Slash and burn: California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard penalizes biofuels whose cultivation involves rainforest clearing-- and thus worsen the greenhouse effect instead of easing it.
Martin Shields / Photo Researchers, Inc
California is about to implement a standard to boost cleaner fuels and punish the rest.
Come January 1, fuel suppliers across California will have to abide by the state's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The standard aims to reduce the "life-cycle carbon intensity" of fuels consumed by cars, trucks, and other vehicles by 10 percent over the coming decade and, in the process, even the playing field for low-carbon alternatives.
This coming year a carbon intensity baseline for gasoline and diesel sold in California will be established. Each year thereafter, the state will set a standard that is progressively lower. Fuel distributors will need to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuel by blending in low-carbon fuels such as cellulosic biofuels, or by purchasing low-carbon credits earned by other firms that beat the standard.
"Those fuels with lower overall emissions will be incentivized, and those with higher emissions will be discouraged," says Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute for Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis and an architect of the LCFS.
Policy analysts such as Sperling predict that the LCFS will be the harbinger of smarter national and international fuel policies, in contrast to the rush into food-based fuels such as corn ethanol that offer little overall environmental benefit. "Until we adopt an LCFS nationally and internationally, policy will be politicized and ad hoc," he says.
However, controversy has dogged measures pending in Washington and Brussels as scientists and politicians struggle for consensus on ways to evaluate life-cycle emissions. A flashpoint is whether and how to measure greenhouse gas emissions from indirect land use changes. An example of this would be the clearing of a forest to grow food crops to make biofuels.
What is clear is that the LCFS will help make some alternative fuel technologies more viable than others. Dan Kammen, co-director of the University of California's Berkeley Institute of the Environment and another architect of the LCFS, says battery-powered vehicles should win big, given California's preference for natural gas-fired power generation and the high efficiency of electric drivetrains. "Because of the very low emissions per mile traveled for electric vehicles versus all liquid fuels, the LCFS could strongly advance electrified transport," says Kammen.
Electric vehicle players are already scrambling to capture the benefits. The California Air Resources Board in Sacramento has determined that charging an electric vehicle will result in 43 percent as much carbon dioxide emissions, mile for mile, as burning gasoline. Charging electric vehicles should thus generate credits under the LCFS that fuel companies can buy to offset the carbon-intensity of higher-carbon fuels.
A comprehensive legislation can expand the market for natural gas and increase America’s energy independence, reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, and create jobs.
If the United States wants to build a market-based approach to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, it should learn from Europe's failures.
With catalysts created by an MIT chemist, sunlight can turn water into hydrogen. If the process can scale up, it could make solar power a dominant source of energy.
What does the story leave out? What about the effect on large truck transportation and off road heavy equipment?
Until we have amazing capacitors, we will not be seeing any electric tractor trailers. They consume half the fuel in this country.
All raw materials are handled by heavy equipment...
Also, no discussion of the state of Cellulosic ethanol. Even though there has been rapid progress in this field, there is still a ways to go.
Are there even any cellulose plants in California?
So California will push this through and people will switch to electric cars. This change was coming anyway.
The problem is a lack of existing infrastructure to make this low sulfur diesel. It will be very expensive for a couple years.
I am not completely against what they are doing. But this is going to make California even more expensive to live in.
The cost of diesel will just be passed on to the consumer.
Maybe this is not the best policy during a downturn, when many companies are leaving California due to the cost of operation.....
-Dennis
www.PrometheusGoneWild.com
Mea culpa Dennis. My story mentions that California's low-carbon fuel standard sets standards for gasoline and diesel, but could also have addressed how it will impact the new generation of 'clean diesel' vehicles. The short answer is that the LCFS sets a separate standard for diesel to avoid incentivizing its use a means of reducing the carbon intensity of gasoline cars.
The California regulators' rationale? Clean diesels trap much of the soot they generate, but most nevertheless release considerably more soot than equivalent gasoline vehicles. That soot causes premature mortality and is also increasingly viewed as a potent contributor to climate change, perhaps second only to CO2.
For more on the LCFS and diesels, see "Dark Clouds Over Clean Diesels", published last year in IEEE Spectrum. For the latest on soot and climate, see "The Easiest Way to Fight Global Warming?" in the September issue of Discover.
Exactly how are they going to "level the playing field"? By spending more money they don't have? By increasing taxes on gasoline? California is already the most expensive state to live in, with crushingly high taxes, tons of regulations, huge deficits, and completely incompetent government.
California's government seems to think they are leading the country by pushing these programs. But in reality, they've become a laughingstock, as more business and taxpayers flee for Texas, Arizona, and Colorado.
What I fear is that California will ultimately have to be bailed out by the other states. I'm furious that states who have managed themselves correctly may have to pay for California's stupidity.
I thought it has already been established that ethanol production does not save co2 production... when all the processes are measured.
I would assume the same with cellulosic farm grown ethanol.
My concern, is that the carbon cellulose needs to be put back in the soil, to enrich the soil... could we be creating a desert?
Could this be the coup de grace of california?
I do like the computer at home idea... I could do all my work at home... with a computer and a phone.
ron hansing
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
mkogrady
423 Comments
Low Carbon Fuel my @$$
Again - by taking the most costly approach, or at least an inbalanced approach, the State of California will decide the fate of the rest of the nation.
...."even the playing field for low-carbon alternatives"...
...."purchasing low-carbon credits earned by other firms that beat the standard"...
....."contrast to the rush into food-based fuels such as corn ethanol that offer little overall environmental benefit....
....."charging an electric vehicle will result in 43 percent as much carbon dioxide emissions, mile for mile, as burning gasoline"....
Where will mandatory Telecommuting fit in? Probably nowhere because it takes precious tax dollars out of the income stream for the state of California.
The most fuel efficient, lowest possible emissions and long term cost effective way to get to and from work is a laptop, cell phone and hign speed internet connection.
There's no cost to fill up the tank, no road construction costs, parking fees, toll road charges and best of all, you get to sleep in another extra half hour a day.
Reply
kstauff
130 Comments
Re: Low Carbon Fuel my @$$
Finally a person who recognizes the obvious. If you want to cut fuel use, let people work from home.
Reply