AAPL stock: $442.77 ( +1.42 ) *Cached every 60 seconds. For live updating, Click Here |
| Tips and Deals ---- 'Friendly' Political Ranting |
You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
| Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 10:49AM
|
There is still no substitute for oil no matter what politicians demand. Remember this when Obama runs around and declares "all of the above" all the while in the background he is doing everything to stifle the energy industry.
"EPA's 2011 rule required refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to blend 6.8 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels into the fuel supply, despite the fact EPA's own tracking system indicating that zero gallons of cellulosic fuel were commercially available in 2011."
[www.marketwatch.com]
"EPA's 2011 rule required refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to blend 6.8 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels into the fuel supply, despite the fact EPA's own tracking system indicating that zero gallons of cellulosic fuel were commercially available in 2011."
[www.marketwatch.com]
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 22, 2012 11:40AM
|
[www.fas.org]
Good info here. What the oil companies hope to do (avenger's link above is to an oil industry group's press release) is avoid paying for the credits that are to be used to fund the development of cellulosic biofuels. This is requirement is part of the Clean Air Act and the EPA is mandated by Congress to collect these credits from oil companies.
Contrary to what is stated above, they are not required to purchase "non-existent" fuel, they are required to pay for the development of the fuel by purchasing credits if the fuel itself is not commercially available. Which it has not been.
The issue of whether the cellulosic biofuel market is viable is a matter for Congress to review this year.
Good info here. What the oil companies hope to do (avenger's link above is to an oil industry group's press release) is avoid paying for the credits that are to be used to fund the development of cellulosic biofuels. This is requirement is part of the Clean Air Act and the EPA is mandated by Congress to collect these credits from oil companies.
Contrary to what is stated above, they are not required to purchase "non-existent" fuel, they are required to pay for the development of the fuel by purchasing credits if the fuel itself is not commercially available. Which it has not been.
The issue of whether the cellulosic biofuel market is viable is a matter for Congress to review this year.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: davester
Date: June 22, 2012 11:50AM
|
I am shocked, shocked that a post by Dakota is completely devoid of facts. I'll also be similarly shocked when he continues his baseless tirade by introducing more fiction into the thread.
"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland
"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 11:53AM
|
Quote
Lemon Drop
[www.fas.org]
Good info here. What the oil companies hope to do (avenger's link above is to an oil industry group's press release) is avoid paying for the credits that are to be used to fund the development of cellulosic biofuels.
So, that's the scam. Mandate something that does not exist then fine them to fund the development of something that does not exist. Who gets the funds? Obama's pals, of course. Brilliant! They can keep this going forever. How about mandating that they mix sand in gas? It doesn't work, you say. Tough luck.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 11:53AM
|
Quote
davester
I am shocked, shocked that a post by Dakota is completely devoid of facts. I'll also be similarly shocked when he continues his baseless tirade by introducing more fiction into the thread.
The only fact you need to know is that EPA is mandating the use of a fantom fuel. You had a chance to respond but you didn't because you can't.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2012 11:57AM by Avenger.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: btfc
Date: June 22, 2012 12:02PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Pam
Date: June 22, 2012 12:07PM
|
Geez, this started under Bush and the mandates have been lowered year after year. Where's the beef?
[www.technologyreview.com]
[www.technologyreview.com]
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: lafinfil
Date: June 22, 2012 12:16PM
|
Quote
Pam
Geez, this started under Bush and the mandates have been lowered year after year. Where's the beef?
[www.technologyreview.com]
OBAMAS JOB KILLING !
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 12:22PM
|
Quote
btfc
"not commercially available" is not the same as "does not exist". Not surprised that the difference escapes you, though.
The distinction is not significant if you are running a science experiment in your freshman college chemistry lab. To meet the nations's energy needs, it is not enough to merely exist. I have a bottle of Mazola in the kitchen too.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 12:23PM
|
Quote
lafinfil
Quote
Pam
Geez, this started under Bush and the mandates have been lowered year after year. Where's the beef?
