About two years ago I was asked by my local city councilman Larry Wahl to serve on the city of Chico “sustainability task force”. I was initially enthusiastic, but the talk soon turned away from alternative energy solutions that I embrace, to getting a city wide inventory of carbon emissions. The task force, chaired by Vice Mayor Ann Schwab didn’t seem the least bit interested in solutions, but focused on tallying carbon emissions in town. That effort didn’t make a lot of sense to me then, since it gained the city nothing.
Now I know why, it was a prelude to taxation followed by wanton spending. They had to inventory to know how to tax. The “greenhouse gas” report they issued on September 2nd of this year had a number of oddball fees, taxes, giveaways, and edicts, such as a city wide gasoline tax, and even free electricity handouts to city employees for sustainable commuting. All of this while we are in an economic downturn and city financial crisis. This is why I can no longer support Ann Schwab, even though I worked with her.
There is a backstory to my involvement with this, but first things first, here is a copy of the sustainability task force “work plan” from September 2nd.
Link: cic-sustainability-090208
The local newspaper also did a story on the preliminary report, but not on the work plan from the link above.
Most important to note is that while my name is on this report, I had no hand in it whatsoever, as I was unceremoniously booted off the task force on December 20th, 2007 by vice mayor Schwab who sent me a letter advising of my termination. The reason? Attendance. But this goes to show how messed up things are with this task force, as they could not even get my termination straight and had me listed as a member 9 months afterwards.
For the record, there is little in this report I agree with and my name should not be on it. Two weeks ago I sent an email to Vice Mayor Schwab and the City Clerk Debbie Presson asking that my name be removed. No response.
When I was on the task force I had the distinction of being one of the few people that actually walked the talk, as I had put solar on my home and a local school, plus I drive an electric car (though I’ve since upgraded to a newer model electric).
No matter, I wasn’t well liked because I really didn’t want to play the carbon emissions tally game, preferring solutions instead. So I’m not surprised that Schwab booted me off when she had the chance.
The task force was made up of a few people like myself, that ran businesses in town, but the vast majority were city employees, university employees, and other publicly paid people. The meetings were on Mondays in the middle of the afternoon. People like me that run businesses found it hard to attend, because with us lost time at work means lost revenue, City and university employees don’t have those problems. Prior to my dismissal, another local businessman, Lon Glazner, voluntarily left because he had the same issues.
OK, enough about why my name is on the report, and why it tends to be public employee centric rather than more representative of our community makeup.
First there is the cost: $30,000 which went to a university employee (already on the public payroll) to produce this report. Another consultant fee in the same cozy city-university sustainability circle of friends. They did no outside bid advertisements that I’m aware of, they just picked the university “sustainability guru” to do the job.
Let’s look at some of the suggested “community reduction” actions in this report presented by Schwab and her task force:
- A suggestion to pay city employees to give up their parking spot.
- Require energy audits on residential units at the time of sale.
- Increased fees on waste disposal.
- A local gasoline tax to generate local revenue.
- Forcing a lights out policy on local businesses after hours
- Free electricity and free parking for city employees that drive electric vehicles
- Free or reduced cost electricity and parking for citizens that drive electric vehicles
You can find these items in Appendix C of the report, near the end under “Community Reduction Measures” which are designed to meet a carbon emissions target.
Here’s an interesting graph from the consultant’s report:
I don’t know about you, but spending 30 grand for information telling us that cars are the biggest source of CO2 in or city of Chico?. Shocker. No worries, we’ll attack that problem. On page 39 of the September 2 Greenhouse Gas Report there is this gem: “By implementing a local gas tax, the City could generate revenue to put toward sustainability projects”.
Yep, tax and spend. Darn those evil cars driven by irresponsible citizens.
The task force also favors doling out taxpayer money for “sustainability”, page 42: “For employees who own electric vehicles, the City could provide prime parking locations that offer free electric filling stations.” and for the public, page 39: “Electric fueling station-provide free or low-cost electric fueling stations for EVs.”
I drive an electric car. I’d gladly pay $1-3 per hour for park n’ charge. Vice mayor Schwab not only misses this dirt simple revenue opportunity, she wants to give away free electricity during a city budget crisis.
Just yesterday the state of California announced it was already 10 billion in the hole this year, and our county government announced it was 10 million in the red. Chico’s own sales tax revenue has been falling, and the city budget has been in the red for at least two years now, and there has been little substantial movement by city leaders to really solve the problem.
Image: The city General Fund and Parks deficit in red without transfers away from road and transportation improvements. Money from a gas tax we all pay has been transferred away from roads to cover the costs of other spending. If you wonder why bike routes are planned but not built, or why roads and traffic issues take so long to address, here is the culprit.
