Toward a community-owned, decentralized biofuel future

By David Morris

08 Dec 2006

President Bush visits the Virginia Biodiesel Refinery in 2005.

Photo: whitehouse.gov

Biofuels won't single-handedly solve the climate crisis, nor will they deliver energy independence. But a base of widely dispersed, farmer- and citizen-owned biofuel plants can displace significant amounts of fossil fuels -- while also building local economies.

What follows is a strategy for tweaking existing federal energy and farm policy to create such an energy landscape. Before getting to that, though, given the scorn heaped on biofuels by many well-intentioned and not so well-intentioned commentators, I'll make the case that biofuels have an important role to play in any realistic sustainable-energy vision.

First, a truly sustainable materials foundation demands that we use plants for more than food and feed. We can extract energy from the wind and sun, but where will the molecules needed to make physical materials come from? We have two choices: vegetables or minerals. Maximizing the reuse and recycling of existing materials can minimize our need for new materials. But raw materials will eventually be needed, and when they are, I suggest we rely on biology, not geology.

Second, the planet lacks the arable land area necessary to grow biomass in quantities sufficient to displace more than a minority of fossil fuels, let alone all minerals. There is more than enough existing plant matter to make biochemicals that displace all organic and inorganic chemicals. But there is only enough land available to grow plant matter sufficient to displace 25 to 35 percent of our ground transportation fuels. And under virtually any scenario, we can't grow enough biomass to satisfy more than a tiny portion of electricity requirements.

Story continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

Third, and following from proposition two, any initiative to aggressively increase the production of biochemicals and biofuels should be viewed as an agricultural strategy with energy-security implications. This is the opposite of the way policy makers currently approach the biomass issue. To them, expanding bioenergy is an energy-security strategy with agricultural implications.

Today, policy makers ignore the farmer because they assume a rising tide will lift all boats. Expand biofuels production, the logic goes, and rural areas and farmers will automatically benefit.

But farmers have learned from over 100 years of bitter experience that increased demand for their raw material does not automatically translate into higher personal incomes.

In The Same Vein

Ethanomics 101
The shining promise of ethanol doesn't add up for farmers

Before the recent jump in corn prices, the cash price of corn in mid-2006 was no higher than it was in 1974. Indeed, in 1974, a bushel of corn could buy about 5 gallons of gasoline. Today, even after the recent price rally, a bushel of corn can buy only about a gallon and a half of gasoline.

A recent study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance concluded that the increase in ethanol production from about 1.5 billion gallons in 1990 to over 4 billion gallons today has had little or no statistically significant effect on corn prices at the national, state, or even county level. The recent run-up in corn prices reflects the enormous increase in plant construction, amplified by speculation in the futures markets. But traditionally, farmers have a collective way of undermining their own prosperity.

Most observers expect that high corn prices will result in about 8 million additional acres of corn cultivation in 2007, which would produce about 1.2 billion bushels, which could produce all by itself over 3 billion gallons of ethanol. Unless Congress dramatically increases the mandated level of ethanol production next year, we can expect corn prices to come back down by the end of next year, if not sooner.

On the other hand, if farmers own the bio-refineries, they do profit handsomely and possibly enduringly. Their annual return on their investment is often in the range of 30 to 75 cents per bushel. The data is skimpy and largely secondhand, but over the last 15 years, the average farmer investor in an ethanol plant probably earned annual returns of over 15 percent.

To date, public policy, at least at the federal level, has ignored the ownership structure of renewable-energy production facilities. That may be because until very recently America's biofuels industry was largely locally owned. In 2003, some 50 percent of all existing ethanol refineries and perhaps 80 percent of all proposed plants were majority-owned by farmers. But in the last two years, that ownership equation has been reversed. Today, 80 percent or more of new ethanol production is coming from absentee-owned plants.

Congress should give locally owned bio-refineries a boost. If the national biofuels mandate were increased, as many expect it will be, there would be less justification for financial incentives that simply encourage consumption. Congress could then turn its attention to fashioning incentives to encourage the most beneficial kind of production.

You can get there from here

How might that occur?

One step is to transform the federal biofuels incentive from a pump credit -- that is, an incentive that goes to the blender of ethanol and gasoline -- to a direct payment to the ethanol producer, with higher rewards accruing to locally owned plants. Minnesota did something similar to this with its state ethanol incentive in the mid-1980s, to good effect.

