CORN BATTLE
Ethanol Reaps a Backlash In Small Midwestern Towns Residents Fight Plants
On Water, Air Fears; Farmers Boycott Stores
By JOE BARRETT
WSJ | March 23, 2007 | Page A1
CAMBRIA, Wis. -- With empty storefronts on the main drag and corn stubble stretching for miles in the surrounding hills, this fading farm town seems like a natural stop for the ethanol express.
Not to John Mueller, though. The 54-year-old stay-at-home dad has led a dogged battle to prevent a corn mill from building an ethanol plant up the hill from the village school. Concerned about air pollution, the water supply and the mill's environmental track record, Mr. Mueller and his group, Cambrians for Thoughtful Development, have blitzed the village's 800 residents with fliers, packed public meetings and set up a sophisticated Web site.
The mill has fought back with its own publicity campaign and local corn farmers have taken to the streets in tractors to show support. Now, as the mill races to build the $70 million plant, the matter is headed to the federal courthouse in Madison, 40 miles southwest.
Nuclear plants, garbage dumps and oil refineries have long faced opposition from neighbors. Ethanol was supposed to be different. The corn-based fuel has a reputation for being good for farmers, the environment and rural economies. Ethanol, which already receives a 51-cents-a-gallon federal subsidy, figures prominently in President Bush's goal of reducing gasoline consumption by 20% over 10 years. But a backlash has been brewing in towns across the Midwest.
Fights have broken out in Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas and several towns in Wisconsin. Opponents complain that ethanol plants deplete aquifers, draw heavy truck traffic, pose safety concerns, contribute to air pollution and produce a sickly-sweet smell akin to that of a barroom floor.
In southwestern Missouri, a Webster County citizens' group is suing to stop a plant proposed by closely held Gulfstream Bioflex Energy LLC of Mount Vernon, Mo. The detractors say the 80-million-gallon-a-year plant would use more water than the rest of the 33,000-resident county, an "unreasonable" use of the area's underground water supply.
"This is not about water," protests Bryan O. Wade, an attorney for Gulfstream. "This is about a group of people who simply do not want an industrial facility near their homes."
Just outside Rockford, Ill., people who live near the site of a planned 100-million gallon ethanol plant have filed lawsuits against Winnebago County questioning the procedures by which it granted a rezoning to Wight Partners, a Schaumburg, Ill.-based developer. Last October, Wight filed a $3 million lawsuit against the residents, claiming they have abused the legal process merely to delay the project.
Industry officials concede that ethanol plants have had problems with smell and toxic emissions in the past, but say new technology has largely remedied that. "Generally, communities look at these plants as local economic engines," says Robert Dineen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, a Washington trade group. The plants bring jobs and have dramatically raised corn prices and farmland values. Many ethanol plants have paid rich dividends to investors, who often include local farmers and other residents.
But experts hotly debate whether renewable fuels offer a panacea for the world's energy needs. As with ethanol derived from corn -- which slurps up water -- many alternative fuels are creating environmental problems of their own. In Indonesia, Malaysia and Canada, forests are being slashed for energy-yielding crops or other unconventional fuels. In India, environmentalists say, water tables are dropping as farmers boost production of ethanol-yielding sugar.
As the rush to build ethanol plants continues in the U.S. -- there are 114 in operation, 80 under construction and many more in planning stages -- clashes with locals are multiplying.
Cambria certainly looks like it could use an economic boost. Two canning facilities run full-tilt around harvest time but slow considerably in winter. The downtown strip features a café, two bars (one called The Dump), a bank, a barbershop and a furniture-maker. But a supper club, tattoo parlor, grocery store and sandwich shop are shuttered. Many residents work in Madison or other nearby towns.
A row of grain silos towers over the village's southern edge at the Didion Milling Inc. corn mill. There, locally grown corn is dried, ground, sifted and mixed into different products. Didion's biggest seller is a mix of corn, soy and nutrients that the U.S. ships overseas as emergency food aid. The company generated about $50 million in revenue from its government food-aid programs last year.
In November 2002, Didion sent letters inviting Cambria residents to a public meeting about its plan to build an ethanol plant. The letter said the plant would allow Didion to "buy more corn from local farmers, increase revenue for the local economy" and create new jobs. Today, the company says the 40-million-gallon plant would offer 40 jobs, with salaries averaging $38,000 a year, and increase the company's annual property tax payments to various local entities to $276,000 from $99,000 in 2006.
Kneeling on the dusty mill floor to scoop out a sample of milled corn, Dale Drachenberg, Didion's vice president of operations, says the company believes it will be able to make ethanol more efficiently than competitors. Most plants start the ethanol-making process with whole corn kernels. But Didion's mill separates the starch that's the most vital ingredient in ethanol. "It's a natural progression that will allow us to continue to grow our business," he says.
More than 70 people crowded into the village hall for the first public meeting, many of them farmers eager to sell corn to the ethanol plant. Also attending were Mr. Mueller and a few others who questioned Didion about safety, emissions, traffic and water. Later, Mr. Mueller huddled with some residents who had posed questions. Three already had formed Cambrians for Thoughtful Development. Mr. Mueller joined the group, which has about a dozen active members, and put up its Web site.
He and his wife, who works at the University of Wisconsin archives, had moved to Cambria from Madison in 2001. An elfin man with a long gray beard and pony tail, he had decided to quit his job at a lock and security company years earlier to raise his daughter, now 14. "There are just so many things I didn't want to miss with her," he says.
