(Page 2 of 2)
Companies extracting oil from Canadian tar sands could lose out under the LCFS unless they can improve the energy efficiency of the process by which they mine and refine asphalt-like bitumen into motor fuel. Some U.S. refiners argue that the LCFS will effectively ban the sale of tar-sands-based fuels in California. Sperling counters that it will drive the needed improvements. "I've talked to oil producers and they insist that tar sands can be produced competitively with a much smaller carbon footprint, if there were a stronger incentive to do so. LCFS provides that incentive," he says.
Corn ethanol producers will be similarly challenged to improve because, under the LCFS regulations, the carbon footprint of this fuel looks to be about equal to or even worse than conventional gasoline's. Corn ethanol looks about a third better than gasoline when you consider direct emissions attributable to growing corn and converting it to ethanol, but that advantage evaporates when you throw in the estimated greenhouse effect of indirect land use changes.
The Air Resources Board has yet to complete its analysis of cellulosic biofuels, which can be produced from agricultural wastes or woody crops grown on marginal lands, but the expectation is that such fuels will fare much better than corn ethanol. "If you use cellulosic and waste materials, then the land use effects are near zero, and the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are very low," says Sperling.
These impacts would be much greater if the LCFS approach were extended beyond California. But the way the standard considers land use change has faced heavy opposition from the ethanol industry and farm-belt interests. Such resistance has stalled both federal and European initiatives of a similar nature.
The EPA is a year behind on a Congressional mandate to factor in life-cycle emissions, including indirect land use impacts, in updated rules for the federal Renewable Fuels Standard. The rules will define which fuels qualify as "advanced biofuels," which account for about 7 percent of renewable fuels today and will account for 58 percent by 2022. These rules, originally due out last year, are expected to be finalized in 2010.
Sperling says he hopes that advanced biofuels developers, who have not played a large role in the debate so far, will recognize that their interests are in competition with those of the corn ethanol industry. "The food-based interests have been very clever and effective at muddying that distinction and bamboozling those advanced cellulosic interests that have a lot to gain from including land use effects in a full life-cycle analysis," says Sperling.
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.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
mkogrady
425 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