An introduction to Grist's special series on biofuels.

Can My Car Do That? Find out which cars can run on ethanol and biodiesel.

The Big Three. The numbers behind ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel in the U.S.

What About the Land? A look at the impacts of biofuels production, in the U.S. and the world.

Give Green, Go Yellow. How cash and corporate pressure pushed ethanol to the fore.

More articles on biofuels.

Taking a page from Minnesota's playbook, Congress could redesign the federal incentive this way. An absentee-owned plant could be paid 15 cents per gallon for the first 20 million gallons produced each year for 10 years. A majority locally owned plant might receive 25 cents per gallon.

Such incentives might be expected to encourage communities to raise money internally to build biofuel plants. To produce enough biofuels to satisfy 30 percent of our transportation fuels and 75 percent of our chemical needs would require about 2,500 bio-refineries. Assuming 500 investors per plant with an average investment of about $25,000, we would have about 1.2 million local investors, each with a direct stake in a biologically fueled future.

These local investors need not be farmers. But if the majority were, the number would exceed the total number of commodity farmers in the nation -- which is why an aggressive and community-oriented rural energy policy could serve as the foundation for a dramatically redesigned agricultural policy.

We may be able to displace only 25 to 35 percent of our ground transportation fuels with plants, but to achieve that objective would require harvesting more plant matter than is used today for all purposes, including food, feed, textiles, paper, structural materials, and energy. That is, sufficient plant matter to supply over 2,500 bio-refineries. And as the transition to cellulosic production progresses, there's no need to focus on any single dominant feedstock such as corn. Feedstocks can become region-appropriate, and bio-refineries can be widely dispersed, with at least one in virtually every state.

With an energy policy in place to encourage local ownership of bio-refineries, Congress should make locally owned rural energy production an integral component of farm policy when the Farm Bill comes up for reauthorization in 2007.

Consider the numbers. In 2005, the nation's commodity farmers (cotton, rice, soybeans, cotton, wheat) had sales of about $50 billion. Commodity farmers received about $15 billion in government payments. Over the years, this level of support has fluctuated, depending on the market price of the commodities, from $5 billion to $25 billion.

Wholesale revenues from biofuels in 2006 will be about $8 billion, and could reach $14 billion by 2009, with a net income of more than $3 billion. Wind energy sales will be a little less than $1 billion in 2006 and could reach $2 billion by 2010.

If the farm program were redesigned to help farmers become owners of value-added processing and manufacturing facilities, it could change the very structure and dynamics of American agriculture. For farmers, a share in a bio-refinery acts as a hedge against a possible fall in the price of their crop. If the price of corn falls, so does the input costs of producing ethanol and, all other things being equal, the profits from that plant will increase, generating a higher dividend check to the farmer. The same dynamic would occur when cellulosic ethanol is introduced.

Just $5 billion -- or a third of last year's commodity-support outlay -- could enable farmers to become owners in some 500 additional bio-refineries producing an additional 20 billion gallons of ethanol.

When Congress reconvenes in January, it will have the opportunity to fashion a far-reaching Farm Bill that marries agricultural and energy goals, and aligns rural prosperity with energy security. But it will only take advantage of that historic opportunity if it accepts a basic proposition: ownership matters. The ownership structure of agriculture, not the demand for agricultural products, will decide the future of rural America, and perhaps the future of world agriculture. And bioenergy can be the lever that stabilizes our farms, even as it helps wean us from fossil fuels.

David Morris has been a consultant or adviser to the energy departments of Presidents Ford, Carter, Clinton, and George W. Bush. For six years, David served on a congressionally created advisory committee to the U.S. Department of Energy and USDA on biomass-related issues. David is vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and directs the Institute's New Rules Project.

Comments: (13 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

As much as I like to disagree with more ethanol...

