biofuel loses fight with california pollution regulators - portable ozone generator

The biofuels industry has struggled with California regulators on rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from various fuels, including corn. based ethanol.
California Aviation Resources Commission (CARB)
The controversial low-carbon fuel standard was approved late Thursday, which will force fuel producers to reduce the "carbon intensity" of their products by 10% by 2020.
"They made a huge mistake in demonizing the first generation of biofuels," said Brooke Coleman of the new fuel Alliance, a biofuels lobby group.
Coleman said the new regulation was a "biased regulation that would squeeze investment out of all biofuels.
Carbon intensity is the cause of the controversy.
This is a rating system designed to classify each unit of energy they produce based on the greenhouse gases generated by each fuel.
CARB Chairman Mary Nichols touted the board's decision to predict that the new rules will reduce air pollution, create new jobs and "continue California's leadership in tackling global warming ".
Ethanol makers say the rating system unfairly takes their U. S. -made corn-
The fuel for massive deforestation-not in the United States, but in developing countries.
Ethanol critics say the entire biofuel industry should take global responsibility to clean up trees and plant crops used to make fuel.
Since these rules were put forward, they have received considerable attention. Several U. S.
Countries are considering similar measures, and even the EU is watching with great interest.
During the months of intense debate, there has been a lot of strong comments on the issue.
So, what do you think of the ruling? Fire away!
In other news, CNN's iReport wants to know what you think about the iPhone app.
How do you use them?
What do you like best?
Tell us about your iPhone app experience!
It is very stupid to grind corn into fuel according to climate change energy environment ethanol fuel classification.
Both economically and ecologically, it makes no sense.
There is a lesson in this story that is the method of rotation and madness.
The torture way the new fuel Alliance people build this problem is the classic rotation.
Anyway, why are they using food as fuel?
There are better methods, but none of them are so profitable for corn growers.
I don't know anything about how the rating system is developed.
However, it seems to backfire if the rainforest is banned from producing corn farms.
At least in the United States, zoning regulations seem to be the answer to this question.
As far as foreign countries are concerned. . . .
Hell, they can't stop suicide-why do we expect them to follow the rules about land.
All these "low carbon", "greenhouse gas" things are a bunch of crap made up by governments and industrial lobbyists to force us on a certain path.
We need a "bloody revolution" in this country "!
Studies of cellulose still need to be carried out, but the clearing of the land cultivated for biofuels needs to be stopped unless they plant trees and plants to better clean the air in order to maintain the quality of the soil, rotating crops can do this in a sustainable way, but food stocks for fuel seem to be money in the bank, not food for hungry people.
California needs to slide into the ocean sugar cane ethanol much more efficiently than corn ethanol.
The allegations that trees will be destroyed to build farmland are incorrect.
For example, the soil in the Amazon forest is not suitable for harvesting.
More people are worth standing in the forest.
There are better options for agriculture. . .
The first generation of biofuels (from crops)
There are too many shortcomings.
Second and third generation biofuels (
Waste of crops, non-grain crops, algae fuels, etc. )
More viable and sustainable solutions will be offered.
Until then, the future of alternative fuels is power, more specifically, advanced battery technology driven by renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and even clean coal (
If it ever does)and nuclear.
In Minnesota, we did a great job of advancing ethanol technology.
But even our eyes are looking further, mostly algae-based fuels that can grow on abandoned lands or deserts and run in engines
Our own University of Minnesota is helping to deliver on this exciting new technology, and I encourage you to look at the many companies involved in this effort.
Because farmers can get carbon credit to improve no-
Will this really make corn-based ethanol the best fuel source until corn?
Wouldn't the EPA's ethanol use authorization replace anything California does?
Biofuels are often used as silver bullets. They are not.
They can make small positive contributions to tackling climate change . . . . . . But only if our policies are correct.
The current EU policy is largely wrong.
The first generation of biofuels requires a lot of land.
The pressure of the environment is inevitable.
Biofuels are not carbon neutral.
Their greenhouse gas performance varies greatly. (
These institutions need to do appropriate research before blindly passing these rulings.
Ethanol fuel is carbon neutral.
Carbon released into the atmosphere is consumed by the next crop planted to replenish carbon.
Second, any bad decision made by other countries in the pursuit of ethanol should be taken lightly, of course, but this is done to condemn the United States --
The underlying variants of the industry did not make those bad decisions, but were very ignorant.
The last time I checked, we didn't have ethanol producers cutting down forests to clean up forests and grow new crops.
Third, I sincerely hope that some organizations and industry leaders will not be singled out.
Focus on corn as a source of ethanol.
There are more reliable plants that provide more fuel per regiment even when combined with agricultural waste. (
Willow branches, for example).
Fourth, I would rather see the efforts they have made for these rulings than will not
Farm subsidies (
Subsidies to willow branches.
It's time to stop letting foreign oil rule our economy.
Cellulose ethanol from willow switch will be the fastest way to achieve this goal. . .
First Oil Company (Exxon? , Shell? )
This step, and make this reality, will make the killings in the coming decades.
Although their efforts with Iogen are not enough to satisfy my taste, the Shell seems to be trying at least.
"Continue California's leadership in tackling global warming.