[www.technologyreview.com]
OBAMAS JOB KILLING !
What do you call $.78/gal fine? Job creation program?
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: cbelt3
Date: June 22, 2012 12:25PM
|
"EPA has the authority to waive completely or in part the cellulosic biofuel consumption mandates
established in EISA, given certain circumstances.13 For instance, the Administrator may waive the
cellulosic biofuel requirement if the Administrator determines, after public notice and opportunity
for comment, that there is an inadequate domestic supply.14"
It's irrelevant. Nothing to see here. move along.
Oh and 'venger ? CONGRESS passed this law. This includes the Republican majority Senate.
You cannot blame the Obama administration for this one. Please refer to this if you have any questions
[www.schoolhouserock.tv]
established in EISA, given certain circumstances.13 For instance, the Administrator may waive the
cellulosic biofuel requirement if the Administrator determines, after public notice and opportunity
for comment, that there is an inadequate domestic supply.14"
It's irrelevant. Nothing to see here. move along.
Oh and 'venger ? CONGRESS passed this law. This includes the Republican majority Senate.
You cannot blame the Obama administration for this one. Please refer to this if you have any questions
[www.schoolhouserock.tv]
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: hal
Date: June 22, 2012 12:54PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: June 22, 2012 01:02PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: June 22, 2012 01:28PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: john dough
Date: June 22, 2012 01:31PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 01:49PM
|
Quote
hal
Who in their right mind posts a PR Newswire item as 'evidence' to support their argument?
I see you are not questioning the underlying facts; there is nothing to mix. If there is no cellulosic fuel to mix with gas, why can't you admit it? I am dealing with Obamatons here.
"EPA's own tracking system indicating that zero gallons of cellulosic fuel were commercially available in 2011."
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 01:52PM
|
Quote
cbelt3
"EPA has the authority to waive completely or in part the cellulosic biofuel consumption mandates
established in EISA, given certain circumstances.13 For instance, the Administrator may waive the
cellulosic biofuel requirement if the Administrator determines, after public notice and opportunity
for comment, that there is an inadequate domestic supply.14"
It's irrelevant. Nothing to see here. move along.
You have used this line one too many times. It is not cute anymore, you know? There is PLENTY here. I am surprised you don't have a story about advising some Asian country on making cellulosic biofuel.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: June 22, 2012 01:56PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: $tevie
Date: June 22, 2012 02:10PM
|
I hate to say this, but the New York Times seems to back up Avenger's version of this argument.
[www.nytimes.com]
"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno
[www.nytimes.com]
"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Pam
Date: June 22, 2012 02:27PM
|
Quote
$tevie
I hate to say this, but the New York Times seems to back up Avenger's version of this argument.
[www.nytimes.com]
If he had left Obama out it would have been ok. Blaming this on Obama is flat out lying. Which is all he cares about anyway. More fishing and distortion.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: $tevie
Date: June 22, 2012 02:40PM
|
Quote
Pam
Quote
$tevie
I hate to say this, but the New York Times seems to back up Avenger's version of this argument.
[www.nytimes.com]
If he had left Obama out it would have been ok. Blaming this on Obama is flat out lying. Which is all he cares about anyway. More fishing and distortion.
True. Folks like Avenger and Swampy are trying to blame everything on Obama these days. I'm surprised they haven't tried to pin our heat wave on him yet.
"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 02:46PM
|
Quote
Pam
Quote
$tevie
I hate to say this, but the New York Times seems to back up Avenger's version of this argument.
[www.nytimes.com]
If he had left Obama out it would have been ok. Blaming this on Obama is flat out lying. Which is all he cares about anyway. More fishing and distortion.
Alright, I retract the Obama part. Are you willing now to admit this is a dumb rule and needs to be retracted? Didn't think so.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 02:49PM
|
Quote
$tevie
I hate to say this, but the New York Times seems to back up Avenger's version of this argument.
[www.nytimes.com]
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: davester
Date: June 22, 2012 02:54PM
|
Quote
Avenger
Alright, I retract the Obama part. Are you willing now to admit this is a dumb rule and needs to be retracted? Didn't think so.
