Domestic Fuel

Remember the Green Scissors report from last year that suggest to save money cut ethanol subsidies? Well, the latest version is now available. Green Scissors 2011 says that ending a half trillion in environmentally harmful subsidies will go a long way to solving our budget woes. The report, sponsored by Friends of the Earth, The Heartland Institute, Public Citizen, and Taxpayers for Commonsense, provides a roadmap for savings up to $380 billion over five years. The group says this equals the amount the congressional Super Committee has been charged with cutting in half the time.

The authors write in the report, “While all four groups have different missions, histories, goals and ideas about the role of government, we all agree that we can begin to overcome our nation’s budgetary and environmental woes by tackling spending that is not only wasteful but environmentally harmful.”

So what do they want to cut? Fossil fuel, nuclear, alternative energy, and crop subsidies to name a few. They also want to cut land and water projects and kill road projects along with some Army Corps of Engineers water projects.

According to the report the federal government could end the following programs and save the United States:

• $72,000,000,000 for general revenue transfers to the Highway Trust Fund
• $30,000,000,000 for crop insurance
• $4,820,000,000 for Oil and Gas Royalty relief

Several lawmakers reacted to the report and Rep. Earl Blumeanauer (D-OR) said, “The 2011 Green Scissors Report is a reminder that it’s time for Congress to have a serious, rational discussion about cutting the budget. With painful budget cuts already under discussion that will require American families to make sacrifices, it is only fair, for example, that we also stop the handouts to our richest oil companies.”

Hey, I’m all for cutting budgets and its good to see that the report recommends cutting energy subsidies across the board, but I must ask what would happen to our energy bills if poof, over night they’re all gone? Will we we lose our innovation in alternative energy technologies and be stuck with the status quo? Now how environmentally friendly is that?

It seems like I just don’t have enough time to watch TV, unless of course I’m holed up in a hotel room as I am tonight. I just happen to be flipping channels when I stopped on a rerun of the Simpson’s, “The Squirt and the Whale.” This episode was created in honor of the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day (2010) and I’ve been so out of touch apparently, I never saw it until tonight. I have to say that while the episode was not entirely supportive of renewable energy, the Simpson’s go off the grid with their own personal wind turbine and it was pretty funny.

The move to renewable energy is spurred by a high electric bill and sends the family to the Alternative Energy Expo. As the family piles into the car, to avert thieves in their absence, they leave on all the lights, including their Christmas lights. Once they get to the expo, several things catch their eye including solar panels and biofuels where boothmates “switchgrass” and “corn ethanol” get in a fight over who is better.

But what really catches Homer’s eye is the promise of the wind turbine, which he installs in his backyard.

Lisa: Dad, you are leading the way in clean energy.

Homer: Yep. I Al Gore’d it pretty good.

Lisa: The Simpsons are off the grid and so far it’s going great.

Until…

Homer: Who turned off the wind?

Lisa: Dad, if we’re really off the grid than we won’t get power when the wind is still.

Homer: Well, I’m not crawling back to Big Electricity. From now on the Simpson’s are living intermittently.

Ok, so while the message wasn’t perfect you know when a technology has captured the minds of the general public when it shows up in pop culture. Now let’s hope that renewable energy does a better job of capturing the minds of our politicians so it can continue to “show up” in our backyards.

The renewable energy and agricultural industry today sent a letter to all Members of the House of Representatives urging them to vote no against amendments that would harm the growth of the ethanol industry. The coalition says moves such as prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing the E15 waiver would “weaken efforts to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil and cost U.S. jobs.”

The letter was signed by the American Coalition for Ethanol, Advanced Ethanol Council, Growth Energy, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association. The letter addresses a number of “anti-ethanol” amendments including one proposed by Reps. John Sullivan (R-OK), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Michael Burgess (R-TX) that would block the legal implementation of E15. The fuel blend of 15 percent ethanol and 75 percent gasoline (E15) is the most tested fuel ever.

Ironically, calls to cut biofuel support come at a time of high debt crisis for the country. Needless to say, the same legislators who oppose biofuels are those who continue to support status quo tax credits and subsidies given to industries like oil, natural gas and coal. And one way to bring revenue to the federal government, an idea Republicans vehemently oppose, would be to close tax loop holes, some of which are helping the these same industries. Yet the biofuels industry is in a position to not only help save consumers money at the pump, but also to infuse money back into local, regional, state, and federal budgets.

