Large companies that stand to reap billions in subsidies and tax breaks from these energy "sources" are selling them as the way to a healthy planet and energy independence for the United States. For two reasons, don't believe it.
First, consider "energy return on energy invested," or EROEI. This is how much energy we "earn" for every unit of energy we "spend" to get it.
Gasoline's EROEI ranges between 6-to-1 and 10-to-1, says Cutler Cleveland, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. In other words, we get anywhere from six to 10 gallons of gasoline for every gallon we use to find oil, pump it out of the ground and refine it. But the EROEI of corn-based ethanol, the most common U.S. biofuel, is a mere 1.34-to-1, the Agriculture Department says. So even though an acre of corn can make 360 gallons of ethanol, only 90 gallons of that is "new" fuel.
The corn used to make the ethanol at your local gas pump exacts a heavy price from our land and water. The fertilizer required for high corn yields starts as a resource, but once it leaves farm fields -- and most does -- it essentially becomes poison, polluting our lakes and rivers, harming drinking water, and creating a huge lifeless zone at its final destination, the Gulf of Mexico. Corn production also uses actual poisons in the form of pesticides, and these too can end up in our water and even our food.
And corn plants have wimpy roots that do a poor job of preventing erosion. Millions of tons of superb, irreplaceable Midwestern soils are lost from fields every year because of corn.
TEXT
Friday, August 31, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The False Promise of Biofuels
Biofuels switch a mistake, say researchers
Tristan Farrow
The Guardian Friday August 17 2007
Increasing production of biofuels to combat climate change will release between two and nine times more carbon gases over the next 30 years than fossil fuels, according to the first comprehensive analysis of emissions from biofuels.
Biofuels - petrol and diesel extracted from plants - are presented as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels because the crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow.
The study warns that forests must not be cleared to make way for biofuel crops. Clearing forests produces an immediate release of carbon gases into the atmosphere, accompanied by a loss of habitats, wildlife and livelihoods, the researchers said.
Britain is committed to substituting 10% of its transport fuel with biofuels under Europewide plans to slash carbon emissions by 2020.
"Biofuel policy is rushing ahead without understanding the implications," said Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, a conservation charity. "It is a mistake in climate change terms to use biofuels."
TEXT
Tristan Farrow
The Guardian Friday August 17 2007
Increasing production of biofuels to combat climate change will release between two and nine times more carbon gases over the next 30 years than fossil fuels, according to the first comprehensive analysis of emissions from biofuels.
Biofuels - petrol and diesel extracted from plants - are presented as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels because the crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow.
The study warns that forests must not be cleared to make way for biofuel crops. Clearing forests produces an immediate release of carbon gases into the atmosphere, accompanied by a loss of habitats, wildlife and livelihoods, the researchers said.
Britain is committed to substituting 10% of its transport fuel with biofuels under Europewide plans to slash carbon emissions by 2020.
"Biofuel policy is rushing ahead without understanding the implications," said Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, a conservation charity. "It is a mistake in climate change terms to use biofuels."
TEXT
Friday, August 17, 2007
DNR Director looking the other way
Residents to DNR director: RES still stinks by Mari Winn
How to prevent environmental problems from happening and helping permit holders get in compliance through automation and simplification of the process were ideas put forth by Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt to address the worsening environmental conditions in the state.
Frank Martinez, advisor to the Carthage High School student stream team, was told that the DNR doesn't have the funding to post warnings on the streams. Martinez, whose group has documented excessive pollution in nearby waterways that is hazardous for body contact, is very concerned over the DNR's inability to monitor the streams or warn the public about their hazards.
Herman Lloyd who said he has about 35 head of cattle on property adjacent to Leggett & Platt's corporate headquarters complained over the run-around he got from the DNR after discovering that L&P's lagoon was leaking on his property. He said he tried to call the DNR's local number but found it was no longer in use. When he contacted the DNR's local office, he said he was told they only handled odor problems. Fighting with the corporate giant is not new, remarked Lloyd, who said L&P wanted to buy him out rather than solve their past incinerator problems that impacted him. He refused, he said.
