Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Attacks Biodiesel

Biodiesel.org ^ | Aug 21, 2009 | Biodiesel.org

[ConservativeMind]

It appears that the EPA, under the "RFS2 - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007," is going to cause problems with how biodiesel will be viewed as a source of pollution, rather than as a means to reduce it. According to the National Biodiesel Board, the EPA has wrongly calculated the negative impact of biodiesel.

As a result, the Board would like to enlist the help of supporters of biodiesel in a mail campaign to the EPA and, I assume, others. The points they most want to drive home are mentioned in the following letter:

---

Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460


RE: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule for the Renewable Fuels Standard, or “RFS-2.” I agree generally with the positions taken by the National Biodiesel Board including the following key points:

1. EPA must act now with an interim final rule to ensure that 2009 and 2010 volumes are met as required by law.

2. EPA should grandfather existing plants by deeming these facilities to be in compliance with the 50 percent reduction requirement.

3. The lifecycle greenhouse gas methodology for biodiesel is flawed.
- Nitrogen fixing in soil was incorrectly included.
- The energy balance data is out of date, co-product allocations for glycerine were not incorporated, and global market drivers for feedstocks, are not considered.
- EPA should analyze indirect emissions for all fuels or for none, and should compare biofuels to the more expensive and higher carbon sources of crude they will be replacing such as tar sands and heavy crude.
- EPA’s production baseline does not properly account for increasing crop yields and production efficiencies.
- EPA should use the proposed 100 year timeline vs. a 30 year timeline as some have suggested.
- EPA should eliminate the arbitrary 2 percent discount rate.
- EPA should correct the false statement included in the proposal that “the impact of any land-use change tends to be magnified with soybean biodiesel.”

4. EPA should adjust the 50 percent reduction requirement for biomass-based diesel to 40 percent.

5. Registration, certification, and reporting requirements that are impractical and burdensome should be eliminated.

Sincerely,

[ConservativeMind]

Red Badger isn't available to post this, so I'm filling in today.

It's amazing how an alternative fuel source with promise is pilloried by those who claim to want reasonable alternatives to crude.

[ConservativeMind]

Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished..... If you want ON or OFF the DIESEL ”KnOcK” LIST just FReepmail me..... This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days.....

[PRO 1]

Truckloads of wasted time and money over a premis that completely and entirely TOTAL BULL$HIT.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2320128/posts

[mission9]

I agree, totally BS. And no reason to kill the nascent bio-diesel industry. I included in MY letter the disproven global warming premise, as your post references.

[elkfersupper]

I burn diesel every day.

There is more than enough crude oil to produce more than enough real diesel.

This "biodiesel" concept is a joke that is completely unneccessary and irrelevant.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"There is more than enough crude oil to produce more than enough real diesel."

Sure. But then you're pulling carbon out of the lithosphere, oxidizing it and spewing all that Gaea-harming CO2 into the atmosphere. Biodiesel is a renewable resource, basically using sunlight and chlorophyll to recycle carbon already in play. It's supposed to be a good thing for bunnies and crickets and all our leafy friends.

Now, the "science" of global warming is none too convincing, but insofar as biofuels reduce the flow of dollars to terrorists and sheikhs, I'm in favor of 'em, as long as it's a free-market solution and not a Federal boondoggle... which, to date, it pretty much has been. But that's looking like it might change. Silicon Valley's savviest venture capitalist, Vinod Khosla, is investing heavily in several promising ventures to manufacture biofuels.

So the notion of environmental bureaucrats and politicians acting to strangle the concept in its crib is distressing. It often seems like the environmental movement isn't so much about the environment as about taking America down a notch. This fits.

[elkfersupper]

We could cut the sheiks and terrorists out of the equation if we wanted to exploit our own resources.

We won't.

This is why I am probably buying cigarettes from Al Quaeda and/or the Mexican drug cartels - my own suppliers and the "legitimate" governments under which they operate have become too greedy.