Source: Commision Impossible 10/22/08
For those reading that don’t live here, the business climate of our town is getting grim. Departments stores, restaurants, and other local businesses are closing almost daily due to the economic climate. The trickle down effect from state budget cuts will also affect the city’s largest state funded employers soon, such as Chico State University, and the Chico Unified School District.
So with the city budget headed for a certain train wreck, and the state economy in a shambles, I am absolutely gobsmacked that Schwab and her sustainability task force are suggesting gasoline taxes and free electricity giveaways at the same time. Then there’s the idea that businesses should be forced to turn out their lights at night. Saving energy is a fine idea, but at the expense of inviting crime into an unlit business?
This shows a level of disconnect that only a bureaucrat could muster. And, it’s why I strongly recommend that people reading this don’t vote for Schwab, but choose a city council candidate that has some business sense.
I’m all for efficiency and alternate energy ideas that are cost neutral or revenue generators, but the reality is those things aren’t being considered.
Public giveaways, new taxes, and visions of a sustainable future won’t solve the budget problems, sensible management combined with spending cuts and plans that will enhance the local business environment will.
A very big name company has asked a big name company I do some work for to undertake a massive effort as part of an RFQ. Namely, presenting a detailed carbon foot print analysis of the products the bid will include. Not only does the analysis need to include the entire supply chain, including all raw materials, labor and, energy used to take the product from the ground to the shipping dock, but also, must include the anticipated carbon footprint in installation, until end of service life.
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
Mark,
Still waiting for Chico’s official definition of sustainability.
Or does it mean whatever anyone chooses it to mean?
“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.
Love you too Mike. : )
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
[…] “Sustainability” runs amok in my town of Chico About two years ago I was asked by my local city councilman Larry Wahl to serve on the city of Chico […] […]
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.
For more information on air pollution from wildfires please see: WILDLAND FIRES AND AIR POLLUTION, 8, Edited By Andrzej Bytnerowicz, Michael Arbaugh, Allen Riebau, and Christian Andersen.
— An international team of scientists offer a compendium of air pollution research in a new book that explores smoke impacts on humans and the environment, while addressing the challenges of finding socially-acceptable uses of fire as a land management tool.
The 686-page book includes 26 research papers written by 85 experts from various science disciplines who studied smoke impacts in North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia from prehistoric times to the present day for a deeper understanding of fire effects on local and global air quality.
“We intended to give an overview of what we know of how wildland fires affect air pollution, whether they are unintentionally or intentionally set,” said Andrzej Bytnerowicz, a U.S. Forest Service scientist at the Pacific Southwest Research Station who edited the book. “We wanted to provide managers specific options for dealing with this environmental challenge.” —
from http://www.eurekalert.org/bga/index.php?view=books
Please let’s all tone the discussion down a bit when it comes to Dr. Mark Stemen. He has graciously answered questions here, and while you may or may not agree with him, I expect decorum and courtesy.
Anthony
Dr. Stemen, I think what needs to be considered is the recent data (from the Aqua Satellite) that calls the entire theory of CO2 positive feedback into very serious question. Direct effects of CO2, without positive feedback, at the current rate of saturation, while real, are extremely slight.
I think it is important to consider the multidecadal cycles (unknown to science until ten years ago), which correlate better with climate change–including that of the last ten years–far better than does the CO2 curve.
Recently, global temperatures have been flat (skipping the 1998-2000 El Nino/La Nina cycle). Very recently, they have dropped very sharply, coincidental with PDO and AO (and, possibly, NAO) reversal, to say nothing of the dangers of the DeVries cycle.
It would therefore seem to me that assessing and rewarding/penalizing levels of atmospheric carbon emissions is quite premature. Economic growth is only a couple of percent. If you take actions that cause a drag, you will kill development in your community. Bear in mind that known effective environmental efforts are expensive and action that curtails growth will have an impact on those efforts. If the environment is the issue, there may be far more costeffective green endeavors than that which you currently pursue.
(This, I believe, is fairly close to the position of Anthony Watts.)
“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.
Daniel (23:39:13) :
Some of the high-output LEDs are simply more efficient and still run at the typical 20 ma, these are the ones I’ve typically seen in traffic light arrays. Poking around the web, http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/5/4/7 talks about custom Luxeon screw-in bulbs. Luxeon are the 3 watt LEDs mounted on small circuit boards for heatsinks. I’ve seen some flashlights for sale at Home Depot that call out their use of Luxeon parts, so its developing brand identity. My wife is interested in Luxeons for area lighting in our yurt, IIRC, the cost per lumen is comparable to other LEDs.
