Anyone know what "Low Carbon Fuel" actually is?

Looks like CA is planning on tightening it's low carbon fuel standard.  How the crap do you reduce carbon... in a carbon based fuel!?!  I guess, cleaner burning? (which means the use of "low carbon fuel" isn't exactly precise). Is this likely to have any effect on older cars? (I would suspect not)

I have looked a bit at this and it "seems" to be more about carbon credits, but can they actually reduce the carbon output in fuel, or more to the point, do, whatever they do, to have any meaningful effect?

This is the only somewhat plain language explanation that I could find (it is probably a bit slanted to tend to be a bit anti):

https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/10/california-low-carbon-fuel-standard-gas-prices/

Some of it is rather funny, in a stupid kind of way:

It’s hard to predict whether oil companies will pass those costs onto customers or absorb them, making it difficult to determine the exact impact on prices, Randolph said

Ahhhahhhahahahhahaha.... yeah.... NO WAY to know what they are going to do there... probably just eat the costs... rrrriiiiiggghhhhttt.

BTW the estimate is around 50 cents more a gallon, and it's already $4.50 ish now.  Great way to make life for poor people even more miserable here (transportation costs make almost everything more expensive).

the state must slash its greenhouse gases to reach net zero greenhouse gases by 2045.

Wow talk about unrealistic goals.  Want to see some monkey fly out of my butt?  Because that is never going to happen either.  I realize it says "net", but as just one example, 80% of the states houses are heated by natural gas....   I guess you could just crank the cost WAY up, and buy credits with the money, and the world is saved, eh?

Might be bad nomenclature, but this probably lines up with sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

SAF terminology is used as magic words when folks want to give a reason why it will be OK for rich people to use supersonic business jets.  

Yeah low carbon fuel really means low fossil carbon fuel, meaning a blend of biofuel (or synthetic e-fuel) and fossil fuel, so that some of the carbon that comes out in the emissions was already in the biosphere thereby reducing how much carbon is added.

Even then, with biofuel you need to look at how much fossil carbon went into growing and harvesting the crops that made the biofuel, it's surprisingly easy to nullify the carbon savings in the biofuel production process.

NG heating could be replaced by heat pumps powered by renewables, and the savings on powering the system with electricity vs. NG will eventually pay it off, especially if you're just replacing a broken AC system.

Karacticus said:

SAF terminology is used as magic words when folks want to give a reason why it will be OK for rich people to use supersonic business jets.  

Relevant study just released:

https://www.oxfam.ca/news/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-in-90-minutes-than-the-average-person-does-in-a-lifetime/

In reply to GameboyRMH :

OK, thanks, that makes a bit more sense (not sure why they can't just say that).  I also suspect they are ignoring part of the entire equation.

Regarding heat pumps.  That can certainly eventually happen, but with the amount of time natural gas home heaters last, and the cost of replacing them, it's going to be a LONG time (e.g. no way 2045).  The house I grew up in was built in 1890.  Pretty sure it still has the same furnace in it!

In reply to aircooled :

Installing a heat pump typically means replacing AC rather than replacing the heater whenever both are present. As an example I had a broken AC unit replaced with a heat pump a couple years ago, the gas furnace is still there and ready to kick in if it gets extremely cold and the heat pump has any trouble keeping up, but the gas furnace hasn't fired up since, even with outside temps getting close to -20C. Ready to kick in, in theory...ran when parked

If you burn natural gas you produce less carbon per unit of energy than oil, which produces less than coal per unit of energy. Presumably the fuel burns cleaner from a carbon output perspective. Ethanol produces less carbon when burned too.

I don't think they consider production and refining energy/carbon input, which can be very significant, but I don't think that's what they're talking about.

This would make a near zero difference on the environment at great cost. At best it's nothing more than state level virtue signaling at other's expense. At worst there is crony capitalism at play diverting dollars to connected people's pockets. Quick and dirty calcs show that it would reduce annual global carbon emissions by .07%- seven hundreds of a percent. They say we would eliminate 28 million tons of CO2 per year out of 37 billion tons. And that is not adding in all of the knock on effects, like the emissions of all of the moving trucks leaving CA. 

