Dean unveils energy plan that stresses wind, ethanol

[Khephra]

American dependence on imported oil is "funding the next generation of terrorists," he said.

By JONATHAN ROOS

Register Staff Writer
10/22/2003

Joice, Ia. - Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean used a northern Iowa wind farm Tuesday as a backdrop for announcing a national renewable energy plan calling for greater reliance on wind energy and ethanol.

Dean said America's dependence on imported oil is indirectly supporting terrorism because some of the oil revenue going to Saudi Arabia is being spent on religious schools that foster hatred of Americans, Christians and Jews.

"We're essentially funding the next generation of terrorists because we're not willing to do something about renewable energy at home," Dean told a group of Worth County residents at a campaign event at the farm home of Su and Curt Evans.

Three of 89 wind turbines on the Top of Iowa Wind Farm are located on 80 acres owned by the Evanses. The wind farm encompasses about 5,900 acres in western Worth County.

MORE....................

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22561545.html

[truthisfreedom]

1. excellent message.

i'm not sure exactly how efficient ethanol is (how much energy does it take to make v.s. how much does it deliver?) but wind farms are a fantastic idea in the midwest. you can farm around them, they deliver no pollution other than some noise (which isn't such a big deal out on a farm) and they require no energy other than the breeze.

[Resistance Is Futile]

3. Ethanol

This is deeply process dependant but ethanol is generally a net energy sink. It takes more power to create than it yields.

However, while ethanol isn't much use as an energy source it is useful as a fuel. Like hydrogen, ethanol can be used as an energy storage medium to move power from immobile generation facilities (such as wind farms) to mobile energy users (such as vehicles). In this application, it does not matter that fuel production is a net energy loss as the energy is coming from elsewhere.

[wtmusic]

4. Unfortunately

they look ugly and they there is a high maintenance/return ratio. Check out the desert around Palm Springs CA if you want to be cured of the idea that wind farms help the environment more than harm it.

[truthisfreedom]

8. why isn't Dean supporting solar power?

i disagree. i think wind is a great source of energy. i'm surprised that Dean isn't supporting solar power. in the age of global warming, solar will only become more efficient. when i entered the U of MN honors program in electrical engineering back in 1981, i worked with a group that calculated the total energy available from the sun at 1 kilowatt per square meter. why the f*ck isn't this the most investigated form of energy today? at that rate, a 200 amp breaker panel could be supplied at maximum power levels using only 22 square meters of rooftop... that's enough energy to power every single light, heater, vacuum cleaner, oven, stove burner, television, and anything else at maximum usage continuously. a real-life example would only use about 15% of that much power on average. did you know that it's illegal to import into the US, australian-made solar panels which are popping up all over their rooftops? WHY?

[DinahMoeHum]

15. I'm sure Dean also supports solar energy enthusiastically. . .

He was merely tailoring his alternative energy views to the particular audience - Iowa farmers.

:kick:

[Vikingking66]

16. look a bit closer

"Create a Solar Power Tax Credit. Governor Dean will boost demand for solar technology in the near-and long-terms by implementing a consumer tax credit for residential solar power and increasing federal support for R&D into solar technologies to reduce the cost of solar cells."

[Guaranteed]

24. Hell yes!

EVERY house should have a solar energy system rigged up.

[SahaleArm]

50. Not if you live in the NW.

No-Cal gets > 250 days of sun per year. Seattle and Portland get far less:)

[truthisfreedom]

38. well, then, i take that back. 8^)

n/m

[Mountainman]

20. We have large wind farms here at Tehachapi and Mojave

And I would rather they be there than a coal fired plant or nuclear plant.

When I see all the thousands of wind turbines I think it is great we have them.

[Frangible]

21. How competitive is wind/solar with nuclear/coal these days?

Last I read it didn't look too appealing, wonder if anything's changed.

[ozone_man]

28. Solar cell technology is getting cheaper.

I saw this article recently (ST Microelectronics research). The efficiency can't be increased much, but the cost can be greatly reduced to make it competitive with fossil fuel. One of these days, I want solar shingles for my roof.

--snip--

Semiconductor-based solar cells have the highest efficiency (defined as the electrical energy produced for a given input of solar energy) but there is little that can be done to either increase the efficiency or reduce the manufacturing cost. ST is therefore pursuing alternative approaches in which the aim is to produce solar cells that may have lower efficiencies (e.g. 10% instead of 15-20%) but are much cheaper to manufacture.

