<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Once in place, the RFS will be nigh impossible to eliminate]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:51:20 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/1 Well considering

Well considering the Renewable Electricity standard was gutted from the bill.

What action would suggest we ask for?

]]> Well considering

Well considering the Renewable Electricity standard was gutted from the bill.

What action would suggest we ask for?

]]> Comment #2 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:07:46 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/2 What to do?

Should the Democrats just back out of the energy bill?

]]> What to do?

Should the Democrats just back out of the energy bill?

]]> Comment #3 by Tim Hurst http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:57:01 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/3 I bet Bernie Sanders won't vote for it.

But then again, he is a socialist and all. IMHO this is not a good bill.

Tim Hurst ecopolitology.org

]]> I bet Bernie Sanders won't vote for it.

But then again, he is a socialist and all. IMHO this is not a good bill.

Tim Hurst ecopolitology.org

]]> Comment #4 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:41:42 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/4 What to do??

GreyFlcn asks:

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.

]]> What to do??

GreyFlcn asks:

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.

]]> Comment #5 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:11:43 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/5 Thanks Ron

That is a great study from IL!    

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.    

]]> Thanks Ron

That is a great study from IL!    

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.    

]]> Comment #6 by Karen Lee Orr http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:29:15 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/6 A Moment of Sickness

 From Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network

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






































]]> A Moment of Sickness

 From Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network

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






































]]> Comment #7 by Karen Lee Orr http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:06:32 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/7 Big Green Groups: Follow the Money

Big Green groups are big because they receive large grants from industry backed foundations.  The U.S. Department of Energy also gives grants to Big Green groups.

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.

]]> Big Green Groups: Follow the Money

Big Green groups are big because they receive large grants from industry backed foundations.  The U.S. Department of Energy also gives grants to Big Green groups.

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.

]]> Comment #8 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:29:21 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/8 And thank you, Justlou

I am not in the least surprised that people would be speaking of the possibility of producing 30 billion gallons of ethanol from corn in the United States. I have heard it all before.

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!

]]> And thank you, Justlou

I am not in the least surprised that people would be speaking of the possibility of producing 30 billion gallons of ethanol from corn in the United States. I have heard it all before.

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!

]]> Comment #9 by ce1907 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:46:07 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/9 if enviros wanted to forcefully oppose corn

ethanol

the only opening was last spring

enviros went along

decision made.  next issue

]]> if enviros wanted to forcefully oppose corn

ethanol

the only opening was last spring

enviros went along

decision made.  next issue

]]> Comment #10 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:54:25 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/10 Correction to ce1907's comment

BIG enviros went along.

Certainly not the majority of people contributing comments on Gristmill.

]]> Correction to ce1907's comment

BIG enviros went along.

Certainly not the majority of people contributing comments on Gristmill.

]]> Comment #11 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:30:21 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/11 AG Visions = More Shit In

Illinois Farm Bureau President, Philip Nelson speaking at the IL Farm Bureau annual meeting last week in Chicago:

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.  

]]> AG Visions = More Shit In

Illinois Farm Bureau President, Philip Nelson speaking at the IL Farm Bureau annual meeting last week in Chicago:

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.  

]]> Comment #12 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:26:29 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/12 Well then

Well then you know what must be done.

Rather than backing out of the bill, they should attach a poison pill.

And ask for something which is certain to gain a veto.

]]> Well then

Well then you know what must be done.

Rather than backing out of the bill, they should attach a poison pill.

And ask for something which is certain to gain a veto.

]]> Comment #13 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:34:14 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/13 So lets see

These are no longer in the bill:
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.









]]> So lets see

These are no longer in the bill:
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.









]]> Comment #14 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:41:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/14 In review

They gutted all the important parts of the bill.

"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












]]> In review

They gutted all the important parts of the bill.

"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












]]> Comment #15 by stopgreenpath http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:48:00 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/15 ALL RENEWABLES ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL

I was so excited to find your website and thought maybe someone out there finally GOT IT until i searched and searched and could not find any insistence that ONLY PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED OR BLIGHTED areas should be used for new "renewable" power generation or transmission.

