Anyone know what "Low Carbon Fuel" actually is?

In reply to GameboyRMH :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I'd definitely go for something closer to "leading by example" but there are other countries doing way more, like the UK and the Scandinavian countries which are quickly phasing out fossil fuels from their power grid, and especially Norway which is also aggressively switching to EVs. Norway's also a major oil exporter, but there are sayings about "a good dealer" that apply to that...
 

Without going off on a tangent on how different countries have different challenges and priorities, I'll just point out that N. Korea has a per capita CO2 output that is about 1/7th of the United States. Should we follow their lead? 
 

Speaking of the U.S.- why should one state set the example and take on the cost? If this were truly a worthwhile choice, why not adopt it federally? 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I'm not going to quote you, as it's just too much for a small post.

CA fuel now isn't nearly as unique as you make it out to be.  So why it's expensive isn't because it's so very unique.  The fact that super premium isn't available actually makes it simpler.  On top of that, instead of regional blends you see in cities, California has one blend for the whole state.  I have seen the fuel and it's blend, and have worked with it to do emissions.  So I hope you can understand that it's expensive for other reasons than it being some special blend.

So the big deal appears to be changing Ethanol to Butanol.  Again, you assume it's going to be even more expensive, I'm not so sure.  You assume because of point one- which I think is incorrect.  I look at butanol and see that it uses a very different source to make it, let alone it's not tied with the production of corn only.  So, as I see it, it's possible for it to be slightly more expensive, the same, or cheaper.  Especially since the slight fuel economy drop from E10 pretty much goes away.  I'm not sure how that is comitting large resources to a small problem.  Especially when there is a world wide EV mandate that is a considerably larger commitment of resources.  AND there's a reasonable probability that the prices of food will go down thanks to the reduction of corn demand to turn into fuel.  So as a system, this work could be a net benefit to your pocketbook.  Seems like a good plan.

As for CA doing it's part- if a country like Belgium is doing more than California is and has a smaller impact, explain why CA should not do their part?  The sum of small parts is very significant, that's kind of the point of everyone doing their part.  CA is one of the largest economies in the country of the United States of America, so relative to US output, any change California does is a significant change to the USA.  The logic of "it's small, so don't bother" makes zero sense.  We need to get past that if we are going to actually do anything.  It's small, but if everyone does small, it's big.  

And for ignoring our improvement because of a recent move of production to other countries is a red herring.  We did it for multiple decades before outsourcing work- remember, CARB started in 1968, and the huge shift to China didn't happen until the mid to late 1990s.  And now, the largest country that we outsourced the work to has been quickly cleaning up over the last decade (China).  In terms of CO2 reduction, the US isn't a leader, anyway, but we should at least do our part.  Is it perfect, no, I agree that it's not been a good thing that we exported our problems to other countries.  But that is hardly a justification of not doing things.  Actually, it's a justification of doing more than we exported.  Quite the opposite if what you thinking we should not do anything.

In reply to alfadriver :

Curious how you are unconvinced that the change will affect pricing, because the very people proposing the idea are saying that it will. From the article in the original post...

In an initial assessment released last year, the air board projected that the proposed new standard could potentially raise the per-gallon price of diesel by 59 cents and for gasoline, 47 cents, in 2025 — numbers that have turned the policy debate into a political flashpoint.

In my expirience, I can't recall the state of CA underestimating the cost of anything. Reading further, the carbon credit portion of the deal may offset some of the cost increase by raising other prices, like food and construction (because they have to buy the carbon credits.) 

You are also missing the big picture on CA's fuel. It is unique, in that our blend is different from other states and we can't simply import it when there is a supply disruption. You are also missing how our blend is produced. While the end product might not seem like anything special to you, the regulations governing it's production are much more stringent and therefore it's more costly to produce than if the same blend made were made in Texas. These changes are costly to the refineries, of which we have not added any new ones for decades, and some are now shutting down. Adding more special requirements is likely to increase cost, or even influence the shutdown of more refineries. Short version- it costs more to meet the emissions requirements of the actual production in CA. 
 

Plattitudes like "Do our part" are meaningless without measurable objectives. We need to know the cost and the benefit. Some benefit for any cost only works if we had infinite resources. Otherwise all decisions have an opportunity cost, and we may just be copying the mistakes of others. What Belgium did is meaningless without that data. We should be able to say that X$ will give us Y result (which is estimated expirience that article, it just needs to be calculated.)  If those same dollars would give us a better result invested in mass transit or solar, than why spend them inefficiently? Because it does some good is a bad answer. 

Part of the mindset could also be California is trying to force companies to finally make synthetic gasoline or some other near-derivative, which they've been claiming to be working on for decades. A sory of "Put up or shut up" kind of thing.

alfadriver said:

And now, the largest country that we outsourced the work to has been quickly cleaning up over the last decade (China).  

Yes and no:

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

Yeah, California is a E36 M3show in certain ways, and in other ways it rocks. Everything and everywhere is a combination of pros and cons. 

Considering Ca has a larger economy than most countries, why should they not try to have decarbonization goals that are aligned with the paris agreement? Any idea how these goals line up with driving innovation? Think that if they get it right it drives the ca economy? It would be great to see these things at a national level, but politics. 

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

California is not it's own country, no matter how much it thinks it is. 

Funny how people are pro-states-rights right up until they do something you don't like.

Low carbon fuel is when you piggy back your bio ethanol corn plant onto a 1.21 gigiwatt lignite coal steam power plant using their surplus heat to run your distillation process.