"Although there is much support around the world for the principle of generating electricity from solar power, existing solar cell technologies are too expensive to be used on an industrial scale. The ability to produce low cost, high efficiency solar cells would dramatically change the picture and revolutionize the field of solar energy generation, allowing it to compete more effectively with fossil fuel sources," says Dr. Salvo Coffa, who heads the ST research group that is developing the new solar cell technology.

--snip--

http://us.st.com/stonline/press/news/year2003/t1355h.htm

[many a good man]

30. Wind is cheapest

In a recent article, Molly Ivins said that power produced by wind farms in Texas was produced more cheaply per KWh than from all other sources. Can't remember exactly, I think it was 2.6 cents.

The more you build the cheaper it'll get.

[Mountainman]

35. I am not sure but I think there use to be tax credits for wind

I think there use to be tax write offs you could get for operating a wind energy turbines. That may have helped the economics of it. Also it depends on where you are located I think.

[haymaker]

53. Nuclear is not competitive at all.

Unless the government insures it and handles its waste.

[many a good man]

31. Harm the environment?

>Check out the desert around Palm Springs CA
>if you want to be cured of the idea that
>wind farms help the environment more than harm it.

Wind mills may mar the scenery but they sure don't "harm the environment" like fossil fuels and radioactive waste. They also don't necessitate an annual military budget of half a trillion dollars a year!

[KittyWampus]

37. Wind Farms Are Ugly?

The newer generations of wind turbines are long lasting and move slower thereby allowing birds to see them. Here's a picture from Cornwall England.

[trogdor]

39. Do you still see them if they're in the middle of nowhere?

We're not talking about putting them in downtown Des Moines. Have you ever been to Iowa, or at least flown over it? Most of it is cornfields, flat as hell, with the wind blowing across it all the time. Nobody lives there, except for the ones growing the corn.

Same thing goes for cellular towers. There are LOTS of places to put them where they'll not bother anyone - like along the NYS Thruway.

The high maintenance thing comes from a lack of economy of scale. If you make windmills a higher volume, mass-produced item, reliability will go up.

As for ethanol, I don't see how having yeast chow down on corn sugar (or some lower-maintenance non-food crop costs that much energy. I would think most of the energy would come from distilling the stuff afterward. We do that with petroleum to make gasoline.

Just so you don't think oil is all that cheap, consider the cost of securing the oil supply. Ask Don Rumsfeld how much that costs a year. I bet the real cost of a gallon of gas is somewhere around $3/gal. or more.

If they jacked up the CAFE standards high enough, you'd see hybrid Diesel cars everywhere. Those would probably get 80 MPG for a midsize sedan if done right.

[killbotfactory]

40. I'd much prefer them to the huge smoke plumes I see around here.

From our power plants.

[sandnsea]

2. sounds so familiar

I think I've heard this somewhere before.

[Dover]

5. Kerry's environmental platform.

Kerry's energy stance is that the US needs to become energy independent, a physical impossibility, and he has paid lip service to biomass, solar and ethanol. Ethanol is a scientific joke that takes more energy to produce than it yields and would require most of the arable land mass of the United States to replace even a part of our oil consumption. Ethanol is a government subsidized handout to major corporations like Archer, Daniels, Midland.

-- M. Ruppert

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html

[Andromeda]

6. This is a great idea...

We need to become less dependent on foreign oil and develop more efficient ways to provide energy for heating, electricity and fuel.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Sounds like Iowa Ethanol Pandering to me.....

I guess he really wants to win that first primary.

Very, very obvious......

I guess I had to say it....... It's like seeing thru Bush...

But it's better than Bush...that I will say.

[truthisfreedom]

9. it's a start. at least it keeps the money to home.

and to make this work, we have to keep the money to home.

[Rose Siding]

25. At Harken's Town Hall Meeting

Clark seemed to have an affinity for ethanol:
snip>
Harkin asked, "We all have to know here in Iowa, are you okay on ethanol?" Clark paused, as if to conisder his position for the first time, and added an emphatic, "Yes."

http://tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=821

I don't like the source and disagree with the conclusion, but I'd remembered the exchange that I'd seen on c-span.

[SahaleArm]

51. If you watched the town hall meeting...

then you'd have seen Harkin 'lead' Clark to answering yes. Ethonol is Iowa pandering at best, there more efficient energy sources enumerated in this thread.

