 |  | |||||
| Blog, seu amigo Leticia enviou esta noticía para você | ||||||
| Informativo publicado diariamente Versão Eletrônica do Jornal da Ciência da SBPC. Se você quiser cadastrar um amigo para receber este jornal, basta clicar aqui. | ||||||
| ||||||
Friday, November 7, 2008
JC e-mail - Notícia enviado por um Amigo
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
FT.com / Video & Audio / Interactive graphics - Interactive feature: Ethanol boom and bust
FT.com / Video & Audio / Interactive graphics - Interactive feature: Ethanol boom and bust: "Interactive feature: Ethanol boom and bust
Published: October 21 2008 19:47 | Last updated: October 21 2008 19:47"
Published: October 21 2008 19:47 | Last updated: October 21 2008 19:47"
FT.com / In depth - Investors suffer as US ethanol boom dries up
FT.com / In depth - Investors suffer as US ethanol boom dries up: "Investors suffer as US ethanol boom dries up
By Kevin Allison in San Francisco and Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
Published: October 21 2008 23:22 | Last updated: October 21 2008 23:22
Investors, such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates, are sitting on billions of dollars in losses after buying into the corn-based ethanol industry that George W. Bush embraced as the ans wer to US energy woes.
Six of the biggest publicly traded US ethanol producers have lost more than $8.7bn in market value since the peak of the boom in mid-2006 and the beginning of this month, according to an analysis by the Financial Times. The boom followed a 2005 law requiring refiners to mix billions of gallons of the biofuel with petrol."
By Kevin Allison in San Francisco and Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
Published: October 21 2008 23:22 | Last updated: October 21 2008 23:22
Investors, such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates, are sitting on billions of dollars in losses after buying into the corn-based ethanol industry that George W. Bush embraced as the ans wer to US energy woes.
Six of the biggest publicly traded US ethanol producers have lost more than $8.7bn in market value since the peak of the boom in mid-2006 and the beginning of this month, according to an analysis by the Financial Times. The boom followed a 2005 law requiring refiners to mix billions of gallons of the biofuel with petrol."
Monday, November 3, 2008
Re: California biofuels mandates go to court - Tesoro says GHG emissions too high
In my view, this lawsuit stems directly from a lawmaking flaw based on the now-outdated assumption (circa 2006) that all ethanol causes less life cycle GHG emissions than all petroleum products. Tesoro is correct to point out that since this is no longer thought to be true, a volumetric blending mandate no longer makes sense from the perspective of climate mitigation .
In theory the volumetric mandates could still serve other purposes such as to prevent water pollution or to reduce dependence on petroleum. In practice these mandates directly conflict with the LCFS. I'm not sure the full extent of what's motivating Tesoro's action, but I can see how as a refiner, it would be untenable to be required to blend a certain percentage of ethanol, but the only cheaply/freely available ethanol causes more emissions than the gasoline/MTBE it's replacing, yet the LCFS requires reduced carbon intensity of Tesoro's fuel.
This isn't just a California issue. British Columbia, Ontario and the EU have (or may have) volumetric/percentage blending mandates underlying LCFS. These mandates also are vestiges of the assumption that all ethanol is greener than BAU. Come to think of it, there may also be conflicts between the LCFS and the volumetric biofuels mandates under US EISA. If that's so, numerous other states might eventually be affected too.
In theory the volumetric mandates could still serve other purposes such as to prevent water pollution or to reduce dependence on petroleum. In practice these mandates directly conflict with the LCFS. I'm not sure the full extent of what's motivating Tesoro's action, but I can see how as a refiner, it would be untenable to be required to blend a certain percentage of ethanol, but the only cheaply/freely available ethanol causes more emissions than the gasoline/MTBE it's replacing, yet the LCFS requires reduced carbon intensity of Tesoro's fuel.
This isn't just a California issue. British Columbia, Ontario and the EU have (or may have) volumetric/percentage blending mandates underlying LCFS. These mandates also are vestiges of the assumption that all ethanol is greener than BAU. Come to think of it, there may also be conflicts between the LCFS and the volumetric biofuels mandates under US EISA. If that's so, numerous other states might eventually be affected too.
Re: California biofuels mandates go to court - Tesoro says GHG emissions too high
Correction: I guess the action is comparing ethanol not only to oxygenates, but also to gasoline.
Tesoro's court action seeks to prevent enforcement of the ethanol blending mandate in the California Reformulated Gas Regulation. They argue that since the life cycle GHG emissions of most ethanol is greater than the petroleum oxygenates it replaces and it doesn't satisfy the mandate's own requirement for "improve[d]... emissions and air quality benefits".
source: http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5004
California biofuels mandates go to court - Tesoro says GHG emissions too high
Tesoro's court action seeks to prevent enforcement of the ethanol blending mandate in the California Reformulated Gas Regulation. They argue that since the life cycle GHG emissions of most ethanol is greater than the petroleum oxygenates it replaces and it doesn't satisfy the mandate's own requirement for "improve[d]... emissions and air quality benefits".
source: http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5004
source: http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