When Mr. Mueller heard about the ethanol plant, he says, he feared for the character of the quiet town where he'd bought a cozy house a few blocks from the school and an old mill pond. Scouring the Internet, he read about other places that had succeeded in blocking ethanol plants. It was at once encouraging and daunting. "We were just coming in from Madison," he says. "I thought we'd be the only ones asking questions."
The activists began plotting strategy at each other's homes. Sarah Lloyd, 35, a doctoral student in rural sociology who later got herself elected to the Columbia County board, says she initially thought ethanol was a good thing. But she concluded that small Midwestern towns were being asked to accept what amounts to new chemical plants in their midst in the national drive to clean up big-city auto emissions and reduce dependence on foreign oil. "We were really being asked to take one for the team," she says.
Mr. Mueller filed open-records requests with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency. He discovered that Didion had repeatedly run afoul of federal environmental rules. Grain processing -- like ethanol production -- is subject to such rules because it creates tiny airborne particles that can cause respiratory problems and aggravate heart conditions.
In 2000, Didion had paid $107,500 to the EPA to settle allegations that the company expanded a grain-barge loading facility without obtaining permits or controlling particulate emissions. Didion's Mr. Drachenberg says the expansion amounted to some portable equipment brought in to help meet peak demand at harvest. The company settled rather than go through costly litigation, he says.
Didion also had expanded its Cambria milling facility without proper permits, according to a 2002 notice from the DNR. By adding to storage capacity and increasing the amount of grain processed, the plant had come under tougher emissions rules, the notice said. The infraction was considered a High Priority Violation under EPA rules, carrying penalties of $25,000 per violation per day.
Mr. Drachenberg says the company had merely tried to build enough permanent silos to avoid storing grain on the ground at harvest. He says the company had an exemption from the state, but the official who had granted it left and others in the DNR interpreted it differently.
One Sunday, a few weeks after the first public meeting, the activists fanned out in the village to distribute to each home a flier listing Didion's alleged violations and asking: "Is Ethanol Production in the Village of Cambria the Development That We Want?"
This set the stage for a tense meeting the next night at the school gym, amid images of the school mascot, the Hilltopper, a pickax-wielding mountain climber. Residents and farmers packed the bleachers as speakers struggled to be heard through the faltering PA system. Chet Stringfield, then the village's president, talked excitedly about the economic opportunity the plant represented.
As the night wore on, the exchanges grew more heated, Mr. Mueller recalls. At one point, one of Didion's project contractors drew laughter with his assertion that the plant would help America defeat terrorism. "It was heartening to me that, even at that point, some people found that outrageous on the face of it," Mr. Mueller says.
That Saturday, local farmer Brian Jung fired up his eight-wheeled Steiger tractor and pointed it toward Cambria. There, he joined about 50 farmers in tractors and trucks in a parade down the main street in support of the plant. The event was organized by the wife of Republican state Rep. Eugene Hahn, who raises corn, wheat and lima beans near Cambria. For years, he has championed state legislation to support ethanol.
Mr. Hahn, 77, recalls a time when Cambria had three grocery stores and a car dealership. "That's all kind of dried up," he says. Of the people opposing the plant, he says, "it's a bedroom community to them."
The community split. Farmers, frustrated with the opposition, started an informal boycott of village businesses. "I think the overall feeling, when Cambria was so against everything, a lot of guys they just didn't participate in town," says Mr. Jung. The local Chamber of Commerce decided to back the plant only after serious debate.
Meantime, Mr. Mueller and his fellow activists filed suit in Columbia County Circuit Court to nullify a variance Didion had received on building-height restrictions. And they garnered enough signatures to persuade the village council to put a referendum on the plant on that April's ballot.
Didion shot back with several direct-mail appeals to residents, including one that accused opponents of "trying to scare the people of Cambria and to divide our community."
Cambria voters passed a referendum to bar ethanol from the town or its surroundings, 263 to 136, effectively killing Didion's chances of building in the town.
Plans for a plant were on hold until last April. By then, President Bush had exhorted the country to wean itself from its "addiction" to oil, and scores of new ethanol plants had sprouted across the Midwest. Didion announced that it would again seek to build a plant, this time on a small parcel it had acquired directly across the road from its previous site -- and just outside Cambria's border.
The new site remained close enough to the mill that Didion could trundle its corn starch over by truck or conveyer belt, out of Cambria's regulatory reach. For Mr. Mueller, the new application brought "a sinking feeling -- like the beginning of a recurring nightmare."
This time, despite continuing objections from Mr. Mueller's group and Cambria officials, Didion's rezoning applications to Columbia County and Courtland Township sailed through. "It was unanimous that we thought that this would be a good thing," says Courtland supervisor JoAnn Wingers, whose family farms 1,500 acres of corn and soybeans near Cambria.
As for the opponents, she says, "If we could go back at least 50 years, that's how they'd like us to stay farming. The economy doesn't allow that. We're trying to be progressive and economically beneficial to the entire area."
Didion broke ground on the plant in October, and was soon embroiled in more controversy. On Dec. 20, the state issued a notice saying Didion hadn't abided by a new air permit covering both the mill and the ethanol plant. "There was a misunderstanding between my engineer, the DNR and Didion," Mr. Drachenberg says, over how much Didion could use the corn drier at the grain mill before the ethanol plant came online.
The company has applied for a revised permit and scaled back work to comply with the current permit.
The opponents have not given up. On Feb. 12, lawyers for Mr. Mueller's group served Didion 60 days notice that they would file a federal lawsuit in Madison under the Clean Air Act, citing the history of alleged environmental violations at the mill, including the one noted in December.