In reply to Karacticus :

Methanane/methanol recovered as a byproduct of other industries which was previously disregarded but is now collected and processed. Example here https://www.valmet.com/insights/articles/pulp/unleashing-the-green-value-of-methanol/

I was a bit worried they were doing some sort of additive package or something but I think they are mostly just playing games with numbers (credits etc) with the net result of higher production / gas prices, with the (perhaps intended) goal of getting people out of gas cars, so they are essentially forced to go electric, and charge with electrical power...

...which is also ridiculously expensive in CA (solar can also be expensive and not even possible for many).  Good thing everyone in CA is rich, right?

(Of note is the price has little effect on me since I drive very few miles these days, so this is not a personal concern)

Snrub said:

If you burn natural gas you produce less carbon per unit of energy than oil, which produces less than coal per unit of energy. Presumably the fuel burns cleaner from a carbon output perspective. Ethanol produces less carbon when burned too.

I don't think they consider production and refining energy/carbon input, which can be very significant, but I don't think that's what they're talking about.

I was going to point that out- since gasoline is a huge blend of lots of hydrocarbons, it's quite possible that in addition to the non-fossil fuel addition (which has been there since 2000, BTW), they could cut back on the longer chain HC's in the gas blend.  Heck, there are some fuel sources that add H2 to the fuel as energy minus C.  

FWIW, pretty much every modern vehicle easily runs E15.  So if they alter the fuel to be something like that, it won't be a change.  Better if they use different grown HC's than alcohol, though.  Like Butanol (C4H10O) which are a lot of hydrogen's vs. Carbons.  Butanol is better for energy density, too- it's far more similar per volume (which we use to measure fuel economy) than ethanol or methanol.  So people would not really see a fuel economy change if Butanol is added to the fuel mixture.

I am about done with this state.  We(ca residents) are getting what we deserve, gratuitous self-flaggelation.  

In reply to benzbaronDaryn :

I get the fear, but if it's a shift from Ethanol to Butanol, it makes a tremendous amount of technical sense to do that- it's a far more appropriate fuel for cars.  But Butanol doesn't have the same industry behind it- like Ethanol does (which is has multiple industries- drinkers, fruit growers, and grain growers- specifically corn).  This shift may mean that sense has gotten into the laws as opposed to lobbiests.  

In reply to alfadriver :

I don't think he's worried about the formulation (as I was initially), just the seemingly never ending price increases.  As you and Gameboy are pointing out, it might be a better additive, but because of a lack of industry behind it, it will very likely be much more expensive.  The cost / benefit, when you are talking about the world wide impact starts to seem a bit absurd at some point.  Heck, it might not even be better (as Gameboy is guessing) when you include all the environmental costs (additional production, shipping etc)

CA has had a fair amount of Ethanol in its gas for a while I think.  They had to switch out that other stuff (I can't remember what it was, you would know I am sure) that turned out to be super toxic (which was quite ironic as it was in there to help the environment).

It should be noted, the vote is happening JUST after the elections, which really seems to point to the fact they fear this will be very negatively received (which I am sure it will).  They just enacted another forced change to require minimum storage of refined fuel (to try and avoid spikes) which will likely result in passing those costs on also.

In reply to aircooled :

Yes, they originally had MTBE, but that turned out to be bad, so just use Ethanol now.

I would not assume that butanol is going to be more expensive than ethanol.  What I'm reading about the state of the art of butanol production is that it's FINALLY the grass/corn waste source we've been talking about since 1970.  Also, it can also use waste (glycerol) from bio-diesel production.  

Whereas ethanol pretty much uses corn.  

Given the science politics in California that I've encountered- I think much of this is forcing the technology to move quicker so that we get fuel from corn stalks and biodiesel waste instead of corn.  

Anyway, personally, I would not make any assumptions- just observations that this could be (finally) a separation from the corn industry forcing everyone to use corn ethanol.  And I will note, that's not a conspiracy- ethanol came the additive of choice thanks to Bob Dole.  There are tons of other sources of ethanol- fruit waste, sugar beets (especially the molasses from that), sugar cane, and even wine/beer waste.  But corn has the source thanks to Sen Dole making sure his constituents will be happy.