[Art_from_Ark]

52. Um, the first primary is in New Hampshire

and Iowa has a caucus, not a primary.

[davhill]

10. Need for an Apollo type program

We need someone who can make a Kennedy-like commitment that "before this decade is out" America will be totally independent from imported oil. If Ethanol is a net energy sink using current production methods, we need to find better technology. If Hydrogen presents a distribution problem, we need to solve that problem. We need to choose to do these things, “not because they are easy, but because they are hard”

[Kolesar]

11. Why can't we sell those Iowa farmers on biodiesel instead of ethanol?

That is an honest question (not a sarcastic remark). I am sure that biodiesel can be made from corn. Would biodiesel from corn have a bad return on energy like ethanol, which is about 1.2 to 1? Does biodiesel need different sources to get up to the 3.2 to 1 ratio?

I lament that the ethanol process is waste of topsoil in addition to being a poor return on energy. I have another way to quit consuming topsoil, energy, and water: quit eating beef!!!!

(!!!!)

[JM]

12. Solar Stirling Engines

http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2000/solar.htm

I am still looking for the other page I found long ago. It described a solar collection farm where Stirling Dishes collected more energy than a traditional solar panel collection site in 1/10th the space.

Another advantage to stirling collection, depending on where it is done, is the block of ice that forms on the cold end of the engine. Squeezing fresh water out of the air...and no pollution...

Later,
JM

[RainDog]

13. I wish you people who know about these energy issues

would combine in, say, the enviro forum to list various ways Americans can become energy independent.

I read in a magazine recently about a couple who heats their home in the winter with corn which is fed into their furnance like one of those cat food dispensers.

the greatest problem with it for homeowners is the amount of space needed to store enough corn, plus how to store it to protect it and your house from rodents, etc.

But one way Americans could show their patriotism, like victory gardens in WW2, would be "energy freedom" as a mass movement to join forces to educate and help each other retrofit and sell/share energy with neighbors, and build new houses which are "patriotic."

This is an issue, again, which democrats must embrace, as someone said above, like Kennedy did with the man on the moon idea.

America needs a positive issue like this, and this is one which Bush will only pay lip service to since he's a snake oil saleman himself.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

42. Bravo...well said!

It seems like democrats and republicans alike are well-prepared to shoot down proposals for alternative fuels and energy sources. Do these people really believe that we must rely on fossil fuels? Why are we so stuck on the idea that alternatives must cost less than those which are currently available?

It seems to me that any additional costs of cleaner energy sources would be offset by things like reduced expenditure on emmission control and lowered respiratory health-care expense.

[tlb]

14. Every candidate who goes to Iowa always LOVES ethenol

and the candidates who don't go to Iowa always call it corporate welfare for Archer-Daniels-Modland. Ever notice that ?

And straight shootr Dean follows the well worn ruts in the road.

[Vikingking66]

17. one thing about ethanol

Sure, it's not the most efficient system in the world, and sure it does help out agribusiness, but there would be a hell of a lot of unemployed farmers if it wasn't for ethanol. It's keeping the whole state running.

[realFedUp]

18. if only he had a plan for pig poo....

better get one fellas.

[Frangible]

19. uh... ethanol?

Ethanol takes more energy to produce it than it generates, how can you logically support that? And wind? I don't think wind is going to meet this country's energy needs, nor solar. I'd be happy to see our coal plants replaced with nuclear though. I know, an evil word, but coal is far worse in terms of nuclear emissions than a bonefide nuclear plant. Sad, eh? *prepares to be crucified for saying the N-word*

I'm rooting for Dean regardless, but damn... ethanol(!!!!) and wind? Jeeze.

[Gin]

22. At least the man is touting something other than drilling in the artic

and more imports. This starts the dialogue and the wheels turning.

We could also use used cooking oil fats as fuel for vehicles. Lots of ideas are not only viable but in use as we speak.

If we could send a man to the moon...we can create new sources of energy.

The big auto manufacturers and oil companies do not want to make changes. Go Dean!

[Frangible]

23. Fair enough, heh

The ANR thing left a bad taste in my mouth. ("There's hardly any oil there..." "We're drilling anyway!")

[many a good man]

34. ethanol...uh huh

See #3 above for how ethanol can be used as storage medium.