Christa Westerberg, a Madison attorney who represents Cambria and other Wisconsin citizens' groups battling ethanol plants, says Didion's latest troubles are "part of this pattern of doing whatever it takes to get the permit, then either don't live up to it or try to get it changed." If successful, the lawsuit could lead to Didion paying millions in penalties and require them to get new permits. Whether that stops the ethanol plant "depends on how Didion reacts," she says.
Mr. Drachenberg, who lives near Madison, says Didion plans to have its ethanol plant operating by November. He says the company is in compliance with all federal rules and has worked to resolve any issues when they came up. He was surprised at the intensity of the opposition four years ago, he says, and, "I'm still surprised."
"Here we found a place where we were welcome and since that time we've proven to be good neighbors, good members of the community."
-- Jeff Robertson, CEO of United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC, which runs an ethanol plant three miles north of Cambria, Wis.
* * *
"It's a complementary business to the business that we currently have [in Cambria]."
-- Dale Drachenberg, vice president of operations for Didion Milling, which wants to build an ethanol plant near its existing milling operations in Cambria
* * *
"We have specific problems with the management company … and also with the location, which is, we feel, entirely too close to our schools and residences."
-- John Mueller of Cambrians for Thoughtful Development, a group opposing plans for expansion by a local milling company
* * *
"The citizens group has sent a '60-day notice of intent to sue' letter … and will seek penalties and a court order requiring the company to comply with the Clean Air Act."
-- David Bender, an attorney with the Madison, Wis., law firm Garvey McNeil & McGillivray, which is representing residents of Cambria in a complaint against Didion Milling under the Clean Air Act
* * *
"The ethanol plant was rejected in part because the plant would have had a negative effect on the village's water supply."
-- Christa Westerberg, of Garvey McNeil & McGillivray
* * *
"We support the ethanol plant … the more businesses we have in a small community like this, the more potential we have for drawing more business."
-- Enos Bontrager, owner of Pride Furniture in Cambria and president of the Cambria-Friesland Chamber of Commerce
Friday, March 23, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
We are not alone
07/22/2004
Marietta opposed to energy plant
By: Rebecca Locuson and Ryan Phillips
Marietta Borough Council voted unanimously at its last meeting to send Conoy Township a letter authored by councilman Harold Kuhlman, expressing opposition to plans for a proposed Ethanol Plant northeast of Marietta along Route 441.
The reasons cited in the letter, which was signed by council President William Nagy, Jr., included an increase in traffic, potential for serious vehicle accidents, potential for explosions and fire, mal odors and an increase in air pollution.
According to Kuhlman, approximately 770 of 973 polled Conoy Township residents said they didn't want the plant built. Despite the fact that Penn-Mar Ethanol did not have the requisite DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) application or Emergency Preparedness plan completed, Conoy Township agreed to go forward with its planned hearing on Aug. 5 at the Bainbridge fire hall on Second Street in Bainbridge.
"It seemed to be the contention of the town," said councilman Sam Wiggins about the letter denouncing the ethanol plant.
Wiggins also cited the plant's inability to contain fires another reason for opposing the Penn-Mar plan. If approved, the plant would be the first of its kind on the east coast.
Robert Strickland, a Conoy Township supervisor and secretary, said Marietta was the first municipality in the immediate area to send a letter opposing the plant. Hellam Township in York County sent a letter of opposition several months ago, Strickland noted.
"They (Marietta Borough) certainly have a right to their concerns," he said. "We're going to try to address those at the hearing."
Kim Anderson, member of the Governor Pinchot Group, which is an offshoot of the state chapter of the Sierra Club, said the ethanol industry will not be good for Pennsylvania and that such a plant would add to the county's already-existing air quality problems.
"We're also concerned they will not be monitored as much as they should be," Anderson said. "They're (Penn-Mar) going to be replacing water (in the Susquehanna River) that is not of the same quality."
The Governor Pinchot Group plans on following the developments of Penn-Mar's application process very closely, said Anderson. She emphasized the proposed plant would affect any town along the Susquehanna River.
If the plant becomes a reality, it's expected that traffic along Route 441 will increase exponentially. Officials expect that as many as 48 to 200 trucks will travel 441 and surrounding roads daily. It is also estimated that of those numbers of trucks, at least 13 will transport the gas additive, increasing the risk of severe injury and increased danger of fire and explosion and the attendant problems.
Mal odors are also a problem with ethanol plant operations. For example, in 2003, Wisconsin passed Senate Bill 299, prohibiting construction of ethanol plants within a five-mile radius of elementary, middle, junior and senior high schools. Although Wisconsin specifies a five-mile protection zone, the possibly exists that odors can drift well beyond five miles.
Increased pollution will also be a problem, council members agreed. Even though the plant expects to produce nearly 60 million gallons of ethanol yearly, they plan to apply only for a minor emission control system.
Kuhlman added that the problem of pollution will also be increased with the stop and go emissions from diesel trucks traveling along roads with signal lights, like Route 441.
http://www.c4aqe.org/dangers_ethanol_plants/marietta_opposed_to_energy_plant.htm
Marietta opposed to energy plant
By: Rebecca Locuson and Ryan Phillips
Marietta Borough Council voted unanimously at its last meeting to send Conoy Township a letter authored by councilman Harold Kuhlman, expressing opposition to plans for a proposed Ethanol Plant northeast of Marietta along Route 441.
The reasons cited in the letter, which was signed by council President William Nagy, Jr., included an increase in traffic, potential for serious vehicle accidents, potential for explosions and fire, mal odors and an increase in air pollution.
According to Kuhlman, approximately 770 of 973 polled Conoy Township residents said they didn't want the plant built. Despite the fact that Penn-Mar Ethanol did not have the requisite DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) application or Emergency Preparedness plan completed, Conoy Township agreed to go forward with its planned hearing on Aug. 5 at the Bainbridge fire hall on Second Street in Bainbridge.
