| Comment | Now, Table 6 on pages 48-49 of the Modified Proposed Regulation
Order give carbon intensity values for corn ethanol that would
lead some to believe some forms of it marginally superior to
gasoline. By contrast, the selfsame table gives carbon values
for electricity that are in excess of that for standard
gasoline.
By contrast, Table 5 on page 44 gives an Energy Economy Ratio
for electricity that is thrice that for all forms of ethanol.
Table 6 tends to favor some forms of corn ethanol over
electricity.
Table 5 tends to favor electricity over all forms of ethanol.
Thus, there is a conflict of incentivisation between Tables 5 &
6. Given all that is known about the indirect land use effects
of corn ethanol, especially those impacting global food
commodity prices & the impact of that on the world's poor, the
idea of incentivising corn ethanol, to any extent, would most
certainly seem rather repugnant, one would think.
Interestingly, the carbon intensity values given for electricity
in Table 6 do not seem reflective of the carbon intensity of
hydro-power.
One would well note that big agribusiness lobbying interests are
simultaneously arguing for incentivising corn ethanol, which
would most certainly impose inflationary pressures on global
food commodity prices (thus increasing portfolio valuations for
food commodity speculators) AND for the creation of a
Peripheral Canal, which canal is manifestly designed to
reduce hydro-electric generation capacity by increasing
reservoir draw down rates at the same time that water is,
by virtue of said canal, taken away from farms, ranches, towns,
cities, etc., in all locations north of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta.
Why even give the appearance of giving in to THAT by at all
incentivising corn ethanol, a fuel whose indirect land use
effects on global food comodity prices & the debate over the
Peripheral Canal, among other things, can be very
disasterous, indeed? Incentivising corn ethanol is a very bad
idea!!
Needless to say, the differences of incentivisation between
Table 5 on page 44 & Table 6 on pages 48-49 need to be
properly reconciled. Thank you.
|
|---|