As our elected officials continue to bicker on the Hill over the budget, now is a good time to urge them to make some sound policy decisions such as keeping continued support for biofuels a federal priority.

The full text of the letter is below:
Read the rest of this post…

Policymakers in California are once again attacking its ethanol industry. Led by California Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), she has plans in the works to limit incentives for production and use of biofuels that would cause taxes to be raised, an increase in use of foreign oil, reduce jobs, and increase pollution. According to the California Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (CEVC), Sen. Feinstein has “long harbored what many observers feel is an irrational vendetta against ethanol.” This despite the fact that the state consumers 20 percent of the nation’s gasoline and more than 60 percent of the gas comes from imported oil.

Feinstein’s goal is to reduce, if not end, California’s as well as the country’s use of corn-based ethanol. On a national level she co-authored legislation that ended support for current ethanol programs. Less than two weeks ago, the Senate came to a compromise to end ethanol incentives via the Ethanol Reform and Deficit Reduction Act, sponsored by Feinstein, John Thune (R-SD) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). The compromise included an end to the ethanol tariff as well as to the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) that gave the ethanol blender of record a 45 cent incentive to blend the fuel. Should the house pass the same measure, it would take effect on July 31, 2011.

The California Senator’s ire is not limited to corn-based ethanol, although the California Ethanol Producer Incentive Program is under fire and she is lobbying to increase gas taxes and ethanol blended fuel taxes in the state. In addition, she is gunning to limit funds dedicated to building biofuel infrastructure including the installation of E85 or blender pumps. If this isn’t enough, she is also attacking incentives for cellulosic and algal biofuels.

One industry that would suffer a dramatic setback should the federal legislation be signed into law, are those retailers who sell E85 (eighty five percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline). In California, the 50 plus retailers who sell E85 are looking at shutting off the pumps because they won’t be able to sell the fuel at competitive prices.

“If you were trying to stifle biofuel technology, increase reliance on imported oil, eliminate jobs, and increase pollution, you could not have done a better job than this,” said Joe Irvin, executive director of CEVC. “Senator Feinstein continues to talk about saving taxpayers money when she just pushed through this $1.1 billion increase in the federal fuel tax to California consumers by raising tax on ethanol blends from $13.6 cents to 18.1 cents.”
Read the rest of this post…

Europe’s $13 billion biodiesel industry could be in jeopardy according to an article published by Reuters that claims that the European Union (EU) plans to tackle unwanted side effects of biofuel production. The turn-about in support of biodiesel has been in part spurred by fear over climate change and several recent papers leaked from the European Commission that purport that biodiesel’s indirect impacts cancel out the majority of its benefits.

As the EU looks to increase current biodiesel use from 3 percent to 10 percent by 2020, they are also concerned that such a move would increase environmental damage rather than reduce environmental concerns. Their own analysis concludes that a 10 percent biodiesel mandate could lead to “an indirect one-off release of around 1,000 megatonnes of carbon dioxide — more than twice the annual emissions of Germany.” In addition, one report concludes that more use of biofuels could “squeeze food supplies and increase global hunger.”

The studies to which Reuters is referring have not been released by the European Commission and the authors surmise it is because it would “have significant implications for the existing EU biodiesel industry.”

These negative impacts could include a reduction of investments in plants and infrastructure. It could also cause a reduction of biodiesel use, rather than what the country has been aiming for since 2003, an increase in biodiesel use.
Read the rest of this post…

The biofuels industry is making a come-back with several successful IPOs (initial public offering) over the past few months. Today, KiOR announced its initial public offering of 10,000,000 shares of Class A common stock at $15 per share. The company raised nearly $138 million of proceeds from the IPO which occurred on June 24.

Other successful IPO’s include the much-awaited IPO of Gevo back in February. The company raised an estimated $123.3 million after setting the share price at $15. In total, the company sold 8.223 million shares. There were concerns as to what level of interest the IPO would generate after Amyris went public last September with less than stellar results. In total, Amyris raised $84.8 million after setting in shares at $16. The company had originally hoped to go out with an offer between $18-$20 a share.

But despite set-backs for the biofuels industry, the real IPO winner so far this year has been Solazyme who raised nearly $227 million – nearly double the money raised by others in the biofuels sector. The per share price was $18, ironically 10 percent higher than company execs predicted several weeks prior to the official IPO.

So why did Solazyme rake in the big bucks while the others merely fared well? While I am by no means a financial guru, I believe part of their success lay in the fact that Solazyme is already making profits by selling bioproducts and biochemicals. Earlier this year, the company launched a cosmetic product that is being sold in Sephora stores nationwide. The other companies, while they have contracts and are producing fuels at smaller scales, are not making profits yet. Therefore, investing in these companies is a bigger gamble.