"It seemed to be the contention of the town," said councilman Sam Wiggins about the letter denouncing the ethanol plant.
Wiggins also cited the plant's inability to contain fires another reason for opposing the Penn-Mar plan. If approved, the plant would be the first of its kind on the east coast.
Robert Strickland, a Conoy Township supervisor and secretary, said Marietta was the first municipality in the immediate area to send a letter opposing the plant. Hellam Township in York County sent a letter of opposition several months ago, Strickland noted.
"They (Marietta Borough) certainly have a right to their concerns," he said. "We're going to try to address those at the hearing."
Kim Anderson, member of the Governor Pinchot Group, which is an offshoot of the state chapter of the Sierra Club, said the ethanol industry will not be good for Pennsylvania and that such a plant would add to the county's already-existing air quality problems.
"We're also concerned they will not be monitored as much as they should be," Anderson said. "They're (Penn-Mar) going to be replacing water (in the Susquehanna River) that is not of the same quality."
The Governor Pinchot Group plans on following the developments of Penn-Mar's application process very closely, said Anderson. She emphasized the proposed plant would affect any town along the Susquehanna River.
If the plant becomes a reality, it's expected that traffic along Route 441 will increase exponentially. Officials expect that as many as 48 to 200 trucks will travel 441 and surrounding roads daily. It is also estimated that of those numbers of trucks, at least 13 will transport the gas additive, increasing the risk of severe injury and increased danger of fire and explosion and the attendant problems.
Mal odors are also a problem with ethanol plant operations. For example, in 2003, Wisconsin passed Senate Bill 299, prohibiting construction of ethanol plants within a five-mile radius of elementary, middle, junior and senior high schools. Although Wisconsin specifies a five-mile protection zone, the possibly exists that odors can drift well beyond five miles.
Increased pollution will also be a problem, council members agreed. Even though the plant expects to produce nearly 60 million gallons of ethanol yearly, they plan to apply only for a minor emission control system.
Kuhlman added that the problem of pollution will also be increased with the stop and go emissions from diesel trucks traveling along roads with signal lights, like Route 441.
http://www.c4aqe.org/dangers_ethanol_plants/marietta_opposed_to_energy_plant.htm
Dangers of ethanol in petrol ignored, says ALP
December 10 2002
By Josh GordonCanberra
The ALP has accused the Federal Government of ignoring bureaucratic advice to limit the ethanol content of petrol, claiming that its failure to act risked up to $2500 in damage to every car.
In leaked submissions made to cabinet in September, Environment Australia and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia called for a 10 per cent cap on the ethanol content of petrol.
Motoring organisations have warned that ethanol levels higher than 10 per cent can damage engines and make warranties void.
Caps are in force in most countries except Mexico, where engines are specially modified.
Ethanol can be produced from sugar cane, and the government is considering a mandated level of ethanol in petrol to try to help the struggling sugar industry.
Labor frontbencher Daryl Melham said a Sydney women in his electorate had complained of more than $2500 in damage to her car because she regularly filled up at a petrol station where 17 per cent ethanol was used.
Mr Melham produced receipts, letters and a fuel analysis report in parliament.
Labor treasury spokesman Bob McMullan said the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had also written to Environment Minister David Kemp calling for a 10 per cent ethanol limit, or warnings when higher ethanol blends were sold.
Mr McMullan said Treasurer Peter Costello was the minister responsible but was indifferent to the problem. But Mr Costello said the government would not act hastily, and was waiting for a full scientific study from Environment Australia before it made any decision.
"The reason is we don't do this things on an interim basis is it might be wrong," Mr Costello told parliament.
The Federal Government is considering mandating minimum ethanol levels in petrol in a plan to help the floundering sugar industry, which produces ethanol as a byproduct.
Labor has repeatedly claimed that Mr Howard would not agree to a 10 per cent ethanol limit if this affected Manildra, which makes ethanol out of wheat, because the company's chairman, Dick Honan, is his close friend.
Found on website: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/09/1039379784027.html
December 10 2002
By Josh GordonCanberra
The ALP has accused the Federal Government of ignoring bureaucratic advice to limit the ethanol content of petrol, claiming that its failure to act risked up to $2500 in damage to every car.
In leaked submissions made to cabinet in September, Environment Australia and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia called for a 10 per cent cap on the ethanol content of petrol.
Motoring organisations have warned that ethanol levels higher than 10 per cent can damage engines and make warranties void.
Caps are in force in most countries except Mexico, where engines are specially modified.
Ethanol can be produced from sugar cane, and the government is considering a mandated level of ethanol in petrol to try to help the struggling sugar industry.
Labor frontbencher Daryl Melham said a Sydney women in his electorate had complained of more than $2500 in damage to her car because she regularly filled up at a petrol station where 17 per cent ethanol was used.
Mr Melham produced receipts, letters and a fuel analysis report in parliament.
Labor treasury spokesman Bob McMullan said the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had also written to Environment Minister David Kemp calling for a 10 per cent ethanol limit, or warnings when higher ethanol blends were sold.
Mr McMullan said Treasurer Peter Costello was the minister responsible but was indifferent to the problem. But Mr Costello said the government would not act hastily, and was waiting for a full scientific study from Environment Australia before it made any decision.
"The reason is we don't do this things on an interim basis is it might be wrong," Mr Costello told parliament.
The Federal Government is considering mandating minimum ethanol levels in petrol in a plan to help the floundering sugar industry, which produces ethanol as a byproduct.