GameboyRMH said:

Karacticus said:

SAF terminology is used as magic words when folks want to give a reason why it will be OK for rich people to use supersonic business jets.  

Relevant study just released:

https://www.oxfam.ca/news/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-in-90-minutes-than-the-average-person-does-in-a-lifetime/

The "polluting investments" seem like a strange category to bundle in with yachts and private jets. The carbon a billionaire uses to build a solar farm, for example, absolutely dwarfs what the average person would do in their entire lives and the examples they specifically used - oil, mining, shipping, cement - seem pretty necessary for the lives of us normies. 

That said, the resource usage of the richest countries, particularly in North America, is very wasteful and needs to be addressed. Yachts and personal jets are super wasteful, etc. I just wish the Oxfam report was a bit more intellectually honest.  

Snrub said:

If you burn natural gas you produce less carbon per unit of energy than oil, which produces less than coal per unit of energy. Presumably the fuel burns cleaner from a carbon output perspective. Ethanol produces less carbon when burned too.

I don't think they consider production and refining energy/carbon input, which can be very significant, but I don't think that's what they're talking about.

Shorter chain hydrocarbons have less carbon content per unit. Coal is extremely long chain hydrocarbons, and thus very high CO2. Methane, on the other hand, is a very short chain hydrocarbon and thus releases less CO2 as a percentage of emissions (assuming each carbon is as "hydrated" as it can be). Gasoline is longer than butane, deisel is longer than gasoline, coal is longer than deisel, etc. 

If you look here, carbon is only 20% of the atoms in Methane, 25% of the atoms in ethane, 33% of the atoms in ethene, etc. Deisel, on the other hand, looks like this.

 

Half the state is burned to a crisp, whatever goal CA is looking to achieve in low carbon is easily offset by carbonized forests. The goal is to make is as painful as possible to drive a gas powered car, while enriching the state government to continue their follie. This allows the government elites to virtue signal about climate change while making living here even more expensive.  

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Few individual jurisdictions would be able to do anything to put a significant dent in global CO2 output. From what I can find California puts out 371.1 million tons of CO2 from their latest data from 2022, so if they eliminate 28 million tons that would reduce their emissions by 7.5%. Lopping off 1/14th of CO2 emissions is nothing to scoff at.

benzbaronDaryn said:

Half the state is burned to a crisp, whatever goal CA is looking to achieve in low carbon is easily offset by carbonized forests. The goal is to make is as painful as possible to drive a gas powered car, while enriching the state government to continue their follie. This allows the government elites to virtue signal about climate change while making living here even more expensive.  

How is that a justification to just pollute?  Don't understand that.  Seems like more of a reason to end burning carbon at all to reduce the risk of massive forest fires due to the drying of the land.

Pretty much anyone who thinks that global warming is contributing to larger fires and worse storms will want to reduce human sourced CO2 as much as possible as fast as possible.  Not just burn more because there are forest fires.

Boost_Crazy said:

This would make a near zero difference on the environment at great cost. At best it's nothing more than state level virtue signaling at other's expense. At worst there is crony capitalism at play diverting dollars to connected people's pockets. Quick and dirty calcs show that it would reduce annual global carbon emissions by .07%- seven hundreds of a percent. They say we would eliminate 28 million tons of CO2 per year out of 37 billion tons. And that is not adding in all of the knock on effects, like the emissions of all of the moving trucks leaving CA. 

So knowing the CARB rules, I would totally not assume that it would automatically be more expensive.  But maybe it will, maybe it will work with the waste stream and help multiple systems.

But how is it a justification to do nothing when the individual impact is small?  Based on that logic, an individual should not bother to recycle their stuff, should not bother to reduce the amount of energy they use, should not bother not properly throwing away hazardous materials, etc.  

California is doing what they can, just like others will.  And the addition of all of the effort everyone does is significant.

The US has been leading environmental based laws for over 50 years now.  Meaning we have been doing our small part to the world longer than anyone else.  And California has been doing the same for even longer.  There's no reason to stop or assume that nobody else will do anything.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Few individual jurisdictions would be able to do anything to put a significant dent in global CO2 output. From what I can find California puts out 371.1 million tons of CO2 from their latest data from 2022, so if they eliminate 28 million tons that would reduce their emissions by 7.5%. Lopping off 1/14th of CO2 emissions is nothing to scoff at.
 