Its not the greatest, its not long-term but its better than nothing and it gets lots of farm votes.

Don't knock wind; it will be the first widespread source of renewable energy.

And BTW, yes, you deserve to be crucified for the N-word.
:nuke:

[midnight armadillo]

26. Dammit, I've had enough of all this energy BULLSHIT!!

First off, I applaud Dean's speaking out in favor of wind power. I don't know much about ethanol production, but at least some proportion of ethanol plants are farmer owned. As for it requiring more energy to make than it delivers, well, our entire agricultural system is mainlining oil in order to spend more calories in growing and harvesting than is yielded in the food at harvest time. This is not an ethanol problem, it is a systemic problem with our agricultural system.

Now, back to the subject of the title of this message. There is not a single candidate for the presidency, Dem, Repub, whatever, who is willing to speak candidly about US energy policy and energy independence.

Here's the situation: for the past ~100 years, we have existed in a world of abundant energy, for the first time in human history. Massive energy resources have allowed residents of modern countries to be (more or less) free of hunger and shelter. Plentiful energy allows for all manner of conceits: 2-3 cars per household, a transportation system based on individual vehicles (each requiring massive energy inputs to produce - remember, there's more to energy independence than fuel consumption, we MUST also considered 'embodied' energy in products we use), the production of throwaway items from non-renewable resources, heated sidewalks so the lazy don't need to shovel snow, you name it.

As the one-time gift from the earth of fossil fuels (which has allowed the invention of modern society, medicine, science, and so on) fades into history, we're moving into a permanent phase of scarce energy.
This will require some mix of several things: pervasive use of and reliance on nuclear energy (with all of its attendant pitfalls - the amount here varies depending on how much real changes in lifestyles are made), extensive development of wind and solar technologies on macro and micro scales, methane production from sewage waste, biodiesel production, and future ingenuity in energy production. We also need complete re-engineering of our homes, buildings, transportation systems, cities, food production, international trade, etc for energy efficiency, recycling, reuse, and local production. Our technology is such that this is possible without radical changes in lifestyle, e.g. no need to start living in caves again.

You read about how we can't grow enough hemp to make enough biodiesel to run the country's cars: well, the catch is that we can, we're going to have to adjust to having fewer cars!

Talking about building a few windmills and using biodiesel ain't gonna cut it 50-100 years from now. This is nothing but pandering to the earthy-crunchy vote and farmer's pocketbooks. Way to go Dean, Kerry, and the rest of the bunch. Granted, it's great to talk about it now (as opposed to the Repuke strategy of drill everywhere), but we're being sold a total fantasy.

It's not impossible - in WWII Victory gardens produced much of the country's produce very locally. We'll have to see the death of the sterile, energy intensive suburban lawn in favor of 'edible landscapes.' It will take true candor and leadership on behalf of political parties, politicians, activist citizens, and so on. The danger is that the longer we wait, the more dire the transition will become. Civilizations fall when the natural resources upon which they depend vanish.

For an example of how this can be accomplished on a personal dwelling scale, check out Earthship Biotecture. These are super-insulated houses that rely on wind and solar for energy, rain for water, process their own waste into fertilizer, and grow their own food inside. Aside from some propane for cooking (or wood) they typically don't have connections to the electric grid and sewage system.

I apologize for hijacking this thread for a rant.

[Kolesar]

33. We need a plan to decrease the human population of the planet

That will help us match energy needs to energy production.

I think that you are correct in your thesis. To add to it, it has not been since Jimmy Carter that any president showed real leadership on this most-important issue.

[glitch]

44. thanks for the excellent link!

A diverse program, like reducing consumption by improving efficiency and using a mix of alternative technologies, even 'transition' fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, is the key to our successfully navigating the rapids directly ahead.
Another great link on energy efficiency is http://www.rmi.org/

[nolabels]

27. Renewables start at home

Some big hurdles have been made, many more could happen if this oil centered cabal is pushed out. People should be careful to note that centralized power is what some would want to keep for control over others.

I believe that at our fingertips is one of the most important examples on how efficiency, miniaturization and real time measurement of out going to incoming to amount used is a key to the puzzle sustaiable civaliztion. This makes sense to me for the fact of the large centralized computer is also starting to look like a relic. Just like the two party system is a failure in many ways, the monopoly ideal of production of anything also breeds failure.