Another reason why Solazyme’s strategy may be effective is that they are able to use their profits from their bioproducts and biochemicals to help fund it algal-biofuels research while companies like Gevo have no products yet. Therefore, Gevo needs to raise funds just to deploy its technology at commercial scale, which it is now doing. They have broken ground on the retrofit of an ethanol plant in Luverne, Minnesota.

With a solid showing on Nasdaq, at least for now, hopefully these second generation biofuels companies are paving the way for more IPOs and more private investment dollars – a much needed element if the industry is to move to commercialization.

Last week was a crazy week in DC as several amendments to alter or kill the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) were voted on by the Senate. While the first vote was in favor of ethanol (it defeated the Coburn amendment), the industry took a hit when Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) bill was passed, essentially killing VEETC and the tariff without a phase-out plan (but the ethanol industry doesn’t think it will pass into law). So who spent the most money to get their way on VEETC? Lobbyists against VEETC outnumbered and outspent pro-ethanol groups, according to data from First Street-CQ Press’ new policy intelligence platform.

First street followed the money dedicated to lobbying for both Senate Bill S. 520 Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Repeal Act and House Bill H.R. 1075 Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Repeal Act. During first quarter of this year, there were 32 lobbying firms representing 36 clients to the tune of $8,895,893.00. There were 22 lobbying firms active on the House side representing 18 clients and spent $3,645,862.08. So first quarter alone, more than $12 million was spent on lobbying for VEETC reform.

Who were the players on the Hill? Most were the usual suspects. On the pro-ethanol side the biggest spenders were Growth Energy, Renewable Fuels Association, National Corn Growers Association, and POET, who spent $450,000 to just lobby against the VEETC legislation in the House. In the last three years, UNICA, the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association, spent more than $500,000 to lobby for the end of the tariffs as well as various other ethanol amendments.

On the anti-ethanol side you had the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), National Retail Federation, League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Working Group, American Meat Institute, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, National Turkey Federation, and more. The biggest spender was GMA who spent $900,000 lobbying for the House bill alone. On the Senate bill side, your two biggest spenders were Pepsico with $1.44 million followed by Kraft who spent $720,000 to get the bill passed.

As the debate continues around subsidies and balancing the federal budget, ethanol and other biofuel tax incentives are at the center of the chopping block and have already become an important policy point for the Republic presidential candidates. And anti-ethanol groups are stepping up their game with new advertising campaigns aimed at both policymakers and consumers, as well as an all-out assault in the realm of social media (there are now social media-focused lobbyists). It will come as no surprise then, to see millions upon millions more spent throughout the year on VEETC and other biofuel subsidy reform.

I just returned from Toronto, Canada after attending the 2011 BIO World Congress (great stuff and check back as I post a series of audio interviews from the conference) and the country is feeling the impacts of rising gas prices. Consumers in Central Canada have seen gas prices rise nearly 30 cents almost overnight despite the drop in oil prices and many consumers are asking the question of who to blame. The front page article in The Globe and Mail on Wednesday, “The gas price puzzle,” stated that gas prices are higher now than in 2008 when a barrel of oil hit a record high of over $150 a barrel.

According to the article a “confluence of events” has caused the prices to skyrocket. “They include an unusual price discrepancy between European and North American oil and below average gasoline supplies in the U.S., which drives up whole-sale prices that also affect Canada.” Other factors include geography and bad weather south of the border.

Don’t let out sigh of relief that biofuels escaped blame. They didn’t and today a coalition of Canadian on-road diesel fuel associations are raising concerns that the biodiesel mandate set to go into effect in Canada on July 1st will actually cause gas prices to go even higher.

According to the coalition, which includes the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), Motor Coach Canada (MCC) and the Owner-Operator’s Business Association of Canada (OBAC), the Canadian government’s own regulatory impact analysis statement predicts the biodiesel mandate will cost taxpayers $2.5 billion over the next 25 years and increase pump prices for diesel fuel. The report also believes fuel economy will decrease and any greenhouse gas emission reductions will be negligible.

To support their point, the coalition pointed the finger at Massachusetts and New Mexico’s biofuel mandates that allow for the suspension of the regulation should the price of diesel fuel be more than conventional diesel fuel. In addition, the coalition says that U.S. state biodiesel mandates have raised diesel prices anywhere from 1-8 cents per gallon, even with subsidies.