Hahahahahaha! All the best lies have a grain of truth inserted in them. You are retracting your main point in order to preserve outrage over your grain of truth. Sorry, but people who post endless streams of misleading (at best) rubbish from right wing nutters don't deserve responses to their rubbish.
"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Pam
Date: June 22, 2012 03:11PM
|
Quote
Avenger
Quote
Pam
Quote
$tevie
I hate to say this, but the New York Times seems to back up Avenger's version of this argument.
[www.nytimes.com]
If he had left Obama out it would have been ok. Blaming this on Obama is flat out lying. Which is all he cares about anyway. More fishing and distortion.
Alright, I retract the Obama part. Are you willing now to admit this is a dumb rule and needs to be retracted? Didn't think so.
You don't give a rat's ass about the rule. Your opening statement showed what you cared about, trashing Obama.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 03:35PM
|
Quote
Pam
Quote
Avenger
Quote
Pam
Quote
$tevie
I hate to say this, but the New York Times seems to back up Avenger's version of this argument.
[www.nytimes.com]
If he had left Obama out it would have been ok. Blaming this on Obama is flat out lying. Which is all he cares about anyway. More fishing and distortion.
Alright, I retract the Obama part. Are you willing now to admit this is a dumb rule and needs to be retracted? Didn't think so.
You don't give a rat's ass about the rule. Your opening statement showed what you cared about, trashing Obama.
Didn't think so was right. BTW, I have a barrel of cellulosic ethanol to sell. Do you want it?
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 03:37PM
|
Quote
davester
Quote
Avenger
Alright, I retract the Obama part. Are you willing now to admit this is a dumb rule and needs to be retracted? Didn't think so.
Hahahahahaha! All the best lies have a grain of truth inserted in them. You are retracting your main point in order to preserve outrage over your grain of truth. Sorry, but people who post endless streams of misleading (at best) rubbish from right wing nutters don't deserve responses to their rubbish.
You still have nothing to say on this other than the usual whining.
ps
In this country we say "trash". How long does it take to learn the language?
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: June 22, 2012 03:44PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: davester
Date: June 22, 2012 03:44PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 03:44PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: btfc
Date: June 22, 2012 03:50PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Pam
Date: June 22, 2012 03:52PM
|
Quote
Avenger
Quote
Pam
Quote
Avenger
Quote
Pam
Quote
$tevie
I hate to say this, but the New York Times seems to back up Avenger's version of this argument.
[www.nytimes.com]
If he had left Obama out it would have been ok. Blaming this on Obama is flat out lying. Which is all he cares about anyway. More fishing and distortion.
Alright, I retract the Obama part. Are you willing now to admit this is a dumb rule and needs to be retracted? Didn't think so.
You don't give a rat's ass about the rule. Your opening statement showed what you cared about, trashing Obama.
Didn't think so was right. BTW, I have a barrel of cellulosic ethanol to sell. Do you want it?
Still trying to deflect eh? Won't work. Your only interest in the issue has nothing to do with the issue.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: john dough
Date: June 22, 2012 04:00PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: cbelt3
Date: June 22, 2012 04:02PM
|
Is it a dumb rule ?
Of course. It was dumb when it was proposed back in, oh, what, 2002 I think ? And championed by Republicans with large Farm companies behind them.
I'm pretty sure we had a reasonably intelligent discussion around here about the merits and lack of same with using high cellulose content materials to make 'biofuel', and how relatively energy inefficient it was due to the poor conversion process that was and still is available. There are better biological materials available that can be converted into fuel type liquids... Algae, Brazil's Switch grass (yes... cellulose appears there), etcetera.
The creation of a law that specifies a specific material is, as always, a pork barrel law. Which is something Congress specializes in. Congress creating this stupid monster. Congress needs to fix it. The EPA "Could" have exempted companies from these (small) fines. They did not.
A $2-$10 M fine against an industry that had profits in the $Billions is a case of 'see me crying'. It's nothing. Fart in a windstorm.