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.

]]> ALL RENEWABLES ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL

I was so excited to find your website and thought maybe someone out there finally GOT IT until i searched and searched and could not find any insistence that ONLY PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED OR BLIGHTED areas should be used for new "renewable" power generation or transmission.

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.

]]> Comment #16 by stopgreenpath http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:49:26 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/16 my note was a reply to Energy Justice

sorry, it appears the "reply" function doesn't work here.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

]]> my note was a reply to Energy Justice

sorry, it appears the "reply" function doesn't work here.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

]]> Comment #17 by Karen Lee Orr http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:02:14 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/17 Regarding "reply to Energy Justice"

In regard to the Energy Justice Network, stopgreenpath wrote:

"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/


]]> Regarding "reply to Energy Justice"

In regard to the Energy Justice Network, stopgreenpath wrote:

"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/


]]> Comment #18 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:43:50 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/18 Here's a question

Does the US Renewable Fuels Standard have any sort of ecological or greenhouse mitigation mandate attached to it?

i.e. Does it have to be actually "Green" to qualify?

Or do things like Corn Ethanol produced using Coal Electricity qualify?

]]> Here's a question

Does the US Renewable Fuels Standard have any sort of ecological or greenhouse mitigation mandate attached to it?

i.e. Does it have to be actually "Green" to qualify?

Or do things like Corn Ethanol produced using Coal Electricity qualify?

]]> Comment #19 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:05:16 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/19 Answer to GreyFlcn: perhaps

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's web page says the following about the version of the Bill passed by the House:

[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.

]]> Answer to GreyFlcn: perhaps

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's web page says the following about the version of the Bill passed by the House:

[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.

]]> Comment #20 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:21:56 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/20 Re: Ron

When you add it all up it amounts to a bunch of nonsense.  

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.  

]]> Re: Ron

When you add it all up it amounts to a bunch of nonsense.  

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.  

]]> Comment #21 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:39:28 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/21 Absolutely, Justlou

I was just responding to GreyFlcn's specific question about language in the Energy Bill.

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

]]> Absolutely, Justlou

I was just responding to GreyFlcn's specific question about language in the Energy Bill.

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

]]> Comment #22 by bookerly http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:06:48 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/22 Good Article and Posts


   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

]]> Good Article and Posts


   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

]]> Comment #23 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:52:18 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/23 Re: Ron

I was responding more to the Pelosi website which I thought was more spin and little substance.  This all really begs for more explanation: which research numbers get used to prove a reduction in the life cycle carbon budget; and how in the hell the government will monitor and enforce any environmental consequences of increased biofuel production.  Once dependency is established, I imagine more waivers,loopholes and carrots vs. strict enforcement.  And as we realize, some of the biggest environmental blowback from US energy policy is not homegrown but offshore so confining the statement to "homegrown" makes no sense in a global frame.  

But, I don't expect much honesty from either political party so my view of this is rather jaded.  

]]> Re: Ron

I was responding more to the Pelosi website which I thought was more spin and little substance.  This all really begs for more explanation: which research numbers get used to prove a reduction in the life cycle carbon budget; and how in the hell the government will monitor and enforce any environmental consequences of increased biofuel production.  Once dependency is established, I imagine more waivers,loopholes and carrots vs. strict enforcement.  And as we realize, some of the biggest environmental blowback from US energy policy is not homegrown but offshore so confining the statement to "homegrown" makes no sense in a global frame.  

But, I don't expect much honesty from either political party so my view of this is rather jaded.  

]]> Comment #24 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:09:34 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/24 Again, I couldn't agree more, Justlou

As for which research numbers will get used to prove a reduction in the life-cycle carbon budget, you can be damnded sure that it won't be Patzek and Pimentel's! My friend, Doug Koplow, thinks they will use the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Model, which is maintained by Argonne National Laboratories (and gives among the most favourable results of the different life-cycle assessments).

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.

