I'm sorry I was right, readers.
"Pump prices at highest in 13 months" by Barbara Powell and Lynn Doan | Bloomberg News April 21, 2014
NEW YORK — The average price for regular gasoline at US pumps jumped 8.5 cents in the past two weeks to a 13-month high of $3.6918 a gallon, according to Lundberg Survey Inc.
It's been hovering there the last few days after rising 25 cents over about three weeks here. Was actually down to $3.44/gallon not long ago.
**************
Prices are the highest since March 22, 2013. Gasoline has risen 39.74 cents a gallon since bottoming out in February.
It's the Fed printing press that did/is doing it. They have all other kinds of excu$es, but it's the truth. That and the world moving away from the almighty dollar because of the dick government behind it.
‘‘The most important factor right now in this rise is crude oil, which rose by a very similar amount to the street-price move,’’ Trilby Lundberg, president of Lundberg Survey, said Sunday. ‘‘From here, we will probably see very little increase, if any, with the big caveat of course being crude. If crude prices climb even higher, then this may not be the peak.’’
An ‘‘extremely robust’’ rise in US gasoline demand may have also helped increase retail prices, according to Lundberg. Demand for the motor fuel in the last four weeks is up 4.6 percent from the same period a year ago, Energy Information Administration data show.
As if I am going to believe any of what I read above, although this would be right up my alley were I a member of the elite in Boston for whom this is written.
--more--"
Something else I never liked and was right about:
"Corn-waste fuels no better than gas, study says; Global warming remains an issue" by Dina Cappiello | Associated Press April 21, 2014
WASHINGTON — Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration’s conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.
Yeah, we knew that about six years ago.
I know I should be applauding and saying the propaganda pre$$ has finally saw the light and love them and welcome them to the truth; however, I find I'm left with nothing disdain. I never wanted food being used for fuel and for six years we have had this wasteful policy regarding tax dollars at the same time their is a hunger epidemic in America.
Yeah, the New Hampshire corn ta$tes a little $weet at the ga$ pump.
A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years, compared with conventional gasoline.
Half-a-million dollars for a study is nothing to this austerity-imposing government.
While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won’t meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.
The conclusions deal a blow to what are known as cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.
The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticized the research as flawed. They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market gets underway.
‘‘The core analysis depicts an extreme scenario that no responsible farmer or business would ever employ because it would ruin both the land and the long-term supply of feedstock. It makes no agronomic or business sense,’’ said Jan Koninckx, the global business director for biorefineries at DuPont.
Yes, you will not question the conclusions of this government or its corporate directors!
Later this year, the company is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in the city of Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100 percent better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
The research is among the first to attempt to quantify, over 12 Corn Belt states, how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere when the stalks, leaves, and cobs that make up residue are removed and used to make biofuel, instead of left to replenish the soil with carbon. The study found that regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming.
The second thing is not happening, and the first is worrying. Looks like eroded topsoil to me, and that is never good.
‘‘I knew this research would be contentious,’’ said Adam Liska, the lead author and an assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. ‘‘I’m amazed it has not come out more solidly until now.’’
Not me. I under$tand why it has taken so long and is so controver$ial.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis, which assumed that about half of corn residue would be removed from fields, found that fuel made from corn residue, also known as stover, would meet the standard in the energy law. That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60 percent less carbon pollution than gasoline does.
Related: Supreme Court upholds rule limiting coal pollution
I can see them granting the EPA exclusive power, especially since we all know who will be benefiting at bottom.
Cellulosic biofuels that don’t meet that threshold could be almost impossible to make and sell. Producers would not earn the $1 per gallon subsidy they need to make these expensive fuels and still make a profit. Refiners would shun the fuels because they wouldn’t meet their legal obligation to use minimum amounts of next-generation biofuels.
Did you $EE THAT, taxpayers of America? That's a BUCK a GALLON $ub$idy in these times of sequestered austerity!
****************
An Associated Press investigation last year found that the EPA’s analysis of corn-based ethanol had failed to predict the environmental consequences accurately.
I seem to remember soaring with that.
The departments of Agriculture and Energy have initiated programs with farmers to make sure residue is harvested sustainably. For instance, farmers will not receive any federal assistance for conservation programs if too much corn residue is removed.
Is this the bankrupt government simply trying to get out of making payments?
A peer-reviewed study performed at the Energy Department’s Argonne National Laboratory in 2012 found that biofuels made with corn residue were 95 percent better than gasoline in greenhouse gas emissions. That study assumed some of the residue harvested would replace power produced from coal, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s unclear whether future biorefineries would do that.
Liska agrees that using some of the residue to make electricity, or planting cover crops, would reduce carbon emissions. But he did not include those in his computer simulation.
Still, corn residue is likely to be a big source early on for cellulosic biofuels, which have struggled to reach commercial scale. Last year, for the fifth time, the EPA proposed reducing the amount required by law. It set a target of 17 million gallons for 2014. The law envisioned 1.75 billion gallons being produced this year.
The stuff is still being mixed into regular gasoline.
--more--"
Btw, WhenTF is it going to warm up around here because it is May the 2 and we are stuck in the 50s today.
