RFA Urges EPA to Level Playing Field
A new video launched by the Renewable Fuels Association makes the point that other fuels have indirect effects, not only biofuels.
The video, which shows images of burning oil wells, oil spill damage, oil contamination of natural habitat, and the destruction brought on by oil exploration and tar sands excavation, is meant to draw attention to the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rulemaking for the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) that would take into account indirect land use change effects for ethanol and biodiesel, but not for petroleum.
“If EPA insists on counting the angels on the head of a pin, it needs to do so on every pin and that includes the indirect impacts of petroleum production and use,” said Renewable Fuels Association Bob Dinneen. “All energy choices come with trade-offs. By focusing solely on the impacts of biofuels, EPA has created shell game only petroleum can win. EPA must revisit its proposed rule, make its methodologies and calculations transparent, and redraft a program that is fair and workable for all parties. EPA’s current version fails on all counts.”
RFA is urging its members and others with an interest in the biofuels industry to make comments to the EPA about the RFS2 before the September 25 deadline.
4 Comments »
Level Playing Field FNL | Fuel
[...] Domestic Fuel « Dates for Gas In [...]
ASA, Biodiesel Board Call for RFS2 Comments - Domestic Fuel
[...] main sticking point the ASA and NBB (and the Renewable Fuels Association, for that matter) have with the proposal is the inclusion of international indirect land use [...]
ASA, Biodiesel Board Call for RFS2 Comments
[...] main sticking point the ASA and NBB (and the Renewable Fuels Association, for that matter) have with the proposal is the inclusion of international indirect land use [...]
Peggy Korth
Contrast the effects represented by the RFA with benefits of non-food biomass from STARCH as we are doing with cattail rhizomes. Now envision this for every community that releases wastewater effluent.
Estimate of potential Greenhouse reductions and other related benefits (EPA assistance requested in measuring final effects):
• Field crop carbon sequestering—biomass up to four feet high covering acreage.
o Year one: two acres
o Year two: ten acres
o Year three: thirty acres
o Progressive development increases annually with 20,000 acres available for development—only limited to amount of available wastewater.
• Vehicle petroleum replacement choices—over 1000 gallons of 180 proof fuel ethanol per acre. (Note: Obtaining 200 proof and blending changes production ratios.)
o Conclusion of year one crop—demonstration of processing
o Conclusion of year two crop—Utilizes both new and old growth—up to two years to obtain optimum growth potential. Anticipate 3000 to 5000 gallons of biofuels production
o Conclusion of Year Three crop (harvested and processed in year four without EPA funding support). An excess of 20,000 gallons assuming adequate crop development
• New bioenergy crop development with less environmental impact: reduced agricultural effort.—easy crop management, no herbicides, no pesticides, no additional fertilizers, no GMO’s.
• Minimal indirect land use impact
• Replaces cost –prohibitive wastewater nitrogen reduction technology for small community processing.
• Virtually abandoned, underutilized, and potentially unusable land will be rebuilt and revitalized. Although not within the data analysis scope of this project, soil amelioration is anticipated.
• Logistics savings for community produced and dispensed fuel
• Developing a replicable showcase model for communities everywhere
Comments RSS feed — TrackBack URI
Leave a Comment