Energy Efficiency

Elsewhere on this site you will find the proof that ethanol is a negative energy and that over 6% volume per litre of fuel will actually create more harmful greenhouse gas emissions than 100% unleaded petrol, yet you have corporate government mandating a 10% volume of ethanol in fuel other than premium unleaded.

Like the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ the information about the emissions being OK 6% or less are wrong; petrol’s emissions are: 95.86 g(CO2-e)/mj and (corn) ethanol: 99.40 g(CO2-e)/mj.

The government is taking money from tax-payers to subsidise ethanol production and force the use of this under-performing fuel to line the pockets of their financial sponsors to maintain or regain political seats.

It’s not just the more toxic emissions of a 10% ethanol mix, it is the waste of farmland, water and energy (real petrol, electricity and gas) to make this highly processed product.

Ethanol producers have known all along that their eco-friendly fuel is anything but; there is no actual saving on GHG emissions (on a life-cycle basis) and a classic ‘only in America’. The Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association filed suit in Federal District Court alleging that California’s low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) violates the Federal Constitution.

How it started is 2009, the California Air Resources Board adopted a LCFS as it intends to reduce California greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California by an average of 10 percent by the year 2020. The carbon intensity is a measure of the direct and indirect GHG emissions associated with each step of a fuel’s full life cycle … a ‘well-to-wheels’ for fossil fuels and ‘seed-to-wheels’ for bio fuels.

The carbon intensity baseline is measured against gasoline mixed with 10 percent corn ethanol; fuels that have carbon intensity levels below the baseline generate credits and fuels with levels above the baseline create deficits. To comply, a party must show that the total amount of credits equals or exceeds the deficits incurred; if a party incurs a negative credit balance for two or more consecutive years or incurs a credit to deficit ratio of less than 90 percent, the party will be deemed in violation and subject to civil and criminal penalties.

This life-Cycle and Indirect Land Use Changes, where carbon intensity is measured in two parts; the first part represents the direct emissions associated with producing, transporting, and using the fuel and the second part considers indirect effects, including those caused by changes in land use. For corn ethanol, indirect land use changes are a significant source of additional GHG emissions. For instance, gasoline has a carbon intensity of 95.86 megajoules (g CO2 e/mj) measured on a life-cycle basis.

On a direct basis, the LCFS measures corn ethanol at 69.40 megajoules; however, when indirect land use is added, corn ethanol’s carbon intensity jumps another 30 points, so that its life-cycle carbon intensity score is actually higher than gasoline (99.40). In other words, the LCFS finds that corn ethanol produces more GHGs than does gasoline.

Given the LCFS’ requirement of reduced carbon intensity, it’s not difficult to see that corn ethanol will be severely disadvantaged in California and with California as the country’s largest ethanol market, the LCFS will undoubtedly have impacts outside of the state. According to the LCFS, California is the fifteenth largest GHG emitter in the world, representing approximately two percent of worldwide GHG emissions. Transportation fuels are responsible for approximately 38 percent of annual California GHG emissions. A 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels is expected to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 15 million metric tons per year.

However, just like Australia – where the coal driven energy section suggests that as Australia is such a small scale polluter – so too does this lawsuit claim; it basically says that any reduction in GHGs in California is essentially immeasurable when compared with total worldwide GHG emissions.

As to the impartiality of Federal Court in the ‘Supremacy Clause of the Constitution’, well George Bush won the presidential election because the Court ruled in his favour, so will the Federal Court invalidate the California state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. In its lawsuit, the trade groups assert that the LCFS stands as an obstacle to Congress’ intent in adopting the EISA (Environmental Security and Independence) Act of 2007 which sspecifically exempted existing corn ethanol producers from claiming or demonstrating GHG reductions, so one can see ‘corporate government’ is everywhere.

In Australia, corporations receive preferential treatment, even ‘for the public’s good’ (fluride in the drinking water) emanates from corporate direction of the government, so it will be interesting to see how it pans out, because you acn bet your bottom $ that ethanol manufacturers in Australia will resist far more than the string manufacturers did when sticky tape came in.

Governments in Australia are slow to admit fault and burn billions of $’s at the behest of their financial supporters, so will they revisit this decision or have the election donations already been spent?