Pimental is wrong in his analysis because he does not apply it equally when he evaluates the petroleum industry. The energy to make tankers, pipelines, drilling rigs, trucks to explore new regions for oil, clean up costs, etc. etc. The reason you leave out the energy to make the combines, vehicles and other equipement in ethanol production because they are preexisting structures that would be utilized to produce other crops and are not single use items. For example if a corn/bean farmer were not producing corn for ethanol he would still own all the same equipment so that he would produce soybeans and another crop such as wheat for food/feed consumption. The energy would be used whether corn was produced or not. I doubt the petroleum industry would stand up to the same magnifying glass of energy usage that pimental applies to the ethanol industry if the energy were tallied up to get a gallon of gas to the pumps.

by ethanoloverload at 3:02 PM on 08 Dec 2006

Pimentel Parsed

I would just like to re-refer folks to an excellent ethanol analysis performed by Robert McElroy, an environmental studies professor at Harvard University (it's a chapter in an upcoming book but is available online at his faculty homepage). In this chapter, McElroy compares the assumptions of Pimentel & Patzek to those of Shapouri & McAloon (with props to an earlier study this year published by Farrell et al. at Berkeley). He disagrees with Pimentel/Patzek's high inputs for farm labor. Farmers must eat, for instance whether they are cultivating crops for corn ethanol or for cornbread, and yet P&P insist on counting farmers' caloric intake as an energy input.
On the other hand, he sides with P&P on their criticism of the high credits many research teams assign to the co-products. Instead, he adopts the more modest "displacement method," which only gives co-products an energy savings equivalent to the most efficient conventional method of feed production.
All told, McElroy's analysis still finds corn ethanol to be energy positive by "about 20 to 30 percent."

by Maywa Montenegro at 9:15 PM on 08 Dec 2006

Loved that interview, Tom

It's telling us we're using too goddamn much fossil energy!

Where would this world be without curmudgeons?

Ethanolloverload,

"I doubt the petroleum industry would stand up to the same magnifying glass of energy usage"

Not to defend fossil fuel, but no biofuel can possibly hope to match the energy efficiency of pumping a highly energy dense liquid out of holes in the ground, cracking it into various forms and transporting it. The argument over energy used to make ethanol is moot in any case. It has enough environmental and economic negatives to bury it without that argument.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:18 PM on 08 Dec 2006

I love pimentel's work too...

and a massive push for biofuels will have devastating environmental consequences- it is another case of a poor reasoning, the search for a quick fix, and so many layers of government subsidies that it's dizzying- let me repeat again- remove ALL NATURAL RESORUCE SUSIDIZES- price carbon, and let the market work!!!

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

by Jason D Scorse at 11:55 AM on 10 Dec 2006

Grist Gets It Right

This guy makes sense!

Texeme.Construct(Participant)

by jabailo at 3:23 PM on 11 Dec 2006

moot points

The argument about the detailed EROEI of corn ethanol is pretty much irrelevant. Whether it's 0.8:1 or 1.5:1, it is not even close to being high enough to displace oil in any significant way. In order to take the place of gasoline, in a functional sense, it would need to have an EROEI of at least the same order of magnitude as gasoline production, which is 10-20:1, depending on whose numbers you use. Add in the environmental degredation of expanding monocrop corn production, and it's a clear loser for everyone who isn't ADM.

by GreenEngineer at 4:30 PM on 11 Dec 2006

Making Biofuels Work

My problem with Pimental is that he takes the present and says why it doesn't work rather than look at it as a challenge and say how can we make it work. Giving in to the status quo is no answer and conservation isn't enough.

I lived in Ithaca, too, for 6 years and I understand the Luddite mentality of the place but that is no excuse for an Ag School scientist to put the skids to every attempt at progress to an industry that, up to now, has been a godsend to so many farmers.

According to renown business and national security advocate James Woolsey switching to biofuels like cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel represent the fastest way out of the fossil fuel paradigm. Because our national security and environmental health is depending on successful deployment, how can we make it work?

Cellulosic ethanol can be made from (negative cost) waste using syngas fermentation. Using gasification to break the lignin bonds is much more efficient than enzymatic hydrolysis Pimental talks about and uses very little water. BRI has a good description of the syngas process. It has been proven in the lab and plans for commercial-scale development should be finalized soon. It would be interesting to hear how the esteemed insect doctor from Cornell would argue the results of the work of the biotechnology chemical engineer from the U. of Arkansas.

I lament the absence of a national conservation campaign as much as Pimental. But the campaign would have to be global to have much meaning - and Asia has too much invested in industrialization to make conservation here worth anything.

