"Sustainability" runs amok in my town of Chico

I live in Southern Kalifornia. I don’t see much hope for the state in general until we get rid of the current crop of wild eyed idealists. I don’t know how bloody it has to get until people realize what the problem is. With “change” on the horizon in Washington the next couple of years is going to be beyond interesting.

Isn’t nice when government wants to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
No wonder business are leaving your state.

Meanwhile,
Texas is building lots of power plants and lots of people are moving in. When we need new easements for power lines, the state makes it happen, no lawsuits. This is and has always been a pro-growth state. Please, God, don’t let the contagion spread to Texas.
Mike

“If you want to gather honey, don’t kick over the beehive.”
— Dale Carnegie

Your city government needs to cut some staff and balance the budget.

It’s all about taxes, it’s always been all about taxes. And how to get you to feel good about paying the socialists taxes.
Our a$$holes in city government are trying to take over the local electric company in the city, for the same reason — Levy a carbon tax. We tried running good candidates last election, and lost out to the condo crowd because they promised the beach condo owners they would pass ordinances allowing the condo owners to rent by the day, just like hotel rooms. We lost, and just l;ast week they let a $100k contract to study how best for the city to take over the electric company.

I work for a state agency. We have had a 1% raise for the past 5 years that expires at the end of every year. So they give us the same 1% back every year. This year I bet we wont even get that. Meanwhile our lovely politicians voted themselves something on the order of a 7% pay raise, perminant of course.
Ya know what I would like to see? I would like to see top officials in my state and in the House and Senate have to take a pay cut. I would also like to see how they would feel if someone started messing around with their retirement plan.

CO2 isn’t the bad guy anymore, It’s daylight saving time.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/10/sign-this-guy-up-for-the-ipcc.html

I think Europe will lead the way this time. Check it out at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gAZR7yJ8hMxAwgRYoYk9p9vO1Udg Both the actual Czech President and the former Spain Prime Minister question the new religion. The message is getting out there!
Ecotretas

I couldn’t help to notice the appearance of the words “tax” and “fee” alongside the word “free this” and “free that”.
If that doesn’t sound like Communist Central Planning…
Here comes the Big Green Dictatorship.

Carbon audits!
What’s next?
I wonder if the general population really knows what they are getting themselves into. Soon they are gonna wake up and find shackles around their ankles and their streets swarming with roaming unmarked windowless vans with dishes mounted on them.
The next green bas**** that shows up at my doorstep can expect staring down a pair of metal tubes (just speaking figuratively to say he won’t be welcome).
But then again, will we be able to tell him: “Get off “MY “property!”
Seems like we won’t have any say on how to run our own property.

Seems to me it would be logical for all the local population to obtain at least one electric vehicle and then demand their free or subsidised electricity and parkaing.
It would be interesting to present a view of the budget djusted to reflect those desired changes complete with a proposal about how the infrastructure changes would be funded and how long that would take. Plus what compensation could be offered to the consumers who are entitled to a non-existent service and businesses that would be put out of business in their current form.
And then of course there is the cost of the electricity supply infrastructure upgrade (assuming there is supply capacity available). I understand that the US electrical market still offers low cost overnight tariffs and that those costs are part of the cost effectiveness calculations for re-chargeable electric vehicles. Presumably by encouraging everyone to go electric the overnight demand would quickly lead to the removal of such low cost tariffs at night. At least the increased day time consumption (for free) would ensure that the overnight tariffs could be maintained even if the distribution system was pushed to and beyond its capacity during the day.
It seems to me that it is good that reports like these are placed in the public domain since in the end people will be able to refer to them with a historic perspective and judge them for what they are. We have pretty much got to the point where green theories are having to be placed in some terms of public reality rather than academic theory. Only now are the majority of the public likely to be exposed to what they mean at the individuals level.
The political focus is now entirely dominant – science is not even in the back seat on the present journey. That will give people, hopefully on both sides of the debate, some impetus to show their true positions.
Personally I hope that sense and reality prevail but I do wonder whether populations are educationally equipped to obtain that sort of result these days. Indoctrination may have been effective at a mass level in the younger generations.
Ultimately the government we will have, from city through to national and even global, will be the one we collectively deserve, good, bad or indifferent. Unfortunately this is one experiment that can be tested in a practical sense. Perhaps the sooner the better so that others in the world can learn from the results and improve their own plans accordingly.

My favorite “community reduction action”:
A local gasoline tax to generate local revenue.
Apparently I can no understand English because I didn’t know that
“generating local revenue” is a “community reduction action”. Oh, I am sorry, after actually typing this the meaning is quite clear. The “community reduction action” is a reduction in the amount of money the general population (community) has to spend.
If they had only disguised this as such:
“A local gasoline tax to encourage use of mass transportation” it
would have made more sense.

Just thank the Lord you all aint living in Australia!! In the little shire I live in, just outside Melbourne Victoria, population around 150,000, they laid on the carbon tax 3 years ago attaching it to rate increases. But they forgot to tell us they did this the first year it went into effect. They’ve spent about A$3 million over the last 3 years getting new cars and appliances for the shire offices and planting trees all over the place and now ‘claim’ the council is carbon neutral. WHOOOPPEEE!! Of course, they had to spend $300,000 buying renewable energy credits from some wind farm in South Australia in order to be ‘carbon neutral’, but they didn’t tell the electorate that in their official announcement. When they told us they were doing this 2 years ago, one of the councillors said we’d “set an example for the rest of the world to follow.” SHEESH!! I’m thinking of starting a community group called RAGE – Ratepayers Against Green Extremism. Council elections are at the end of the month and three Greens Party members are vying for a spot. If they get in, I may not have any choice BUT to start the group.
What a farce.

We can only pray for the rapture….plan on being on board!

My hope is that as all these politicians come down firmly on the side of agw, they will be setting the stage for their removal from office when things get cold.

We had a BC provincial wide carbon tax impuned on us this year.. Municipalities were up in arms about it so the premier offered to rebate them all but only if they said they would be carbon neutral by 2012. This of course, can only be done through carbon offset purchases. What we will get from it:
1. More taxes
2. Expanded Bureaurcracy
3. More money leaving the cities in order to buy offset credits
4. Zero effect on the environment
A key voting geographical area in the interior was up in arms about it so what did the idiot premier do? Removed a road toll that has bugged them since it’s implmentation in the 80’s. Seems a bit odd to me. Want less cars on the road, remove an impediment. Things that make you go hmmmm.
The more gov’t dependent jobs they create in specific voting segments, the better chance they have of re-election. Afterall, not many people are going to vote to eliminate their job.
Cheers.