The coalition also cited other fears.
Read the rest of this post…

It’s Friday and that means its time to fill the gas tank. Just in time for weekend fun, it always seems like gas prices go up. Here in California, prices are hovering near the $4.40 per gallon mark. But this week, oil prices dropped 15 percent from a two-year high of $114.83 on Monday and today prices closed at $97.18. Economists are predicting gas prices at the pump will fall and we’ll see a summer national average of $3.50, although last month the EIA predicted they would be closer to $3.79. But don’t hold your breath – prices won’t drop this weekend.

I’ve held this interview with Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis because I was waiting for prices to rise even higher (which they have). When we had this discussion, we were attending the event where BioProcess Algae commissioned its Grower Harvester bioreactors, the second phase in their commercialization strategy. The site is co-located with a first generation corn ethanol plant in Shenandoah, Iowa owned and operated by Green Plains Renewable Energy. This was the perfect backdrop to have the discussion about the role of biofuels in helping to lower prices at the pump.

Buis explained that for the past 40 years, our country has been addicted to foreign oil and the costs to our country have been astronomical. Every recession since World World II has been proceeded by high gas prices. As oil prices rise, it takes time for the increased price to be reflected at the pump. Yet we have a domestic solution available now – ethanol. “I don’t know how many times we have to have these wake-up calls, let’s move forward. We know we can do it. We’re sitting here at a plant today that’s living proof that we can create our own energy here in this country.”

Listen to my interview with Tom Buis here: Ethanol, Right Here, Right Now

Today, Buis said ethanol today is saving consumers at the low end 17 cents per gallon up to 50 cents per gallon on the high end. “If we shut off ethanol today, it would have a far greater impact than the turmoil in the Middle East or North Africa because we’re a bigger source,” said Buis. “Most people don’t understand that if the American ethanol industry were a country, we would be the second largest provider to the United States of transportation fuel. Second only to Canada. That would have a huge impact.”

One last fact. We spend $1 billion dollars a day to import foreign oil. This is more than $1,000 per year for every man, woman and child in this country. That means you.

Mull this over the next time you fill up.

As gas prices go “up, up and away” once again oil companies are on the hot seat as they announced massive profits. And while the renewable energy industry continues to be attacked for its subsidies and incentives, no one mentions the billions of dollars of subsidies the oil companies receive each year and have been for over a hundred years. Meanwhile, consumers are pinching pennies to buy everything from groceries to gas and the fear is that the U.S. economy will slow once again.

The high gas prices and high oil company profits have President Obama saying that in light of federal budget deficits and public anger over oil profits (not a new phenomenon by the way), they will work with Congress to cut the subsidies, tax breaks and publicly-financed giveaways that global oil companies receive.

Yet this statement has the ethanol industry asking, “Is there hope for that?”

In response, Growth Energy’s CEO said, “Profits are one thing, but when these companies are also raking in billions of dollars in federal subsidies all while Americans are suffering at the pump, something’s got to give. High oil prices are driving up gas prices, grocery prices – everything. Many Americans don’t realize that they are underwriting these profits in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. Speaker Boehner has opened the door to talking to President Obama about ending these needless giveaways to global oil companies and we encourage the House to follow their lead. At a minimum, we need to have congressional hearings.

Buis concluded, “It’s time we end the handouts to big oil companies. It’s time we take what are the hidden costs and put them out in the sunlight – let’s see what it really costs the taxpayer for our addiction to foreign oil.”

You can listen to additional comments from Tom Buis here: Time to End Oil Subsidies & Taxes?

The Chairman of Nestle, who just so happens to sit on the board of ExxonMobil, Peter Brabeck-Latmathe, lambasted global leaders for their support of “immoral” biofuel policies that are starving millions around the world earlier this week. In particular, he attacked the Obama administration for promoting corn-based ethanol and reserved no kind words for U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack who he claimed is making “absolutely flabbergasting” claims for America’s ability to produce food, feed and fiber.

This beat-down occurred during his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York and was published by The Independent. During his presentation he said, “Today, 35 per cent of US corn goes into biofuel. From an environmental point of view this is a nonsense, but more so when we are running out of food in the rest of the world.”

Brabeck-Latmathe continued, “It is absolutely immoral to push hundreds of millions of people into hunger and into extreme poverty because of such a policy, so I think – I insist – no food for fuel.”

