or cold fusion, so they're really on the shiat list.

And where's my personal rocket pack, damnit? its 2012!

FTA: "It belies logic," Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota.

Belies?

threadjackistan: Why do I care and how is this news?

'cause, in the end, you are paying the fine through higher fuel prices. that said, it's prolly true that the companies choose to just pay the fines rather than refine the required mix for fuel, so, no need to bleed for the fuels cos.

Maybe the energy corporations should have put more funding into the R&D required to develop the technology the EPA created the fine to encourage them to do in the first place. The industry isn't exactly strapped for cash, after all.

Tiiba: Think of it as a tax break they would've had if they spent more on R&D. It's all about what you call it.

How far is this technology from fruition? Three years, twenty?

I can make some in my kitchen in about 5 hours. Does that give you any idea where the technology is?

In 2007 there was a plant producing 1.4 million gals.
but it's costly. new developments are on the horizon that should make that quicker and more profitable.

The Dog Ate My Homework: Belies?

belies
Verb:

(of an appearance) Fail to give a true notion or impression of (something); disguise or contradict: "his alert manner belied his years".
Fail to fulfill or justify (a claim or expectation); betray.

Well Im sure the savings will be passed on to us.

Pochas: make any or to contract anybody to make any

paying a 6.8 million fine for the next 50 years is cheaper that building a refining infrastructure that can output 6.6Mgal/year. permits & eis alone would take years before they could even break ground.

Pochas: If subby had RTFA then he would have seen that cellulosic biolfuels do exist, and that these companies simply didn't bother to make any or to contract anybody to make any.

My understanding is that it is indeed possible to make cellulosic ethanol, it's just not cost effective to do so (and may never be). As someone pointed out above, you can thank Bush for that, as he careened from one energy policy to another, none of which really worked (hydrogen-just storage, cellulose ethanol-not cost effective).

There are certainly people working on it, but probably half are scammers.

vaderstg: threadjackistan: they wont get their acts together and make a new fuel

YEAH. You know what's worse? Those farkers also havent invented perpetual motion machines or cold fusion, so they're really on the shiat list.

And where's my personal rocket pack, damnit? its 2012!

Insult some guy on online or read the article. Like the refiners, you have chosen the easier route. The fuel exists, they just wont make any.

The tech exists to create it. They didn't. So they complain about being fined for using something they knew they had to create, but didn't. Yet the same people will complain about the unemployed not just going out and getting a job.

And yes, I realize that this stuff is stupid to make and the law shouldn't exist. But until I can smoke pot and bang hookers, they can make this crap.

Marcus Aurelius: About time someone farked over the oil companies. the average consumer...again

Fixed that for you.

Continue to let your irrational hate flow though...

"...the agency is being lenient by the standards of the law, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act."

Can someone remind me what big government, regulation happy, oil hating party was in control of the Whitehouse when this thing was passed?

/To be fair the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress
//But only if you consider Joe "Vote for McCain"/"I Beat a Democrat for this Seat" Lieberman as a Democrat

Obama really should have done his homework before implementing this.

Zeno-25: Maybe the energy corporations should have put more funding into the R&D required to develop the technology the EPA created the fine to encourage them to do in the first place. The industry isn't exactly strapped for cash, after all.

Pochas: If subby had RTFA then he would have seen that cellulosic biolfuels do exist, and that these companies simply didn't bother to make any or to contract anybody to make any.

The companies had an option: pay the R&D costs, or pay the penalty costs. They ran the numbers, and it was cheaper to just pay the penalty. Their shareholders should commend them.

If I were the EPA, I'd conclude that the penalty isn't high enough, not that it's ineffective. If an organization uses punitive measures to enforce policy, the consequences have to be strong enough to make it happen.

I did a quick search. An article in the NY Times from 2006 stated that there were 76 commercial biodiesel plants in the US. So we can assume the stuff exists, and the NY Times reporter has the same journalistic credibility as my dog.

Pochas: If subby had RTFA then he would have seen that cellulosic biolfuels do exist, and that these companies simply didn't bother to make any or to contract anybody to make any.

FTA: Range Fuels closed a commercial factory in Soperton, Ga., where pine chips were to be turned into fuel alcohols, because it ran into technological problems.

Tell me again how easy this is. You're a ChemE, right?

raygundan: "Does not exist?" or "Does not exist in sufficient quantity because we've been dragging our feet on producing something we know perfectly well how to make because we figure the fines are cheaper than the implementation?"

Ding ding ding.

Also serves as evidence that companies are "people" that can self-regulate. Whoops, except people sometimes choose the right thing to do over the economical thing to do. Companies crunch the numbers and go with what's cheaper, every time.

Marcus Aurelius: About time someone farked over the oil companies.

Because that shiat NEVER gets passed onto the consumer.