Labor has repeatedly claimed that Mr Howard would not agree to a 10 per cent ethanol limit if this affected Manildra, which makes ethanol out of wheat, because the company's chairman, Dick Honan, is his close friend.
Found on website: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/09/1039379784027.html
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
More useful Websites
FYI: Other Useful Websites and Articles
*www. Crestlineethanol.blogspot.com
*http://goodlandenergy.com/
*http://www.c4aqe.org/dangers_ethanol_plants/articles_about_the_dangers.htm
*http://www.c4aqe.org/letters_to_editor/ethanol_plant_would_benefi_%20only_those_who_stand_to_profit_from_it_petri_po_7.7.05.htm
*http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/more-amateurs-to-build-ethanol-plants.html
*http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/
*http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/environmentalbulletin/tdr-eb06-08.PDF
*http://homepage.mac.com/oscura/ctd/docs/pioneerpresssbenson.PDF
*http://einachreport.wnymedia.net/?cat=9
*http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2005/May/02/Features/perspectives.shtml
*http://www.c4aqe.org/letters_to_editor/ethanol_plant_would_benefi_%20only_those_who_stand_to_profit_from_it_petri_po_7.7.05.htm
*www. Crestlineethanol.blogspot.com
*http://goodlandenergy.com/
*http://www.c4aqe.org/dangers_ethanol_plants/articles_about_the_dangers.htm
*http://www.c4aqe.org/letters_to_editor/ethanol_plant_would_benefi_%20only_those_who_stand_to_profit_from_it_petri_po_7.7.05.htm
*http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/more-amateurs-to-build-ethanol-plants.html
*http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/
*http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/environmentalbulletin/tdr-eb06-08.PDF
*http://homepage.mac.com/oscura/ctd/docs/pioneerpresssbenson.PDF
*http://einachreport.wnymedia.net/?cat=9
*http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2005/May/02/Features/perspectives.shtml
*http://www.c4aqe.org/letters_to_editor/ethanol_plant_would_benefi_%20only_those_who_stand_to_profit_from_it_petri_po_7.7.05.htm
The Smell of Spin
By Christa Westerberg
If you once associated ethanol with clean air and green goodness then you are no different than most of the members of the Wisconsin Initiative for Sustainable Local Environments (WISLE), the grassroots group that has prevented ethanol’s sponsors from building plants in five Wisconsin locations and has efforts underway in several others. Most WISLE members will tell you they were not initially opposed to ethanol and ethanol plants. They believed what the most of us believe: that ethanol is a clean-burning fuel that is good for the environment. Despite its green reputation, the specter of having ethanol plants move in next door prompted many of the people who eventually formed WISLE to do some research. And as citizens throughout the state learned more about ethanol, they realized that ethanol plants make poor neighbors and the fuel itself is a pretty sorry excuse for an environmentally friendly product. Eventually, these citizens came together and formed WISLE to educate people about the problems with ethanol and to assist other communities throughout the state in fights against ethanol plants.In a nutshell, while ethanol does reduce some tailpipe emissions it increases others and contributes to ground-level ozone and smog. Ethanol plants are environmental nightmares, emitting such pollutants as volatile organic compounds and particulate matter, in addition to a particularly strong and unpleasant odor. Given the vast amount of water, natural gas and other resources it takes to generate ethanol, the fuel is essentially a net energy loser. Of course, this says nothing of the resources it takes to grow the corn from which ethanol is produced, or the consequences of the monoculture required to grow it. (Lots of fertilizer and genetically modified corn, for starters.) To date, WISLE has run ethanol out of Menomonie, Arlington, Elba, Algoma, and Nekimi. Current battles are raging in Cambria, Utica, Augusta and a number of other communities. Meanwhile, ethanol plants have been built in only two Wisconsin communities, Stanley and Monroe. Ethanol is a model of corporate welfare that is as economically unsustainable as it is environmentally unfriendly. It relies on a 54-cent-per gallon federal subsidy and a 20-cent-per gallon state subsidy. Agri-business conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) controls more than 40 percent of the ethanol market and is the biggest beneficiary of the government handouts. ADM’s ubiquitous television advertising has had much to do with ethanol’s undeserved, sparkling image.Most ethanol plants are located on rail lines so that cheap corn can be shipped in from the lowest bidder, and many ethanol plants or ethanol corn processing facilities that begin as farmer co-ops end up as ADM buyouts. Corn farmers who are enticed by the prospect of higher corn prices are often disappointed when ethanol plants move in nearby. Which is all to say that Wisconsin’s current piece of pro-ethanol legislation—Senate Bill 13 and Assembly Bill 33—must be stopped. Introduced by Republican Sen. David Schultz and Republican Assembly Rep. Steven Freese, the bills have 13 cosponsors from across the Legislature’s ideological spectrum. If it passes, the bill will require 3 percent ethanol content in automobile gasoline beginning in July 2004, and 10 percent by 2008.The legislation ought to die under its own enormous economic weight. The fiscal estimate predicts that it would result in $102 million of lost federal transportation funding annually, or a total of $227 billion by 2013. During this time of fiscal crisis in state government, opting out of $102 million in annual federal funding does not sound smart. Yet, anything seems possible given this nation’s love affair with ethanol. Just to be safe, WISLE will remain vigilant. March 8, 2003 Christa Westerberg lives in Stoughton and is an attorney with law firm Garvey & Stoddard.
