Several posts during the past week, and countless ones elsewhere, have asked people to support the Energy Bill making its way through Congress. Some people have no problem with one of its major provisions, which calls for substantially expanding the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) -- the regulation that requires minimum amounts of ethanol, biodiesel, or other biofuels to be incorporated into the volume of transport fuels used each year. Indeed, some would even welcome the prospect.
Many others do not like the idea, but seem to feel that it is a price worth paying in order to preserve solar investment tax credits as well as production tax credits for large-scale renewable projects. (A national Renewable Electricity Standard has already been dropped from the bill.) Some of those people then argue, in effect, we can always go back and repeal the RFS next year.
Next joke.
As I have argued on a number of occasions, once a minimum use of a product becomes mandated, there is almost no chance of rolling it back, especially once investments are made to meet it.
But if you, gentle readers, think I'm exaggerating the problem, then I encourage you to print off a very handy (and accessible) report, Corn-Based Ethanol in Illinois and the U.S., recently published by the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics of the University of Illinois. In Chapter 9 of the report, Prof. David S. Bullock explains "Ethanol Policy and Ethanol Politics" (PDF) in the United States in very clear, straight-forward terms. Here is what he says toward the conclusion of the paper:
Another question is how flexible factors are in moving out of ethanol production and into an alternative use. It is crucial for policy makers to understand this concept and its implications. Some factors are reasonably flexible -- the transportation trucks and rail cars can be moved to alternative activities with relative ease.
But other factors are considerably less flexible. It would be difficult to move some forms of labor and know-how out of the sector, especially in any kind of short run. Ethanol factories are built in rural communities, and thus one of the political justifications for providing subsidies to ethanol is to create factory jobs in rural areas. If workers and managers own homes in a small town, then when an ethanol plant shuts down it may be impossible for them to sell their homes without a huge loss in equity, and therefore they may not be able to get out of the town that they moved into earlier, when they anticipated that ethanol markets would remain strong, and government policy would remain favorable, for many years to come.
Even less flexible are the buildings and machines that make up the ethanol plant itself. Clearly it is not generally feasible to move the buildings. And many of the machines used in an ethanol plant are not very useful in other industries.
This irreversibility of bringing factors into ethanol production causes the subsidy policy to act like a political ratchet. It is easy enough politically to cause the subsidy to go up: corn farmers and ethanol producers influence their congressional representatives, and everyone refers to energy self-sufficiency and rural job creation. But once in place, it may well become politically infeasible to bring the subsidy back down. For, after the economy is finished building new ethanol factories, in response to the subsidy, what then?
We've already argued that when the building process is through, many ethanol factories will not be making large profits. The factories and their workers, then, would be quite vulnerable if, for example, any of the following transpired: 1) the government decided to remove or lower the subsidy, 2) world oil prices fell and remained low for an extended period, and/or 3) droughts led to poor corn harvests in consecutive years. In any such circumstance, it will be extremely difficult for government to tell factories that are losing money and workers who are losing jobs, "Sorry, but that's the free market." Rather, it will be politically expedient to raise subsidization levels. Thus, a major concern is that ethanol subsidies are relatively easy for governments to get into, but very difficult for governments to get out of. [My emphasis]
There are some who argue that the high prices for "program commodities" generated by support for biofuels will smooth the way for major reforms of agricultural policy. Well, one such reform, proposed by Senator Richard Lugar, has already been defeated. Senator Lugar is a big proponent of ethanol, by the way, but IMHO on the issue of farm subsidies he gets it right. (See his remarks in yesterday's Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.) Interestingly, here is what a farmer interviewed about the Lugar amendment had to say on the matter:
Grain farmers were concerned that Sen. Richard Lugar's amendment to the farm bill would provide too little protection if a drought or other disaster damaged crops, Woodburn farmer Roger Hadley II said. If the proposed crop insurance program had been tied to past revenues, it would not reflect the high prices and high production costs farmers are dealing with today, Hadley said. Demand for ethanol and other biofuels increased crop prices substantially in the past two years, but farmers need the additional income to cover the rising cost of fertilizer, seed and farmland. If a drought slashed farmers' harvests in half, he said a crop insurance program based on past revenues could not cover current costs. [My emphasis]
So, once again the status quo rules. We'll still pay for farm subsidies plus ever-increasing subsidies for biofuels.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Threaded
GreyFlcn Posted 3:51 pm
13 Dec 2007
What action would suggest we ask for?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:07 pm
13 Dec 2007
Permalink
Tim Hurst Posted 4:57 pm
13 Dec 2007
Tim Hurst
ecopolitology.org
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:41 pm
13 Dec 2007
Should the Democrats just back out of the energy bill?