]]> Again, I couldn't agree more, Justlou

As for which research numbers will get used to prove a reduction in the life-cycle carbon budget, you can be damnded sure that it won't be Patzek and Pimentel's! My friend, Doug Koplow, thinks they will use the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Model, which is maintained by Argonne National Laboratories (and gives among the most favourable results of the different life-cycle assessments).

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.

]]> Comment #25 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:40:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/25 Well

Well I'd like to see what GREET looks like if they included the full impact of N2O formation.
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.



]]> Well

Well I'd like to see what GREET looks like if they included the full impact of N2O formation.
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.



]]> Comment #26 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:11:59 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/26 Oh crap

Another reason biofuels might have some "negative consequences"

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

]]> Oh crap

Another reason biofuels might have some "negative consequences"

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

]]> Comment #27 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:25:52 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/27 Great find, GreyFlcn!

Many thanks for the link.

]]> Great find, GreyFlcn!

Many thanks for the link.

]]> Comment #28 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:58:48 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/28 Yikes!

methane is released by that fertilizer and manure run off as well.  

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

]]> Yikes!

methane is released by that fertilizer and manure run off as well.  

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

]]> Comment #29 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:02:43 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/29 You know

That does beg the question

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.

]]> You know

That does beg the question

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.

]]> Comment #30 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:04:30 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/30 Switzerland

Has been encouraging biogas production on farms (and its use in vehicles) for several years. Check out this web site.

]]> Switzerland

Has been encouraging biogas production on farms (and its use in vehicles) for several years. Check out this web site.

]]> Comment #31 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:13:39 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/31 The Treehugger Link

With biofuel production continuing to gather apace, it will become necessary for industry and governments to tackle rising nitrous oxide emissions - sooner rather than later.

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!  

]]> The Treehugger Link

With biofuel production continuing to gather apace, it will become necessary for industry and governments to tackle rising nitrous oxide emissions - sooner rather than later.

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!  

]]> Comment #32 by Karen Lee Orr http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:09:41 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/32 CORRECTION re Big Green Groups: Follow the Money

I mistakenly wrote that Big Green groups receive grants from The Department of Energy.  I don't know about that.  What I meant to write was that Big Green groups receive grants from The Energy Foundation.

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

]]> CORRECTION re Big Green Groups: Follow the Money

I mistakenly wrote that Big Green groups receive grants from The Department of Energy.  I don't know about that.  What I meant to write was that Big Green groups receive grants from The Energy Foundation.

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

]]> Comment #33 by stopgreenpath http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:25:23 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/33 no, Energy Justice cheerleads for RPS, even remote

i don't see how your disappointment in losing the RPS in the senate bill has anything to do with your cheerleading for "wind and solar" without clarifying that only previously developed areas are the only appropriate sites for this kind of generation/transmission:

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.

]]> no, Energy Justice cheerleads for RPS, even remote

i don't see how your disappointment in losing the RPS in the senate bill has anything to do with your cheerleading for "wind and solar" without clarifying that only previously developed areas are the only appropriate sites for this kind of generation/transmission:

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.

]]> Comment #34 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:23:17 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/34 Yeah, thats just a bit silly

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.

]]> Yeah, thats just a bit silly

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.

]]> Comment #35 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:22:27 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/to-those-who-are-blase-about-expanding-the-rfs/35 Some clarification?

I tend to share StopGreenPath's concerns about the dangers of getting wind power wrong. The intrusion of wind power into previously unspoiled landscapes in Wales has generated tremendous controversy. Just look at the pictures on this web page of the scars left by access roads and the large amount of concrete required for the pedestals. (And does anybody honestly think those pedestals will be pulled out and the land returned to its original contours once the turbines are decommisioned?)

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?

]]> Some clarification?

I tend to share StopGreenPath's concerns about the dangers of getting wind power wrong. The intrusion of wind power into previously unspoiled landscapes in Wales has generated tremendous controversy. Just look at the pictures on this web page of the scars left by access roads and the large amount of concrete required for the pedestals. (And does anybody honestly think those pedestals will be pulled out and the land returned to its original contours once the turbines are decommisioned?)

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?

]]>