Schizophrenic government needs treatment

The government needs mental help. If counseling doesn't work, voting out those whose interests lie with party lines or fossil fuels, or anywhere else but in national security, environmental responsibility and future prosperity, may provide treatment.

By Ron Kotrba | May 23, 2012

Schizophrenia is rampant in the U.S. government. Stories and speculation of Congress stripping the defense department of funding for biofuel initiatives are all over the wire.

This is a government whose stated mission is to increase energy independence, whose position in a world without energy security is in jeopardy without stable, secure access to raw materials; whose domestic, renewable industries have the productive capacity to aid in this mission, the future capacity of which, with investment, will only grow geometrically; whose lawmakers have let expire incentives with paybacks greater than the tax dollars spent on them; whose partisan lawmakers, or those blinded by powerful fossil fuel constituencies, intend to repeal Section 526 of the 2007 energy bill or block funding of the $510 million MOU between the Navy, USDA and DOE to establish strategically located advanced biofuel production facilities; and for what? To save a few dollars?

For those lawmakers who will refuse funding the military’s biofuel initiatives, consider this. When America’s newfound oil reserves have run dry, when all the fracking has compromised even further our nation’s water supplies and deep well drilling has polluted our seas beyond repair, when the Saudis plug the spigot and volatile extremists sabotage major oil routes and it costs you $100 to drive to the corner to pick up a coffee and the paper, I hope you find those few extra dollars that you saved by crippling the very industries that could have prevented this outcome.

And it’s not just the federal government that is battling split personality with renewables. The wire has also been filled with articles about Ohio's auditor Dave Yost saying state lawmakers should consider getting rid of a mandate that state agency vehicles use B20 biodiesel. It costs $800,000 a year to do so, he says. Ohio is home to several biodiesel producers. I wonder how they feel about the auditor’s recommendation.

Yes, budgets are tight, we all recognize that. But when I go to a convenience store in a city that has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation, and I get caught behind a fully capable, healthy looking man in his late 20s—the prime of a man’s life—and he is using an EBT card (electronic food stamps) to buy soda pop and beef jerky, I know there is a lot of waste in the budget that can be trimmed without compromising national security. But it sure seems like the U.S. finds a little oil in western North Dakota and the next thing you know, the government is repealing smart, prudent renewable policy, leaving domestic, advanced biofuel producers to die on the vine. And that ain’t right.

7 Responses

bioman

2012-05-23
1

Well said Ron.
kirk cobb

2012-05-23
2

Right ON! Ron Kotrba, Yes, the federal government is short on cash; all the state governments are short on cash; I guess us tax payers should just shut down; close up; go home; do nothing! It is cheaper for government to do nothing, let infrastructure rot and collapse; let retirees and WW2 vetrans starve and die; it's a lot cheaper to do nothing! But why are we all short of cash? Because big corporations don't give a damn about the US worker, the US consumer - build plants overseas where corporations can hire slave labor, and make all the fat cats rich; who cares about the US - shut down NASA - we can't afford it anymore! But, if American workers are out of work, don't earn a wage, then they pay no taxes, and the Federal and state governments go broke. The "job creators" are the consumers, but consumers have to be wage earners first; American businesses will not expand production and add workers if no one can purchase their products. When will the "do nothing" politicians figure out that when workers earn wages, they then become consumers, which then generates demand for goods, which then increases demand for production. Are we convinced that if renewable fuels are more expensive today to produce than petroleum and fracked natural gas, we should just abandon renewables? The folks making these decisions are very short sited!
Casey

2012-05-23
3

Hear, hear!
Peter

2012-05-23
4

Thanks for setting the record straight - ignorance is contagious
Cliff Claven

2012-05-23
5

Now that rigorous life-cycle studies are finally emerging, it turns out that liquid biofuels are worse that fossil fuels across the board. 1. They are more damaging to the environment (deforestation and land use change, increased land and water poisoning from fertilizer nitrates, same or worse combustion emissions) 2. Larger greenhouse gas footprint (carbon and nitrous oxide released from fossil fuels and fertilizers in cultivation). 3. Huge water footprint (10,000 liters of water per liter of fuel, compared to less than 7 for gasoline). 4. Negative energy balance (costing more energy to make than they provide back to civilization). 5. More volatile in price that oil, and their price tracks oil (when oil went up 6% over Libya crisis, ethanol went up 8%). 6. Contain less energy per gallon than diesel or gasoline unless hydrotreated (a process which delivers a small increase in performance and reduced emissions at high cost, and can also be done to diesel and gasoline if consumers want to pay more for it. Conclusion: When the billions in annual subsidies end and the water crisis afflicting 1/3 of the world today grows big enough to transform water from a subsidized public utility into a global cash and carry commodity, biofuels will instantly expire with a whimper. There is no national security in biofuels. The schizophrenia is with the Dr. Chu's and other "scientists" beholden to the Administration who know the facts of energy density and EROI and climate change and global petroleum abundance yet continue to promote liquid biofuels.
Roman Wolff

2012-05-23
6

Thanks Ron, in addition to the eloquent opinion you presented, the blog readers might benefit from the document below, a rigorous life cycle studies for biodiesel showing a 4.53 FER (it produces 4.53 times the energy it consumes). As I understand it, Soybean uses little fertilizer and water and that can be allocated to the soymeal (80% of the production). http://www.biodiesel.org/reports/20110501_gen-428.pdf On to Palm Oil, I hear that palm oil producers are offeing certificates of sustainability... To repeat the general biodiesel plusses: non-toxic, biodegradable, lower pollution, higher cetane (better engine performance), higher lubricity (longer engine life), distributed (lower risk) production, more local jobs, reduce trade imbalance, no wars over Iowa (or Minnesota, or Nebraska or ...). Biodiesel, what's not to like?
Kirk Cobb

2012-05-25
7

Hey there, Cliff Claven, which petroleum company do you work for? Or is it Fox News! Would you believe that all the mountain glaciers in the world are no longer melting, but growing? Are you also predicting a new Ice Age? Some people think if they spread "alternate opinions" (ie: lies) often enough, others will start believing them. Good luck with that. But, ultimately the truth will win out.

Biodiesel Magazine encourages civil conversation and debate. However, comments containing personal attacks, profanity, business solicitations or other advertising will be deleted.

Comments are closed

Schizophrenic government needs treatment

7 Responses

Leave a Reply