Gee Whiz, the governmental leftist NIMBYs and BANANAs are being challenged. Wonderful.

Isn't the Law of Supply and Demand a simple creation of a PUSH society.

There are 1001 ways to create a widespread demand for just about every thing.

This can be seen during democratic elections. A smart Internet program + enough $$$$$ can convince the majority to vote for just about anybody. The same applies for junk food, clothing, larger cars, drinks, over sized homes, etc.

It is sad to admit it but demands are easily created to sell what is made available even if it can kill us. Look how junk food creats obesity responsible for most type-II diabetes, high blood pressure, artery and heart problems etc. Treating junk food related deseases cost more than oil wars and we accept it because we have been repeatedly told that is a fair demand.

C-ARB is getting themselves into a big mess. This is what happens when you put a bunch of zealous global warming fanatics on a governor appointed board, who violate the law and make a mockery out of sound economics - in order to impose their flawed political agenda.

Besides violating Interstate Commerce Law and possibly the U.S. Constitution, C-ARB also cheated on the carbon footprint of conventional biofuels, in order to disqualify them. Problem is, they won’t be able to prove indirect land use change theory in court, against biofuels. That’s because land displacement is a false claim that has Not taken place on the ground.

That’s easy to prove. For ethanol, the 2009 U.S. corn crop was 3 million acres less than it was the previous year, and the yield was roughly 10% higher per acre. The average size of our corn crop has remained about the same for over sixty years. The yield per acre has increased dramatically and will double by 2030, without increasing acreage.

Even if we ever needed additional corn acreage, it wouldn’t displace other crops or result in off-set acreage being planted in foreign countries. We have plenty of unused arable land for many years to come. Besides, if you planted too much corn, there would be a bigger surplus than we already have, and that would disrupt the current price-balance of supply and demand. Most likely, a hundred years from now, corn acreage will still be about the same, and biofuels will be based on heterotrophic algae, fed with sugars, including corn sugars, or based on something else entirely. That is, if biofuels are still around at all.

Indirect land use cahnge theory is also based on a false projection – That the number of acres planted in corn would double. That’s not going to happen. C-ARB rules should be based on fact, not conjectures.

C-ARB falsely applied indirect land use change to out of state ethanol production, partly to protect their own emerging “in-state” biofuels program, which will be unable to meet demand, with Corn Belt ethanol shut out. So California will likely fail to meet Federal blending mandates. Their response is that importing foreign ethanol from Brazil is more favorable than importing American domestic ethanol. That’s False. By the time you harvest Brazilian sugarcane by hand, burn it for production power, burn what’s left over in the field, ship it from refineries to the dock, load it onto ocean going ships burning bunker, the dirtiest fuel available, then ship it thousands of miles to terminals in California and distribute it to retail outlets – It’s Not going to be environmentally superior to shipping American ethanol from the Corn Belt. Furthermore, Brazil had a below average sugarcane crop this year. They dropped their own blend of ethanol in gasoline from 25% to 20%. So what makes C-ARB think they can get all the ethanol they need from Brazil? The 54 cent per gallon import tariff also impacts the price.

C-ARB illegally incorporated the controversial indirect land use change theory into their rules, without scientific proof or independent peer review, especially in the realm of agricultural economics. Instead, C-ARB foolishly rode the coattails of the EPA’s false assumptions, and a fraudulent EPA peer review of the theory. Like the EPA, C-ARB also used outdated and inaccurate information, for corn and ethanol production and co-products. The footprint of corn ethanol is evolving. It’s a lot better than C-ARB portrays it.

Also weighing-in on C-ARB’s arrogant application of indirect land use change theory, is the formal letter of protest by 111 scientists led by 3 prominent experts. This was ignored, also a violation of state law. It will be difficult for C-ARB to explain in court - why they implemented a theory that is discredited by experts and that the EPA dumped with “serious uncertainties”.

Furthermore, rules regulating fuels should Not be carved in stone. Biofuels are evolving, and the rules should be flexible enough for adjustments to be made. For example, if farm tractors, ethanol refineries, locomotives or long haul trucks - were converted to run on 50-50 ethanol-water, processed onboard into hydrogen, that would change the environmental footprint of Corn Belt biofuels shipped into California.