Why just Democrats? My advice would be the same irrespective of the party to which the Congress Member belongs: KILL [the] BILL.
I am truly dismayed that major environmental groups continued pushing this bill even while it kept getting worse and worse. In contrast with an increase in the RFS standard, for example, one can always wait a few months and try again to increase the CAFE standard (if that is your heart's desire). (Of course, a CAFE standard can always be abandoned also.) But an RFS is forever. That is why the industry wanted it so badly.
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:11 pm
13 Dec 2007
A local PBS station aired a 30 minute interview with corn ethanol proponents in IL yesterday evening. Some of their views were just incredible including the possibility of producing 30 billion gallons of ethanol from corn in the US!
This would be equivalent to using almost all current US corn production. So how could we achieve this? With gene engineering, 280 bushel yields are possible. Sure. The US yield average this year was about 155 so 280 represents almost a doubling of average yields. My guess is that US corn yield averages will probably top out somewhere about 175 bu/acre so the only way we could produce 30 billion gallons would be to double corn acreage. With that, we would be pushing corn into very marginal lands requiring higher production inputs to achieve economic yields. We would also be pushing millions of acres of soybeans into the Amazon rainforest.
Your main point about the irreversible nature of these mandates is spot on. We'll be needing to pump a lot of fossil energy and tax dollars to maintain the level in this "security moat". If people do not get the concept of technocracy where the engineered environment forces our policy then then we will continue to live with the illusions of democracy and freedom. Recent actions in Washington illuminate a government of technocrats muddling badly.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 8:29 pm
13 Dec 2007
Two days ago, I was violently ill -- apparently from something I ate
while up in coal country the day before. After learning of the 86-8
Senate vote on the energy bill this evening, I'm feeling another kind
of sickness that runs far deeper.
I'm pained by the knowledge that many hundreds of additional
communities are now going to become targets for ethanol
biorefineries, including "advanced" biofuels, which will include even
more use of biotechnology and which will clear our forests and crop
lands to liquidate them to fuel vehicles. Even more troubling is
that much of this will create a demand to try to turn trash, sewage
sludge and other contaminated waste streams into liquid fuels (as if
fighting landfills and incinerators weren't enough bad end-of-pipe
"solutions" to fight).
I'm pained by the knowledge that the more we succeed in stopping
these insane "biofuel" schemes in the U.S., the more we'll end up
importing these fuels and contributing to deforestation and global
hunger in other countries.
I'm sickened by the fact that I'm still getting email alerts from
Sierra Club and others pretending that the energy bill is worthy of
our support. This lack of a backbone is true for a myriad of
national environmental groups who have shamefully promoted good
aspects of the bill while failing to warn people about any of the
toxic, polluting tragedies that also littered the legislation.
I'm even more disgusted by the knowledge that these national
environmental groups won't be available when hundreds of communities
call them for help, trying to protect their air, water, farms and
towns from the "biorefineries" coming their way.
We're already overwhelmed trying to help communities fight these
things and our work is going to get FAR bigger.
I wish I could count on the rising food and fuel costs to wake up our
nation in the next few years and roll back this misguided 5-fold
increase in the "biofuel" mandate. Unfortunately, we'll probably see
a continuation of the understanding that corn-based ethanol is a
terribly idea (and perhaps a roll back of that measure), while the
insane worship of cellulosic ethanol continues to drive the push to
turn everything from trash to trees into liquid fuels.
...and the sickness doesn't end. Right now, the 2008 Omnibus
Appropriations bill has language that would provide blank checks for
the building of new nuclear reactors, uranium enrichment plants and
coal-to-oil and coal-to-gas refineries. The Farm Bill is also on the
table right now, with even more subsidies for liquefying our forests,
building more biorefineries, "educating" people about how great
biotech food is, and probably plenty more that would turn your
stomach if you had time to read and understand the 860 page bill.
Mike Ewall
Energy Justice Network
http://www.energyjustice.net
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 9:06 pm
13 Dec 2007
Often industry backed foundation grants come with strings attached. The Big Greens might be muzzled on certain environmental issues. If you wonder why certain Big Greens don't oppose an environmentally destructive project, it might be because their industry funders don't allow it.