Calling the DNR the lapdog of big business rather than the watchdog, Orr is pessimistic that anything will be done to alleviate problems that she labeled as "turning this part of the country into a giant cesspool."
TEXT
Anyone looking to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources in help with dealing with either existing polluters, or one's scheduled to come online in the future is hoping for a miracle that ain't gonna happen, as the good people in Newton County are finding out.
This line from our boy governor "... helping permit holders get in compliance through automation and simplification.. " is very telling and troubling.
Translated, it means instead of requiring on site inspections of polluters, the DNR will let them "simplify" their toxic terrors by logging on and sending in reports via computer, without the burden of having state inspectors actually visit polluters in business now and ones getting ready to construct ethanol factories.
The DNR should be an aggressive "watch dog" of our NATURAL RESOURCES instead of a neutered and well behaved "lap dog."
After all, it's YOUR tax dollars.
Need more convincing? Check out this link to find out the way DNR drags its feet when it comes to ground water pollution:
DNR chief visits Dexter Monday
"There's been a lot of violations from what I read on the permit," Bates told the director. "Right now they have soil brought up from Kennett that's not properly stored."
TEXT
How to prevent environmental problems from happening and helping permit holders get in compliance through automation and simplification of the process were ideas put forth by Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt to address the worsening environmental conditions in the state.
Frank Martinez, advisor to the Carthage High School student stream team, was told that the DNR doesn't have the funding to post warnings on the streams. Martinez, whose group has documented excessive pollution in nearby waterways that is hazardous for body contact, is very concerned over the DNR's inability to monitor the streams or warn the public about their hazards.
Herman Lloyd who said he has about 35 head of cattle on property adjacent to Leggett & Platt's corporate headquarters complained over the run-around he got from the DNR after discovering that L&P's lagoon was leaking on his property. He said he tried to call the DNR's local number but found it was no longer in use. When he contacted the DNR's local office, he said he was told they only handled odor problems. Fighting with the corporate giant is not new, remarked Lloyd, who said L&P wanted to buy him out rather than solve their past incinerator problems that impacted him. He refused, he said.
Calling the DNR the lapdog of big business rather than the watchdog, Orr is pessimistic that anything will be done to alleviate problems that she labeled as "turning this part of the country into a giant cesspool."
TEXT
Anyone looking to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources in help with dealing with either existing polluters, or one's scheduled to come online in the future is hoping for a miracle that ain't gonna happen, as the good people in Newton County are finding out.
This line from our boy governor "... helping permit holders get in compliance through automation and simplification.. " is very telling and troubling.
Translated, it means instead of requiring on site inspections of polluters, the DNR will let them "simplify" their toxic terrors by logging on and sending in reports via computer, without the burden of having state inspectors actually visit polluters in business now and ones getting ready to construct ethanol factories.
The DNR should be an aggressive "watch dog" of our NATURAL RESOURCES instead of a neutered and well behaved "lap dog."
After all, it's YOUR tax dollars.
Need more convincing? Check out this link to find out the way DNR drags its feet when it comes to ground water pollution:
DNR chief visits Dexter Monday
"There's been a lot of violations from what I read on the permit," Bates told the director. "Right now they have soil brought up from Kennett that's not properly stored."
TEXT
ETHANOL PLANT PROTEST
The battle to keep an ethanol plant away from the south western corner of Winnebago County waged on Sunday afternoon.
"We don't want the ethanol plant to go up, we've got a lot of concerns about the ground water pollution its going to cause," says Sandy Harkonen, who lives close to the proposed site.
Neighbors who live adjacent to the proposed site of the ethanol plant gathered to protest on the side of Meridian Road. The protest coincided with a picnic held at the Winnebago County Farm Bureau by the plant's developer, Wight Partners. John Goebel, Vice President of Wight Partners, told 23 News off camera the company had no comment about the message on these signs. But not everyone wanted to be mute.
"Hopefully this will discourage some of their prime targets from investing in this fiasco and to let them know we are not going away," says Mary Osborn, who lives close to the proposed site.
Eight individuals and families' message is simple. They'll see Winnebago County board members in court.