Anthony,
May I suggest you add Bishop Hill to your blogroll. He is always bright and droll. I think he’s waiting to unleash a broadside at Roger Harrabin, if the BBC hack ever sticks his head above the parapet?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
Harrabin damage control efforts.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2007/10/12/roger-harrabin.html
Regards,
Perry

Piezopaul,
One would hope so, but there is little cause for hope.
The financial crisis was caused solely by liberal Democrats. Bush, McCain and others all warned of it to no avail. Now there is a chance that the individuals that caused the problem will be given total control over all three branches of government.
(I have been casually watching the financial crisis take place over the years. I was not surprized although I was not “ready” for it.)
Pause for a thought: Senator Obama is a product of the Daily/Chicago political machine. The Daily family took control of Chicago in 1955 and there hasn’t been a free or fair election there since.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack

Dee Norris
The Forestry Commission is ending the system of licences which allow firewood to be picked from woodland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7696209.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/28/9

In Britain we already have home energy audits (Home Information Packs or HIPs) that are mandatory for anyone wishing to sell a house.
I share Anthony’s attitude (“I’m all for efficiency and alternate energy ideas that are cost neutral or revenue generators, ….”) and frustration. It is much worse in the UK and I fear for businesses that are being coerced into spending needlessly on emission reductions when, in this current economic climate, their money and resources should be focussed elsewehere to ensure survival.
It can be done right:
Güssing, in Austria, which is the first community in the EU to produce its whole energy demand – electricity, heating/cooling, fuels – out of renewable resources, all resources from within the region. In doing so it has turned itself in 15 years from one of the poorest to one of the most prosperous in the region by keeping the money it previously paid externally for power. So this was done for economic reasons, but is now a shining example of the power of renewables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCssing#Renewable_energy
Lucy Skywalker – I have pointed numerous people in the direction of your excellent ‘Primer’ – great stuff. We just have to reach as many of the ‘ignorant of science’ or ‘undecided’ or ‘willing to listen’ as possible.
Someone posted a link to an excellent book review/essay by Freeman Dyson a few days ago, in which he said:
“The United Kingdom has made up its mind and takes the view that any individuals who disagree with government policy should be ignored.”
When will we escape from this madness?

Hey, Anthony and al of ya’; the October Surprise is available for your viewing pleasure. Obama intends to bankrupt coal plant operators. This is the hammer swinging on the anvil of the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. It’ll sickle the Obamabots.
=========================================

If you recall I made this assertion a few months ago when the quote came out in Anthony’s email exchange with Dr. Pieter Tans(?) from the Mauna Loa Observatory:
“We are very much aware that in a time
when carbon dioxide emissions will cost a lot of money, there has to be
an objective and fully credible way to quantify emissions. Without
that, carbon markets cannot function efficiently, and policies cannot be
measured relative to their objectives. We think that the atmosphere
itself can provide objective quantification.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/06/post-mortem-on-the-mauna-loa-co2-data-eruption/#more-2097
All strata of government is perpetuating this “carbon crisis” in an effort to extort more money from the citizenry in order to secure and grow more and more power over us. I am not in any scientific field whatsoever, and I do my best to keep up with what you guys are saying technically, however it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure this one out!

“That pie chart left out Government/University’s share of greenhouse emissions. Surely just an oversight. Is that covered elsewhere in the PDF?”
I stand corrected. I just noticed the 4% for “Waste.” Seems low to me, but I’ll go with that.

Pierre (08:54:26) There is audio of Obama last January promising to bankrupt the coal industry. This will impact Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and others. This is the October Surprise, I think.
===============================================

I’m continously amazed that in many areas people fight to get legislation passed for tax breaks involving alternative energy products.
Hey…I just built a car. It gets 100mpg, so if you drive it 15,000 miles a year, your gasoline costs will drop by %75 to $xxx. BUT…I can’t really SELL any, unless the government kicks in some good ol’ tax credit incentives.
Look at Prius sales when the vehicles hit the market. There was a 6mo wait at some dealers in my state…and you basically had little/no choice of colors etc., because they were in such high demand. So exactly why did we need a tax incentive for hybrid vehicles?
I’m not sayin’…I’m just sayin.

Mark

First, I was not paid for the project, nor was any other state employee.

Just a clarification please. Are you saying that both you and government employees were working on their own time and not paid status during meetings and other activities?

Got a question.How’s Aero Union doing in all of this? Will they leave Chico for greener,er less green pasutres? They are one of the premier Airtanker outfits but the nature of putting out fires requires CO2 expenditure.Does that count for carbon sequestration?
“Fallen Angels” is real….

JimB (08:24:27) It’s gone viral. Instapundit has it. Lucianne. Wizbang.
===========================================

Leon Brozyna (22:12:56) :
“Where are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, James Madison et al when we need them?”
That is not a proper question, because the dead only vote in Chicago. The Founding Fathers did not ask “where are…?”, they acted and created the governmental framework under which you currently reside. As long as you passively submit, you will be guided through life by those who are more qualified to plan your life. The fourth of November may be a day you will not forget. Let us hope that it will not be a day you will always regret.

Kim,
Thanks for the kind words, and I wish you were right.
But I’m not looking forward to Wednesday. morning. It’s gonna be tough.
But that will be nothing compared to how millions are going to feel when their taxes and costs go up, and their jobs disappear in the coming months and years. Then we, and Prof. Mark, are going to witness what real FRUSTRATION is.

You have in Chico a small example of what Gore and crew want to bring to the entire U.S. Since they know all the answers, the debate is over, the science is settled. We should just pay a lot more taxes (patriotic, you know) and have a lot less to show for it.
It may be inevitable. If Obama wins, it will happen sooner.

Bumper Stick seen in Texas….
“I’ll keep my Bible, Guns, & Taxes…You keep your change”….
When government mandates ‘change or else’, they cause the people to rise up and overthrow them.

MikeEE
REPLY: When it gets its charge from solar it is. – Anthony
Does your solar farm operate in the “Midnight Sun?” When you get free electricity for your EV, it is free for you but paid for by the city through taxes in the non-discriminatory everyone pays tax schemes. Sounds a little like a spread the wealth program.

Bill Illis (07:04:25) :
“We can tax cars, encourage shared commuting plans, use more public transit but it won’t make even a small dent in CO2 emissions. Passenger cars are not the problem.”
Cut to the chase Bill. Man-made CO2 emissions, are not now and never have had a negative influence on Nature. To tax carbon is to tax life.

