But You Can't Eat Solars

An article in the Bay Journal arguing for solar farms over corn fields: Become more enlightened on the benefits of solar energy fields

In his article, Solar power’s new look: more landscape-friendly siting (April 2018), Timothy B. Wheeler wrote, “But if many cornfields turn into solar fields, it could have unforeseen consequences on land use, local economies, wildlife habitat and maybe even water quality.” Actually, we have enough scientific knowledge to foresee quite a few of those consequences — and they would be positive ones. For example:

• Cornfields are dominated by a single crop species, while the vegetation under solar fields is much more varied (native grasses, goldenrods, etc.) and thus more biodiverse. Because of these differences, the vegetation under solar fields provides much better habitat for wildlife — particularly for early-successional bird species whose populations have been declining at alarming rates. Similarly, solar fields provide much better resources for pollinating insects such as bees and butterflies than cornfields.
• Cornfields are annual row crops and, of course, farmers try to keep the growth of weeds between those rows to a minimum. This means that they have considerable amounts of bare ground and thus substantial losses of soil to erosion, together with the runoff of the nutrients that spur eutrophication, a major cause of the Bay’s dead zones. On the other hand, the meadow vegetation under solar fields is perennial, not annual, and thus provides year-round cover. So it reduces erosion and nutrient runoff significantly. This is true even compared to well-managed row crop rotations using no-till management and winter cover crops.
• Unlike cornfields, solar fields don’t require the use of insecticides, fungicides, tillage or irrigation. Nor do they require fertilizer, whether synthetically or from manure, both of which lead to water pollution.
• Solar fields provide substantially more revenue to rural landowners, with much lower costs as well as less risk. The income they generate is dependable over the long term because typical solar leases are for periods of 20 years or more.

Sure, but what if the price of corn goes through the roof, and the solar subsidy is eliminated, and the value of corn on the land is worth more than the price of the power produced?

This makes it possible for farmers to keep their land instead of having to sell it in the face of suburban sprawl.

Moreover, the benefits of converting cornfields to solar reach far beyond the farm. By reducing global warming, they slow down the rising sea levels and extreme storms that threaten communities along the Bay and far beyond.

 My usual response to the fallacious rising sea level argument:

(There's also no evidence of increasing storminess)

They also cut down on the air pollution from coal-fired electric power plants, gasoline-burning cars and natural-gas-heated offices. In this way they reduce one of the most important threats plaguing public health, manifested in such illnesses as asthma, toxic chemicals such as mercury, and smog.

Like a cornfield, a solar farm uses land and the sun’s energy to produce something that people vitally need. But it does it with a lot more positive impact on the environment — locally, across the Bay’s watershed and around the world.

And, it makes possible the transition to an economy powered by 100 percent renewable energy — the critical environmental need of the 21st century.

I can buy the argument that producing solar electricity is marginally better than growing corn to make ethanol to burn in cars. But you can't eat electricity.

Linked at Pirate's Cove in the weekly "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup" and links. Wombat-socho has "Rule 5 Sunday: Camille Paglia Approved!" open for business at The Other McCain.

GAO Predicts EPA Renewable Fuel Failure

GAO: EPA fuel program set to fail

The Environmental Protection Agency's renewable fuel program is bound to fail over the next five years, a federal watchdog agency said Monday, citing the low cost of oil and the relatively high cost of green fuels.

The Government Accountability Office released two reports showing that the EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard will not reach its 2022 production target of blending 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel per year into the nation's fuel supply, while failing to achieve its greenhouse gas emission reductions.
. . .
"It is unlikely that the goals of the RFS will be met as envisioned because there is limited production of advanced biofuels to be blended into domestic transportation fuels and limited potential for expanded production by 2022," one of the two GAO reports said.

The reports showed that advanced biofuels are the primary sticking point. Under the program, the fuels are expected to comprise nearly half of the total 2022 target. The fuels are also mandated to be lower in carbon pollution than more conventional biofuels such as corn ethanol. But without adequate production, the climate change benefits of the program have been lower than expected.

We can grow enough corn, and make enough ethanol by fermentation to satisfy the demand. However, the promise of easy and cheap fuel from random biomass (cheat grass or algae) has been like a mirage; always on the horizon, and never near.

It can't fail soon enough for me. Corn ethanol has been a disaster from every aspect. It takes more energy to produce than it produces, it's taken land out of wild area to turn into field, it's ruined motors, and it's raised food prices.

But alas, it has been a bipartisan folly, with democrat envirogreenies, and republican farm interests combining to keep this nightmare program alive. And I fear the Trump administration, with it's dependence on mid-west votes, and it's willingness to interfere in markets, is not likely to fix this.