"We are suing to not have this plant built and moreover to have the zoning decision reversed. We are prepared for this to come back down for a proper hearing with proper evidence," Osborn says.
Protesters say most of their problems are with the way the County Board has handled the situation.
"They're not giving us any answers on our property values, the pollution, all the noise that the truck traffic is gonna cause," Harkonen says.
"They've switched gears to try and draw heavy industrial into this area. And this ethanol plant isn't going to be the only heavy industrial they try to put out here," Osborn says.
From the beginning protesters have said they are not against ethanol production....it's the location brings them to the side of the road.
All sides will be in court on Thursday.
TEXT
"We don't want the ethanol plant to go up, we've got a lot of concerns about the ground water pollution its going to cause," says Sandy Harkonen, who lives close to the proposed site.
Neighbors who live adjacent to the proposed site of the ethanol plant gathered to protest on the side of Meridian Road. The protest coincided with a picnic held at the Winnebago County Farm Bureau by the plant's developer, Wight Partners. John Goebel, Vice President of Wight Partners, told 23 News off camera the company had no comment about the message on these signs. But not everyone wanted to be mute.
"Hopefully this will discourage some of their prime targets from investing in this fiasco and to let them know we are not going away," says Mary Osborn, who lives close to the proposed site.
Eight individuals and families' message is simple. They'll see Winnebago County board members in court.
"We are suing to not have this plant built and moreover to have the zoning decision reversed. We are prepared for this to come back down for a proper hearing with proper evidence," Osborn says.
Protesters say most of their problems are with the way the County Board has handled the situation.
"They're not giving us any answers on our property values, the pollution, all the noise that the truck traffic is gonna cause," Harkonen says.
"They've switched gears to try and draw heavy industrial into this area. And this ethanol plant isn't going to be the only heavy industrial they try to put out here," Osborn says.
From the beginning protesters have said they are not against ethanol production....it's the location brings them to the side of the road.
All sides will be in court on Thursday.
TEXT
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
THE ETHANOL "QUICK FIX"
The unintended consequences of the ethanol quick fix
The push to increase ethanol production and ease dependence on oil has created a price runup in fuel and food prices.
By Ray Nothstine from the July 27, 2007 edition
GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. - Ronald Reagan once said that the most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." His one-liner immediately comes to mind when looking at the problems behind the federal government's campaign to boost production of corn-based ethanol with a massive 51-cent-per-gallon subsidy.
Ethanol and other biofuels are advertised as one of the main cures for our oil-thirsty economy. But it's clear that the ethanol boom, with a major assist from Washington, is succeeding in simultaneously raising both fuel and food prices.
With more than 20 percent of corn now dedicated to ethanol production, the US Department of Agriculture is projecting a record US corn crop in 2007 – along with record prices.
Outside the United States, the unintended consequences of ill-considered policies promoting ethanol and other biofuel crops are already in full view. The poor, of course, are hit hardest.
In Mexico, where corn is a staple, rapidly rising prices for tortillas have sparked open revolt. Tortilla prices skyrocketed more than threefold last year. Protesters took to the streets in Mexico City, compelling the normally free market-minded President Felipe Calderón to cap prices at 78 cents per kilogram.
TEXT
The push to increase ethanol production and ease dependence on oil has created a price runup in fuel and food prices.
By Ray Nothstine from the July 27, 2007 edition
GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. - Ronald Reagan once said that the most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." His one-liner immediately comes to mind when looking at the problems behind the federal government's campaign to boost production of corn-based ethanol with a massive 51-cent-per-gallon subsidy.
Ethanol and other biofuels are advertised as one of the main cures for our oil-thirsty economy. But it's clear that the ethanol boom, with a major assist from Washington, is succeeding in simultaneously raising both fuel and food prices.
With more than 20 percent of corn now dedicated to ethanol production, the US Department of Agriculture is projecting a record US corn crop in 2007 – along with record prices.
Outside the United States, the unintended consequences of ill-considered policies promoting ethanol and other biofuel crops are already in full view. The poor, of course, are hit hardest.