So I repeat my statement. This is a small fillip of governmental stupidity against the backdrop of massive governmental and politician stupidity in so many other areas that it boggles the imagination. Perhaps you may wish to refer to the Congress funded parachuting of $Billions into Iraq and Afghanistan, which funds were often rerouted to Iran as payment for weapons by Al-Quaeda and the Taliban to use against US and allied soldiers ?
Now THAT was massively stupid. At the same time we were able to:
1- Enrich a pariah state (Iran) and possibly provide funds to enable them to build nuclear weapons to use against us.
2- Provide funds for weapons to be used to kill Americans.
3- Convince our allies in the area that we were congenital idiots.
Of course. It was dumb when it was proposed back in, oh, what, 2002 I think ? And championed by Republicans with large Farm companies behind them.
I'm pretty sure we had a reasonably intelligent discussion around here about the merits and lack of same with using high cellulose content materials to make 'biofuel', and how relatively energy inefficient it was due to the poor conversion process that was and still is available. There are better biological materials available that can be converted into fuel type liquids... Algae, Brazil's Switch grass (yes... cellulose appears there), etcetera.
The creation of a law that specifies a specific material is, as always, a pork barrel law. Which is something Congress specializes in. Congress creating this stupid monster. Congress needs to fix it. The EPA "Could" have exempted companies from these (small) fines. They did not.
A $2-$10 M fine against an industry that had profits in the $Billions is a case of 'see me crying'. It's nothing. Fart in a windstorm.
So I repeat my statement. This is a small fillip of governmental stupidity against the backdrop of massive governmental and politician stupidity in so many other areas that it boggles the imagination. Perhaps you may wish to refer to the Congress funded parachuting of $Billions into Iraq and Afghanistan, which funds were often rerouted to Iran as payment for weapons by Al-Quaeda and the Taliban to use against US and allied soldiers ?
Now THAT was massively stupid. At the same time we were able to:
1- Enrich a pariah state (Iran) and possibly provide funds to enable them to build nuclear weapons to use against us.
2- Provide funds for weapons to be used to kill Americans.
3- Convince our allies in the area that we were congenital idiots.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: August West
Date: June 22, 2012 04:02PM
|
Quote
Who is Dakota?
A pathetic imbecile who was exiled from MRF. I think the reasons why many people consider Dakota pathetic are not limited to his inability to comprehend simple facts, but also, because after his removal from MRF, he crawled back under another name. Laughable.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: cbelt3
Date: June 22, 2012 04:03PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: cbelt3
Date: June 22, 2012 04:06PM
|
Quote
August West
A pathetic imbecileQuote
Who is .... ?
Please--- ad hominem is never useful. While trollish posting may engender trollish responses, it does not elevate the discourse. I prefer to avoid the personalities, while working with the best opinion and information I can assemble in the time I have to play.
Besides.... it's more fun to have a battle of wits against a unarmed opponent
(Darn... I did it myself.
)| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 04:43PM
|
Quote
cbelt3
Is it a dumb rule ?
Of course. It was dumb when it was proposed back in, oh, what, 2002 I think ? And championed by Republicans with large Farm companies behind them.
I'm pretty sure we had a reasonably intelligent discussion around here about the merits and lack of same with using high cellulose content materials to make 'biofuel', and how relatively energy inefficient it was due to the poor conversion process that was and still is available. There are better biological materials available that can be converted into fuel type liquids... Algae, Brazil's Switch grass (yes... cellulose appears there), etcetera.
The creation of a law that specifies a specific material is, as always, a pork barrel law. Which is something Congress specializes in. Congress creating this stupid monster. Congress needs to fix it. The EPA "Could" have exempted companies from these (small) fines. They did not.
A $2-$10 M fine against an industry that had profits in the $Billions is a case of 'see me crying'. It's nothing. Fart in a windstorm.
