Comments on: Stunningly Trivial Emission Reductions from the Renewable Fuel Standard Program: More MAGICC–this time from EPA http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/more-magicc-this-time-from-epa/ A free-market energy blog Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:25:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Cooler Heads Digest 8 May 2009 | GlobalWarming.org http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/more-magicc-this-time-from-epa/comment-page-1/#comment-1475 Cooler Heads Digest 8 May 2009 | GlobalWarming.org Mon, 11 May 2009 14:16:57 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2454#comment-1475 [...] Stunningly Trivial Emission Reductions from the Renewable Fuel Standard Program Marlo Lewis, MasterResource.org, 8 May 2009 [...] [...] Stunningly Trivial Emission Reductions from the Renewable Fuel Standard Program Marlo Lewis, MasterResource.org, 8 May 2009 [...]

]]> By: » Elevated CO2 stimulates marsh elevation gain, counterbalancing sea-level rise. brackish water Blog http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/more-magicc-this-time-from-epa/comment-page-1/#comment-1470 » Elevated CO2 stimulates marsh elevation gain, counterbalancing sea-level rise. brackish water Blog Sat, 09 May 2009 13:45:54 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2454#comment-1470 [...] More MAGICC–this time from EPA — MasterResource [...] [...] More MAGICC–this time from EPA — MasterResource [...]

]]> By: Tom Tanton http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/more-magicc-this-time-from-epa/comment-page-1/#comment-1472 Tom Tanton Fri, 08 May 2009 23:23:20 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2454#comment-1472 Rob, yes methanol had its day in the CEC sun--but natural gas and electricity did as well. Fickle is as fickle does... Rob, yes methanol had its day in the CEC sun–but natural gas and electricity did as well. Fickle is as fickle does…

]]> By: rbradley http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/more-magicc-this-time-from-epa/comment-page-1/#comment-1471 rbradley Fri, 08 May 2009 21:24:21 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2454#comment-1471 Tom: And methanol was the fuel de jure at one point of the California Energy Commission back in the 1980s, if memory serves. Tom:

And methanol was the fuel de jure at one point of the California Energy Commission back in the 1980s, if memory serves.

]]> By: Ed Reid http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/more-magicc-this-time-from-epa/comment-page-1/#comment-1474 Ed Reid Fri, 08 May 2009 14:09:13 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2454#comment-1474 Stunningly trivial indeed; and, to 3 insignificant figures! Stunningly trivial indeed; and, to 3 insignificant figures!

]]> By: Tom Tanton http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/more-magicc-this-time-from-epa/comment-page-1/#comment-1473 Tom Tanton Fri, 08 May 2009 11:21:41 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2454#comment-1473 Essentially the same controversy surrounded the California Air Resource Board's adoption of their "Low Carbon Fuel Standard" albeit for a tad different regulatory goal: so now ethanol is the wayward, whilst less than a year ago it was the favored. The twisting machinations to explainthe shift illustrates the truly bizzare nature of CARB's rule making. While I agree with them (and with EPA) that life cycle analysis is (theoretically) the correct approach, unless it'd done fairly and completely across ALL fuels it can be (and likely is) worse than not using lca to begin with. It also smacks of intentional favoritism and/or discrimination. Equally bad is the use of "average" numbers (such as for crop/land use changes) as that perpetuates the "good" subsidizing the "bad"--there's just way too much diversity to calculate these numbers except on an individual gallon basis and the tracking of THAT is horrendously complex. Essentially the same controversy surrounded the California Air Resource Board’s adoption of their “Low Carbon Fuel Standard” albeit for a tad different regulatory goal: so now ethanol is the wayward, whilst less than a year ago it was the favored. The twisting machinations to explainthe shift illustrates the truly bizzare nature of CARB’s rule making. While I agree with them (and with EPA) that life cycle analysis is (theoretically) the correct approach, unless it’d done fairly and completely across ALL fuels it can be (and likely is) worse than not using lca to begin with. It also smacks of intentional favoritism and/or discrimination. Equally bad is the use of “average” numbers (such as for crop/land use changes) as that perpetuates the “good” subsidizing the “bad”–there’s just way too much diversity to calculate these numbers except on an individual gallon basis and the tracking of THAT is horrendously complex.

]]>