The effects of C-ARB LCFS rules, as they stand, would be devastating. It would disrupt the fuel supply. Fuels could periodically be more expensive in the state, and that will further damage the California economy and increase their deficit. It could also put people in the Corn Belt out of work. Until the California biofuels industry evolves, which may take years, there could be a shortage of ethanol and petroleum in California. Whatever California rejects from out of state – that fuel will have to come from somewhere, and it could also be more expensive. C-ARB’s rules are also being used as a tactic to pick winners prematurely, by protecting emerging “pet” technologies in California, that will get a “leg up” on the competition for fuels and energy. In another sense, the state is maneuvering to “monopolize” its fuel supply, thereby restricting free enterprise and dictating which industries will win or lose – a violation of Interstate Commerce.

A low carbon fuel standard, based on scientific fact and gradually implemented, would be beneficial – but not as C-ARB has corrupted it.

USA is producing about 30% of the crude oil it consumes and has to import almost 70%. Canada has become the largest outside supplier with about 2.5 million barrels/day. That is equivalent to 50% of USA's production and 15% of USA's consumption. The other 55% is imported from 15+ other countries.

Industrial countries could produce enough sugar cane/grain ethanol and/or cellulosic ethanol to replace the 75+ million barrels/day they consume without adversed effects on food production and/or major changes in land use.

Transport vehicles, machinery, HVAC + increased industrial electrification, regardless of what many naysayers pretend, may be the best long lasting strategy to reduce oil imports and trade deficits.

Most electrified machines are inherently superior (in many ways) to ICE machines, do not have to cost more and should eventually cost less within one or two decades.

Quoth Aureon:

It could also put people in the Corn Belt out of work.

Quoth Harvey D:

Industrial countries could produce enough sugar cane/grain ethanol and/or cellulosic ethanol to replace the 75+ million barrels/day they consume without adversed effects on food production and/or major changes in land use.

There is no way that the production of ethanol can release less CO2 than just producing gasoline from coal and growing permanent trees on the corn fields instead to capture CO2. This calculation can be done from the numbers available from the US gov website that promotes ethanol. Just growing corn and preserving it in a salt mine forever whilst making gasoline from coal or natural gas will even capture far more carbon than using it for ethanol does. Without out the subsidies and mandates and tarifs, corn fuel ethanol production would vanish. Smaller more efficient engines would eliminate the need for ethanol. ..HG..

"75+ million barrels/day"

The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day,
2/3 of that is imported. We consume around 140 billion gallons of vehicle fuel per year. We can make close to 100 billion gallons of biofuel per year from 1 billion tons of biomass. Even if we could manage only 70 billion gallons of biofuel, that would reduce our oil imports more than 20% or enough to stop importing middle eastern oil.

if Americans replaced some of their meat consumption with equal calories of grain or vegetables, there'd be a net surplus of corn.if Americans replaced some of their meat consumption with equal calories of grain or vegetables, there'd be a net surplus of corn.

I think Aureon's claim of a doubling of maize yields in 20 years is risible.  Historical yields have only been beefed up because of higher inputs of chemicals, and the cost of those chemicals (esp. nitrogen) is a serious limitation.  Fixing and adding lots of nitrogen to make a product which has none is simply wasteful, as well as polluting.  Miscanthus has a much higher yield than maize and doesn't put lots of nitrogen in the harvested portion.  If we are going for raw BTU yield, non-maize crops are the way to go... but we still can't meet our needs for energy through the route of liquid fuels.  As petroleum supplies shrink, the bulk of the difference must come from electricity.

We only use 1/3 of our arable land. We could grow a lot more corn, if there was demand.

Doubling the corn yield per acre by 2030 is Not something I just made up. That’s a projection by Dupont and Danesco who are developing it. Corn yield increased by 10% in the past two years.

An additional 30 billion gallons of EtOH (energy equivalent to about 20 billion gallons of gasoline) is nice, but it comes nowhere near to replacing the US's ~140 billion gallon annual gasoline consumption.  Then there's the distillate, heating oil, jet fuel, etc.  The heavy lifting must be done by electrification, because biofuels can only be bit players.  Most of the people promoting ethanol are actually promoting petroleum (deliberately or unwittingly), because ethanol can neither replace petroleum nor undercut it on price.

The Barnett shale gas find in northwestern Louisiana will provide lot of natural gas for the country over the years. Trucks take 40% of our liquid road fuel, so if we can run them 90% on natural gas we are ahead of the game.