The fuel versus food debate has been raging for several years. For each report that debunks the theory, another is published that places primary blame on rising food costs at the feet of America’s corn and ethanol industries. Yet, scores of economists have publicly acknowledged while there are dozens of factors that affect food prices, the current spike is being driven by speculators, a global increase in demand for protein and the unrest in the Middle East to name a few reasons.

National Corn Growers President Bart Schott responded to Brabeck-Letmathe’s comments. “It is scandalous, ludicrous and highly irresponsible for the chairman of a global conglomerate that tripled its profits last year to talk about higher corn prices forcing millions into starvation. Perhaps if Nestle is so concerned about food prices, its board will consider putting more of their $35.7 billion in 2010 profits back into poor communities. Just their profits alone represent more than half the entire farm value of the 2010 U.S. corn crop.”
Read the rest of this post…

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is getting ready to move forward with determining the carbon intensity of crude oil. On February 17, they are holding a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Crude Oil Screening Workgroup Meeting. For those following the LCFS debate, you’ll note that still under fire is CARB’s final ruling on the carbon intensity levels given for ethanol and biodiesel. When CARB determined the original levels of corn ethanol, it essentially barred the fuel from qualifying as a low carbon fuel. While CARB has amended corn ethanol’s carbon intensity levels, basically allowing corn ethanol back into the marketplace, the amendment doesn’t take take effect until July 1 although LCFS took effect on January 1 of this year.

Now it’s oil turn to be under fire. In California, 40 percent of the state’s fuel supply comes from TEOR petroleum, while 10 percent of the gasoline is blended with ethanol. Life Cycle Associates have found the value for Thermally Enhanced Oil Recovery (TEOR) to be at least 109, though it might approach 120, and to have a carbon intensity value of 20 for total production and transportation. Ironically, this is in the same ballpark as corn ethanol. They are critical of the original GREET model, which found the value to be much lower originally, near 96.

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) submitted a letter to CARB with their recommendations of how crude oil should be treated under LCFS. They believe that crude oils should not be differentiated. So oil produced from tar sands should be treated the same as oil drilled in Alaska. Second, they believe that “future production from the same geographical areas and using the same techniques as represented in the 2006 California baseline, are extensions of that baseline and should receive the same treatment.” In other words, new oil fields should not be subject to a screening process and this is important because the state is moving to open new TEOR oil fields that were once considered too uneconomical to extract the oil.

Third, WSPA is arguing that given that the regulations currently call for differentiation of crudes that are not included in the 2006 baseline into high carbon intensity crude oil (HCICO) and non-HCICO categories, WSPA has been working with staff and other stakeholders in the HCICO Workgroup to develop a process to make the necessary categorizations. Finally, once the categorizations are in place, they are asking for a retroactive application of the carbon intensity of re-classified crudes. Ultimately, WSPA offered up a proposed model for the crude oil screening process.

What the ethanol industry is lobbying for as a result of the meeting is that it will be determined that TEOR is required to be submitted to a full “Method 2B” carbon intensity determination, which opens the fuel pathway up to a thorough review including public comment.
Read the rest of this post…

They say that imitation is the highest form of flattery and if this is true, than the biofuels industry should be flattered that their communication messages have been hijacked: biofuels are good for the country, good for our economy and good for the environment. But the industry having its messages hijacked by others – natural gas, coal, the petroleum industry, propane to name a few-  creates confusion in the marketplace among consumers. How does a consumer know to choose ethanol or biodiesel at the pump if all the fuels have the same benefits? (And we know they don’t.)

So what do we do? We must learn to tell our story better. I recently presented a free webinar, “Back to Basics,” sponsored by Biofuels Journal and you can listen to the archive here that touched on this very issue.

This was also the topic of a the panel discussion, “Unconventional Reality of Press and Public Opinion,” during Advance: 2011 Biodiesel Conference & Expo in Phoenix last week. I sat on this panel with my esteemed colleague and fellow journalist Jim Lane, the editor of Biofuels Digest, as well as Karen Coble-Edwards with KICE Public Affairs Associates and Craig Sutherland with Dewey Square Group. Shannon Shea, with the U.S. Department of Energy moderated the panel discussion.

While those of us on the panel agreed that the biofuels industry needs to update its messages and tell a better story, we didn’t agree on how that should be done. But one thing I’ve found in my personal research, is that our opponents REALLY know how to tell a story. It’s time our industry learned how to do the same and just last week, this very thing began to happen.