The first thing a community should do, probably, is look at “solid waste.” Invite a company like Bluefire to take a look at how much they can save you/make for you by converting your Solid Waste into Ethanol.
Next, I would look at my Sewage Plant. How much could I Save/Make by running my sewage through an anaerobic digester, and producing electricity from the resulting biogas. These are both “Green” programs that are being implemented by California cities, as we speak.
You might want to look at a program at the high school to produce biodiesel from yellow grease for the school system buses.
OR, you could just keep sucking at the taxpayers’ teat, and conducting “audits.”

Smokey, Saudi Arabia Flows over 9 Million Barrels of Oil/Day. I’m not aware of Any expert organization (EIA, USGS, etc.) that figures the Bakken will ever flow over 2 mbpd. It’s just too many very small pockets of oil, spread out over too large an area. It’ll come in handy, but it doesn’t seem likely that it’s going to salvage BAU once global production goes into serious decline.

Sir Anthony (The Rev)
How beautiful it is your job.
How beautiful is your life.
Maybe. I am an isolated voice of the third world.
My sincere impression. As the politicians are universally idiots.
I unfortunately am not able to discuss internal U.S. politics.
But: The political activities of the world is mirrored in the actions of American leaders.
Conclusion: When the United States of America has a cold … we are dying of pneumonia.
ps: if the people of Chico need a warrior retired. just call
….Sorry for the bad English….
FM

Ellie – That would be fine, also.
Smokey – Flows are Everything, my man. Reserves is just talk. Flows is what “does the walk.”

Anthony,
You have an active and inquisitive blog. I will try to respond.
I define sustainability as maintaining our quality of life over the long haul. Sustainability entails environmental stewardship, social responsibility and economic prosperity.
I understand why the bloggers who do not subscribe to AGW think that this would be a waste of time. A majority of the committee does believe in AGW, and thus wanted to get a baseline inventory of GHG production in the city of Chico.
The city and university are broken out in the commercial sector, pg 11.
I am sorry. I did not mean to malign bumpkins or the people who post on this blog.
Some of the efforts the City of Chico has taken include LED traffic signals, energy efficient street lights, solar power for the waste water treatment plant, and “right-sizing” the city fleet to save fuel. These efforts were undertaken because they save money as well as reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Now that city staff have a baseline inventory, the software allows staff to quickly input any of these efforts and calculate the carbon savings.
I worked on this project on my personal time. City staff were on the clock. City staff sought other estimates, and they came in at between $60,000 and $90,000. Our $30,000 project came in early and under budget.
Take care,
Mark

pattio (08:22:25) :
Here is the data provided by Dr. Tan of the Mauna Loa Monitoring Station.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Annual Mean
Growth Rate
Mauna Loa, Hawaii
2007 2.14
Annual Mean
Growth Rate
Global Average
2007 2.20
DOE data shows a pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2 of 288 ppm. This concentration of atmospheric CO2 increased to 368.4 ppm in October, 2008, an increase of 80.4 ppm. The contribution by natural causes was 68.52 ppm and the man-made contribution was 11.88 ppm. The ratio of natural CO2 emission to man-made CO2 is 5.76.
The Global Carbon Project (GCP) report gives the yearly increases of CO2 as: During the years 1970-1079, the increase was 1.3 ppm per year; During the years 1980-1989, the increase was 1.6 ppm; During the years 1990-1999, the increase was 1.5 ppm; and during the years 2000-2007, the increase was 2.0 ppm. Given the ratio of natural emission to man-made emission of 5.76 (before the year 2000), man-made CO2 contributed 0.226 ppm per year during 1970-1979, 0.278 ppm per year during 1980-1989, and 0,25 ppm per year during 1990-1999.
Now it seems that everyone assumes that the CO2 concentration increase of 2.14 ppm per year (Mauna Loa Station) is entirely man-made (GCP). What happened to natural CO2 emissions after the year 2000?
The new Global Carbon Budget will be launched on the 26th September 2008 (GCP), Based on the latest national time series and the preliminary national estimates, 2005 marked the first year fossil-fuel carbon emissions from non-participants in the Kyoto Protocol exceeded emissions from signatory countries.
Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Here is an 18 page paper you might want to read: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/other/Sicilypaper.pdf
THE INCREASING CONCENTRATION OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2:
HOW MUCH, WHEN, AND WHY?
Gregg Marland and Tom Boden
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6335, USA
Phone 865-241-4850
Fax 865-574-2232
e-mail gum@ornl.gov
INTRODUCTION
There is now a sense that the world community has achieved a broad consensus that:
1.) the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing,
2.) this increase is due largely to the combustion of fossil fuels, and
3.) this increase is likely to lead to changes in the global climate.
This consensus is sufficiently strong that virtually all countries are involved in trying to achieve a functioning agreement on how to confront, and mitigate, these changes in climate. This paper reviews the first two of these components in a quantitative way. We look at the data on the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and on the magnitude of fossil-fuel combustion, and we examine the trends in both. We review the extent to which cause and effect can be demonstrated between the trends in fossil-fuel burning and the trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Finally, we look at scenarios for the future use of fossil fuels and what these portend for the future of atmospheric chemistry. Along the way we examine how and where fossil fuels are used on the Earth and some of the issues that are raised by any effort to reduce fossil-fuel use.
How does one overcome the inertia of a global hoax?

Fernando,
I know a bit about ethanol. I know that in Brazil you produce more ethanol than anywhere else presently (by a long way), that you do so more cost effectively and sustainably (from sugar cane) than any of the other proposed feedstocks (even lignocellulose, although I guess one that will get better).
The thing about ethanol is that you have to separate it from water after fermentation. That requires energy. Overall ethanol production requires about three times as much energy (thermal and electrical) per tonne of feedstock than biogas. Gross energy yields are similar, but net energy is lower much lower.

I understand, Smokey. It’s just that there really is no such thing as a “bottomless milkshake.” It might behoove us to husband our resources a bit till we get an absolute number on where we’re at. Some awfully smart people think that we’re flowing just about as much oil, right now, as we ever will.
The IEA is expected to announce in it’s report this month that existing oil wells are, globally, declining in production at a 9% Rate. That means to stay even we will have to, globally, replace one Saudi Arabia about every one and a half years. It seems logical, at least to one hillbilly, that we need to continue working on alternatives, and efficiency.
For instance, without knowing anything about Chico, Ca,, the number of restaurants, etc, or the size of it’s school system, amount of busing, etc, It’s highly likely that they could save many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Dollars/Yr by collecting waste yellow grease for conversion to biodiesel.
Is there logging in the area? What about Waste Wood from logging operations? It’s turning into a big business. Are you in a good “wind area?” John Deere will finance the wind turbines in a tax-credit swap deal.

