From an analysis [PDF] of the Energy Independence and Security Act by the NRDC:
... the requirement for renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biogasoline, will grow from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022.
So far, so good, but keep in mind that biogasoline, green diesel, algae derived biodiesel, and cellulosic ethanol have yet to be proven commercially or environmentally viable. Less than a month ago, the NRDC and our government were under the mistaken impression that our conventional biofuels produced fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. And it gets worse:
By 2022, 21 billion gallons must be advanced biofuels, of which 16 billion gallons must be cellulosic biofuels. The new RFS will require conventional, advanced, and cellulosic fuels to provide a respective 20 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent greenhouse gas lifecycle savings benefit over gasoline on energy basis.
Advanced biofuels: renewable fuels refined from biomass other than corn starch and having life cycle greenhouse gas emissions at least 50 percent below gasoline.
At the time, the latest studies were showing that corn ethanol reduced GHG by 18 percent; soybean biodiesel, somewhere between 41 and 78 percent; and cellulosic, better than 60 percent. Thus, the standards:
- Corn must reduce GHG 20 percent lower than gasoline or diesel (even though it doesen't).
- Advanced biofuels (soy, canola, palm oil, or whatever fuel that meets this criteria) must reduce GHG 50 percent (even though none of them presently do).
- Cellulosic studies have been touting huge GHG reductions, but based on all aforementioned claims, would you bet the farm on it, especially when even sugarcane -- which has already proven better than cellulosic estimates -- is consuming carbon sinks?
36 billion - 21 billion = 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol, which (in all likelihood) will actually create more GHG than gasoline does. The legislation is based on a report in Science a year or so ago, which compared all corn ethanol studies to find that corn ethanol is roughly 20 percent carbon neutral. In other words, this piece of the legislation is based on what has now been shown to be grossly incomplete scientific studies (not to mention, it defies all common sense).
Rather than try to dictate how the market should reduce GHG, they should have simply said, any new liquid fuel must prove to reduce GHG by 50 percent on a full life cycle basis and be no more environmentally destructive that the fossil fuel it replaces. Of course, such a simple declaration might be the death knell for most biofuels.
These standards, along with other restrictions, will help ensure that market expansion does not come at the expense of environmental performance.
"Help ensure" is not quite the same as "guarantee." What about the distinct possibility that science will show all of these biofuels to be worse than oil? Like I said, sugarcane trumps even cellulosic, and even it is gobbling up carbon sinks. Will the government change the legislation to end market expansion of biofuels? Where is Plan B?
Based on our methodology, we estimate that the new RFS would cumulatively save 1.4 billion metric tonnes of emissions by 2030.
This reflects an inherent quality of spreadsheets. If the values in the cells containing the GHG percentages were replaced with the figures from the latest science, their methodology would estimate that the new RFS would cumulatively increase GHG emissions 1.4 billion metric tons by 2030, and for once I'm not being trying to be facetious.
Update [2008-4-9 9:23:39 by biodiversivist]: I revised this post at the top to clarify the difference between the 2007 energy bill and the Lieberman-Warner act and added the comment below:
The NRDC recognized the weakness of the energy bill in this summary.
Done right, biofuels have the potential to produce clean, renewable energy that will help increase energy independence and reduce global warming pollution. However, the current Senate Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) lacks essential safeguards to ensure its call for a five-fold increase in biofuels production does more good than harm. For example, the Senate RFS omits clear global warming pollution standards. Without these standards, the RFS could reverse any other climate gains in the energy bill. Any expansion of the RFS must reduce global warming pollution and include strong protections for our air, land, forests, water, wildlife habitat, and public health.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Comments
View as Flat
Russ Posted 7:54 pm
08 Apr 2008
Also, since the 2007 energy bill included the 36 by 22 provision but kicked out the RFS, am I correct in inferring that W-L proposes to include an RFS?
Thanks.
Permalink
LGT Posted 11:08 pm
08 Apr 2008
Looking at this from a different perspective, it's high time someone broke out the news about ethanol to the unreasonable people in Egypt, Tahiti, El Salvador ... who demand corn for food!
http://msrb.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/food-riots-grip-egyp ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:38 pm
08 Apr 2008
My favorite biofuel! Hehey. So who really won that debate with Nathaneal Greene? We did.
Give it up NRDC. Get on the plugin hybrid, renewable smart grid, energy conservation bandwagon.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:49 pm
08 Apr 2008
This is what we really need, why doesn't NRDC get it?
The latest studies prove that 20% of electric power from wind is possible by 2015. Without any backup or storage. To do that triple the present installation rate must be acheived.
And grid transmission upgrade. That upgrade is a perfect "New Deal" type project.
It will actually reduce GHG, unlike the gas guzzling/fuel farming nonsense in the Lieberman-Warner act. It will allow hybrid plugin vehicles to charge up on GHG free wind electricity.
Why is NRDC lobbying for the wrong bill?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:31 am
09 Apr 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Miles Grant Posted 5:47 am
09 Apr 2008
I'm totally confused by your title trashing Lieberman-Warner considering your post only makes a passing mention of it. Also, is your subhead supposed to be a reference to Lieberman-Warner? If so, it's the Climate Security Act.
http://www.nwf.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:19 am
09 Apr 2008
"The life cycle GHG standards in the 2007 energy bill DO require consideration of both direct and indirect land use change-related emissions, so they will make ever coming close to numbers like 36 billion gallons difficult, except for grandfathered corn ethanol refineries which were already under construction."
I agree of course, but what purpose do the mandates serve, considering that biofuels today don't meet these standards? My point is that legislators did not know that at the time. What would this RFS look like had they known? Would we still have a mandate for 36 billion gallons? Probably, but we shouldn't.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Will biofuel producers be allowed to go bankrupt because they can't meet the standards?
Will biofuel producers find ways to meet the standards?
Will vested interests find ways to maintain government mandates and subsidies?
Calls to revisit biofuel mandates in Europe have not gotten very far to date.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 5:23 am
10 Apr 2008
Don't pick winners. We don't need incentives for wind - we need a mechanism that pays a premium for any energy source that reduces our CO2 emissions. A big part of the problem with L-W is that it picks winners.
A production tax is sub-optimal. Much better to structure the revenue as a payment, so that the person creating the value gets directly paid (as opposed to having to then sell it to someone who needs a tax shield). Details here.
Permalink