In other cases, such as the energy bill, Big Greens likely received industry foundation money to promote or ignore some of the worst elements of the bill. The disastrous ethanol subsidies are an example.
What funders contributed to the work of Big Greens on the energy bill? It would be interesting to know.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:29 pm
13 Dec 2007
Last September I was invited to a private meeting with a high (i.e., politically appointed) official in the USDA who was touring Europe. He was interested in our work on measuring biofuel subsidies, and thought it would be worthwhile to meet with a critic. (For that I certainly give him credit.) Expecting to hear the usual "bait and switchgrass" argument ("Yes, yes, we know corn ethanol has its problems, but we need it as a stepping stone to a future cellulosic nirvana!") instead I got an earful about how much more ethanol could be produced from U.S.-grown corn.
Being a Midwest farmer himself, however, it was clear that he regarded corn as a miracle crop. Since he used low-till methods on his own farm, he firmly believed that everybody did. And any residual problems -- water requirements, nutrient run-off -- would be solved through genetic engineering. When I pointed out that, meanwhile, huge amounts of nutrients were washing into the Mississippi River catchment and contributing to the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, he dismissed those increased nutrient levels as due to people fertilizing their lawns (I kid you not).
You have, perhaps, seen in another posting, Tom Waterman (publisher of Ethanol Monitor) observe that the total area planted to corn in 2007 "was 93.6 million acres or about 30% less acreage than the peak in 1932".
Here is my response:
I am astonished that anybody -- in this case, Tom Waterman ("Another Tom") -- would compare current farmed acreage to that in 1932 to support an argument that there is no risk in expanding corn acreage further. Nineteen-thirty-two was the beginning of the dust bowl, following years of over-production and poor rotation practices. As Timothy Egan describes it in his book, The Worst Hard Time (p. 113), "What was happening to the land in the early 1930s was nearly unnoticed at first. Still, it was a different world, off balance, and ill. So when the winds blew in the winter of 1932, they picked up the soil with little resistance and sent it skyward." In a word, the U.S. farming system in 1932 was unsustainable. Even while farmland was turning to dust in the high plains, corn was being planted up to the crests of ridges in the Appalachians, encouraging massive erosion. No, I don't think we want to return to those days.
But, no question, there are plenty of people out there -- with political influence -- who see no problem in further expanding corn acreage in the United States -- big time.
A form of fundamentalist religion is now driving U.S. energy and climate policy. To quote CATO's Jerry Taylor (who bravely blogged here recently): "The closest thing we have to a state religion in America today isn't Christianity. It's corn."
Hallelujah, brother!
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 9:46 pm
13 Dec 2007
the only opening was last spring
enviros went along
decision made. next issue
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:54 pm
13 Dec 2007
Certainly not the majority of people contributing comments on Gristmill.
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:30 pm
13 Dec 2007
Nelson told members he envisions a future in agriculture, within the next decade, when farmers can consistently grow 300 bushel corn, 80-bushel beans (soy), and produce 800 gallons of ethanol from every acre of corn....
The livestock industry in the state also will be poised for growth as feedlots could open next to ethanol plants to take advantage of distillers grain as a feed source.
from: (excuse me) FarmWeek, December 10, 2007, p.2.
To expand on my earlier comments, the maximum theoretical corn yield is about 470 bu/acre. The highest yield record I know of in IL is 370 bu/acre. This was grown on 20 acres with the application of over 500 lbs of nitrogen fertilizer/acre! It is also interesting to note that commercial corn yields have averaged about 50% of the yields recorded in yield contests. So, if you divide 370 bu/acre by 2 you get 185 bu/acre which is not too far off my estimate of average yields topping out at 175 bu/acre. This is the US average. The IL average did reach about this 175 bu yield this year but IL has some of the best corn land in the US and got some just in time rains.
Are our policy makers determining policy in the real world or in the visions of how the Ag lobbyists want the world to be?
Also, the quote about feed lots locating near ethanol plants should turn the heads of some locals who have been bamboozled by ethanol boosters who claim the plants' odors are "tolerable".
Are we getting a glimpse yet of what the world will look like if "we drive on corn forever" (ADM greenwash ad)? Which really begs the question of sustainability. When they start out full of shit it is amazing how much more shit the corn ethanol promoters will eat to maintain their front.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:26 am
14 Dec 2007
Rather than backing out of the bill, they should attach a poison pill.