Committee: a group of people who individually can do nothing but as a group decide that nothing can be done.

jimB,
Do you have a website to have a closer look at the 100mpg car you have build?
Mr. Watts,
The link “electric car” is not functioning.
Would you be so kind to restore it?
In regard to the this topic I can only say that I am open for any technology that will bring an improvement to our daily life in terms of quality and costs.
The whole AGW doctine and the taxation schemes will prove a disaster and we should fight it with all our might.
Why:
1. the whole concept is based on false data
2. the tax schemes will not solve any problem
3. the proposed legislation will provide unlimited power to the government
4. it will undermine the the strength of the economy
5. it will undermine the security
6. it will promote world wide famine since the legilation will impact food production,
increased application of bio fuels and distribution
It is an act against humanity.

Ellie:
The cane sugar, after grinding. It’s dry. And later, burned, generating electricity and thermal energy. The system is self-sufficient, and also sells surplus electricity.
Today, the fleet of vehicles is bi-fuel. (Alcohol / gasoline). you choose.
Today fortunately the government does not interfere with subsidies.
It was not something planned. Simply had no money to buy oil.
FM

Lucy Skywalker (01:27:27)
I read yesterday here of the scientist who’s discovered the Earth is being bombarded with “house-size” ice comets (tiny by other comets standards) who was ostracised – the full works – people here understand – and is only being recognized years later. He didn’t have the full political works to contend with, either. Big businesses dare not now be seen to support “skeptics” after their ’90’s records. But AGW get far more slush funding – if people did but know.
I read about a scientist from the University of Iowa many years ago who thought he discovered water vapor appearing in the atmosphere that he attributed to comets; however, his study was related to the question of where the earth got all of its water. Of course he met with a lot of resistance.

The default condition of ANY city is not “sustainable”. It is growth, since growth drives improvement. Growth potential in North America has always been seen as almost infinite. As long as growth potential was seen as unlimited, economies boomed, prosperity increased, North America became the world’s greatest superpower (I have to say “North America” because I’m in canada and want a piece of this).
Now, along come a group that want us to no longer see growth as the driving force for our civilization. They want us to find some sort of equilibrium, where growth is stifled and quality of life is on hold. They scream for “sustainable”, which is not only an unattainable goal, but a foolish one.
The boogey-man is CO2, it’s global cooling, then global warming, then climate change… which has been repeatedly disproved. If the planet’s climate was really so fragile, the first major volcanic event would have thrown it far past the “tipping points” we keep hearing about. CO2 is not only an essential compound, but the planet’s ability to absorb or “sink” it is effectively infinite.
We’re seeing the same pushes for “taxed sustainability” every around the first world, and quite frankly it’s repulsive. Hiding an outright tax grab behind some idealistic pseudo-scientific crap is really getting old.

To the City of Chico, California.
Doesn’t it feel good to do something for sustainability? It always feels so good to do something with someone else’s money. Doesn’t it feel good to do something about climate change. It doesn’t matter if you bankrupt the city, it’s not really your money anyway. And don’t forget that gas tax can always be bumped on up. Besides, then people won’t drive as much and that will decrease CO2! But wait, then the gas revenues will go down. Don’t worry though, there are plenty of things that can still be taxed. I understand that every citizen exhales CO2, so there is always that. And the businesses, everyone knows how deep their pockets are. So don’t listen to anyone. You are doing the right thing. Even if every business and every citizen leaves, it is a matter of conscience.
Hey con=against and science, well who knows what science means anymore.
Anyway thank you for making government more expensive and inaccessible. Texas says a big thank you also. Send us your overburdened, longing to be free. Send us your best and your brightest. Don’t worry, they can always send money back to their families in California. That will help you to sustain.
Mike Bryant

Chico had a short-fall of US$4 million earlier this year. It is now US$10 million.
The California state legislature passed a budget with a built-in debt of US$7 billion. It is now US$10 billion.
The City of Vallejo has recently had a problem with sustainability. Vallejo declared bankruptcy in May and still has a US$3 million short-fall: Vallejo is asking most city employees to take unpaid time off work to help close an unexpected $3 million budget gap. City Manager Joe Tanner also volunteered to take a 10 percent pay cut off his $316,000 salary to help the ailing city, which filed for bankruptcy in May.
There is a bond on the ballot for US$10 billion, which is “seed” money for a coast-line high-speed train. Total cost over 30 years US$20 billion and this is only the “seed.”
Such is the sustainability of governments in the Golden State.

Economically unsustainable actions cannot last.
Witness the former USSR and satellite states in eastern europe.
We will all reap the seeds sown by the “green” revolution.
And who will bail the US out?

Before you brag about your EV, read this report: The electric car is no solution to smog in California’s cities, according to a new report published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdenv42.html
Another look:
Electric Car Pollution http://www.ncpa.org/ea/eajf96/eajf96n.html
Chico is said to rank third in bad air quality in the state of California.

Ellie,
So true, the people in Gussing are making money at it. Now that makes sense. Gussing is thriving, not pouring money down a huge government hole. Do you think that a wood fired power plant would ever be approved in California? And if it was, would the environmentalists let them string those power lines through the forests? Remember, it doesn’t have to make any sense in California as long as it feels so good. The taxpayers will pick up the tab. Until they decide to leave.

Hehe, just wait until Obama and the Democrats get their way with coal. And remember, we must only suffer for ten years under their tyranny, and then we will all have free energy. 🙂

Waiting for Obama supporter response…….

Ed Scott,
[Before you brag about your EV, read this report: The electric car is no solution to smog in California’s cities, according to a new report published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdenv42.html
Another look:
Electric Car Pollution http://www.ncpa.org/ea/eajf96/eajf96n.html
Chico is said to rank third in bad air quality in the state of California.}
You are buiding your arguments against the electric car on twelve year old reports.
We currently observe a revolution in battery development and energy storage technologies (super capacitators). The future batteries can be recycled, have a long service life cycle (3000 load cycles without loss of capacity) and high energy storage capacity at a low weight.
The idea is to create an intelligent grid where the cars that are plugged in the net function as a peak buffer. This eliminates a number of back-up power plants when applied. One other disadvantage of battery technology, the time you need to charge the batteries will be reduced from several hours to a few minutes.
The moment this new battery technology is available at low prices it will have a future.
At this moment in time we have conventional technology available with the potential to reduce the average fuel consumption of a car by 80%. http://www.tcengine.com/Our_Technology.html
This technology and many other car concepts will be on the road during the X-prize event for the 100 mpg car competition. The winner will get a prize of 10 million US dollar. (much cheaper than the 25 billion dollar gift to the US car industry to develop a fuel efficient car)
Because I am convinced that CO2 is not an environmental factor I have no objections against the use of carbon fuels but I am in favor of any technology that improves mpg performance and clean burning.
If you are interested in the top 100 of new (peer reviewed) technologies have a look at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100:Complete_List
It is clear that the land of the free are really free if they are able to obtain individual energy independence. Some of the technologies have the potential to achieve this.
Some are simple, some are complex.
The free market and competition should do the job but a well informed public always is a help.
As long as it is affordable and competative.