* taken from http://goodlandenergy.com/
Ethanol is a model of corporate welfare that is as economically unsustainable as it is environmentally unfriendly. It relies on a 54-cent-per gallon federal subsidy and a 20-cent-per gallon state subsidy. Agri-business conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) controls more than 40 percent of the ethanol market and is the biggest beneficiary of the government handouts. ADM’s ubiquitous television advertising has had much to do with ethanol’s undeserved, sparkling image.Most ethanol plants are located on rail lines so that cheap corn can be shipped in from the lowest bidder, and many ethanol plants or ethanol corn processing facilities that begin as farmer co-ops end up as ADM buyouts. Corn farmers who are enticed by the prospect of higher corn prices are often disappointed when ethanol plants move in nearby. Which is all to say that Wisconsin’s current piece of pro-ethanol legislation—Senate Bill 13 and Assembly Bill 33—must be stopped. Introduced by Republican Sen. David Schultz and Republican Assembly Rep. Steven Freese, the bills have 13 cosponsors from across the Legislature’s ideological spectrum. If it passes, the bill will require 3 percent ethanol content in automobile gasoline beginning in July 2004, and 10 percent by 2008.The legislation ought to die under its own enormous economic weight. The fiscal estimate predicts that it would result in $102 million of lost federal transportation funding annually, or a total of $227 billion by 2013. During this time of fiscal crisis in state government, opting out of $102 million in annual federal funding does not sound smart. Yet, anything seems possible given this nation’s love affair with ethanol. Just to be safe, WISLE will remain vigilant. March 8, 2003 Christa Westerberg lives in Stoughton and is an attorney with law firm Garvey & Stoddard.
* taken from http://goodlandenergy.com/
By Christa Westerberg
If you once associated ethanol with clean air and green goodness then you are no different than most of the members of the Wisconsin Initiative for Sustainable Local Environments (WISLE), the grassroots group that has prevented ethanol’s sponsors from building plants in five Wisconsin locations and has efforts underway in several others. Most WISLE members will tell you they were not initially opposed to ethanol and ethanol plants. They believed what the most of us believe: that ethanol is a clean-burning fuel that is good for the environment. Despite its green reputation, the specter of having ethanol plants move in next door prompted many of the people who eventually formed WISLE to do some research. And as citizens throughout the state learned more about ethanol, they realized that ethanol plants make poor neighbors and the fuel itself is a pretty sorry excuse for an environmentally friendly product. Eventually, these citizens came together and formed WISLE to educate people about the problems with ethanol and to assist other communities throughout the state in fights against ethanol plants.In a nutshell, while ethanol does reduce some tailpipe emissions it increases others and contributes to ground-level ozone and smog. Ethanol plants are environmental nightmares, emitting such pollutants as volatile organic compounds and particulate matter, in addition to a particularly strong and unpleasant odor. Given the vast amount of water, natural gas and other resources it takes to generate ethanol, the fuel is essentially a net energy loser. Of course, this says nothing of the resources it takes to grow the corn from which ethanol is produced, or the consequences of the monoculture required to grow it. (Lots of fertilizer and genetically modified corn, for starters.) To date, WISLE has run ethanol out of Menomonie, Arlington, Elba, Algoma, and Nekimi. Current battles are raging in Cambria, Utica, Augusta and a number of other communities. Meanwhile, ethanol plants have been built in only two Wisconsin communities, Stanley and Monroe. Ethanol is a model of corporate welfare that is as economically unsustainable as it is environmentally unfriendly. It relies on a 54-cent-per gallon federal subsidy and a 20-cent-per gallon state subsidy. Agri-business conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) controls more than 40 percent of the ethanol market and is the biggest beneficiary of the government handouts. ADM’s ubiquitous television advertising has had much to do with ethanol’s undeserved, sparkling image.Most ethanol plants are located on rail lines so that cheap corn can be shipped in from the lowest bidder, and many ethanol plants or ethanol corn processing facilities that begin as farmer co-ops end up as ADM buyouts. Corn farmers who are enticed by the prospect of higher corn prices are often disappointed when ethanol plants move in nearby. Which is all to say that Wisconsin’s current piece of pro-ethanol legislation—Senate Bill 13 and Assembly Bill 33—must be stopped. Introduced by Republican Sen. David Schultz and Republican Assembly Rep. Steven Freese, the bills have 13 cosponsors from across the Legislature’s ideological spectrum. If it passes, the bill will require 3 percent ethanol content in automobile gasoline beginning in July 2004, and 10 percent by 2008.The legislation ought to die under its own enormous economic weight. The fiscal estimate predicts that it would result in $102 million of lost federal transportation funding annually, or a total of $227 billion by 2013. During this time of fiscal crisis in state government, opting out of $102 million in annual federal funding does not sound smart. Yet, anything seems possible given this nation’s love affair with ethanol. Just to be safe, WISLE will remain vigilant. March 8, 2003 Christa Westerberg lives in Stoughton and is an attorney with law firm Garvey & Stoddard.
* taken from http://goodlandenergy.com/
Ethanol is a model of corporate welfare that is as economically unsustainable as it is environmentally unfriendly. It relies on a 54-cent-per gallon federal subsidy and a 20-cent-per gallon state subsidy. Agri-business conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) controls more than 40 percent of the ethanol market and is the biggest beneficiary of the government handouts. ADM’s ubiquitous television advertising has had much to do with ethanol’s undeserved, sparkling image.Most ethanol plants are located on rail lines so that cheap corn can be shipped in from the lowest bidder, and many ethanol plants or ethanol corn processing facilities that begin as farmer co-ops end up as ADM buyouts. Corn farmers who are enticed by the prospect of higher corn prices are often disappointed when ethanol plants move in nearby. Which is all to say that Wisconsin’s current piece of pro-ethanol legislation—Senate Bill 13 and Assembly Bill 33—must be stopped. Introduced by Republican Sen. David Schultz and Republican Assembly Rep. Steven Freese, the bills have 13 cosponsors from across the Legislature’s ideological spectrum. If it passes, the bill will require 3 percent ethanol content in automobile gasoline beginning in July 2004, and 10 percent by 2008.The legislation ought to die under its own enormous economic weight. The fiscal estimate predicts that it would result in $102 million of lost federal transportation funding annually, or a total of $227 billion by 2013. During this time of fiscal crisis in state government, opting out of $102 million in annual federal funding does not sound smart. Yet, anything seems possible given this nation’s love affair with ethanol. Just to be safe, WISLE will remain vigilant. March 8, 2003 Christa Westerberg lives in Stoughton and is an attorney with law firm Garvey & Stoddard.