The capitalist always wants deregulation without decentralization. That doesn't work in nature and has never worked in many civilization for very long either. This is truly fascinating to me, that for people to be able to coexist with nature they will need to be able to harvest and use energy efficiently as nature its self. We have much of the knowledge to be able to do it, we only need to find the will and desire to be able to cooperate enough to do it

There must be thousands of sites and links to look into or even get involved with, I just put this one in for fun


http://www.sunwindconcepts.bizland.com/index.html
A SITE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS

THE SUN & WIND HAVE PROVIDED SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FOR OVER 4 BILLION YEARS!

Nearly all our energy resources were created over millions of years by the sun. We can use this energy NOW, as it is produced. We only need to tap into this energy directly, in an environmentally friendly and healthful fashion!
(snip)

[MGKrebs]

29. As with so many things, it's not "all or nothing".

Wind power may work best in some locations, and ethanol may be appropriate as a supplement to other sources. The big attraction is that these are relatively "mature" technologies that can be implemented now. Sort of a bridge until we get to the next generation: solar becomes more efficient and inexpensive, fuel cells, and who knows what else.

But we have to change the culture. We have to commit to reducing our dependence on petroleum. Once that committment is made, we can begin to invest in new strategies.

[nolabels]

32. Here is one of the things that will make it possible

People’s greed is sometimes bigger than their intellect. I remember back in the eighties when OPEC decided to try and keep oil prices moderated by increasing production, so the fooled and misled consumer did not try to become to efficient with oil, this to keep OPEC’s profits steady.

It took the greedy cheaters to up-end this policy, they won in the short term but lost long term as oil prices collapsed later. I wonder if Uncle Dick thinks this is still a good plan, sure sounds like it here, one could only wonder if he really made this speech

http://www.counterpunch.com/cox09232003.html

The Dick Cheney Tapes
"Can You Handle the Truth?
By STAN COX

(snip)
You have worked your way through many difficulties, but there is one blow that has not yet struck you - a blow the full force of which, we are convinced, you simply could not withstand. It is a challenge that we must confront head-on or else be crushed.I am talking about a sharp and permanent rise in the price of petroleum.

Now I don't mean that we are fighting a "war for oil" in the sense that the anti-war malcontents in our society use that term. This isn't about which corporations get contracts or how much salary your vice president might have received from one company or another. We are in Iraq and we have to stay there because, in the words of President George Herbert Walker Bush - a man whom I am proud to have been serving at the time our troops began their involvement in Iraq twelve years ago - "the American way of life is not negotiable."

Despite all the rumors, our Iraq policy is not being dictated by think tanks or in the bowels of the Pentagon. You yourselves have dictated it, and we have responded. You want to keep your way of life, you want national prosperity, and you want to believe that when the United States steps into the world arena, we do so only with the noblest of motives. This year, with our victory over Saddam Hussein, you came very, very close to getting all of those things.

But now, as you know, very serious challenges have emerged in Iraq, made worse by the carping of armchair critics. If we are tough this thing out, we have to stop kidding ourselves. To secure our energy future and thereby preserve our way of life, we, as loyal Americans, have to go the distance in Iraq. And that means growing up a bit, letting go of our illusions, and getting down to business. That means securing our supply of oil and natural gas, not just in the immediate future, but for decades to come.
(snip)

[Bandit]

36. What about harnessing the tides?

Along the California coast there are a few experimental tidal generators and I think they are working well although they are quite small. 50KW units I believe. They are basically a piston inside a cylinder that gets pushed up by the tide which in turn creates pressure enough to spin a small turbine and when the tide drops it creates a suction powerful enough to spin the turbine again. There are four times a day during slack tides when there is no movement. It is very clean though.

[nolabels]

41. And another one that is also already being used and works

The regeneration of waste into usefull items and products, which represents what nature has done with oil

This is also seems to be an important concept, otherwise man and the rest of earth will end up living on top of a garbage heap that will just keep getting bigger



http://www.snc.edu/educ/mse/courses/summerIT/students/Benesh-Zoeller/
The proper disposal of solid waste is a concern worldwide. Efforts have been made to encourage everyone to reduce, reuse, recycle and rethink the products they are consuming. Annually we celebrate Earth Day in recognition of these efforts. Although many areas of the United States have actively engaged in recycling efforts, more needs to be done. As you can see by the following statistics and the map below, the rate at which landfills are filling up (snip)

Most of this stuff just represents unused or wasted energy A lot of stuff that was buried many decades ago in landfills is strangely quite well preserved

http://www.eeco.net/Waste%20Gasification.htm
(snip)
Environmentally responsible and cost effective waste management and energy production systems

. . . . turning waste streams into revenue streams.