For Smokey:
The Mission Statement of the Chico Sustainability Task Force
The Sustainability Task Force shall promote a culture of stewardship within our community to enhance our natural resources,economic interests and quality of life for present and future generations in the City of Chico by collaboratively developing
programs and initiatives which will distinguish Chico as a leader in sustainability efforts.

Still not a definition of sustainability.

When you see the word “sustainability,” hold onto your wallet. Absolutely nobody knows what is “sustainable” on this fascinating planet.

Guys, the paper industry has been off the fossil fuel habit for thirty years. They use waste biomass for process energy. They did it because it was efficient, and increased their bottom line.
Utilizing the energy in your waste grease, sewage, and landfill waste isn’t some dumb, greenie, CO2-enhanced mania. It’s Good Business. It also lends itself to better air-quality than burning coal, or oil. What’s wrong with that.
And, Smokey, Corn is selling for $0.07 lb. You can’t grow it any cheaper than that.
Look, if your area doesn’t lend itself to wind power don’t use wind power. Don’t be a sucker and send someone else money to use it. Same with Solar. If it works for your area (meaning it’s cheaper than other forms of electricity) use it. If not, use something else. Waste Always works. Insulation Always works. Better, more efficient engines always work.
Besides, it’s nice having a clean place to live, right?

Graeme,
You just don’t understand. Those questions are irrelevant. This sustainability thing isn’t about numbers and accountability, man. It’s about doing the things that make us feel good, man. Don’t you see?? It’s people like you that want things to make sense that are ruining this environment, buddy. The outcome is not important, it’s the journey. We’ll get there when we get there. It ain’t about money. When the money is all gone we’ll grow our own food and live off the fat of the land. Lighten up man. Can’t you feel the love?
/sarc off

Snort! Huh!!! Ha Ha.
How stupid of me – of course – what was I thinking. In fact, why was I thinking at all.
La la la – la la la la – la la la…..

You want to feel the “Love?”
Try this. A car driven on electricity has a cost equivalent to $0.70 gal gasoline. And, if your electricity is produced from gassified waste (forest, or municipal,) or Solar, or Wind your air is fresh, and clean. If you own a retail business, what is that worth?
If the river your grandkids swim in is not polluted with coal slag, or other toxic chemicals, what is that worth? Feeling the “Love,” yet?

smokey, on Nov 1, 2006 corn was selling for $3.50 bushel. Today, it’s selling for $4.00 bu. That’s a difference of a tad less that One Penny/lb.
If you can eat a pound of field corn/day it will cost you $0.01/day to do so. If you eat a quarter pounder every day it will cost you a little less than a penny.

As for those CR numbers, they’re just bad wrong. It takes about one gallon of diesel (or biodiesel, or ethanol) to grow enough starch for 700 gallons of ethanol.
Corn Plus, in Winnebago, Mn uses approx. 17,000 btus of natural gas to produce one gallon of ethanol (a gallon of ethanol in a properly compressed engine will deliver as much energy – 130,000 btu – as a gallon of diesel.
They are very efficient in that they gassify the syrup from their distillation process. Many other refineries, such as Chippewa Valley, and Poet, are, also, moving toward waste biomass for process energy. The industry is moving, rapidly, toward Zero Fossil Fuel usage.
Guys, Two Years, is two lifetimes when evaluating new technologies. The First Rule of Life Cycle Analysis is to make sure you have the most “up to date” data.

Oh, that 1700 gallons of water? 1,697 of it is “Rain Water,” at least in 95 percent of it (about the only state that does much irrigating of field corn is Nebraska. And, most of the water supplied in that state is from mother nature.) It, actually, takes about 3 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol. And, it’s returned to nature, fresh, and unpolluted.
Your Sunday Newspaper, though, does IIRC require about sixteen, or seventeen hundred gallons of water.

Kum,
“If the river your grandkids swim in is not polluted with coal slag, or other toxic chemicals, what is that worth? Feeling the “Love,” yet?”
Kum don’t talk to me about conservation. It was my generation that cleaned up the rivers, the lakes, the air and the oceans. I did my part. That work was accomplished and is still ongoing. The Port of Houston doesn’t burn anymore. Fisheries are improving all over the country.
You are living in the past. If you really want to clean up the Earth, perhaps you should move to China or India to complete the work that was begun here in the good ole USA.
Can we do more? Of course, but CO2 is not pollution.
You know, you keep talking about the price of corn. It’s only fifty cents a bushel more. Kum, you don’t live in Kenya or Uganda or Mexico. Fifty cents is something you walk past if you see it on the ground, but for the poor of the world it can mean the difference between feast or famine. Yes I really do feel the love.

Hi Kum,
I’m all for conserving resources under a “waste not, want not” principle, and I do a lot of water conservation activities on a daily basis at my home.
However, there are two sides to the equation – Supply and Demand. I’m happy to minimise my “demand” provided I can do it in an efficient, and cost -effective way with minimal or no side effects on my actual enjoyment of life.
I’m also willing to pay taxes to support the construction of supply side infrastructure (e.g water = dam), provided that the selected infrastructure is an efficient and cost-effective means of generating the required supply.
Under these principles I would prefer to Dam rivers and build Coal fired power stations… – but not more than is necessary to meet the actual demand for water and electricity where I live.
Unfortuanately for me, successive state governments have failed to invest in basic water and electrical supply infrastructure while the population of the state has increased….
Hence demand limitation is being imposed by the state government through water restrictions.

