If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   What do cellulosic ethanol, an additive that the EPA requires be added by refiners to gasoline, and unicorns have in common?   (foxnews.com) divider line 174
    More: Stupid, cellulosic ethanol, EPA, oil refineries, Renewable Fuels Association, gasoline  
•       •       •

11346 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2012 at 12:17 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-22 11:59:08 AM  
Looks like a few people failed to think their cunning plan all the way through
 
2012-06-22 12:12:32 PM  
Both are in my deepest, darkest, sexual fantasies?

/not really
//or maybe?
 
2012-06-22 12:19:56 PM  
Why are we doing this when we could be outlawing cancer instead? It's for the children. Why do you hate the children?
 
2012-06-22 12:20:26 PM  
pity the poor oil industry.
 
2012-06-22 12:21:23 PM  
wait let me get this straight, I'm supposed to feel bad for oil companies and refineries that pull billions of profits each quarter?
fark them, they should charge them for unicorns too!
 
2012-06-22 12:22:44 PM  
Those damn unicorns; they're hording the cellulosic ethanol again aren't they?

/ keep your hands off of me you damn, dirty unicorns
 
2012-06-22 12:23:29 PM  
I don't see why they worry about being fined. Just pass the cost on to the consumer.
 
2012-06-22 12:23:39 PM  

anti-riaa: wait let me get this straight, I'm supposed to feel bad for oil companies and refineries that pull billions of profits each quarter?
fark them, they should charge them for unicorns too!


You're not supposed to feel bad until it happens to you, and then it's all "rule of law" and all that crap that doesn't mean anything anymore.
 
2012-06-22 12:23:40 PM  
Just rename "massive corn subsides to flat as a pancake states to get their primary votes ethanol" to "cellulosic ethanol." Problem solved.
 
2012-06-22 12:23:42 PM  
As much I love to hate on big oil, they do have a point.
 
2012-06-22 12:23:50 PM  
This just goes to show that we should get rid of the EPA and put the oil companies in charge. They're the only ones we can really trust. They create jobs.

Jobs.

Create jobs.

They create jobs
 
2012-06-22 12:23:50 PM  
Because the ethanol producers said "Fark you, we don't WANT to make biofuels with WASTE products. We want to make it with FOOD instead!"

The technology's available, but there's too much money to be had in fermenting corn instead of fermenting corn stalks.
 
2012-06-22 12:23:51 PM  
Yeah, it's not as if companies like Iogen have been producing the stuff since 2005. It's pure fantasy juice.
 
2012-06-22 12:25:13 PM  
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

Doc Daneeka explains why he cannot ground Yossarian or Orr due to insanity, Chapter 5: Chief White Halfoat.
 
2012-06-22 12:25:59 PM  
j.wigflip.com
 
2012-06-22 12:26:36 PM  

SandMann: I don't see why they worry about being fined. Just pass the cost on to the consumer.


Everybody knows that when you raise taxes on corporations they have to pay that money out of profits. There's no way that a tax increase on an oil company ends up being an increase in gas prices.
 
2012-06-22 12:27:41 PM  
Refiners are at their wit's end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol

Damn you, Obama!

...back in 2005

...and your magical time machine!

www.strangecosmos.com

But seriously, this is stupid. Not the rule, but the poutrage. They're given an incentive to innovate but they'd rather biatch to Fox News than get off their asses and do something.

And yet, they still have to pay what amounts to fines:

I have a strong suspicion that "what amounts to fines" is smaller subsidies.

F*ck you, Fox.

F*ck you, Big Oil.
 
2012-06-22 12:28:03 PM  
Refiners are at their wit's end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol back in 2005...

Obama and his farking time machine at it again.
 
2012-06-22 12:29:07 PM  

Jument: As much I love to hate on big oil, they do have a point.


yeah, it certainly seems so.
 
2012-06-22 12:29:32 PM  
Throwing money down a corn hole.
 
2012-06-22 12:30:24 PM  

anti-riaa: wait let me get this straight, I'm supposed to feel bad for oil companies and refineries that pull billions of profits each quarter?
fark them, they should charge them for unicorns too!


I'll give you my unicorns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!

/Unicorns are real to me, dammit!
 
2012-06-22 12:30:25 PM  
Dear dumbassmitter,

The technology to produce cellulosic ethanol exists. Oil companies chose not to use it. The End.


Sincerely,

People who can think critically
 
2012-06-22 12:30:28 PM  
fc06.deviantart.net

This is your air on EPA.
 
2012-06-22 12:30:45 PM  
C'mon, oil companies! You have to harvest it from a unicorn's farts!