WASTE GASIFICATION AND ENERGY PRODUCTION
We provide cost effective, proven, integrated "small"gasification systems from 45kg/hour to 6 tonnes/hour.

Our gasification technologies are now fully developed, however they only occupy small niche markets and their potential future roles are not widely developed or appreciated yet. EEC is in the process of changing that by mass commercializing and marketing a series of effective technologies applicable to specific waste streams and energy needs.

EEC’s gasification technologies are complemented by alliances with related technologies and market sector applications. As such we can effectively address a wide range of feedstocks and produce the most desirable end energy products for each particular application.

We also provide waste handling, sorting, pre-treatment, gas conditioning and energy products (IC engines, generators, heating, cooling and liquid fuel production) through our strategic partnerships.

CAPABILITIES OF OUR WASTE GASIFICATION AND ENERGY PRODUCTION SYSTEMS:

Multiple Fuels: Municipal solid waste (MSW), tires, plastics, biomass, sludges, animal wastes, etc.
End products: Electricity, heat, cooling liquid fuels.
Two revenue streams; Disposal (tipping) fees and electricity or liquid fuel sales.
Gasifiers produces no emissions, just a clean, cool gas and a benign ash.
Capacities from 45 kg/hour to 6 tonnes per hour.
Electrical power from 34 kWe to 13 MWe per unit.

"Waste gasification and energy production: a revolution in environmentally friendly fossil fuel replacement."

EEC fosters in a new generation of mass-produced systems that efficiently and cleanly provide energy, enable us to change the concept of "wastes" and replace a significant portion of fossil fuels. We expect to have measurable impact on the global environment and provide lucrative returns on investment for our shareholders and Clients.


ADVANCED AND VERSATILE GASIFICATION SYSTEMS
Proven, fully integrated, and cost effective waste gasification systems.
Our proprietary gasification technologies have enabled effective, commercial scale, conversion of a wide range of biomass, municipal, agricultural and industrial wastes into clean energy products.
Instead of simple combustion (incineration), our gasification process captures an unprecedented 75% of the the fuel's energy in the form of a clean, combustible gas. No other emissions are produced by the gasifiers. This producer gas can be used in the same way as natural gas to generate electricity, power engines, for various industrial applications, or converted to liquid fuels such as Diesel or ethanol.
(snip)

[treepig]

43. a bad thing about wind power is that the windmills kill birds

. . . as found in a study that was later found to be funded by the fossil fuel industry

in any event something like 93 birds were killed by windmills one year in the early 90's


by comparison, something like 60,000,000 birds were killed by cats that year.

[NickB79]

54. I believe the newer models cut down on that

The early model windmills used small, fast-turning blades to generate power, but spun so rapidly in a strong wind that they were difficult to see by flying birds. The newer models have been given larger, slower-turning blades that are visible to flying birds, so the bird-kill issue is being addressed.

[Zenaholic]

45. Anthing Into Oil

An article from Discovery Mag.

<snip>
Unlike other solid-to-liquid-fuel processes such as cornstarch into ethanol, this one will accept almost any carbon-based feedstock. If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water.
</snip>

Link: http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

[treepig]

47. you may not have been around here at DU long enough,

but there was an enthusiatic discussion of the anything into oil technology - the thread was well over 100 posts.

then, an intrepid DU researcher uncovered bfee/halliburton/dod financing links to the philadelphia company developing this technology (and, not surprisingly, it's not gained much traction here since then).

maybe we should adopt mike dukakis' "i believe in the redemption of souls" attitude, and if these entities are willing to do something good, shouldn't we support it? after all, commercialization of this technology will require the input of large amounts of cash, and with the possible exception of george soros and perhaps ted turner, most people with that kind of money are pretty unsavory characters!

[TygrBright]

46. NO ETHANOL!

I'm very sorry that the agricultural community allowed itself to be sold this bill of goods so thoroughly that they've virtually re-tooled the entire sector based on the "promise" of ethanol.

The fuel may be renewable, and perhaps at some point we'll get the cost down far enough to make it economically viable.