* taken from http://goodlandenergy.com/
Ethanol Makes Gasoline Costlier, Dirtier by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows. Peter Van Doren is also editor of Regulation magazine.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush spoke a lot about energy independence and
alternative energy sources such as ethanol. According to the president, ethanol is the magical
elixir that will solve virtually every economic, environmental, and foreign policy problem on the
horizon. In reality, it's enormously expensive and wasteful. Untruths and misconceptions about
ethanol include:
*Ethanol will lead to energy independence. If all the corn produced in America
last year were dedicated to ethanol production (14.3 percent of it was), U.S. gasoline
consumption would drop by 12 percent. For corn ethanol to completely displace gasline
consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all U.S. cropland, turn it completely
over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land for cultivation on top of
that.
*The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes that the practical limit for domestic
ethanol production is about 700,000 barrels per day, a figure they don't think is realistic until
2030. That translates to about 6 percent of the U.S. transportation fuels market in 2030.
*Ethanol is economically competitive now. According to a 2005 report issued by the Agriculture
Department, corn ethanol costs an average of $2.53 to produce, or several times what it costs to
produce a gallon of gasoline. Without the subsidies, costs would be higher still. A study last fall
from the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies
amount to $1.05-$1.38 per gallon, or 42 percent to 55 percent of ethanol's wholesale market price.
*Ethanol reduces gasoline prices. If you lived in California and other areas that used reformulated gasoline last summer – that's the environmentally "clean" gasoline required for areas with air pollution problems, and that's where most of that ethanol went – you might have paid up to 60 cents a gallon more for gasoline than you would have otherwise. That's because the federal government required oil refineries to use 4 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006 regardless of price, and gasoline pump prices last summer reflected the fact that ethanol was twice as expensive as wholesale conventional gasoline.
*Ethanol is a renewable fuel. According to a group of academics from UC Berkeley who published in Science magazine last year, 5 percent to 26 percent of the energy content of ethanol is "renewable." The balance of ethanol's energy actually comes from the staggering amount of coal, natural gas and nuclear power necessary to produce corn and process it into ethanol.
*Ethanol reduces air pollution. A review of the literature by Australian academic Robert Niven found that, when evaporative emissions are taken into account, E10 (fuel that's 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline, the standard mix) increases emissions of total hydrocarbons, nonmethane organic compounds, and air toxics compared to conventional gasoline. The result is greater concentrations of photochemical smog and toxic compounds.
*Ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions. At best, E10 reduces greenhouse gas emissions by from zero to 5 percent; pure ethanol by 12 percent. The International Energy Agency, however, estimates that it costs about $250 to reduce a ton of greenhouse gases this way, or more than 10 times what Yale economist William Nordhaus thinks is economically sensible given the economics of climate change. Ethanol as an anti-warming policy is what academics refer to as "crazy talk."
*Ethanol subsidies are necessary to "level the playing field." Petroleum subsidies are something less than $1 billion a year – six to eight times less than ethanol subsidies – and work out to about 0.3 cents per gallon.
*Switchgrass (aka, "cellulosic ethanol") will set us free. Guy Caruso, the head of the EIA, noted in a speech last December that the capital costs associated with cellulosic ethanol production were five times greater than those associated with conventional corn ethanol production. Estimates like that are a bit soft, however, because there is no cellulosic ethanol industry in existence at present, so data is hard to come by. Betting the farm on an industry that doesn't yet exist to produce a product that is known to be staggeringly expensive isn't the best use of tax dollars.
If ethanol has commercial merit, it doesn't need the subsidy. If it doesn't, no amount of subsidy
will bestow it. And that's the truth. This article appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on January 27, 2007.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush spoke a lot about energy independence and
alternative energy sources such as ethanol. According to the president, ethanol is the magical
elixir that will solve virtually every economic, environmental, and foreign policy problem on the
horizon. In reality, it's enormously expensive and wasteful. Untruths and misconceptions about
ethanol include:
*Ethanol will lead to energy independence. If all the corn produced in America
last year were dedicated to ethanol production (14.3 percent of it was), U.S. gasoline
consumption would drop by 12 percent. For corn ethanol to completely displace gasline
consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all U.S. cropland, turn it completely
over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land for cultivation on top of
that.
*The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes that the practical limit for domestic
ethanol production is about 700,000 barrels per day, a figure they don't think is realistic until
2030. That translates to about 6 percent of the U.S. transportation fuels market in 2030.
*Ethanol is economically competitive now. According to a 2005 report issued by the Agriculture
Department, corn ethanol costs an average of $2.53 to produce, or several times what it costs to
produce a gallon of gasoline. Without the subsidies, costs would be higher still. A study last fall
from the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies
amount to $1.05-$1.38 per gallon, or 42 percent to 55 percent of ethanol's wholesale market price.
