'Oh, crap ...' says the industrial agrodiesel investor
Small protest may be start of agrodiesel’s biggest nightmare 15
-
Posted 11:26 AM on 29 Aug 2007
by Biodiversivist -
Posted in
-
Read More About
My real name is Russ Finley. I live in Seattle, married with children. Suffice it to say that although I am trained and educated as an engineer, my passion is nature. I very much want my grandchildren to live on a planet where lions, tigers, and bears have not joined the long and growing list of creatures that used to be. In an attempt to minimize the workload on Grist editors responsible for turning my submissions into intelligible articles, I will also be posting on a seperate blog called Biodiversivist, which will contain articles in addition to those submitted to Grist.
Related Stories
Ask Umbra on green moving companies
Et tu, Al? Franken gulps the ethanol-spiked Kool-Aid
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Sean Casten Posted 4:38 am
29 Aug 2007
Don't make too much of IPO disclosures
Legally, a company soliciting a public investment has a very strong legal incentive to disclose every last risk out there, no matter how minor to avoid future frivolous lawsuits (e.g., "we warned you that was a possible risk"). The standard advice to companies preparing those forms is therefore to identify every possible risk, up to and including the risk that the CEO could be struck by a stray meteorite on the way to work.
Bottom line is that I would not infer anything the probability that Imperium puts on that particular risk just because they disclosed it as a risk.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:40 am
29 Aug 2007
Apparently Germany
Apparently the German AgroDiesel market is soon going to crash.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsess ...
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 4:56 am
29 Aug 2007
But there's 78% Less CO2
At least according to the prominent flash cartoon on the website of Propel Biofuels which plans to sell the fuel supplied by Imperium Renewables according to this article Should It Matter Where Your Biodiesel Comes From? from the Seattle Weekly.
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:06 am
29 Aug 2007
NonprofitWatch,
From this post:
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 5:32 am
29 Aug 2007
"Hardcore [enviros not] pragmatic"
The Seattle Weekly article Should It Matter Where Your Biodiesel Comes From? includes the below from the founder of Propel Biofuels, a company which will be selling the fuel from Imperium Renewables.
This reminds me of someone's comment that
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:15 am
29 Aug 2007
OMG IT NOT BAD
That all depends HEAVILY on what assumptions you make.
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
Which doesn't even get in to the nasty deforrestation issues with biodiesel from Soy or Palm Oil.
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:33 am
29 Aug 2007
Glad you brought that up, Bernardo
This is an example of planting negative images in the media in an attempt to gain the moral high ground. You don't find it humorous how he labels the likes of me, or anyone critical of his income source as "Utopian hardcore environmentalists"?
A few years ago the talking points included:
- use of local feedstocks.
- soy oil is a waste product.
- soy oil does not compete with food.
- soy oil will enhance energy independence
- soy oil is carbon
However, today we knownuetral,78% carbon nuetral,41%.- local has little to do with it
- soy oil is a valuable food commodity
- food prices are expected to rise 7% this year
- if your oil comes from all over the world, you are not getting more energy independent
- it is worse than fossil fuels
The guy getting rich selling agrodiesel ;p paints a negative picture of his opponents, not as people who have nothing to gain financially with their critiques (backed by science), who just want to save the planet's biodiversity for future generations, but as HARD CORE ENVIORS ...da,da,daaaa. You know the type, never happy, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, perfection the enemy of progress blah, blah, blah, "disconnected from pragmatic solutions" like hybrid electric bikes and high mileage cars.Right after calling us Utopian hardcore enviros, he paints a contradicting image of snooty, know nothing academic types. So, which is it? All bases are now covered for those who "believe" in biodiesel.
Note how he pulls out the big oil status quo card. Not only will big oil be making all our agrofuel soon, replacing one percent of our liquid fuel use with biodiesel won't help. These "new" talking points have all been just as carefully crafted as the old ones.
...he says as he imports 99% of his feedstock from thousands of miles away made from unsustainable industrial crops growing where just a few short years ago there were carbon sinks on conservation reserve land or cerrado grassland.
Anyone would have to have to have a set of blinders on to buy what he said. Critique of biofuels is coming from all corners now: engineers, scientists, activists. From my perspective most biodiesel enthusiasts look like hard core enviros who just happen to be badly misinformed by the lay media.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 6:57 am
29 Aug 2007
Perhaps an Op-Ed is in order
Just to clarify, I was merely drawing attention to the propaganda and rhetoric of others; I didn't mean to ascribe those views to myself.
Biodiversivist, I appreciate your critique of the CEO's rhetoric.
Perhaps you, maybe along with GreyFlcn, might want to compose an op-ed to submit to the Seattle media. Maybe start with the biggest most mainstream newspaper and see if they bite.