Mike, poor people don’t eat field corn. Poor animals eat field corn, and they are then eaten by Rich people. Corn costs more in Mexico than it does in the U.S. Our corn exports go up every year, but we’ve never exported any corn to speak of to Kenya, or Uganda. We export most of it to Asia, and Europe.
Oh, and one of “My” generational duties was 13 mos in sunny southeast Asia. I’ll pass on the return trip.
You’ll notice I, personally, never mentioned CO2. I, also, think the whole CO2, anthropogenic warming deal is silly. I was, however, responding to a man trying to do affordable things to make his city more livable. I mentioned some things that are being done at the present that are not only efffective from an environmental standpoint, but “Positive” from a “Cash Flow” standpoint.
I didn’t bring up the economic viability of ethanol. I merely set the record straight. As for Verasun, the man obviously thought he could drive down the price of corn by shorting it. Bad idea. Then he went long at the Top. Too Bad, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the viability of ethanol. There are 157 other refineries that are doing just fine.
Nite all. It’s been a pleasure.

DR, I was using the link Smokey gave me. This one Corn, CBOT, Historical Prices.

Don, I used bluefire ethanol/lancaster county and came up with THIS, Plus Several More.
I mentioned them because they have successfully used their process, and they are doing this deal in Lancaster County, Ca. There are scads of these municipal solid waste projects just kicking off. They have (mostly) all done pilot plants, so I think they will be viable.
I, also, think it would be stupid to take coal, and Nuclear off the table. No “Prudent” businessman would do that. I, also, think it would be dumb not to keep spending a little money moving forward on biofuels, and waste gassification. A smart businessman is Always looking for ways to improve.
We’ve got our money back, “Big-Time” on Corn Ethanol. Just look at the “crack spread” on gasoline, today, compared to diesel fuel. The crack spread on gasoline, for which there is now an alternative, to the tune of 700,000 barrels/day (approx. 8% of consumption) is, basically, Zero. Maybe, even a dollar below cost. Diesel, on the other hand, which has no ubiquitous alternative is still very high.
Anyway, after following this for a few years, I’m pretty sure that the Bluefires of the world are going to be very successful. And, they could supply from a fourth to a third of all our transportation fuel needs. I’m not sure where you would find a complete list of the nascent gassifiers. I’m thinking “Biomass Magazine” might be a good place to start. Last I heard there were over thirty of them. Good Luck.

@Rick Werme: I question what you say about LED traffic lights. While it is true that small LEDs are more efficient than incandescent sources of light, the AMOUNT of light output by those LEDs is much less than an incandescent. Unfortunately, super bright LEDs are very expensive and do not have the same lifetime characteristics of the small LEDs you find in computers and consumer electronics.
LEDs are driven by the amount of electric current going through them, and as the current increases, the light output increases. But as the current increases, the lifetime DECREASES. I would posit that the city would have to replace the LED traffic lights at the same rate as non-LEDs.
As for energy use, the super bright LEDs are less efficient than their smaller versions in lumens/watt. Maybe there is energy savings, maybe not. Maybe on the red versions (red is a much easier color to produce than green or yellow) there are real energy savings.
But there are other reasons for using LEDs for traffic signals: Since there must be many LEDs to make on light, if one fails completely, the other’s will still work – failsafe is built-in. LEDs generally don’t “fail” like an incandescent fails. The lifetime of an LED is considered to be the time it will take to reach half the light output of a new LED (over time, the current through the LED will cause the light to become less efficient, producing less lumens/watt).
Anyway, I’m an electrical engineer who has spent significant time looking at LED specs so I hope I have some idea about what I am saying. But I haven’t looked at specs for new gen LEDs for a couple years, so hopefully things have changed significantly. If you have any links to some technical specs for the LEDs used in traffic lights, they would be welcome.

@Ron de Haan: HA! supercapacitors! Don’t make me laugh. Supercapacitors won’t show up in cars until the middle of the century, at the earliest! The storage capacity/$ for supercapacitors puts them in the stratosphere for price. We can’t even get them into our CELLPHONES! And trust me, I would LOVE a supercapacitor based cell phone. Sure, I might have to charge it twice a day, but it would only take about 10 seconds for a full charge! But the technology just isn’t there. One of the leading supercapacitor companies took their capacitors off the market because they couldn’t sell them.
Carbon nanotubes look promising for supercapacitor applications…if you’re the military or NASA. Carbon nanotubes are basically diamonds (both pure carbon, different atomic structures). They definitely aren’t commercially cheap. Again, maybe in 40 years. Plus, we have to make sure that they aren’t carcinogenic, poisonous, flammable, etc. We don’t know if they will act like DDT and conglomerate in fatty tissues. It will be a long road to carbon nanotube commercial supercapacitors.
As for supercapacitors for cars? Not likely in this or the next decade. On a safety note, remember that capacitors RELEASE their energy just as fast as they store it. The potential for electrocuting yourself is HUGE! The safety issues can be overcome, but that will put an even higher premium on them.

Dear Anthony, Mark, and all,
The Chico analysis is missing a few pie charts. By far the largest CO2 emission source impacting Chico and the region are the million-plus acres of forest fires that burned this summer across NorCal. Not only were 100’s of teragrams (10^12 grams) of CO2 emitted, but a variety of nasty pyrolysis products and particulates choked Chico and NorCal communities for months.
Chico does not exist in a vacuum. You are part and parcel of a larger set of communities. You must come to the realization that the greatest threat to livability and sustainability of yours and your neighbor communities is the gross mismanagement of Federal forests in your region. Carbon emissions are the least of it. Catastrophic megafires damage watersheds, airsheds, vegetation, wildlife habitat, public health and safety, recreation, scenery, and the regional economy in a Big Way. Those impacts are long-lasting, too.
The Sierra Club has promoted the current Federal Let It Burn policies. They are damaging everything that Chico hopes to achieve in sustainability and economic well-being. The wolf pack is not only at your door, you have invited them inside.
Please try to see the Big Picture and realize that Chico is not an island. All NorCal residents, and indeed all Western US residents, must get involved in the fight to bring sanity, responsibility, and scientific stewardship back into our Federal land management agencies. The Feds “own” more than half the territory. Our watersheds and landscapes are at enormous risk from Fed policies that are hugely destructive and FAIL to involve the affected residents.
Electric cars and urban gas taxes will do NOTHING to avert the environmental crisis we all are facing. Please catch a clue and join with Western communities and counties to address the real problem.