*Ethanol reduces gasoline prices. If you lived in California and other areas that used reformulated gasoline last summer – that's the environmentally "clean" gasoline required for areas with air pollution problems, and that's where most of that ethanol went – you might have paid up to 60 cents a gallon more for gasoline than you would have otherwise. That's because the federal government required oil refineries to use 4 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006 regardless of price, and gasoline pump prices last summer reflected the fact that ethanol was twice as expensive as wholesale conventional gasoline.
*Ethanol is a renewable fuel. According to a group of academics from UC Berkeley who published in Science magazine last year, 5 percent to 26 percent of the energy content of ethanol is "renewable." The balance of ethanol's energy actually comes from the staggering amount of coal, natural gas and nuclear power necessary to produce corn and process it into ethanol.
*Ethanol reduces air pollution. A review of the literature by Australian academic Robert Niven found that, when evaporative emissions are taken into account, E10 (fuel that's 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline, the standard mix) increases emissions of total hydrocarbons, nonmethane organic compounds, and air toxics compared to conventional gasoline. The result is greater concentrations of photochemical smog and toxic compounds.
*Ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions. At best, E10 reduces greenhouse gas emissions by from zero to 5 percent; pure ethanol by 12 percent. The International Energy Agency, however, estimates that it costs about $250 to reduce a ton of greenhouse gases this way, or more than 10 times what Yale economist William Nordhaus thinks is economically sensible given the economics of climate change. Ethanol as an anti-warming policy is what academics refer to as "crazy talk."
*Ethanol subsidies are necessary to "level the playing field." Petroleum subsidies are something less than $1 billion a year – six to eight times less than ethanol subsidies – and work out to about 0.3 cents per gallon.
*Switchgrass (aka, "cellulosic ethanol") will set us free. Guy Caruso, the head of the EIA, noted in a speech last December that the capital costs associated with cellulosic ethanol production were five times greater than those associated with conventional corn ethanol production. Estimates like that are a bit soft, however, because there is no cellulosic ethanol industry in existence at present, so data is hard to come by. Betting the farm on an industry that doesn't yet exist to produce a product that is known to be staggeringly expensive isn't the best use of tax dollars.
If ethanol has commercial merit, it doesn't need the subsidy. If it doesn't, no amount of subsidy
will bestow it. And that's the truth. This article appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on January 27, 2007.
Top Ten Facts about Ethanol
1. Ethanol is listed as a known human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
2. The cost of Reformulated Gasoline with ethanol will increase 3-6 cents per gallons compared to RFG with MTBE.
3. Spills of pure ethanol or gasoline containing ethanol from leaking storage tanks can create a benzene plume up to 150% larger than a spill from a non-ethanol fuel.
4. Ethanol cannot be shipped by pipeline because of its high affinity for water posing significant distribution costs and hurdles for gasoline blenders.
5. According to a study by Cornell University, for every gallon of ethanol produced, 1.4 gallons of energy is consumed in the process, compared to 0.15 gallons used in the manufacture of gasoline.
6. It takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol (E-85) to drive as many miles as one gallon of gasoline.
7. Every gallon of ethanol removes 53 cents from the Federal Highway Trust Fund because of a special tax break for producers.
8. Ethanol increases the vapor pressure of gasoline by 1 psi. resulting in higher evaporative emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds, while tailpipe emissions of Acetaldehyde increase 150%.
9. Ethanol permeates the hoses and lines of automobile fuel systems resulting in a 50% increase in VOC emissions for pre 1995 cars.
10. Ethanol dissolves oxide scale from the walls of pipes and tanks, subjecting the systems to internal corrosion, which leads to leaks.
*Information Taken from the website: http://www.calgasoline.com/facttopten.htm
1. Ethanol is listed as a known human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
2. The cost of Reformulated Gasoline with ethanol will increase 3-6 cents per gallons compared to RFG with MTBE.
3. Spills of pure ethanol or gasoline containing ethanol from leaking storage tanks can create a benzene plume up to 150% larger than a spill from a non-ethanol fuel.
4. Ethanol cannot be shipped by pipeline because of its high affinity for water posing significant distribution costs and hurdles for gasoline blenders.
5. According to a study by Cornell University, for every gallon of ethanol produced, 1.4 gallons of energy is consumed in the process, compared to 0.15 gallons used in the manufacture of gasoline.
6. It takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol (E-85) to drive as many miles as one gallon of gasoline.
7. Every gallon of ethanol removes 53 cents from the Federal Highway Trust Fund because of a special tax break for producers.
8. Ethanol increases the vapor pressure of gasoline by 1 psi. resulting in higher evaporative emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds, while tailpipe emissions of Acetaldehyde increase 150%.
9. Ethanol permeates the hoses and lines of automobile fuel systems resulting in a 50% increase in VOC emissions for pre 1995 cars.
10. Ethanol dissolves oxide scale from the walls of pipes and tanks, subjecting the systems to internal corrosion, which leads to leaks.
*Information Taken from the website: http://www.calgasoline.com/facttopten.htm
Proposed Ethanol plant in Crestline is a bad idea
hey everybody,
I started this blog so I could educate the public about the negatives of having a Ethanol plant in our community. I will be posting quite a bit of information, so please read. Thanks! By the way, I welcome comments but I'm not really big on comments from "anonymous" people. So feel free to speak your mind but don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't be real.
I started this blog so I could educate the public about the negatives of having a Ethanol plant in our community. I will be posting quite a bit of information, so please read. Thanks! By the way, I welcome comments but I'm not really big on comments from "anonymous" people. So feel free to speak your mind but don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't be real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