-- C. Scott Miller BIOconversion Blog

by millercs at 9:10 PM on 11 Dec 2006

We Are Drowning In Oil! And We Don't Know It

Recent news from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields highlights once again the United States reliance on importing oil, in this case from Alaska. Together with insecure sources such as Iran, Venezuela, Senegal and volatile Middle Eastern countries, the imperative for a safe secure and absolutely reliable source of this commodity for our economy becomes of the highest priority. It is long since past time for the United States to stop ignoring a homegrown solution which can provide the nation with sufficient oil to satisfy virtually all of its needs without ever importing another barrel of oil or having to waste literally hundreds of billions of dollars extracting oil from the earth. Within the boundaries of the United States we are literally and figuratively drowning in oil and don't know it.

Each and every year the sun shines on the earth and transfers its energy to all growing things. We humans plant and grow vegetation to feed both ourselves and the animals we husband and subsequently consume. The result is an enormous quantity of waste, both animal and vegetable which becomes increasingly difficult to dispose of, but which is potentially a never ending source for the production of oil.

The stated purpose of the government's search for alternative energy sources is to reduce or eliminate the need for importing oil. Time and time again the President has stated that "technological innovation" will hopefully produce a solution to the energy "crisis". Were it not for the obstinate refusal of the administration to recognize the existence of a currently readily available, technological innovative system, the nation could be three years down the road to real oil independence.

"Oil", as we all know has become a three letter dirty word in America's lexicon. However we view it, good, bad or indifferent, oil will be with us for many years to come, for it is not untrue that America's economy is literally lubricated by oil. Insofar as the future is concerned consider that the current population of the United States is roughly 300 million. Demographers estimate that by 2040, the U. S. population will exceed 400 million souls. That is a 33% increase in but 34 years. Where in the name of all that's holy, will the necessary energy come from? Other energy sources, hydrogen, solar, wind, nuclear and others have unique properties and will obviously fill certain energy requirements but they do not compare to the manifold uses we have found for oil Oil will have a future for as long as we can see down the road for there is nothing else which can manifest itself in so many forms in our daily lives. Given that oil is a necessary "evil", and given the generally accepted postulation that oil is finite, where will it come from?

About a decade ago a patent was issued by the United States Patent Office for a process then called thermal depolymerization process (since changed for obvious reasons to thermal conversion process or (TCP) which can take any non-nuclear material containing carbon, which is anything which has ever grown, including you and me, and produce a diesel fuel quality oil in two short hours! Additionally, the system produces a number of useful and viable byproducts and ultimately discharges potable water. Everything emanating from this system is completely benign to the environment, and in fact, rather than creating environmental problems, resolves them. In this scenario "waste" becomes an oxymoron. As one small example, the city of Philadelphia is producing oil from its sewage. The oil thus produced may be additionally refined into gasoline or other useful byproducts used to manufacture plastics, and as a feedstock is useful for many other products. There currently exists in Carthage, MO, a pilot facility producing 500 barrels of oil per day from about 200 tons of turkey effluvia from a nearby Butterball turkey processing plant and the oil thus produced is sold as a heat producing fuel, demonstrating the viability of the concept. The efficiency of the TCP system runs in the range of 85%, meaning that 15% of the energy introduced is utilized to extract 85%. These are extraordinary numbers.

You might well ask why, if this system is so good, you have not heard of it and why it is producing a mere 500 barrels per day in this vast country with so much waste being produced. There are good and sufficient reasons.

First of all, as a fledgling industry, TCP encountered start up problems usually associated with any new development, and being relatively new, may still endure problems with different feedstocks. Given time these will be overcome. Feedstocks may vary from slaughterhouse effluvia to tires to discarded plastics, and each different feedstock requires a different processing modality, and the development of those methods takes time.

Secondly, and more importantly, as a new industry, subsidies in the form of tax credits have not been forthcoming from the federal government to enable this industry to become established. As an example of what is missing, ethanol, currently the darling of the energy and environmental policy wonks, has been granted subsidies (tax credits) running through 2012 resulting in a rush to construct new facilities which effectively guarantee profits. Ethanol is however a guaranteed loser in the long run, since its prohibitive cost together with less energy output than gasoline is actually counterproductive to its stated goals. (See www.taxpayer.net/energy/raceforsubsidies.html) If similar support were extended to TCP, entrepreneurs would correspondingly react, and TCP plants would spring up all over the country where source material was most accessible.