Mark,
For a professor, I am truly surprised by your lack of critical thinking.
1. You define sustainability as “maintaining our quality of life over the long haul.”
– You imply that our current free market system, which has brought us to our current level prosperity, will not be able to do so in the future, and even imply it will actually reverse and bring us to doom and death. What data is this based on? Have you looked at the temperature and sea level records? Or is a fictitious consensus good enough reason for you to waste taxpayer funds?
2. “A majority of the committee does believe in AGW, and thus wanted to get a baseline inventory of GHG production in the city of Chico.”
– Again what do you base AGW belief on? Partial consensus? The data show it’s cooling and sea levels have stagnated – in contradiction to the CO2 AGW theory. Or rather could it be that it’s fun for bored bureaucrats to play “Let’s save the planet and look important!”? I really think it’s high time for people like you to grow up, accept real responsibility, and tackle problems that are based on real data and need to be addressed. People don’t want a paranoid control-state snooping into their private lives.
3. “I worked on this project on my personal time. City staff were on the clock. City staff sought other estimates, and they came in at between $60,000 and $90,000. Our $30,000 project came in early and under budget.”
– Like I say, how about focussing on problems that are REAL? In my view you wasted another $30K, and lots of hours playing a childish fantasy game.
Obviously there’s a difference of opinion. How can we reconcile it?
Why don’t you invite two experts to Chico and have them debate the AGW topic – in public? Is AGW a problem or not? Is there a scientific basis to warrant more government intrusion in and control of private lives? To warrant central planning type “sustainability” programs? Are you afraid of the answer.
Lastly I can only say that any private person basing a decision to spend so much money and time and resources on a science that is so dubious would be fired, or go bankrupt in short order.
Either put forth some science in this forum, or shut this wasteful do-gooder “sustainability” project down.
Thank you for your attention,
Pierre Gosselin

PG tells it like it is!
Forthright!

This type of story makes me very concerned about our political future. Politicizing science in an effort to tax and spend more. Especially concerning to me is the refusal to remove Anthony’s good name from the report.
Like Anthony, I walk the walk, and while I could always do more, I’m proud of what I’ve done so far. My house is built out of SIPs, my car is a hybrid, etc..
I think about all the things Chico the enterprise could internally to lead the way without impacting the citizens, business and tax base and yet from this study you get almost nothing.
When it comes to external recommendations and major impacts to the citizens and businesses you get a lengthy list.

Gore and Hansen have created a CO2 bogeyman which allows them to control all three branches of government in many countries, including seizing the White House.
The age of reason is dead.

Pierre,
I have found it is easy to infer things from a blog. A couple of more comments to help clear things up.
The Task Force requires a quorum of members to even hold a meeting. Absent members caused the task force to cancel a couple of meetings. City code allows a chair to remove a member who misses more than three meetings a year. Committee members asked the chair to enforce the rules so the task force could at least meet and deliberate. City staff informed all members of the rule. Two members were unable to make the next meeting. They were replaced by fellow citizens of similar view points. This was not an issue of censure.
One of my university colleagues is on the IPCC. He gave expert testimony to the City Council at the request of the council member who nominated Anthony to the task force (and nominated Anthony’s replacement). The ongoing discussion has been spirited, and VERY public. This has not been a backroom affair.
Again, I understand that if you do not believe in AGW, this is all “stupid” and a waste of money. I respect your right to hold that opinion.
Rest assured, Anthony is a respected (beloved by some) member of our community and the most popular blogger on our local network (Norcalblogs) where I picked up this post.
As for Mike D.’s comment on the fires. You are correct. This study was limited to the city’s sphere of influence, at the direction of the task force.
Lastly, Anthony’s name was included because he was a member of the original committee. It is not meant to imply endorsement. This is the first that I have heard about wanting his name removed. Now that I know, I will see that new cover sheet is produced. Sorry for that Anthony.
REPLY: Thanks Mark, no harm no foul. I just wish Schwab or Presson would have responded teo weeks ago. Glazner was also an original member but his name isn’t on it. – Anthony

For those of you interested in Chico’s sustainability efforts. Our fourth annual conference, This Way to Sustainability IV, opens this Thursday. For more information on topics and speakers (including the task force) visit
http://www.csuchico.edu/sustainablefuture/events/2008conference/conference_info.shtml

Whether you bekieve in AGW or not I believe it is still stupid to drive people and businesses from your community. The city gas tax is laughable.

Again, I understand that if you do not believe in AGW, this is all “stupid” and a waste of money.
I don’t understand that statement. There are many things (those that I listed above, plus some others) that you can do that are not only good for the environment, but will provide “Savings” to the City.
For example, you folks need to look into the hundreds of school systems that have been running their buses on biodiesel. The savings have been Very large (and, they’re growing.) Many of these districts are sourcing their biodiesel from donated frier (yellow) grease. It’s just a matter of having the students “pick it up.” In other cases you can buy the grease cheaply from the local rendering/hauling firm.

If the town is really serious about “sustainability”, it should require that every home cover its land with as many trees as it can hold. And require wood-powered homes and vehicles. And require insurance against damage caused by falling (or felling) trees. And do the same with all city properties and vehicles. Think the residents would be happy with being told what to do with their land, and all parkland being forest? And they’ll be saving money by no longer having Little League baseball teams!

In the merry land where they make TV and movies, the political scenery is a illusionary as the most elaborate Hollywood set. Everything is “made for TV shock and awe”. Whatever plays best in the 3 second attention span of TV and Movies becomes policy. As such tagging anything with the words “carbon footprint” or “sustainability” automatically makes it a homerun, free from all scrutiny. To question any such policies is to immediately make yourself an enemy of the earth and paid schill for Big Oil. And that my friends, is the full detail of the intellectual spectrum here in California. If you thought this state was full of open minded, forward thinkers, like the kind that started Apple and Google, think again. California is nothing but a vapid wasteland where out-to-lunch idealists can’t wait to liberally hand out the hard earned tax dollars of the working class to those who most fluently spout the Orwellian newspeak of their bankrupt agenda.
The state whose energy policy failures nearly bankrupted them less than 5 years ago, is chomping at the bit to make a bold and historic step into bigger and more catastrophic energy policy failures. As much as I love this state it is a freaking embarassment nonetheless. People here amazingly seem to have no ability to separate reality from illusion, fact from propaganda, and truth from consequence. It’s never about what you say, but how cool it sounds when you say it. So on and on people go spewing their catch-words up each other’s asses until the issues are nothing but hot air rah-rah, that bring no substance or benefit to anyone. And not surprisingly they have dug this state into a budgetary hole that even the best considered, most fundamentally sound solutions may be too late to get it out of. Yet on and on they spew their vapid rhetoric, without a passing nod to the reality of their failures. Failures that, sadly, are only real to the working stiffs that struggle in vain to pay for them.
Thanks for reminding us all that Chico is still a city in California. Your policy makers have so thoroughly stripped it of any socioeconomic relevance, that I had forgotten

