You might recall that in Jay Inslee’s “best-selling” book Apollo’s Fire (currently available for one penny), the former bulldozer driver predicted great things for cellulosic ethanol. In fact, he thought it would be the breakthrough source that would render fossil fuels irrelevant.
Umm, not so much, as it turns out.
This week the Government Accountability Office delivered a scathing review of the government’s Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), which passed back when Inslee was in Congress. According to the Morning Consult, “the development of biofuels hasn’t moved as quickly as Congress anticipated when it first passed the RFS in 2005, according to the report. The EPA’s biofuel requirements under the RFS for 2014 through 2017 have all fallen short of the goals first laid out when the program was created. In particular, the program envisioned far more cellulosic ethanol.”
The final verdict: “The Environmental Protection Agency’s requirements on mixing ethanol and other biofuels into the U.S. gasoline supply isn’t likely to meet the program’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a Government Accountability Office report.”
Of course, you probably won’t hear much from Inslee on the failure of his chosen fuel. That won’t work with his plans to try and jam through a cap-and-trade energy tax increase next year.
But remember, Inslee doesn’t have a very good record for predicting the energy future – just in raising money from his chosen winners in that future.
All part of the “Generation of Failure” King County liberals foisted on us for another four years.
From the full report: “The timeline to bring a new technology from laboratory scale to commercial scale is 12 years if everything works well, and it can be considerably longer.”
Jay Inslee helped write the standard in 2005. Does anyone at Shift have any idea whether that was more or less than 12 years ago?
In reality, something like this should have taken far less time to prove itself. How long should energy hungry Americans wait to determine if some hair-brained scheme will “save the planet”…12 years, 20…50?
Thank God, people like Inslee weren’t a driving force when the Industrial Revolution began…we’d probably still be using horse and buggy (no offense to Pennsylvanians).
In reality, something like this should have taken far less time to prove itself.
From the full report: “The timeline to bring a new technology from laboratory scale to commercial scale is 12 years if everything works well, and it can be considerably longer.”
Thanks for playing.
“Considerably longer” is not a timeline…it’s a guess and not a very educated one, at that. To me, that statement implies that there is little hope of the technology ever being viable. However, the government will continue to fund “research” on it AND fund subsidies to make it look like they’ve made some kind improvement over fossil fuels.
…it’s a guess and not a very educated one, at that.
Then you should complain to Shift for having based this post upon a source you do not consider to be valid. (Please do let us know Shift’s response.)
To me, that statement implies that there is little hope of the technology ever being viable.
So, did you get this implication from your doctorate in biochemistry and your decades of experience in moving new products and processes “from laboratory scale to commercial scale”, or did you just yank it straight from your bum? Because you haven’t cited any documented source for your claim.
However, the government will continue to fund “research” on it AND fund subsidies to make it look like they’ve made some kind improvement over fossil fuels.
Actually, the source document I quoted has something to say on those points. Let us know when you find it.
“So, did you get this implication from your doctorate in biochemistry and your decades of experience in moving new products and processes “from laboratory scale to commercial scale”, or did you get it from somewhere else?”
More of your standard deflection, comrade context. Go back read where you got the quote from again: “The timeline to bring a new technology from laboratory scale to commercial scale is 12 years if everything works well, and it can be considerably longer.” is one of the six reasons listed as why the RFS is FAILING and unlikely to ever succeed. Although I’m sure bringing it up that it hasn’t been 12 years yet fooled your fellow Democrats.
More of your standard deflection, comrade context.
The context here is Randy’s claim, In reality, something like this should have taken far less time to prove itself. He did not (and has not) given any reason for his claim, and you haven’t either, Commissar of All The Contexts.
The context is the article you’re anonymously taking snippets of while futilely trying to make some anonymous point about “huh, huh, it hasn’t been twelve years yet, huh, huh, huh”, when the context of that quote is one of six reasons why the RFS is failing and unlikely to ever succeed. Again, I’m sure you managed to pull the wool over the eyes of your fellow Democrats with that gyration. The thinking adults among us? Not so much.
The context is the article…
The silly pile of garbage that is this post, you mean? Of course I’m
having fun with it, as it was clearly written by someone who has no idea of the topics involved. Standards, codes, and regulations get devised, revised, and rewritten all of the time, especially in response to changing technological developments. This non-news wound up here because the (truly) anonymous author of this dreck was casting about for some attack upon Inslee which could sound sophisticated.
Ironically, the (really) anonymous author didn’t actually make the connection, because he’s too ignorant of Inslee’s actual career to positively identify Inslee as one of the authors of the standard.
“Of course I’m obsessively trolling it, being someone who has no idea of the topics involved”
“Standards, codes, and regulations get devised, revised, and rewritten all of the time, especially in panicked response to them failing and being unlikely to ever succeed”
You should stop all the grammatical errors, comrade. Back to ESL with you.
8 days ago:
Jay Inslee helped write the standard in 2005
7 days ago:
“What was his part in “helping”?”