In Mexico, where corn is a staple, rapidly rising prices for tortillas have sparked open revolt. Tortilla prices skyrocketed more than threefold last year. Protesters took to the streets in Mexico City, compelling the normally free market-minded President Felipe Calderón to cap prices at 78 cents per kilogram.
TEXT
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
COAL TO BE BURNED AT ETHANOL FACTORY?
Carbon cloud over a green fuel
An Iowa corn refinery, open since December, uses 300 tons of coal a day to make ethanol.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Late last year in Goldfield, Iowa, a refinery began pumping out a stream of ethanol, which supporters call the clean, renewable fuel of the future.
There's just one twist: The plant is burning 300 tons of coal a day to turn corn into ethanol - the first US plant of its kind to use coal instead of cleaner natural gas.
The trend, which is expected to continue, has left even some ethanol boosters scratching their heads. Should coal become a standard for 30 to 40 ethanol plants under construction - and 150 others on the drawing boards - it would undermine the environmental reasoning for switching to ethanol in the first place, environmentalists say.
"It's very likely that coal will be the fuel of choice for most of these new ethanol plants," says Robert McIlvaine, president of a Northfield, Ill., information services company that has compiled a database of nearly 200 ethanol plants now under construction or in planning and development.
TEXT
Is this the future for that ethanol factory slated to open in Webster County? Burning 300 tons of coal per DAY? Considering that coal costs are 1/3 of natural gas and that the BN Wyoming coal trains run right past the Webster County property, the prospect that coal will be used to fuel the ethanol factory is more than just speculation.
Add in the fact that BN has plans to nearly double the amount of rail traffic thru Webster County--to around 50 freight trains per day--and the inescapable fact is that the thick, acrid smell of coal smoke will soon be wafting over Webster County.
Between the cancer causing coal smoke and the diseases caused by locating this TOXIC TERROR in a residential area, plus the pollution and depletion of our drinking water, the Ozarks Aquifer, there is nothing to gain from that ethanol factory and plenty to lose... like your health and life.
An Iowa corn refinery, open since December, uses 300 tons of coal a day to make ethanol.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Late last year in Goldfield, Iowa, a refinery began pumping out a stream of ethanol, which supporters call the clean, renewable fuel of the future.
There's just one twist: The plant is burning 300 tons of coal a day to turn corn into ethanol - the first US plant of its kind to use coal instead of cleaner natural gas.
The trend, which is expected to continue, has left even some ethanol boosters scratching their heads. Should coal become a standard for 30 to 40 ethanol plants under construction - and 150 others on the drawing boards - it would undermine the environmental reasoning for switching to ethanol in the first place, environmentalists say.
"It's very likely that coal will be the fuel of choice for most of these new ethanol plants," says Robert McIlvaine, president of a Northfield, Ill., information services company that has compiled a database of nearly 200 ethanol plants now under construction or in planning and development.
TEXT
Is this the future for that ethanol factory slated to open in Webster County? Burning 300 tons of coal per DAY? Considering that coal costs are 1/3 of natural gas and that the BN Wyoming coal trains run right past the Webster County property, the prospect that coal will be used to fuel the ethanol factory is more than just speculation.
Add in the fact that BN has plans to nearly double the amount of rail traffic thru Webster County--to around 50 freight trains per day--and the inescapable fact is that the thick, acrid smell of coal smoke will soon be wafting over Webster County.
Between the cancer causing coal smoke and the diseases caused by locating this TOXIC TERROR in a residential area, plus the pollution and depletion of our drinking water, the Ozarks Aquifer, there is nothing to gain from that ethanol factory and plenty to lose... like your health and life.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
ETHANOL FACTORY ON SCHEDULE
Rogersville ethanol plant still moving forward, company says By Matt Wagner
Springfield Business Journal Staff 7/16/2007
A Mount Vernon company’s plans to build a corn-based ethanol plant near Rogersville are still moving forward, according to a company official.
More than two months have passed since a judge ruled that Gulfstream Bioflex Energy LLC could proceed with the $185 million plant despite objections from property owners who sued the company over concerns about their groundwater supply.
