Part of the LiveOAK Network

About Us:

We are a new media company publishing websites that focus on energy, the environment and sustainable living. By leading the conversation about green issues, LiveOAK aims to advance the principles of sustainability by making them meaningful and accessible to a mainstream audience.

  • Pingback: Wood-to-Ethanol: Avoiding a New Biofuel Boondoggle – Earth & Industry

  • Chad

    Some mistakes in the article.  The $1.01 cellulosic tax credit also expires at the end of 2012.  The real subsidy is the RFS2 which is not mentioned in this article. The push into advanced biofuels was NOT begun because the VEETC expired.  It was underway well before.  Whether trees are the best feedstock is debatable.  Probably not in my opinion.  But the first step is to find a technology that works.  Then optimize the feedstock, likely energy crops.

  • Pingback: Cellulosic ethanol group asks for tax breaks – DesMoinesRegister.com (blog)

  • http://ecopolitology.org/ Tim H.

    Hi Chad-
    Thanks for your comment. Let me clear up some issues where you think I made mistakes:

    1. The corn ethanol tax credit already expired (December 31, 2011), while the cellulosic tax credit has not expired, but soon will (December 31, 2012). The key point I was trying to make is that one of those subsidies is still alive and well, and since it has 10.5 months left, it still has a good chance of getting renewed if it appears promising, worthwhile, effective, etc. I have updated the article to include the expiration date of the cellulosic ethanol credit.

    2. True, the push into advanced biofuels did not begin because the corn ethanol tax credit expired, and I didn’t intend for that be my point.

    3. The RFS2 is not a subsidy, it is a policy driver that creates a goal. The subsidies (i.e. production tax credits) are mechanisms to help reach the goal.

    Thanks again.