Wikipedia.org: Coal Creek Station

Wikipedia.org: Blue Flint Ethanol

The plant is unique in the fact that rather than burning fuels, such as coal or natural gas to drive the production process, waste heat from electrical generation at the Coal Creek Station is used.

The US$100 million plant is capable of processing 18 million bushels (460,000 metric tons) of corn to produce 50 million gallons (190 million liters) of ethanol each year, and is estimated to have a net annual economic impact of $160 million on the North Dakota economy,[2] as well as the creation of approximately 40 new jobs to run the plant.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

I can be pro state's rights and still call out bad decisions. And I am very pro state's rights, because I understand history and the intended structure of our government. At the same time, I don't like the majority of what California does. So what is your point? When my state throws money away on energy policy that would be better served with interstate cooperation, that is wasteful. When they do it with zero return on investment, it is irresponsible. This doesn't have anything to do with states rights. They have the right to do it, I have the right to vote against those that make the bad decisions. If more voters keep the bad decision makers in power, then I have the right to move my productive, high tax paying self out of the state. If I get to that point, I'm choosing a state that makes decisions more in line with my priorities. 

Unrelated to commercially available street fuels, there was an interview during the IMSA Petit Le Mans with Senior Vice President of VP Racing Fuels, Bruce Hendel, in which he and John Hindaugh discussed renewable blends currently in use (80% renewable for GTP this year and will be 100% next year for GTP).

If interested, you'll have to do some scrolling since it's a 10 hour race, but the interview begins at the 4 hour, 38 minute, 40 second mark in the link below (corresponds to the race countdown at the upper left corner of the screen of 5 hours, 27 minutes, 07 seconds, if that's any easier).

https://www.youtube.com/live/sgqLgWvA-M4?si=qY5JitoGje1_XYZX

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Like I've said, I'm really familiar with CA fuel.  Worked with different versions of it since 2000 or so.  It's less unique than Las Vegas and Phoenix- who each have their own specific blends as a deal for being a non-attainment area.  The entire state of California has one blend (well, two, since there are seasonal blends- but everyone does).  When the additive was MTBE, it was odd, but when it was changed to E10, it was just a massive specific blend of gasoline based with E10 added.  Which isn't really different than anywhere else in the entire country, except that it's the same for the whole state.  So the fuel you have may be expensive as a holdover from the previous blend, but that's been outlawed for way over a decade.  And now you have a cheap, normal blend.

And yea, I'm not convinced that the actual new blend will be more expensive.  Don't know enough about it.  I do know over the many years I've been paying attention is that the only way that has been consistent in it's way to reduce consumption was to raise the price.  So CARB has a vested interest in increasing the price to help reduce demand if they want to reduce CO2.  

As for doing it or not- I really don't get the idea that a small step should not be taken because the step is small.  If you don't make a step, then the goal will never be reached.  You can't win if you don't play.  Have you looked into other actions that California is taking to reduce CO2?  I'm betting there's more there.

But if it bothers you that much, you can move.  I remember back when I was in school at Idaho, one of the many waves of people from California happened.  Most of them moved back in pretty short order.  

I get your right to "call it out", so have fun doing that.  I don't live there, so.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I can understand how you would think that I was addressing you, but I wasn't trying to. Mainly agree with you, actually. But my point stands as a general statement. 

In reply to alfadriver :

So we have four scenarios here. 
 

#1- You are right, there is no or minimal cost increase (you said there might even be a decrease) and we take a small statistically insignificant step towards reducing CO2 reduction, with the hope that others follow the lead. Which they should, since there is little cost and possibly a net savings. All those little steps add up. Sounds great, I'm on board with any low hanging fruit improvements. I am curious why CARB wouldn't present it in such a manner, as this sounds like an easy sell.
 

#2- The numbers CARB presented are spot on, from the fuel price increases to the CO2 reduction. Back of the napkin math puts that at $485 per ton of CO2 reduced. There are more effective options at lower price points. It's not likely to be adopted outside of CA due to the aforementioned cost and will remain an insignificant step at significant cost. 

#3- My prediction- The CARB numbers are optimistic, conceived of in a bubble. In the real world, the cost to make the changes is higher. There are significant knock on effects, such as leading to the closure of some refineries due to the cost of implementing along with other legislation (already happening.) This leads to increased volatility, and larger price swings during shortages. Rather being an example, others see it as a reason to not implement it. The failure becomes an obstacle for other CO2 reduction programs, both from siphoning funds and as an example of how those programs can be wasteful. 

#4- As you alluded to, this is mostly bullE36 M3 with the main mechanism of reducing CO2 being reducing demand by increasing costs. Unfortunately I think this is very realistic and has already been implemented in other parts of our energy sector, as well as being a component of the current cost of gas. Ironically, it has also slowed the transition to EV's. Our electricity costs are so high that plugging in your car does not lead to the savings that you would enjoy elsewhere, despite the high gas prices. These high energy costs are not sustainable. Our economy runs on energy, and the cost of living in and doing business in CA has led to a mass exodus from the state, both residents and businesses. The facts don't back up your statement that people who are leaving come back. California had a decline at the last census, resulting in the first time ever that we lost representation in the house. Moreover, those leaving are among the most productive, while those that are arriving are more often in need of assistance. This is not a good plan for the future, and the leaders of CA know it. They are actually trying to implement a tax for leaving California.