Propel Fuels along with Biofuels Digest, launched a Faces of Biofuels campaign that features the people who use biofuels. Propel is based in California and sells ethanol and biodiesel in the Northwest. This is a really great grassroots campaign that should be stolen by biofuel friendly retailers across the U.S. In this case, imitation will definitely be welcome form of flattery.

There is definitely a movement within the biodiesel and ethanol industries to work more effectively together and at the upcoming Advanced Biofuels Leadership Conference being held in Washington, D.C. on April 19-21 will discuss just how to do this. So if you want to be a part of this movement, and get connected to others who have also joined this movement, consider attending this conference.

The renewable fuels industry is taking the opportunity to let the country know the value of domestically produced fuels. Last week, oil prices spiked to $100 per barrel amid fears that there may be oil flow disruptions due to political unrest in Egypt and surrounding regions. There is now speculation that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak could relinquish power over the weekend and with that speculation are slightly lower crude oil prices. Experts believe that despite what transpires this weekend, prices will hold steady.

As higher oil prices translate to higher prices at the pump, T. Boone Pickens, along with others in the renewable energy field, have once again taken the opportunity to urge Congress and President Obama’s administration to pass comprehensive energy policy that will reduce the countries reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Pickens was out of the gate first with a statement last week.

“The question isn’t whether there will be more uncertainty in the Middle East. That’s a question of when not if. The greater question is whether our leadership is ready to solve this problem once and for all,” said Pickens. “I urge Congress and the Obama Administration to enact energy legislation now that gets America on our own resources. We have a tremendous supply of natural gas that can be used as a transportation fuel and is an immediate alternative to OPEC oil.”

Then earlier this week, Growth Energy’s Director of Public Affairs came out with a statement in response to some rumblings that ethanol was to blame for the rioting and upheaval in Cairo, Egypt and elsewhere. The link, ethanol opponents claim, is between wheat prices in the Middle East with demand for corn starch for ethanol in the U.S.

“These are people who want to play parlor games instead of looking at the facts and really finding out how markets work, or what’s motivating protesters in the Middle East. Seeing some of the distortions and pretzel logic these folks are going through, I’d encourage them to pick up Twister, instead,” said Thorne.

And today, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former NATO Supreme Commander, and Co-Chairman of Growth Energy, responded to the threat of “contagion” in the Middle East.

Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) Talks about Egypt from Growth Energy on Vimeo.

Read the rest of this post…

A few months ago, I did a review of the book, The Story of Stuff. While the book was good, I was alarmed at the author Annie Leonard’s, unflattering views of waste-to-energy. For decades, municipal waste companies have been burning their trash. Known as incineration, Leonard says that this causes a multitude of problems, the first being burning pollutes and spews toxins into the air.

She writes, “Waste-to-Energy Plants Should Be Called Waste of Energy…But here’s the deal: first off, the little bit of energy recovered from burning trash is a very dirty energy, releasing far more greenhouse gases than burning natural gas, oil, or even coal. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, waste incinerators produce 1,355 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour; coal produces 1,020, oil 758, and natural gas 515.”

Leonard continues, “Second, let’s step back and look at the grand scheme of things for a moment. When you bum something, the most energy you can recover is a fraction of the energy value (the “calories”) of the actual material; you can’t recover any of the energy investments of that thing’s entire lifecycle….If the ultimate goal is to conserve energy, we could “produce” far more energy by reusing and recycling Stuff than we ever could by burning it.”

So in a nutshell, waste-to-energy pollutes, it has a negative net energy, it doesn’t create jobs, they don’t eliminate the need for landfills and they are not economically feasible to name a few reasons to not like the energy source. You’ll also note that for the most part, these are the very same reasons (minus the waste-to-energy reduces pollution) opponents support waste-to-energy.

So who is right and why should we care? Well I was bothered knowing that millions and millions of people have visited her website and watched her videos and they may be getting outdated information. So I’m taking action.

In just a few weeks, the Municipal Solid Waste to Biofuels Summit is taking place in Chicago. On February 10-11, 2011, hundreds of people will be coming to together to discuss the up and coming waste-to-energy technologies. Leading up to this conference, I’m kicking off a 7-part series, “An In-depth Look at Waste’s Role in Energy Development.”

This series will explore the developments of waste-to-energy from the 70s or so until now. It will delve more deeply into Leonard’s claim that waste-to-energy plants actually produce more greenhouse gases than coal, oil and natural gas, It will discuss the opportunities and challenges in the industry, and it will feature various companies’ technologies who are excited for the opportunity to “clean” up the misconceptions surrounding waste-to-energy.