But the process of making it is an ecological disaster. Ask anyone who has lived withing breathing distance of an ethanol plant. Or worse--downstream from the chemical byproducts of the process. That's some VERY nasty stuff.

There are communities around the country now just waking up to what's been wished on them in the name of this spuriously 'green' energy alternative. To sludge leaking up out of the parking lots adjacent to ethanol plants, to repeated, long-lasting, and health-compromising industrial farts, to barrels of processing chemicals accumulating in storage yards nearby (and leaking,) etc.

NO ETHANOL.

If a reliable biomass alternative that doesn't produce toxic byproducts emerges, I'll be all for it. In the mean time, I don't see a hell of a lot of improvement between toxic pollution produced by non-renewable sources like oil and coal, and toxic pollution produced by renewable sources like corn-based ethanol.

The few family farmers we have left need to wake up to the reality that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Corporate-dependent monocrop culture, regardless of the end use of the monocrop, ultimately absorbs farms into the economic dead end of corporate sharecropping. There is no "economical," "easy," "low-labor-intensivity" way to farm and remain independent. Buying into the corporate treadmill of hybrid monocropping supported by Monsanto, Dow, etc., with the end market for the production limited to applications further controlled by Big Bidniss, may seem like a cheap and easy salvation. It's not. It's just a slow-motion way of signing a permanent indenture to corporate agriculture. Corn monocropping for ethanol production simply draws the noose tighter.

If every family farmer who wants to stay independent on their own land could form co-ops to subsidize re-tooling to smaller-scale, diversified, high-quality production of consumer foodstuffs, they could start a demand cycle that might possibly result in being able to make a decent living from real farming. But if all they want is to collect a tax-subsidized "production bank" bare bone from the same trough that is lavishly feeding corporate porkers, why not just turn the land over to ADM and save themselves the effort?

I grew up in an agricultural area and went to an ag college, and even way back then, there was more effort spent on figuring out how to get paid NOT to farm than on how to adapt farming to constantly-changing markets. Farming is heartbreaking, backbreaking, endless work that entails maximum economic risk. That's the reality. Anyone who isn't prepared to take on that reality shouldn't be in farming. Let the corporate managers have the land, unionize the labor to get a fair shake in pay and benefits from the work, regulate the hell out of it to endure environmental protection and worker safety, and let Bidniss take the risks and heartbreaks of a drought year or hurricane that blows the whole crop away or any of the other thousands of contingencies.

We pay way too little for food in this country and it distorts our understanding of reality. It's about time we got slapped upside the head with the smelly wet fish of agricultural economics.

Nothing like another rant....

obsessively,
Bright

[treepig]

48. what about willows?

see Willow Biomass for Bioenergy

http://www.esf.edu/PUBPROG/BROCHURE/WILLOW/WILLOW.HTM

[ozone_man]

49. NRG systems, a Vermont wind energy company.

I find this company interesting, partly because they build these systems all over the world, in fact IIRC many are developing countries, where centralized power is not practical or economically feasible.

--snip--

David and Jan Blittersdorf, owners of NRG Systems, sell wind-measuring equipment all over the world, but have a special interest in Vermont.

by Sean Toussaint

David Blittersdorf was a senior at UVM in 1979 when he registered the business name NRG Systems Inc. with Vermont's secretary of state. ( NRG is a license-plate spelling of the word energy). This act wasn't just an excess of youthful confidence; the undergraduate had already designed and built a wind turbine that was operating on the UVM campus. Today, Blittersdorf and his wife, Jan, head a 20-year-old company that makes and sells wind energy assessment equipment with sales of more than $11 million last year.

Blittersdorf says he had been enthralled with wind as a child growing up in Pittsford, and developed an interest in alternative energy sources and particularly wind energy during the Arab oil embargo of the early '70s. When he started college, he was already considering a career in wind energy.

--snip--

After graduating with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, Blittersdorf worked for Elfin Corp., a wind energy company in southern Vermont. He and Jan, who was three years away from graduating from UVM with a major in human development and nursing, were living in Bristol. With the amount of time and money it took them to commute, they figured they were just about breaking even.

A year later, as the first wind farm in the United States was being erected in California in 1981, Bittersdorf quit his job and started making wind sensor equipment in his rented home. He wanted to make wind turbines but knew he didn't have the resources and thought there was room in the market for better measuring equipment.

--snip--

http://www.vermontguides.com/2001/12-dec/nrg.htm