At any rate, that magazine article says “The LED-based lamps utilize one-sixth the energy of incandescent bulbs, replacing the city’s 60W pedestrian and 100W vehicular traffic bulbs with just 10W of LED power. The LEDs also last up to 10 times longer than conventional lighting sources, significantly reducing lamp replacement frequency and associated maintenance costs.
The project cost approximately US$750,000 and paid for itself in 12 months through a combination of energy savings and maintenance reductions made possible by long LED life.”
The first LED traffic light arrays I saw did have a high failure rate at first, and generally strings of 10-20 LEDs went out, so clearly there are several series-connected strings on the circuit board. Their replacements have lasted years.
Nothing for traffic light LEDs, but http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/Products/ProdDS/1555358.pdf is a green/blue data sheet from Avago. Note the big range in intensity bins. The catalog page is http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/catalogs/c284/P22.pdf
Luxeon LED data sheets make for odd reading, and claim stuff like 50,000 hour useful lifetime at 1000 ma. Definitely not the 20 ma. LEDs I’m used to. http://www.philipslumileds.com/pdfs/DS51.pdf $8.00 ea or so, but a good deal for the light output.
http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/categories.php?c=89 caught my eye as a good collection of random LEDs products.
Ric Werme,
Thanks for that interesting information.
Everything you’ve posted above leads us to one inescapable conclusion: there is no need whatsoever for a taxpayer-funded “Sustainability Taskforce.” Dr. Stemen undoubtedly means well, but he is on the wrong track.
The free market is already providing the answers, at competitive prices. And companies pay taxes on their profits; bureaucrats collect taxes to pay themselves.
Government isn’t the solution, it is the problem.
That’s not thinking ‘outside the box.’ It’s just rational thinking.
Kum,
Thanks for the info on Bluefire. I am trying to collect more information on these type technologies. I note however that they have not yet demonstrated their technology to turn MSW (Municipal solid waste) into Ethanol in a commercial plant. Yet I can’t help but note that the first plant will be heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. I sure hope that these technologies work and make economic sense, but my experience makes me skeptical that this might be another waste oftaxpayers $$$.
Also your optimism on ethanol is brought to question by the following from the Daily Biofuels News Digest:
“In South Dakota, VeraSun Energy began a new phase in a dismal year for the company when it and 24 subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in federal courts. The company reiterated in a statement that it had sustained large losses in the third quarter due to the spike in corn prices last summer.
The company said that it would resume normal operations, would not scale back raw material purchases, would continue to pay suppliers as well as pledging not to interrupt payroll. “Today’s filing allows VeraSun to address its short-term liquidity constraints as we navigate historically challenging market conditions while we focus on restructuring to address the company’s long-term future,” Don Endres CEO said. “We appreciate the loyalty of our employees, customers and suppliers during this challenging time.”
Endres has not yet responded to a Digest request for an interview to address its investment outlook as well as confirming its short term commitments.
Greater Ohio Ethanol files Chapter 11 bankruptcyIn Ohio, the Greater Ohio Ethanol Plant has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for its 54 Mgy corn ethanol plant in Lima. The company said that they hope to continue running while reorganizing…
Gateway Ethanol files for Chapter 11 bankruptcyIn Kansas, Gateway Ethanol filed for Chapter 11 reorganization, stating that it owed creditors between $50 and $100 million. Previously, Dougherty Funding had requested courts to establish an emergenc…
Beatrice Biodiesel parent files for bankruptcy; 50 Mgy plant now controlled by AgStar Financial ServicesIn Nebraska, the parent company of the 50 Mgy Beatrice Biodiesel plant in Beatrice filed for Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy, handing control of the plant to AgStar Financial Services. Agri Energ…
Bioenergy of America Chapter 11 restructuring collapses; heads for liquidationIn New Jersey, a federal bankruptcy judge dismissed the Chapter 11 case of Bioenergy of America after the company was unable to pay administrative expenses associated with continued operation and the …
Bioenergy of America files for bankruptcy as feedstock costs bite; former industry giant falls as Europe’s Biodiesel Corp avoids similar fate in debt-for-equity swapIn New Jersey, Bioenergy of America filed for bankruptcy yesterday, listing assets of $1-$10 million and debts of $10-$50 million. The company represented 15 percent of US biodiesel supply in 2005, ha…
Ethanex Energy files for bankruptcy; cancels Nebraska acquisitionIn Kansas, Ethanex Energy filed for bankruptcy after failing to raise $1.5 million in interim financing for a planned $220 million, three-plant acquisition in Nebraska”…. Written by Jim Lane ·
Don Shaw:
Ouch!
