Skip to comments.U.S. must 'hustle' to reach 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, ag secretary says
Posted on 03/12/2012 6:34:49 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The United States can meet President Barack Obama's goal of producing 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, but it better get moving.
That's according to Tom Vilsack, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
According to a 2010 Agriculture Department report, the agency plans for the U.S. to produce 13.4 billion gallons of biofuels from grasses and sugars. The rest would come from oil seeds, crop residues and wood waste.
The EPA is exploring other sources, such as animal fats, municipal solid waste and algae.
The push for more biofuels comes as other industries, such as commercial power companies, seek alternative fuel sources to comply with tougher pollution standards set by the Obama administration. For example, Dominion Virginia Power announced last year it would convert three coal-fired power plants to biomass.
Citing a Penn State University study that states the U.S. produces more than 1 billion tons of biomass a year, Vilsack said there is plenty to satisfy numerous industries. Environmental groups aren't so sure.
The Southern Environmental Law Center is concerned that companies will start removing healthy trees from forests to meet demands that are expected to grow.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
So what the Secretary in charge of cow discharge is saying is “hurry the stupid up, you’re not stupiding fast enough”. Seems appropriate for someone in charge of cow discharge.
The military just bought biofuel at what $26 a gallon? That should make $5 gas look cheap...
Fixed it for ya'.
>> “Takes more energy to produce bio-fuels than what you get out of it.” <<
That is an absolute fact!
It takes more than a gallon of real diesel oil to produce a gallon of ‘bio-fuel.’
Think I'm making that up? Think again. They are already doing it! Government forces refiners to pay fine for nonexistent ethanol (Institute for Energy Research).
Depends. Biodiesel, e.g. from soybeans, produces 3.2 units of fuel for every unit of (fossil) fuel input, according to the USDA. A German study came up with a number of 2.5 to 1. That's still a pretty good deal.
Ethanol from corn barely breaks even. Don't tar all biofuel with the ethanol-from-corn brush. Ethanol from corn is only viable because it's subsidized by government.
Sunken, it is you that has posted the agitprop here.
The cartoon does not say 1/2 gallon of pesticides. The 1/2 gallon of fuel includes working the soil, harvesting the crop, and transporting it.
Ethanol is a waste of useful land.
Awwwww, the flat statement that this was a “complete falsity” shoulda stopped you in your tracks! There is no arguing with such a coffin-lid pronouncement!
All bio-diesel shortens engine life, increases maintenance costs, and reduces the reliability of the engine.
It also cannot be used below 40 degrees F, because it thickens in the fuel system, thus starving the engine.
Maybe you’ll have to add a heater run on oil to heat the bio-fuel to where it’ll flow okay.
No, in fact, it is not. It doesn’t take 1/2 of fuel to produce a bushel of corn, and it doesn’t take more ethanol to produce ethanol and can be produced from the corn. ALL of that is agitprop. The price of producing and distributing our food (and everything has an energy component, even among the Amish) using OPEC oil is the issue, and will continue to be while we remain dependent on them.
Zero’s claim that we’re somehow better off because the price of oil is high as a kite and consumption of it is (for now) down, and production is up (and more of it going overseas), while simultaneously claiming (as others do here) that the price of crude is really just inflated by speculators, is one giant pile of flapdoodle.
Petroleum doesn’t subsidize fuel ethanol. There’s an oxygenation requirement for gasoline sold in the US, rather a series of them, and most states have banned the petrochemical MTBA because it shows up in the water etc, while ethanol does not. I’ve never seen anyone call MTBA out for being the product of a federal subsidy. But if ethanol is considered to be subsidized because of a floor price, then the subsidy is actually going the other way, since most ethanol produced in the US (and imported) is going directly into gasoline.
[snip] Fertilizer price volatility affects the profitability of corn and small grains, where fertilizer accounts for a relatively large share of production costs, compared with that for soybeans and cotton. [/snip]
In Bend, Oregon, they had to add ducting to direct exhaust heat to the fuel system on all their new ‘bio’ school buses last winter.
One morning, every bus in their fleet got stalled on the road after they left the warmth of the barn. It took two days to tow them all back to the barn, and a whole bunch of taxis to bring the students home. School was canceled for the week.
WE been FRacked! FRom the inside!
Tom, you idiot. Can’t you do simple math?
It so not possible to produce 36 billion barrels of your imaginary goo.
I grew up in a small town in west-central Kansas. Folks had oil wells in their backyard. Hard to imagine the EPA regulations on that today...
What’s getting burned to run the tractors etc.? Are these operations so purist that they themselves only employ pure ethanol for their own energy needs?
Oh, I see, ethanol is elitist. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.