Small protest may be start of agrodiesel’s biggest nightmare 15

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Sean Casten Posted 4:38 am
   29 Aug 2007

   Don't make too much of IPO disclosuresLegally, 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

2. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 4:40 am
   29 Aug 2007

   Apparently GermanyApparently the German AgroDiesel market is soon going to crash.
   
   http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsess ...

   Permalink

3. 

   NonprofitWatch Posted 4:56 am
   29 Aug 2007

   But there's 78% Less CO2At 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

4. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 5:06 am
   29 Aug 2007

   NonprofitWatch,From this post:
   The last and biggest to fall was its carbon neutrality. This fuel has gone from being touted as carbon neutral, to adding 22 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere for every 100 pounds released at the tail pipe (78%, according to the Department of Agriculture report with the picture of a bus with a soybean motif painted on it), to adding 59 pounds of CO2 for every 100 pounds released (41% if you accept the highly biodiesel-positive study from the University of Minnesota), and finally to being far worse than fossil fuels in the latest peer reviewed study, found in Science.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

5. 

   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.
   
   
   For his part, Propel's Elam, who grew up in Minnesota, says he's been environmentally active since he was a kid, but adds that he's become isolated over the years from "utopian hardcore" environmentalists.
   "The hardcore environmental movement has become so disconnected from pragmatic solutions," says Elam. "They do nothing but yell from their ivory tower, which allows big oil to keep the status quo. We want the most local, sustainable biodiesel that meets our cost and quality standards. But you have to put one foot in front of the other and understand it's one step at a time to get there. We must understand it will be a dirty, clumsy process to make change."
   
   
   This reminds me of someone's comment that
   
   
   Progressive environmentalism embodies the reality that we don't have to pit the environment vs. economics, and we can in fact use economic thinking and mechanisms to improve environmental policy."
   
   From this link
   
   
   
   bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
   
   bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
   
   

   Permalink

6. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 6:15 am
   29 Aug 2007

   OMG IT NOT BADBut there's 78% Less CO2
   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

7. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 6:33 am
   29 Aug 2007

   Glad you brought that up, BernardoThis 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 nuetral, 78% carbon nuetral, 41%.
   
   
   However, today we know
   
   
   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.
   They do nothing but yell from their ivory tower, which allows big oil to keep the status quo
   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.
   We want the most local, sustainable biodiesel that meets our cost and quality standards
   ...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

8. 

   NonprofitWatch Posted 6:57 am
   29 Aug 2007

   Perhaps an Op-Ed is in orderJust 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

9. 

   NonprofitWatch Posted 7:08 am
   29 Aug 2007

   PSPerhaps 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

10. 

    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

11. 

    GreyFlcn Posted 10:43 am
    29 Aug 2007

    You left outYou 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

12. 

    Biodiversivist Posted 12:59 pm
    29 Aug 2007

    Glad you brought that up, WiscideaYou 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

13. 

    wiscidea Posted 11:22 pm
    29 Aug 2007

    downsidesMy 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

14. 

    GreyFlcn Posted 11:45 pm
    29 Aug 2007

    Well there is the simple oneWell 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

15. 

    wiscidea Posted 12:15 am
    30 Aug 2007

    GreyFlcnI 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