EPA Ignores Law in Ethanol Mandates

EPA admits never studying effects of ethanol as required by law

After being repeatedly poked on the subject by the Associate Press, the Inspector General for the EPA admitted this week that the agency has simply ignored those instructions and the studies were never conducted. (AT&T Live)

The Obama administration has failed to study as legally required the impact of requiring ethanol in gasoline and ensuring that new regulations intended to address one problem do not actually make other problems worse, the Environmental Protection Agency inspector general said Thursday.
The conclusion in the new audit confirmed findings of an Associated Press investigation in November 2013. The AP said the administration never conducted studies to determine whether air and water quality benefits from adding corn-based ethanol to gasoline. Such reports to Congress were required every three years under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Can you imagine what the EPA would do if a fossil fuel or mining company simply ignored the law requiring them to study the environmental consequences of their actions?

Given the ongoing debates on the subject, up to and including arguments between the presidential candidates all through the primary battles of both parties for two straight election cycles it’s rather amazing that the EPA could simply blow this off. The topic has made it into the platform committee discussions for both parties and it engulfs a variety of questions ranging from environmental impact to government mandates. There have been hearings held on the hill and endless scholarly papers penned on both sides of the debate.

But they don't have to study it, because deep in their hearts, they have an almost religious conviction that the ethanol mandates are good for, well somebody.

Ethanol is hardly without controversy. On the production side it’s been repeatedly shown that it uses up to 300% more water than anyone expected. Vast amounts of land were converted to corn fields in the rush to cash in on the government mandate, causing all manner of environmental havoc. And the resulting fuel has been problematic at best. Consumer Reports has been warning for years that ethanol blends can destroy small engines and boat motors. In fact, this mandate has spawned an entire new industry which produces additives specifically designed to remove the ethanol which the government insists must be added to our gasoline. (There’s an unexpected government stimulus program for you.)

You see this over and over. The administration, or rather really, the permanent bureaucracy that nominally answers to the administration regardless of who is in office, decides that parts of the law that allegedly bind them into doing something will simply not be enforced. After all, who will impose the laws will on EPA? I suppose the Justice Department could, perhaps, but there's no joy in that; they'd rather spend their time looking for white collar criminals and people suspected of harboring prejudices against protected classes. And itself, another case.

EPA, like most agencies now, has men with assault rifles available to support their directives against the public, but where in the government is the agency will to deploy them against the EPA when it refuses to follow the law? Hell, they can't even hardly be fired, let alone fined if they break the law.

Couldn't We Just Drink it Instead?

The new EPA ethanol mandate will break the Blend Wall

The EPA is getting ready to finalize their new ethanol blending mandates for the nation’s gasoline supply beginning next year and industry experts are already raising the alarm. This latest chapter in the saga of the Renewable Fuel Standard will drive almost an addition three quarters of a billion gallons of the “biofuel” into our gasoline and it’s going to bust through the blend wall which small engine manufacturers (as well as the automotive industry) have been warning us about for ages. (Washington Times)

The Environmental Protection Agency’s move to add more ethanol to gasoline will wreak havoc on lawn mowers, snow blowers, boats and even cars, say critics.
Mixing an additional 700 million gallons of ethanol and other biofuels into the nation’s fuel supply to meet a goal of 18.8 billion gallons in 2017 will raise the biofuel percentage to 10.44 percent, or past the “blend wall” after which car engines can be damaged, said Heartland Institute research fellow Isaac Orr.
“It’s hard for anyone to argue that the renewable fuel standard has been a good policy, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to increase the amount of ethanol in the nation’s fuel supply means this train wreck of a policy will continue for at least another year,” Mr. Orr said in a Thursday statement.
“Owners of small engines like lawn mowers, snow blowers, and boats are hurt by ethanol mandates because ethanol is hard on these engines,” he said.

I have too much direct experience with this subject to simply ignore what the EPA is up to this time. We’ve already had to deal with the issue of boat engines for years since we spend a fair amount of time each summer fishing in my family. You can’t put ethanol laced gasoline into your boat’s outboard motor for any period of time without it simply dying and requiring costly repairs. There are gas treatments which alleviate the problem to a large degree, but not everyone trusts them 100% and it’s just another added operational expense.

The only time I have ever had to be towed off the Bay was caused by water in the gas, due to ethanol in the gas (ethanol free gas is not available in our area).

Ethanol laced gasoline, so called gasohol, has been a bipartisan folly. It doesn't save carbon, it's benefits as a fuel are nearly offset by the loss of mileage (what good does having 10% ethanol in the gas doe, if your mileage drops 10% as a result), it drives up food prices, puts more land into agricultural production (and most farm equipment doesn't run on ethanol). But it makes farmers money, and it makes environmentalists feel better, so it just Keeps on Keepin' on.