As examples of such conditions, a small town, Hereford, TX, has one of the largest stockyards in the country. They are faced with the monumental task of disposing of some 6200 tons of manure each day. If it can happen in Philadelphia, it can happen in Hereford.

A recent television program was devoted to the garbage disposal problem of Los Angeles. One of their dumps receives 2000 tons of garbage per hour to be deposited on a dump that is already deeper than the Statue of Liberty is high!

These are but two isolated illustrations of what is happening across the entire nation in cities, towns and hamlets facing problems of disposal of their agricultural waste, industrial waste, their garbage and their sewage. In many instances, dumps leak effluent such as PCP's and dioxin, into the groundwater contaminating it and endangering public health. When one becomes aware of the possibilities of TCP to resolve not only the oil crisis but concomitantly also resolve environmental problems one wonders why the federal government continues to support an expensive ethanol boondoggle (scam is a better word) while ignoring a system which more quickly than any other can substantially reduce or eliminate our dependence on imported oil, which is, after all, the purported goal. The deeper one looks onto the advantageous attending to this invention the more one uncovers.

Following is an incomplete list of benefits to be derived from the introduction of the TCP system into our economy. When reviewing his list, picture in your mind's eye these benefits working on behalf of the government and its citizens.
.
1.    All manner of cultivated agricultural waste can be processed into oil and other valuable byproducts.
2.    Recapturable animal wastes can be processed into oil and byproducts.
3.    Slaughterhouse waste from all animal types can be similarly processed into oil, as is currently being demonstrated by the Butterball turkey plant in Carthage, MO.
4.    Bio-hazardous hospital waste can be safely processed for oil with the TCP system, with no hazardous output.
5.    Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE) (mad cow disease) material may be safely processed as with all other types of animal byproducts, with no harmful output. All prions are destroyed.
6. Unsightly landgrabbing garbage dumps are eliminated as all garbage is choice feedstock.
7. Tire dumps are eliminated because they already contain both oil and carbon.
8.    Any community producing waste, including sewage, can produce its own oil and gas for use or sale as they see fit, therefore their waste becomes a source of income to the community.
9. Because the efficiency of the system is so high, (85%) the cost of production will
drop to competitive rates when large scale production is reached.
10.    With reduced oil costs, all industries dependent upon oil for their source material could produce and sell for less. This could have enormous impact across the entire spectrum of the economy.
11. A whole new industry would be born with consequent creation of jobs and a whole
new tax base and revenue source for government.
12.    Within ten years the U. S. could be independent of foreign (read Saudi) oil.
13.    With all oil production entirely confined within the U. S., container ships could be virtually obsolete, and thus remove future oil spills. This has tremendous environmental impact.
14.    Totally reliable, steady oil prices. This could become the bedrock for a more stable economy.
15.    The beneficial impact of this development on the environment, including possible (probable?) reduction on carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and consequent global warning.
16.    The creation of means to assist poorer nations to develop and sustain their own never-ending source of energy. For each nation, large or small, which utilizes this system to create its own source of oil, the pressure on the international oil market would be diminished to the point where oil could become one of the least expensive commodities on the international market.
17.    The elimination of international charges that the United States' efforts in the Middle East and other regions is dictated by their need for oil.
18.    Should the President announce that the Administration is supporting this new development, OPEC could respond by immediately dropping the price of its oil to protect market share.
19. Given a reliable never ending source of oil, the U. S. might well find the Strategic Petroleum Reserve an unnecessary luxury.
20. Since a facility may be rapidly constructed with off the shelf equipment currently employed in the
oil refinery field, new facilities may be rapidly constructed and the ten year dream of freedom from
imported oil becomes a reality not a pipe dream.
21.An entire new industry will supply the Treasury with a huge new source of revenue, as will the
thousands of new workers employed in the field.
22. Manufacturing oil within the U. S. will deny Iran, Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern oil rich
countries the petro dollars they use to support anti-American terrorist groups
23. Last, but far from least, the reduction of oil imports will have an enormous effect on reducing the
trade deficit.

Further information concerning the process may be found at: www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/
And
www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/anything-oil
And at
CWT's web site at Changing World Technologies, Inc.and from Renewable Environmental Solutions (RES).

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocos...