But carbon is not a local issue. Lowering California's CO2 output won't have a proportional effect on the climate of California. It's not like smog. It's effect is measured against the worldwide CO2 output, of which it is statistically insignificant. You could call it leading my example, but many will see the example as hurting our economy for no gain. 

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...

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Few individual jurisdictions would be able to do anything to put a significant dent in global CO2 output. From what I can find California puts out 371.1 million tons of CO2 from their latest data from 2022, so if they eliminate 28 million tons that would reduce their emissions by 7.5%. Lopping off 1/14th of CO2 emissions is nothing to scoff at.
 

But carbon is not a local issue. Lowering California's CO2 output won't have a proportional effect on the climate of California. It's not like smog. It's effect is measured against the worldwide CO2 output, of which it is statistically insignificant. You could call it leading my example, but many will see the example as hurting our economy for no gain. 

 

Even if CA does it, it's far from leading by example.  Heck, even China is doing more than just altering fuel to decrease their CO2 output.  Let alone each of the EU countries.  It's more just doing their part relative to the rest of the world.  Maybe it would help move the needle in the US. 

And it is a significant amount of what California makes. So for the probable money, shifting from ethanol to butanol is likely a great investment as it would could push food costs down from a lower demand for fuel corn. The economy is a total system, especially here.

In reply to alfadriver :

So knowing the CARB rules, I would totally not assume that it would automatically be more expensive.  But maybe it will, maybe it will work with the waste stream and help multiple systems.

California has the most expensive gas in the continuous 48. Partially due to taxes, but largely due to the unique blends that we require. This makes fuel more expensive day to day, and really expensive when there is a supply disruption. Adding more unique requirements will make it more expensive. Refineries are closing in California due to the increased costs of added regulation, which will further drive up prices and volatility. 

But how is it a justification to do nothing when the individual impact is small?  Based on that logic, an individual should not bother to recycle their stuff, should not bother to reduce the amount of energy they use, should not bother not properly throwing away hazardous materials, etc.  

You missed half of the equation. It is unwise to commit large resources for a small impact. This case small is mathematically close to zero. I'm perfectly fine with committing small resources for small impacts or large resources for large impacts. But any cost for any impact is a poor way to run anything, yet unfortunately more common. Using your recycling example- putting your recyclables in the blue bin instead of the garbage can. Small impact, but small effort. Never mind the fact that only a small portion of what you throw in the bin is actually recycled, but shipped across the ocean so someone else can just dump it. Let's pretend everything you throw in that bin is 100% recycled. It's right beside your garbage can, so small effort and you feel that you did good. What it it was a mile away? Would your still use it? What about 10 miles? 100 miles away? You are still doing the same amount of good, but is there a point where you would stop using the blue bin?  

 

California is doing what they can, just like others will.  And the addition of all of the effort everyone does is significant.

No, it's not. If enough people don't contribute to make a significant impact, then the effort is just wasted. You can play tug of war with an elephant by yourself, but you aren't going to make a difference. Assuming a 100% noble reason to take such an action, it's still just a squandering of resources that could have been put to better use elsewhere, by people who should know better. But if you think it's all about the good of the cause, follow the money and see who is getting enriched by the wasted efforts of others. 

The US has been leading environmental based laws for over 50 years now.  Meaning we have been doing our small part to the world longer than anyone else.  And California has been doing the same for even longer.  There's no reason to stop or assume that nobody else will do anything.
 

Apples and oranges. We have been cleaning up our own back yard, the actions we took had direct effects on the condition on our own environment. But we didn't give a E36 M3 about the rest of the world. We outsourced much of our pollution to fulfill our need for cheap goods. Just because it isn't here doesn't mean it's not our pollution. Now that much of the rest of the world wants what we've had, we want to get on our high horse and dictate how they should do it. And unless they decide to follow along (not likely) we are just wasting our resources to make ourselves feel better and hide from our guilt.