So I repeat my statement. This is a small fillip of governmental stupidity against the backdrop of massive governmental and politician stupidity in so many other areas that it boggles the imagination. Perhaps you may wish to refer to the Congress funded parachuting of $Billions into Iraq and Afghanistan, which funds were often rerouted to Iran as payment for weapons by Al-Quaeda and the Taliban to use against US and allied soldiers ?
Now THAT was massively stupid. At the same time we were able to:
1- Enrich a pariah state (Iran) and possibly provide funds to enable them to build nuclear weapons to use against us.
2- Provide funds for weapons to be used to kill Americans.
3- Convince our allies in the area that we were congenital idiots.
Belty, you started well but just couldn't help it. Could you add a number 4 how biofuels relate to the Contras arms diversion?
As to poohing poohing the fine, I guarantee you that you and I will pay that fine and you won't get one extra drop of that cellulosic ethanol in return. I don't care who wrote the law, Republican or Democrat.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: btfc
Date: June 22, 2012 04:46PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Dennis S
Date: June 22, 2012 07:41PM
|
Quote
Avenger
Quote
davester
Quote
Avenger
Alright, I retract the Obama part. Are you willing now to admit this is a dumb rule and needs to be retracted? Didn't think so.
Hahahahahaha! All the best lies have a grain of truth inserted in them. You are retracting your main point in order to preserve outrage over your grain of truth. Sorry, but people who post endless streams of misleading (at best) rubbish from right wing nutters don't deserve responses to their rubbish.
You still have nothing to say on this other than the usual whining.
ps
In this country we say "trash". How long does it take to learn the language?
"The only fact you need to know is that EPA is mandating the use of a fantom fuel. You had a chance to respond but you didn't because you can't." - Dakota
Int his country, we spell it "phantom", not "fantom."
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 09:02PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Dennis S
Date: June 22, 2012 10:16PM
|
That's a lousy way to spell it. Look here:
[www.google.com]
and then tell me why you would use an archaic spelling. If you're going to live in America, spell it the American way: phantom.
[www.google.com]
and then tell me why you would use an archaic spelling. If you're going to live in America, spell it the American way: phantom.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 22, 2012 11:33PM
|
Take it up with [www.thefreedictionary.com], buddy.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: $tevie
Date: June 22, 2012 11:44PM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: $tevie
Date: June 22, 2012 11:47PM
|
[www.thefreedictionary.com]
"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno
"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Grateful11
Date: June 23, 2012 07:00AM
|
Quote
Pam
Geez, this started under Bush and the mandates have been lowered year after year. Where's the beef?
[www.technologyreview.com]
My brother hit me up with this one the other day. I fired a link back at him showing where this got started under Bush.
People like Dak love to avoid things like "Facts", just like Bush did.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2012 07:26AM by Grateful11.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Bill in NC
Date: June 23, 2012 07:33AM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Grateful11
Date: June 23, 2012 07:33AM
|
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Pam
Date: June 23, 2012 07:51AM
|
Quote
Bill in NC
It's really hard to make ethanol from cellulose.
We should drop ALL domestic subsidies and just allow refiners to buy it on the world market.
The cheapest would be ethanol from sugarcane, which would benefit several lower-income countries.
The Navy is still highly interested in biofuels. This is a great path for testing, researching, and developing new technologies.
| Re: Mandating a non-existant fuel Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: June 23, 2012 08:06AM
|
First he's so petty as to criticize someone for using the word "rubbish"...
Then he has the audacity to say...
Is there not a better definition of an irrational individual?
Quote
Avenger
In this country we say "trash". How long does it take to learn the language?
Then he has the audacity to say...
Quote
Avenger
>>Int his country, we spell it "phantom", not "fantom."<<
Really? I was ready for you. I checked first!
phan·tom also fan·tom (fntm)
n.
1.
a. Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.
b. Something elusive or delusive.
Is there not a better definition of an irrational individual?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Contact Us
|
Advertising
MacResource.com respects your privacy. Read our Privacy Statement. Use of MacResource.com and the Forums are subject to the Terms of Service. Read our TOS. ©1996 - 2013 Price.com; All Rights Reserved. All other copyrights are property of their respective holders.