And ask for something which is certain to gain a veto.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:34 am
14 Dec 2007
Renewable Electricity Standards
Tax Incentives for renewable electricity production
Tax Incentives for PHEVs
The removal of tax breaks for Oil companies
This is in the bill.
Practically makes it so that California can't regulate greenhouse emissions, even though they just won a court case saying they could.
Mandates for BioFuels, include a more than doubling of corn ethanol production (Which is already using 30% of our Corn supply)
Subsidies for Coal to Liqiuds
Subsidies for Gas to Liquids
Subsidies for Nuclear
Other stuff which I'm not aware of
_
And the only thing left in the bill is a CAFE program which is so small and slow that by the time we fully implement it, we'd be emitting just as much or more greenhouse gases than we are today.
Not to mention it still continues to include a CAFE loophole for flex fuel cars, and a class seperation for Cars and Trucks.
_
It's begining to feel like a bait and switch.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:41 am
14 Dec 2007
"It does not contain the Renewable Portfolio Standard or the tax package that would have rescinded tax breaks for oil companies in order to fund renewable energy. The resulting bill is, in my humble opinion, no longer a net positive"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/13/165138/44
"The Senate voted yesterday evening on an Energy Bill that left out the investment and production tax credits and a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), avoiding a Presidential veto but dramatically reducing the role of renewables in Congress' energy plan."
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50 ...
If biofuels have problems, these aggressive targets will be near impossible to walk away from
"Once in place, the Renewable Fuel Standard will be nigh impossible to eliminate"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/13/72549/012
"If we try to meet these aggressive targets very quickly, what we're going to end up with is a much, much larger version of the current, already inefficient, corn-based ethanol program."
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18104/page1/
"First and foremost, governments should not throw good money after bad. Continuing to support an industry that cannot survive without subsidies will only make the pain worse when the inevitable adjustment comes."
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/s ...
"WRI Report: Current Fuel Economy Proposals Will Not Reduce Overall GHG Emissions from Cars and Light Trucks Over the Long Term"
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/wri-report-curr.h ...
And of course
http://greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol.png
http://greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/lca.png
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 12:48 pm
15 Dec 2007
you make a few references here or there to it, but when it comes down to your policy page, you are no better than the NRCD and Sierra Club, who are eager to give cover to big utilities while they bulldoze, pave, and permanently kill wilderness to "harvest" so-called "green power."
how can it be green if you kill off entire ecosystems to harvest it? there is more going on here on earth than greenhouse gases and there is a GREAT way and a LOUSY way to get solar and wind up and running. the former is, as i say, only on existing developed areas (you mention some in your "solar" and "wind" sections). the latter involves damage or destruction to any wilderness areas (which is just fine in your "policy" section).
please, take a stand for the planet in a meaningful way and GO GREEN for real, instead of greenwashing planetary death squads while they trample fragile habitats to bottle our sunshine and our wind on our publicly-owned lands, in order to sell it back to us for a profit
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 12:49 pm
15 Dec 2007
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 4:02 am
16 Dec 2007
"when it comes down to your policy page, you are no better than the NRCD and Sierra Club, who are eager to give cover to big utilities while they bulldoze, pave, and permanently kill wilderness to "harvest" so-called "green power.""
------------------------------------
Lumping EJN's policies or activities with those of the NRDC and the Sierra Club is wrong.
Have another look ~
http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:43 pm
16 Dec 2007
i.e. Does it have to be actually "Green" to qualify?
Or do things like Corn Ethanol produced using Coal Electricity qualify?
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 8:05 pm
16 Dec 2007
[The The Energy Independence and Security Act] includes critical environmental safeguards to ensure that the growth of homegrown fuels help to reduce carbon emissions. Under the bill, conventional biofuels will be required to emit 20 percent fewer lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions compared with gasoline, and the bill includes protections to ensure that increased use of biofuels will not harm our air or water quality.
I don't know whether that provision survived into the latest version of the bill (some Senators didn't like it). But even if it did, the devil is in the details. Note the key word "homegrown". That suggests that the standards will either apply only to domesticaly produced biofuels (in which case imported biofuels would have an advantage, so I doubt this is what they have in mind), or that they plan on keeping out imports, which of course would be a violation of WTO (and NAFTA, and CAFTA, etc.) rules. Perhaps the legislators are even aware of this, and will abandon the requirement as soon as trading partners begin to raise concerns.