Public ignorance of this remarkable development is an overriding reason why Congress and the administration give it such short shrift. Most assuredly if the general public knew of this system and the potential it contains to alleviate the reliance on imported oil and the resultant ultimate reduction in the price of all things dependent on oil, there would develop a huge hue and cry for the government to get off its duff and support this concept. Without the dissemination of that knowledge, the country will continue to rely on unreliable, insecure sources resulting in ever escalating oil prices.

If, after reviewing the above sources you are convinced that this system is worthy of implementation into our economy, pass the word to friends, family, colleagues, whomever, to join with us in not only spreading the word, but inundating Congress with the requirement that if they wish you to vote for them, they must support this invention. As Jack Kennedy once so famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

ADDENDUM

With the current cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, Hezbollah has reclaimed the streets of Behrut and proclaimed victory. They have informed the public not to accept aid for rebuilding from any organization but Hezbollah. Given the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars required for such an effort, where does the money come from if not from Iran? And where does Iran get its riches? From oil!
It requires no great leap of imagination to recognize that if petro dollars were denied Iran, their enormous expenditures for terrorist support and nuclear experimentation would require some rethinking of their priorities. The rapid development of this system into our economy is one type of "sanction", if one wishes to call it that, which can be benign, peaceful, far reaching and very effective.

The announcement by the United States government that one of their highest priorities would be the rapid implementation of the TCP system into our economy, would have not only national, but global significance as well..

J. W. Hoechst

by jhoechst at 12:21 PM on 21 Dec 2006

Shattering the 'Royal Deception'

As one of the "well-intentioned" or not so "well-intentioned commentators" piling on the scorn, you decide which, here is yet another steaming shovel-full.

Though the crux of Morris' well-intentioned piece is to celebrate the viability of an autonomous biofuel industry free from the serfdom of corporate globalization, as he points out, you may in fact be able to get there from here, but where exactly do you think you are going, and is there anyway to come back home?

An initiative based on government subsidies will get us nowhere fast. Off the top of my head, keep it much more local at the start if that is where you want to end up. State initiatives that fund locally owned production and distribution facilities from coffers filled by conservation and reduction efforts across the state cutting financial inputs into the energy grid as it operates currently. Citizens that want to see the potential benefit of a local, directly democratic biofuel 'industry,' will have to rise to the occasion, cutting need and overall use thus generating excess state and local funds to then 'subsidize' state and local alternative energy projects.

The last thing we need is the feds pulling more money out of health care and such for research and development into biotechfuels and deforestation, padding the same dirty lobbyist and industry accounts already getting rich in the agribusiness, biotech and energy sectors.

Please read my recent article, "Shattering the 'Royal Decption,' online at http://www.gefreemaine.org/article.php?story=200609261613 ... or in print in the January 2007 issue of Acres USA magazine, for more well-intentioned grease lightning.

by Feiner at 11:45 AM on 06 Feb 2007

Bioenergy

for daily updated news on bioenergy, ethanol and climate issues, please visit:
http://www.ethanol-news.de

http://www.ethanol-news.de

by kgpc at 2:20 AM on 31 May 2007

Good

Good reply!

飞机票

by peter lauce at 8:17 PM on 30 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

dying of pollution

Good news! At last the symptoms- pollution- are taking care of the problem-OVERPOPULATION.

by bailsout at 10:58 AM on 20 Aug 2007

Good

Our mission is to introduce you to the fun world of Inflatables. We offer an astounding array of Inflatable merchandise. Browse our pages for Boats, Inflatable Pools for young and old, AeroBeds and Air Beds, Furniture, Inflatable Toys, Accessories for all, and much more! Offering items from Intex, and AeroBed; both world recognized leaders in Inflatables manufacturing for style, desirability, quality, durability, and value.

Other items include: Inflatable Bouncers, Inflatable Castle, Inflatable Games, and much, much more! Our products are a great affordable choice and are designed for all age groups. Many of the kid's pools will double as ball pits and are fine for indoor play during winter or stormy days. Our Inflatable Toys are a wonderful alternative to those hard bleachers at the little league games and provide an elevated vantage when watching the kids at the beach. The scuba accessories and pool floats are just the thing for little swimmers and big ones alike. Explore the pages of our site for your gift giving ideas!

by wiliam6 at 12:55 AM on 21 Apr 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

By the People, For the People

Toward a community-owned, decentralized biofuel future

You can get there from here