Some folks would argue that the government should step in and save these companies at taxpayer expense [and you know who I mean].
The people in Gussing weren’t trying to buy “sustainability”. They knew they had wood to burn, and they knew they were spending too much bringing energy in, so they built wood burning power plants to save money.
They weren’t driving people out of Gussing, They were bringing people and businesses back into Gussing because they were saving the citizens’ money.
I am a plumber but I can see the difference. Kum described some things that make sense for cities. I don’t believe any of those things are on Chico’s agenda. If the Sustainability Task Force doesn’t understand these simple differences, perhaps it should be disbanded.
Can you imagine Chico installing wood burning power plants? It won’t happen. Can you imagine the city actually cutting costs and making Chico a place where businesses want to move to? Can you imagine tax rates going down. Can you imagine a city that actually serves the best interests of her people? Sure you can… Gussing.
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.
VSE Verisun et. al. bankruptcy: For some reason, folks at producing (and consuming companies) screw up and confound “hedges” with “directional trades” in futures markets. The results are universally horrid. American Airlines just locked in their fuel costs with forward contracts at about $120/bbl. Yup, near the top. Now they are hosed for 2 years. VSE did something similar. No hedges on the way up, then locked in at the top. I heard one report that they may have put on a directional short trade on the way up (exactly the opposite of a hedge). Gold producers are notorious for buying in their hedges right at the top for gold prices. There is something about the corporate mindset that is unable to keep away from directional trades and stick with hedges.
(The difference? If I need corn for my operation and can make money with corn at $4/bushel, then I buy forward contracts for delivery at $4 or below. Now I’m guaranteed some profit when corn rises OR falls. A directional trader would bet on a direction, perhaps shorting $4 contracts EXPECTING prices to drop. When prices rise to $5, not only did they lose the $1/bu for the contract, but they now are paying $5/bu for what they need to stay in business. So they don’t stay in business long. A hedge reduces the range of outcomes, a directional trade increases them – double or nothing…)
VSE is dead meat because of a bad trader on what ought to have been a hedging desk.
Per Chico and smoke. When I was a kid, the standard behavior was for farmers to burn the rice hulls, rice stubble, and peach / pear wood (from pruning and dead trees). Each fall the valley would fill with smoke. It would be much better to collect all those tons of biomass and turn them to fuel. Verinium (sp?) VRNM has a pilot plant up for cellulosic ethanol. They are building demonstration plants and preparing for production scale in the US and in Japan. If Chico really wanted to work on their sustainability, they would have a program with local farmers to produce sustainable fuels this way. Or contact GGRN Global Green Solutions who have a “green” system to turn waste wood into steam. Instead, farmers are punished for burning trash and citizens are punished for using fuel. Stop making problems and find ways to turn two problems into one solution.
Rather than all these newspeak “free” electricity for “free” electric cars, they would make real buisnesses making real fuel from local resources. Nothing is “free”, somebody pays for it.
BTW, during the winter, the area around Chico can be under fog and / or dank low cloud cover for weeks or months on end. Solar is not a solution for months on end there. Just 2000 feet up slope toward Paradise, you rise above the fog and low cloud into sunshine. But a nice wood powered steam plant could heat a lot of buildings in Chico…
Also FWIW, this winter has started off early and cold. With luck, it will kill the AGW agenda before the rabid believers can do more damage than they already have.
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.
Sounds like a modern-day Domesday Book to me. When the Normans took over England from the Saxons, William sent out clerks with stubby pencils and thick glasses to see what everybody in the new kingdom owned… how many and how big were their hovels, how many sheep they kept, etc.
Some say the word came from doomsday, as in: when you’re called to settle your “final accounts”, here’s what you’ll owe. In the case of William the Conqueror, it was an efficient census that led to necessary and (probably more or less fair) system of taxation. In Chico (and elsewhere soon), it’s based on a stupid and wrongheaded premise that will some day be looked at as a scandalous waste of people’s resources.
If they start doing door-to-door surveys of people’s body mass index, it’s time to head for the hills.
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.
So peeking is dangerous?
Ask Pandora.
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.)
Kum,
There are a lot of US (and EU) developers at pilot and in planning. I just haven’t seen much detail on efficiency figures.
re yellow grease – quality is the issue with waste oils and fats. Once they sit around in kitchens you have huge problems if you want a decent fuel.
Involved in commercialising a process several years ago that now recycles nearly 0.5million tonnes used cooking oil annually.
Getting late here – good night.