Or, perhaps, the drafters of the legislation have in mind applying some sophisticated monitoring and certification system (as several EU countries and Switzerland are planning to do) to all biofuels, whether homegrown or imported. If so, it will be interesting to see how they plan on implementing such as system. What is likely, in my opinion, is that setting up such a system (one that is WTO compatible) will take so long that it will not make much of a difference, at least not for a decade.
Permalink
justlou Posted 9:21 pm
16 Dec 2007
By 2020, corn "reduces" our gas consumption by maybe 3%. In the meantime we burn a bunch of it in FFVs getting 15 to 25 mpg. Along with projected demand growth, these low mileage vehicles on the road and on the salesroom floor will increase our overall fuel consumption by 20% by 2020. And they get 20% lower mileage burning E85. In the meantime the degradation of our waterways from agriculture continues as before. So, by 2020, where are we exactly? By 2020 are we any further along the road toward true sustainability? What has capturing this solar energy with fossil energy actually gained us other than temporary transfers of capital?
Needed: incentives to cut oil demand by 20% within 5 years, by 2012.
The markets and the economy will be far more effective in reducing consumption than anything Congress has the guts to do at this point, which ain't enough. The price of oil and gas is not high enough... yet. We are still drifting in LaLaLand.
Washington lags at least 20 years behind the needed time to act and then muddles the results. Lets see, by 2020, our road fleet will be averaging about 30 mpg -- 50% better than cars were getting in 1920. Something ain't right about this picture.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:39 pm
16 Dec 2007
I couldn't agree more: heavy government support for biofuels diverts attention from the real changes that need to take place in transport policy, while sounding all warm and fuzzy (that "bio" prefix should never have been attached to "fuel") and allowing politicians to brag that they are "doing something to combat climate change", as well as supporting farmers (or at least, arable farmers).
Drop me a line some time, Justlou: ronald dot steenblik at gmail dot c o m
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:06 pm
16 Dec 2007
Thanks for a lot of good information and discussion. Gee, I wish there was something nice to say about what is happening.
It seems like "they" give an inch on global warming and go a hundred miles backward on agriculture. If I didn't know better, I'd think there was a plot to destroy the world!!!
Yuck!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:52 pm
16 Dec 2007
But, I don't expect much honesty from either political party so my view of this is rather jaded.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:09 am
17 Dec 2007
The feedstocks displayed on the GREET web page (corn, soybeans, sweet sorghum, cellulosic material) don't seem to include sugarcane, palm oil, or a host of other feedstocks grown in the tropics, though. While I assume the model can deal with these, fed the right parameters, somebody has to decide what parameters to use -- and you can bet that the Brazilians will dispute whatever they use, unless it allows them to export. As, well, as with any partial-model, I doubt it can deal with GHG emissions associated with the expansion of agriculture into forests and grasslands.
And thanks for the kind words, Patrick.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:40 am
17 Dec 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
Especially if they use it at 2.5x increased decomposition rate which Paul Crutzen indicates.
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy
That alone would be plenty to kill off any benefit from Corn ethanol.
And certainly enough to make it less than the supposidly required 20% reduction mark.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:11 am
17 Dec 2007
Looks like all that nitrogen fertilizer runoff we've been dumping into our oceans is coming back to kick our asses.
Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Ocean Bacteria on the Rise
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:25 am
17 Dec 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:58 am
17 Dec 2007
Biogas digestion of manure would replace that methane and nitrous oxide release with clean kwh from methane and organic fertilizer that would replace chemical fertilizer. Organic fertilizer stays in the healthy soil ecosystem, chemicals run off from the inert soil of agrichem farming.
There are good biofuels from green, carbon sink friendly waste recycling sources. But this RFS is targeted to the bad biofuels that come from soil destroying souces.
Reframing of this issue is needed. A dual frame, painting a picture of fuel farming ethanol and biodiesel on one side, versus processing the waste stream using renewable energy on the other.
They may not know what art is, but the public will know what they like if the artist is accurate.
How about a renewable fuel standard for tractors to switch to compressed farm produced biogas/methane? Or how about switching to plugin hybrid power and considering green kwh produced on the farm a renewable fuel. A much better energy/farm policy.
A new portable power tool compressed air tank you hang on your belt carries 1200 pounds of pressure. That kind of safe,efficient compression and storage technology, at a mass produced price, adapted to biogas, could power farm tractors. A few standard sized vehicle sized cylinders of gas at 1200 pounds would allow for hours between fill ups.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:02 am
17 Dec 2007
Why don't more farms use bio-methane to power their vehicles?