But GBE’s lead attorney, Bryan Wade of Husch & Eppenberger LLC, said his client still intends to build the plant on 252 acres east of Rogersville. Wade said he recently filed a response to post-trial motions filed by the plant opponents’ attorney, Bill McDonald of McDonald, Hosmer, King & Royce PC.
“We would certainly like to know what the court’s feeling is on it before any significant activity occurs, but as far as I know, everything’s a go,” Wade said.
GBE Vice President Charles Luna would neither discuss the impending sale nor the plant’s construction timeline. He did, however, say that the company expects to have an approved air permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources no later than Sept. 30.
When asked whether other Missouri cities have attempted to woo GBE, Luna said that Seymour – several miles east of the existing site – previously expressed interest. The Rogersville site, however, remains GBE’s top pick for a plant, he said.
TEXT
Webster County's Ethanol Factory looks to be on schedule. With the next round in court all but a done deal for the ethanol factory and DNR getting ready to issue an approved air permit for that TOXIC TERROR, construction should be taking place on the ethanol factory no later than by the end of this year.
Unless people in Webster County and the Ozarks band together to fight this monstrosity, 2007 could be known as the last year in which Webster County folks enjoyed breathing air free of pollutants.
2007 will also be remembered as the last year in which Ozark Aquifer water was free of ethanol factory pollutants.
Better plan for the future by investing in a large truck with a water tank. Because once our drinking water dries up from feeding the insatiable quench of this ethanol factory, hauling water to our homes will be a weekly occurence in the Ozarks.
As for the ethanol factory claims that it will create more than $3 million annually in property tax revenue, one has to figure in the DECREASE that will come from the devaluation of the property tax value of the houses near the ethanol factory, which will offset the ethanol factory figures.
And write off any future growth for that part of Webster County. Who would want to buy a house or piece of property near a TOXIC TERROR?
Springfield Business Journal Staff 7/16/2007
A Mount Vernon company’s plans to build a corn-based ethanol plant near Rogersville are still moving forward, according to a company official.
More than two months have passed since a judge ruled that Gulfstream Bioflex Energy LLC could proceed with the $185 million plant despite objections from property owners who sued the company over concerns about their groundwater supply.
But GBE’s lead attorney, Bryan Wade of Husch & Eppenberger LLC, said his client still intends to build the plant on 252 acres east of Rogersville. Wade said he recently filed a response to post-trial motions filed by the plant opponents’ attorney, Bill McDonald of McDonald, Hosmer, King & Royce PC.
“We would certainly like to know what the court’s feeling is on it before any significant activity occurs, but as far as I know, everything’s a go,” Wade said.
GBE Vice President Charles Luna would neither discuss the impending sale nor the plant’s construction timeline. He did, however, say that the company expects to have an approved air permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources no later than Sept. 30.
When asked whether other Missouri cities have attempted to woo GBE, Luna said that Seymour – several miles east of the existing site – previously expressed interest. The Rogersville site, however, remains GBE’s top pick for a plant, he said.
TEXT
Webster County's Ethanol Factory looks to be on schedule. With the next round in court all but a done deal for the ethanol factory and DNR getting ready to issue an approved air permit for that TOXIC TERROR, construction should be taking place on the ethanol factory no later than by the end of this year.
Unless people in Webster County and the Ozarks band together to fight this monstrosity, 2007 could be known as the last year in which Webster County folks enjoyed breathing air free of pollutants.
2007 will also be remembered as the last year in which Ozark Aquifer water was free of ethanol factory pollutants.
Better plan for the future by investing in a large truck with a water tank. Because once our drinking water dries up from feeding the insatiable quench of this ethanol factory, hauling water to our homes will be a weekly occurence in the Ozarks.
As for the ethanol factory claims that it will create more than $3 million annually in property tax revenue, one has to figure in the DECREASE that will come from the devaluation of the property tax value of the houses near the ethanol factory, which will offset the ethanol factory figures.
And write off any future growth for that part of Webster County. Who would want to buy a house or piece of property near a TOXIC TERROR?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)