Duff Badgley seems to have been doing good work on the front line, but perhaps some assistance from others could be of help to him. Also, he seems to have set an example that others should see about replicating in their own localities, especially as cities move to pass laws calling for the purchase of "biofuel".
To me, folks like Duff are the ones who truly need financial support for their grassroots work as opposed to many of the big mainstream enviros, which can always call up one of the billionaires with which they're cozy.
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 7:08 am
29 Aug 2007
PS
Perhaps Grist could do a profile of Duff Badgley or "a week in the life of activist" features?
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:49 am
29 Aug 2007
So what's left?
Coal... obviously bad.
Oil... obviously bad.
Natural Gas... obviously bad.
Photovoltaics... bad... envision scaled-up zinc mines (for cadmium and indium) , iron mines (for more indium), mineral extraction operations, processing facilities, organic solvents, the waste released into the air and water, abuse of third-world countries, damage to natural habitat, damage to natural water tables, cost of recycling damaged or old systems, health problems, et cetera that would inevitably happen if PV approached replacing fossil fuel.
Fission... bad.
Fusion... not ready for prime time even though a ton of money has been invested in it, probably hazardous in some way we've not anticpated but will learn about too late.
Biofuel... bad... destruction of natural habitat, starving children, release of other greenhouse gases, everyone who grows the stuff dumps 10x more fertilizer on their fields than they have to, temptation to use genetic tampering to improve efficiency.
Wind... bad... intermittent, have to make the generators out of something that gets extracted from the ground, no one wants to look at them, ugly as a strip mall, bird killers.
Waves... threat to ocean life.
[Hey... do wind and wave powered generators leak fluids like other mechanical devices?]
Geothermal... not enough capacity, results in release of toxic gases from the ground, can permit hazardous chemicals to enter ground water.
Hydroelectric... damages natural habitats, creates flood hazards, displaces communities..
Hydrogen... has to come from something already mentioned, so not really alternative energy.
Perpetual Motion Machine... discredited following 1950s boom.
Pixie Dust... imaginary.
Forward!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:43 am
29 Aug 2007
You left out
You left out one of the more obvious ones.
Solar Thermal.
That and Wind isn't that bad if you do it on a large scale with some storage. The Bird issue is primarily with smaller turbines that have faster moving blades. Much of it could actually be made from carbon fibre if we ever were hard up on materials.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:59 pm
29 Aug 2007
Glad you brought that up, Wiscidea
You simply described a list of downsides. All ideas have downsides. You have to compare the downsides to the upsides. If the negatives outweigh the positives, toss it from the solution set. Of course, I made it sound a lot simpler than it actually is.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:22 pm
29 Aug 2007
downsides
My experience visiting the Grist website suggests that a majority of environmentalists tend to focus on the downside pretty much all of the time. Perhaps I'm subconciously just trying to fit in.
It seems almost every proposal is quickly shot down as...
not practical,
not ready for prime time,
full of potential for unintended consequences,
not sufficiently natural,
a new incarnation of old thinking,
a potential source of some new pollutant,
raises the cost of something else people need,
lowers the cost of something else people selling,
is controlled by someone we dislike,
furthers corporate domination,
imposes Western culture on developing nations,
encourage some other bad behavior,
creates dependence on some other natural resource,
or does not solve the problem 100%.
Perhaps, someday, a majority of environmentalists will develop truly open minds and discuss, based on accurate information, both the positives and negatives of various ideas for protecting and restoring biodiversity and natural habitats.
Yes, biodiversivist, you make it sound a lot simpler than it is.
Forward!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:45 pm
29 Aug 2007
Well there is the simple one
Well there is the most simple/effective approach.
Energy Efficiency.
Thats largely why I see BioFuels as a big loser.
Since what we really should be doing is putting that focus/money/attention into changing our cars.
__
It's kind of like someone all hyped about installing a hyper-expensive solar panels.
And yet their washer and refrigerator is using efficiency ratings from the 1970s.
__
We need to do demand side management, before we do supply side management.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:15 am
30 Aug 2007
GreyFlcn
I have to agree with you 100% regarding energy efficiency.
Please provide an opinion on the following matter...
There appear to be two extreme groups engaged in battle. On the one hand, there are the "environmentalists" who focus on our car culture as a major problem. Get rid of the cars and we get rid of much pollution. This totally disregards how deeply rooted personal transportation is, how much we rely on it, and how much people value it. On the other hand, there are the "you can have my SUV when you can pry it from my cold dead hands" people who live in a fantasy world of infinite fuel and infinite space to dump the waste products of their life-style.
Is there a happy medium? Will "environmentalists" ever find a way to accept automobiles? Or do they really just want them eliminated, regardless of how energy-efficient someone might make them? Can someone create an attractive and efficient car that, say, current SUV drivers will really want? Is it physically possible to build an efficient, safe, and attractive personal automobile? Was the electric Saturn an impractical fantasy or was it truly viable?
Forward!
Permalink