I've heard of a lot of diesel buses being converted to run on natural gas.
Why not tractors?
Especially considering there would be little downside to bolting on a storage tank on the back due to aesthetics.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:04 am
17 Dec 2007
Permalink
justlou Posted 3:13 am
17 Dec 2007
Hmmm... doesn't this add to our argument that we are adding unnecessary complexity and unknown downstream consequences to "reducing" our dependence on oil? The biofuel we substitute does not appear to be any more sustainable and may be just as or more damaging as the petroleum it is intended to replace. And proposing that government or industry is going to keep pace with the unintended consequences of our muddled approach is putting too much faith in the same government and industries that steered the ship into the storm to begin with.
If we do not quickly redesign the physical infrastructure that oil built and oil maintains we will keep getting ourselves into this continuous ratcheting up process of never ending fixes in which the last fix creates the need for additional fixes.
First -- shrink the liquid fuel sink! Growing both the source and the sink gets us nowhere. Design an infrastructure that will allow us to reduce the number of autos on US roads by 20% by 2020. That would mean something!
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 7:09 am
17 Dec 2007
The Energy Foundation was launched in 1991 by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and The Rockefeller Foundation.
The foundation makes grants to nonprofit organizations. The foundation's geographic focus is the United States and China.
The Energy Foundation, in partnership with the McKnight Foundation, has launched a grants program to promote policies that encourage the move to "advanced" biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol.
See: http://www.ef.org/documents/symposium_full_coverage.pdf
The Energy Foundation's new biofuels program is an expansion of The McKnight Foundation-Energy Foundation Upper Midwest Clean Energy Initiative.
Funded by The McKnight Foundation of Minneapolis, Minnesota, the biofuels program is focused on helping the U.S., and especially the Midwest, become the world leader in technologies for producing biofuels - liquid fuels from crops and agricultural "waste."
Current Energy Foundation partners are: Cinco Hermanos, The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Randi and Robert Fisher, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, The Mertz Gilmore Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Schmidt Family Foundation, The Simons Foundation, Nat Simons and Laura Baxter-Simons, and The TOSA Foundation.
The Energy Foundation
http://www.ef.org/home.cfm
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 8:25 am
17 Dec 2007
http://www.energyjustice.net/rps/
do you really think that all that wind power you are so excited about is coming from mini-turbines on individual homes and businesses? or is it coming from areas that were fragile wilderness and are now completely destroyed forever?
unless environmental groups get it together and keep the message strong and clear - that we will ONLY SUPPORT LOCAL GENERATION OF RENEWABLES ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND - utilities like LADWP will continue to see the Joshua Tree area as "Fair Game" to blast boulders, bulldoze Joshua Trees, kill off every plant and animal out there, and call it "green power." that cool with you?
there is more to "green power" than greenhouse gases. killing off ecosystems has its own very steep costs. if you aren't part of the solution, then you give cover to mercenaries like LADWP and all the other utilities killing the planet and calling it "saving the planet." it is WRONG, and i expect more from those who purport to speak for the habitats which cannot speak for themselves.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:23 pm
17 Dec 2007
Wind turbines actually have a very small footprint. Thats why farmers often take advantage of them, and plant crops right underneath them.
Distributed Residential Electricity is stupid.
It costs too much, not just due to the complete lack of economies of scale, but also because the retrofit installation costs are double what a contractor would be capable of using the same technology.
Some of the best technologies, i.e. Geothermal, and Solarthermal, require massive scale. But they also have some of the cheapest and highest reliability.
Joshua Trees are a highly protected plant species. The chances of anyone building anything on them would be slim to nill. Atleast not without a 10 year Environmental Impact Report, which ultimately would probably be denied anyways. Stop making stuff up for your own drama queen stunts.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:22 pm
17 Dec 2007
That concrete requirement, by the way, is not trivial: something like 0.3 cubic meters per kilowatt. That means that enough turbines to provide 700 MWe of peak (not even average) capacity -- equivalent to two natural-gas-fired combined-cycle power plants -- would require as much concrete in their pedestals as could cover 20 football fields to a depth of 6 feet.
GreyFlcn: yes, farmers continue to graze cattle underneath the wind turbines, but that does not neceessarily mean that some of the farming potential of the land has not been lost.
StopGreenPath: could you please provide more details on the damage that you say is being done to Joshua trees?
Permalink