“This study was limited to the city’s sphere of influence, at the direction of the task force.”
Mark, that’s called thinking inside the box with blinders on. The Task Force is worried about global CO2, yet limits itself to concerns inside the city limits only. Sorry that doesn’t wash. You can’t have it both ways.
There is no global warming. If there was it would be a good thing. What is NOT debatable is the enormous choking air pollution from forest fires that blanketed Chico all summer long, causing evacuations and hospitalizations for respiratory distress. While neighboring towns were burning down. While fire services were over-extended. While the natural resources of the region were aflame. While electricity and water delivery were severely curtailed. All of which smacked Chico with an economic and environmental punch in the mouth, and citizens are still reeling from it.
But the City leaders are blind to all that. They want a “feel good” token program that puts symbolism over substance. Just pretend that the choking smoke didn’t happen. Just pretend that electric cars will have any effect whatsoever on CO2 emissions. Meanwhile fires “outside your sphere of influence” are emitting as much CO2 as all the cars in California driven all year.
Lucky for you I’m not a resident. I’d be blasting your Task Force every day. I hate it when supercilious twits steal my economy, environment, and livability. Not with my tax dollars, no thank you. Get your act together.

Mark,
Your “Ways to Sustainability” are hilarious. I am having trouble verbalizing how completely and utterly inept these solutions are. That this should be the end result of the thought process of a group of adults gives me a feeling inside somewhat like what I imagine choking on your own vomit underwater would feel like.
I have worked for corporations (gasp), where things like data, results, and efficiency were not optional or fluff. From that perspective, it is unfathomable to me that a group of adults came up with this “plan”. It is like a fairy tale, where reality is manipulated to appropriately fit the dreamscape , rather than one single thing having any basis in fact. What are we making sustainable, handouts for city employees? The leeching of taxpayer dollars?
There is nothing that will even remotely impact the environment, global warming, sustainability, or whatever you want to call it, by even the most acutely measureable amount. Contrary to your claims, it is YOU, not Anthony who makes your committee and your town look unintelligent, out of touch, and disingenuous, and mainly because that’s exactly what you are. [snip]
REPLY: Lighten up on Dr. Stemen please Derek. He has graciously answered questions, and treated everyone with respect. You may not agree with his views, but I expect a better level of decorum.
– Anthony

Smokey,
The city does not have a “official” definition, nor does the university. Here is what the university’s strategic plan says:
“Believing that each generation owes something to those which follow, we will create
environmentally literate citizens, who embrace sustainability as a way of living. We
will be wise stewards of scarce resources and, in seeking to develop the whole person, be aware that our individual and collective actions have economic, social, and
environmental consequences locally, regionally, and globally.”
If pressed further, I believe most of us would fall back to the Bruntland report (quoted earlier) which reads:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
While it is called the Sustainability Task Force, its main charge was comply with the US Mayors Agreement on Climate Change. So, the Task Force commissioned the report being discussed, and all future actions will be measured against this baseline to see if they were successful.
Thanks for the chance to share our work.

“We will be wise stewards of scarce resources.”
Hmmmm, it seems that the scarcest resource in Chico is money.
I guess, in a way, it makes sense. The politicians want to be the “wise” stewards of our scarce money. They seem to believe that the taxpayers are like a bottomless milkshake.
Too bad that the spenders outnumber the earners.

Don, I wouldn’t make too much of the ethanol bankruptcies. Over 150 ethanol plants have opened in the last couple of years. These are brand new operations with inexperienced management playing in a rough game. Commodities have busted some of the biggest, smartest, most experienced traders in the world in the last year. It would seem unlikely that the ethanol industry would go unscathed.
I don’t know much about Gateway, and Greater Ohio, but I would imagine that the story might be similar to Verasun. That was a case where, evidently, the owner thought that, due to the size corn purchases he made, he could drive the corn market down by shorting it. He couldn’t, and he lost his butt. Then, he bought forward at the top. Curtains.
150 other ethanol plants Didn’t do this and came out just fine. It’s a challenging business, and, I’m sure that from time to time we’ll hear of other companies taking gas. That’s America isn’t it?
As for MSW to ethanol, we’ll see soon enough. But, I wouldn’t bet against it.

E.M. Smith, if those rice stalks, and hulls were gassified you would still have the “ash” returned which could be put back on the land.
Corn Plus is doing that with ash from their syrup gassification and the farmers are lined up to purchase it. In this way you get the benefit of the energy, and the ash, too.

Sustainable thinking requires that you look at energy yield. If we turn to biomass, then we have to consider energy yield per acre, and energy use in harvest and transport of the crop (the proximity principle).
Let me make another pitch for biogas/biomethane as a fuel: energy per acre
http://biopact.com/2007/12/biomethane-presented-as-most-efficient.html
There is a nice graphic of how far a UK ‘Mini’ car can travel on biofuel from an acre. I’ve seen other versions of this, but none yet for ligocellulosic ethanol, (which would be interesting if anyone knows of a source).
Biodiesel fares worst taking a Mini just over 5030 miles/acre.
Bioethanol manages just over 7540 miles/acre.
Synthetic biodiesel (gasified biomass/F-T BTL) 13,960 miles/acre.
Biomethane (upgraded biogas) 24,390 miles/acre.

Ellie, a company named “Ceres” is working on seeds for miscanthus, switchgrass, etc. Until the research “shakes out” you probably should figure six, or seven hundred gallons/acre for lignocellulosic. Less in the northern states, a little more in the southeast.
And, yes, gassifying cellulose will return more energy than “liquifying” it.
As for as biodiesel: There really is no good “Oil” crop in the Northern Hemisphere. You can get six or seven hundred gallons/acre from Tropical crops such as Oil Palm, or coconut palm. We do have an interesting bush in the south called the “Chinese Tallow Tree.” It, also, will, theoretically, yield 600, or so, gal/acre.
All this said, though, the “Freebie,” right now is yellow grease. It’s estimated that you could operate about 13% of the trucks in California (probably, all of the School Buses on Yellow Grease.)

I don’t believe that one winter of extreme cold in the NH will kill the AGW Agenda – there is too much money and power, and political status wrapped up in it.
The cognitive dissonance for the average person will, I expect, increase. I have no predictions on what the average guy or gal is going to think of AGW at the end of the 2008/09 NH winter….
For some the cognitive dissonace will SNAP!… possibly when they get their heating bills.

Except when I attend my every Friday night tavern event, I willingly buy rounds just as others willingly buy rounds. And get this: I buy rounds for mostly Republicans and when they buy rounds, I am readily included, even while knowing that I am the outcast liberal. It matters little who earns what. We are there as friends and colleagues. Word to the wise. Don’t use tavern nights as an experiment in taxes.