Zeno-25: Maybe the energy corporations should have put more funding into the R&D required to develop the technology the EPA created the fine to encourage them to do in the first place. The industry isn't exactly strapped for cash, after all.

You can spend every dime in the world and you won't put a human on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri this decade. You don't solve problems with money alone. Research takes money, expertise, and time to move forward. You don't necessarily double the pace by doubling the money.

/my brother thinks there is some kind of conspiracy surrounding the reason we weren't all driving electric cars over 50 years ago. "Corporations" or some such nonsense.

Kahabut: Tiiba: Think of it as a tax break they would've had if they spent more on R&D. It's all about what you call it.

How far is this technology from fruition? Three years, twenty?

I can make some in my kitchen in about 5 hours. Does that give you any idea where the technology is?

And you have a viable, industrial scale, energy positive process all worked out, right?

Hell, we can turn lead into gold in the lab. It's still cheaper to just buy real gold. Well, unless you buy from GoldLine ;-)

neon9: There are certainly people working on it, but probably half are scammers.

Maybe more than half. I followed a penny stock scammer for years. The guy made millions announcing production would start next month. It is amazing how stupid people are.

threadjackistan: vaderstg: threadjackistan: they wont get their acts together and make a new fuel

YEAH. You know what's worse? Those farkers also havent invented perpetual motion machines or cold fusion, so they're really on the shiat list.

And where's my personal rocket pack, damnit? its 2012!

Insult some guy on online or read the article. Like the refiners, you have chosen the easier route. The fuel exists, they just wont make any.

I read the article yesterday. And the question isn't whether the fuel CAN be made. The problem is that no one has an efficient process to make cellulosic biodiesel in production-sized quantities yet. And those that have tried have failed because the cost of what they're making doesn't match up against the fines - to say nothing at all of the energy balance.

But keep farking that chicken, man. Screw the oil companies. And hey, why are my gas prices so high? Someone better get the government involved, I'm sure they'll straighten this mess out.

You have to feel bad for the oil companies. It's too bad they couldn't hire someone to interact with law makers to keep them informed of the state of the industry. You know, maybe take the law makers out to dinner once in awhile, play some golf... in the south of France. You could call these industry contacts lobbyist maybe.

/the law was written in 2007, are we supposed to believe that the oil industry didn't write the law themselves?

There was a plant built in Georgia to produce cellulosic ethanol from wood byproducts. It received over $150 million in federal government loan guarantees and grants and the state forked out millions more to get it built. Private investors committed the rest of the $300 million needed to build it. Once they built the plant it was discovered that their process didn't work efficiently enough to make it commercially viable so the plant was closed after making one batch of ethanol. (Link) The plant was sold to a private company for $5.1 million. The company happens to be getting a $7 million grant from the Department of Energy to develop alternative fuel sources.

I guess the fines are the way the feds try to recoup their bad investments in failed technology. Too bad our do-nothing Congress can't manage to pass legislation reforming the way that chemical processes work.

vaderstg: "Because that shiat NEVER gets passed onto the consumer."

6.8 million dollars? Let's see... divide that into the 8.993 *billion* gallons of motor gasoline used in 2010...



http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm

r1niceboy: I did a quick search. An article in the NY Times from 2006 stated that there were 76 commercial biodiesel plants in the US. So we can assume the stuff exists, and the NY Times reporter has the same journalistic credibility as my dog.

Actually the law apparently requires something like Fischer-Tropsch or thermal depolymerization biodiesel. Which is possible but I am not sure how much is actually being produced. Anyone remember the "oil from anything" Discover magazine article?

ringersol: "6.8 million dollars? Let's see... divide that into the 8.993 *billion* gallons of motor gasoline used in 2010..."

bah.
FTFM: annual is 3.2 billion barrels. * 42 gallons per barrel so 134.4 billion gallons of motor gasoline

r1niceboy: I did a quick search. An article in the NY Times from 2006 stated that there were 76 commercial biodiesel plants in the US. So we can assume the stuff exists, and the NY Times reporter has the same journalistic credibility as my dog.

Biodiesel isn't the same thing as cellulosic biofuel - there's loads of the former, as well as regular ethanol, it's just a specific technology they were mandated to use (making the fuel out of cellulose, the woody bits of plants) that hasn't worked out. There are plenty of people building plants at the moment, and I think there's a good chance that it will be available in sufficient quantities this year, but there are also a load of people who've basically bypassed this tech and are already starting to develop more advanced fuels.

These guys are one of my favourites - I believe they're building out their first plant in Texas at the moment. They claim to be able to produce an alternative to gasoline which can be used in existing vehicles without modification via a photosynthetic organism.

pjc51: These guys are one of my favourites - I believe they're building out their first plant in Texas at the moment. They claim to be able to produce an alternative to gasoline which can be used in existing vehicles without modification via a photosynthetic organism.

Sorry, the plant is in New Mexico, but they have an R&D plant in Texas.