What, do you expect the cellulosic ethanol to just fall out of the unicorn?
 
2012-06-22 12:31:15 PM  
img.ponibooru.org
 
2012-06-22 12:31:32 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: pity the poor oil industry.


Those poor fellas, I bet those fines are really cutting into their world record profits.
 
2012-06-22 12:32:05 PM  
Refine oil to make full to run tractors to grow corn to make fuel.

Seems legit.
 
2012-06-22 12:32:09 PM  

algrant33: Because the ethanol producers said "Fark you, we don't WANT to make biofuels with WASTE products. We want to make it with FOOD instead!"

The technology's available, but there's too much money to be had in fermenting corn instead of fermenting corn stalks.


ah yes, ethanol... just one more part of the great Bush legacy.
 
2012-06-22 12:32:15 PM  

trippdogg: Refiners are at their wit's end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol back in 2005...

Obama and his farking time machine at it again.


"President" Ballrog, HUSSEIN, Sombrero, Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers, al-Chicago, Chocolate Jesus, B-Rock the Islamic Shock, Barky McTeleprompter, Wizard of Uhhs, BoBo the Clown, Oblahbla, Jug Ears, Saunas breach akimbo, Waffles The Clown, Borborygmos Hammerhiem, The Rainbow King, "Jace the Mindsculpter" Oyobi, Bonzo the Time Traveler, La Bamba yo' Mamma, Samurai Kebab Nachos, Fartbongo, II "
 
2012-06-22 12:32:37 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Yeah, it's not as if companies like Iogen have been producing the stuff since 2005. It's pure fantasy juice.


According to that, they have a demo plant and "plans" to produce commercially. How many minutes would it take our refiners to eat up that demo plant's entire year's product, and how much does this non-commercial prototype plant cost to operate?
 
2012-06-22 12:33:24 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Yeah, it's not as if companies like Iogen have been producing the stuff since 2005. It's pure fantasy juice.


Maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. The article clearly said nothing on an industrial scale. Subby did get a bit hyperbolic, but still. The point stands.

Just because Iogen managed to produce 157K gallons one year doesn't mean it's sustainable, profitable, or scalable to the proportions the EPA is requiring. TFA isn't 100% clear, but the last paragraph has some numbers.

500m gallons this year. If that's 500m of cellulosic ethanol, the Iogen seems to be capable of producing 0.03% of that demand right now. That's a huge ramp up. Don't get me started on the billions of gallons comparisons.


If they only have to blend 2% into that and it's 500m gallons of gas, then Iogen is still short. That'd still require 10m gallons of cellulosic ethanol. Iogen was producing 1.57% of that at their peak.
 
2012-06-22 12:34:09 PM  

whither_apophis: Just rename "massive corn subsides to flat as a pancake states to get their primary votes ethanol" to "cellulosic ethanol." Problem solved.


Shh, man! Don't you know we have a narrative to build about Government and Environmentalists? We can't have you pointing out it's a handout to the red states!

Ivo Shandor: Yeah, it's not as if companies like Iogen have been producing the stuff since 2005. It's pure fantasy juice.


Shhh!

i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-22 12:35:54 PM  

Pochas: Dear dumbassmitter,

The technology to produce cellulosic ethanol exists. Oil companies chose not to use it. The End.


Sincerely,

People who can think critically


Is it actually scalable enough to produce cellulosic ethanol at rates that wouldn't drastically increase the cost of fuel? Prove that it is and then we can have a discussion.

/that's actually thinking critically.
//which is what you didn't do
 
2012-06-22 12:38:13 PM  

ronaprhys: that's actually thinking critically.


Whatever dude, what you're not realizing here is that I have to put gas in my car in order to go places, and they make me pay for it. Someone needs to be punished for that.
 
2012-06-22 12:39:40 PM  

ronaprhys: Pochas: Dear dumbassmitter,

The technology to produce cellulosic ethanol exists. Oil companies chose not to use it. The End.


Sincerely,

People who can think critically

Is it actually scalable enough to produce cellulosic ethanol at rates that wouldn't drastically increase the cost of fuel? Prove that it is and then we can have a discussion.

/that's actually thinking critically.
//which is what you didn't do


Actually, if that is a problem, (don't know if it is or not but all indications are that it would be better than corn ethanol) it is up to the oil companies to spend money to solve it. That was the point of the legislation. They chose to just take the fine instead of investing in new American technology and jobs.

Cost of doing business
 
2012-06-22 12:41:55 PM  

ronaprhys: Ivo Shandor: Yeah, it's not as if companies like Iogen have been producing the stuff since 2005. It's pure fantasy juice.

Maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. The article clearly said nothing on an industrial scale. Subby did get a bit hyperbolic, but still. The point stands.

Just because Iogen managed to produce 157K gallons one year doesn't mean it's sustainable, profitable, or scalable to the proportions the EPA is requiring. TFA isn't 100% clear, but the last paragraph has some numbers.

500m gallons this year. If that's 500m of cellulosic ethanol, the Iogen seems to be capable of producing 0.03% of that demand right now. That's a huge ramp up. Don't get me started on the billions of gallons comparisons.


If they only have to blend 2% into that and it's 500m gallons of gas, then Iogen is still short. That'd still require 10m gallons of cellulosic ethanol. Iogen was producing 1.57% of that at their peak.


Demand creates supply, but it seems no one is demanding it.

Why?

Oh right, because it's cheaper to pay the fineget less subsidies than obey the law which was signed by Bush to give handouts to red-state Republicans.
 
2012-06-22 12:42:54 PM  

paygun: ronaprhys: that's actually thinking critically.

Whatever dude, what you're not realizing here is that I have to put gas in my car in order to go places, and they make me pay for it. Someone needs to be punished for that.


I don't know why we don't give them all of our money in subsidies. Then gas would be awesomely cheap.
 
2012-06-22 12:42:58 PM  
Soo... The EPA alters their own policy to be in line with actual production and this is a smoking gun news story how? I guess, if you're Fox, you don't have to try very hard with the whole 'news' thing 'cause you're already preaching to the cult.
 
2012-06-22 12:44:13 PM  
You could power your car with cow farts if you tried hard enough and spent enough time and money. Does that mean you should?

Until someone develops a real alternative to gasoline, we are just wasting money and time pulling crap like this.
 
2012-06-22 12:44:55 PM  

Pochas: Actually, if that is a problem, (don't know if it is or not but all indications are that it would be better than corn ethanol) it is up to the oil companies to spend money to solve it. That was the point of the legislation. They chose to just take the fine instead of investing in new American technology and jobs.

Cost of doing business


Bullshiat answer. That's why it's being called the equivalent of unicorn farts.

Prove that it can be done on an economically viable level. You're the one who's claiming it's up to the oil companies to do so, which means you must believe it can be done. How?

And don't you think that some entrepreneur, realizing that if they could do this scalably, would be looking at this legislation and seeing dollar signs, investing money, etc?
 
2012-06-22 12:47:21 PM  

Kibbler: This just goes to show that we should get rid of the EPA and put the oil companies in charge. They're the only ones we can really trust. They create jobs.

Jobs.

Create jobs.

They create jobs


If I remember right the EPA did not want this regulation either. It was the fark tards in the House and Senate who rammed this shiat through with no regard to reality, but hey that is politicians for you. They make stupid regulatory laws and then blame the regulatory agency because they are impossible to enforce. Then the Dimocratches call for more regulation and the Republitards call for no regulation.
 
2012-06-22 12:47:38 PM  

TheBigJerk: Demand creates supply, but it seems no one is demanding it.

Why?

Oh right, because it's cheaper to pay the fineget less subsidies than obey the law which was signed by Bush to give handouts to red-state Republicans.


Uhmm, no. It seems that someone's trying - but they can't seem to do it in a scalable and economic manner. Therefore the financial decision from the oil companies is pretty easy. Get less money or spend more trying to comply with what appears to be an insurmountable requirement.

Supply and demand aren't miracle workers. They can't magically create things.
 
2012-06-22 12:49:30 PM  

ronaprhys: Pochas: Dear dumbassmitter,

The technology to produce cellulosic ethanol exists. Oil companies chose not to use it. The End.


Sincerely,

People who can think critically

Is it actually scalable enough to produce cellulosic ethanol at rates that wouldn't drastically increase the cost of fuel? Prove that it is and then we can have a discussion.

/that's actually thinking critically.
//which is what you didn't do


What the f*ck difference does it make? They're offered a subsidy for using an emerging technology, but instead of taking advantage of it, they're using their propoganda arm to try to get the subsidy without doing anything.

And here you idiots are howling about how stupid the EPA is for not shoveling enough free money at them.
 
2012-06-22 12:49:33 PM  
Hmmm.... I was a-readin that articule and I noticed a source....

The Institute for Energy Research

I wonder what sort of research they're doing?

"The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.
It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.
IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance[1], a 501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER.[2] AEA states that, by "communicating IER's decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral high ground in the national public policy debates in the energy and environmental arena."[2] AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters.[2]
"

I kept readin'....