“I don’t know. Shift seems to believe he had some part in writing the standard”
2 days ago:
“he’s too ignorant of Inslee’s actual career to positively identify Inslee as one of the authors of the standard”
Hmm… Despite the fact that YOU anonymously inserted this topic in the thread 8 days ago, 7 days ago you anonymously claimed to not know what Greenie’s involvement was, instead stating “Shift seems to believe he had some part in writing the standard”, then 2 days ago you anonymously slam someone for not being able to positively identify him as “one of the authors of the standard” Which lie is not a lie, comrade Lying Democrat?
This epic bit of transference almost certainly hoodwinked your fellow King County Democrats, although it would have packed more punch to add “Trump bad” (Oh, sorry. It would have to be “Republican President-Elect bad”, since you’re unable to even anonymously type his name)
…unlikely to ever succeed”
You should stop all the grammatical errors, comrade. Back to ESL with you.
Will there be a lesson in punctuation?
The standard didn’t fail here, genius. That could have happened only if industry had actually met the standard and then goals behind the standard had not been met.
As far as the rest of your recount, Captain Obvious, maybe I was hinting you should have done your own research, rather than just asking me? Maybe I was also hinting you could take Shift to task for the huge holes in the “reporting” Shift endlessly claims to have done?
Here’s another hint: compare the book title Shift gave with the title of the bill Inslee helped to write. Notice any similarities?
Heard the same thing during carter admin-same wishful thinking just different faces. That is why many older folks like myself skeptical about alternative fuels. How many windmills and solar panels do you see out side government owned buildings. If it was easy, as my grandparents had a windmill supplying energy to their chicken coup in the 20’s, we would have mass wind solar and biofuel use- can’t tell young folks nothing. They will riot for green but oh ya that little hand held device needs a satellite launched using much coal and oil . And those Hollywood films and dvds are manufactured in dirty foreign plants using tons of dirty oil and coal so many young and stars hate
So what you’re saying is everything didn’t work well. In other words, failed. That’s what you get from the “Generation of Failure” (D)
So what you’re saying is everything didn’t work well.
From the full report: “The timeline to bring a new technology from laboratory scale to commercial scale is 12 years if everything works well, and it can be considerably longer.”
In other words, failed.
Has it been “12 years” since Jay Inslee helped to write the standard, or has it been “considerably longer”? Do let us know.
So you’re holding out hope it will magically succeed in the next month? Just like a Democrat.
“Jay Inslee helped to write the standard”
What was his part in “helping”? Did he get to hold the box of crayons?
So you’re holding out hope it will magically succeed in the next month?
Well, I read it might take “considerably longer”. If you don’t agree, you can take that to the source.
Yes, I agree with forever being “considerably longer” than 12 years to draw out a failure. But Greenie apparently did a good job holding the box of crayons, so there’s a success for you.
Yes, I agree with forever being “considerably longer” than 12 years to draw out a failure.
Since you won’t admit your error, I’ll do you the immense favor of telling you the “12 years” mentioned in the source material to this post have not yet passed. (And, to answer your ignorant and bitter non-response, it is possible for sudden breakthroughs to happen.) You’re so eager to call someone else a failure that you don’t even bother to check the criteria for success before you do so.
In other words, you’re a failure at declaring someone else a failure.
What was his part in “helping”?
I don’t know. Shift seems to believe he had some part in writing the standard, or otherwise bears some responsibility for the supposed “failing” of it, so you can go ask them to clarify what they mean. (Good luck with that.)
“Shift seems to believe he had some part in writing the standard”
It seems the only one who believes Greenie had any part in writing the standard is you, comrade Democrat (D). His name appears nowhere in the full report by the GAO or the ‘Morning Consult’ article and he isn’t cited anywhere in the article you’re anonymously commenting on as “helping write the standard”. In fact, YOU are the first one who brought this tidbit into the thread; “Jay Inslee helped write the standard in 2005” (3rd comment in the thread). In the entire article, links, thread, the only references to his involvement come from YOU. Where do you get the idea that “Shift seems to believe he had some part in writing the standard”? Again, while it almost certainly fooled your fellow Democrats, that epic failure confirmed your proud membership in the “Generation of Failure” (D).
It seems the only one who believes Greenie had any part in writing the standard is you, comrade Democrat (D). His name appears nowhere in the full report by the GAO …
Try reading the original bill. He was on the committee which wrote it, and he was the sponsor of the bill in Congress.
… he isn’t cited anywhere in the article you’re anonymously commenting on as “helping write the standard”.
Why do you believe a post by Shift would contain actual, real information which is valid to the stated topic of the post?
In fact, YOU are the first one who brought this tidbit into the thread;
Yep. I know this thing called “history”. You should try it sometime!
Where do you get the idea that “Shift seems to believe he had some part in writing the standard”?
His name appears in the first sentence of the post.
Stupid doesn’t make cars move, warm homes, or keep the lights on. Burning our food is just about as STUPID as anyone can get.