"According to the ExxonMobils Corporate Giving Reports the IER received 307.000 US$ from the oil company or its foundation between 2003 and 2007."

Interesting stuff huh?

//fair y balanced

My Source
I can't be sure, but I bet they get a lot of source material from these guys.
 
2012-06-22 12:49:33 PM  

freewill: According to that, they have a demo plant and "plans" to produce commercially. How many minutes would it take our refiners to eat up that demo plant's entire year's product, and how much does this non-commercial prototype plant cost to operate?


How many minutes would it take your refiners to eat up the annual output of a single oil well? If you want to supply an entire nation, you need to BUILD MORE THAN ONE well / refinery / ethanol plant / whatever.

As for the cost, I don't know the details but it's obviously more than the industry feels like paying at the moment. Excuse me while I look for my tiny violin.
 
2012-06-22 12:50:16 PM  

TheBigJerk: whither_apophis: Just rename "massive corn subsides to flat as a pancake states to get their primary votes ethanol" to "cellulosic ethanol." Problem solved.

Shh, man! Don't you know we have a narrative to build about Government and Environmentalists? We can't have you pointing out it's a handout to the red states!

Ivo Shandor: Yeah, it's not as if companies like Iogen have been producing the stuff since 2005. It's pure fantasy juice.

Shhh!

[i75.photobucket.com image 296x320]


Is that a warning or an advertisement?
 
2012-06-22 12:50:48 PM  
"We'll fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years."

... you mean... that didn't happen? Huh.
So a bunch of refiners assured us this would work. And the executive bought the plan.
And congress wrote it up and the executive signed it into law.
And they included a government-mandated market to ensure these refiners would have someone to sell it to when they finished, regardless of whether the product performed as advertised; it simply needed to exist and they would make even *more* money.

And the refiners took billions in tax payer dollars to make this stuff.
And then they couldn't deliver on their promises.

And rather than being pilloried and held up as an example of government cronyism or ineptitude like, say, Solyndra, they were give *more* money and the EPA moved the goalposts *way the fark clsoer* for three years in a row now.

The 2010 mandate went from 100M gallons to 6.5M.
The 2011 mandate went from 250M gallons to 6.5M.
The 2012 mandate from 500M gallons to 12M.

And now they can't even deliver 12M gallons, years after they'd promised *hundreds* of millions of gallons.
And I'm supposed to be mad at ... the EPA? For taking a legislative mandate and having the audacity to ask for a mere TWO farkING PERCENT of what was promised?
*They're* the supposed villains in this piece?

Come, the fark, on.
 
2012-06-22 12:51:11 PM  
It's not that the stuff does not exist, it's just that no one is making it. Because everyone ignored the EPA mandate and is now whining about it being unavailable. "There's none available because we decided to not produce any! How can we buy what doesn't exist?"

Say the NHTSA mandates seat belts in all cars. This is akin to car makers not installing seat belts because they can't buy them because no companies ever made seat belts before, so there are none available. The solution is for companies to ramp up production, and with guaranteed demand, this should be a no-brainer. But there are start-up costs involved in investing in the new technology, and the established companies simply want to avoid that. So we have a self-created shortage.
 
2012-06-22 12:51:48 PM  

ronaprhys: Pochas: Actually, if that is a problem, (don't know if it is or not but all indications are that it would be better than corn ethanol) it is up to the oil companies to spend money to solve it. That was the point of the legislation. They chose to just take the fine instead of investing in new American technology and jobs.

Cost of doing business

Bullshiat answer. That's why it's being called the equivalent of unicorn farts.

Prove that it can be done on an economically viable level.


If it can't be done, they shouldn't get the subsidies for doing it, now should they?
 
2012-06-22 12:52:38 PM  

ronaprhys: Pochas: Actually, if that is a problem, (don't know if it is or not but all indications are that it would be better than corn ethanol) it is up to the oil companies to spend money to solve it. That was the point of the legislation. They chose to just take the fine instead of investing in new American technology and jobs.

Cost of doing business

Bullshiat answer. That's why it's being called the equivalent of unicorn farts.

Prove that it can be done on an economically viable level. You're the one who's claiming it's up to the oil companies to do so, which means you must believe it can be done. How?

And don't you think that some entrepreneur, realizing that if they could do this scalably, would be looking at this legislation and seeing dollar signs, investing money, etc?


The oil companies don't even want to have the discussion. The Corn Lobby would kind of have something to do with that, don't you think? Something about the demand for field corn falling flat.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report