Posts tagged ‘from’

August 4th, 2010

The Economics of Ethanol from Corn Cobs

Producing a significant amount of ethanol strictly from corn cobs is possible but would require a specific set of circumstances to be economically feasible, according to a new report from University of Illinois researchers.

In the report “The Economics of Harvesting Corn Cobs for Energy,” Matthew Erickson and Wallace Tyner found that factors such as corn yield, farm size, harvesting equipment rental costs and increases in harvest times greatly affected the price per ton, but that government incentives for a possible cob-based advanced biofuel would offset collection costs enough to make it an attractive fuel source. In assessing the economics of cob harvesting the researchers focused on three main factors – the decrease in harvest work rate cob harvesting necessitates, the expense of cob wagon rental and the percentages of cob in residue.

The overall conclusion they made is that corn cobs are more expensive to harvest for energy than originally thought, “maybe too expensive to be used for energy production unless the public is willing to further support development.”

Corn growers say it might be worth the price for the nation that wants to continue lessening its dependence on fossil fuels. “As we explore innovative ways to use corn, our most abundant feedstock, to produce renewable energy, we have to remain flexible and dedicated,” said National Corn Growers Association Ethanol Committee Chair Jon Holzfaster. “Currently, our society places an extremely high priority on developing alternative fuel sources. New cob-based biofuel continues our tradition of working towards the goals of the RFS2, keeping our resources at home and developing new jobs in the U.S.”

Read the entire report here.


Domestic Fuel

July 27th, 2010

Paul Krugman: Who Cooked the Planet? from Economist’s View

Why did climate change legislation fail?:

Who Cooked the Planet?, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they’re still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 — the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died — the hottest such stretch on record. …

So why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? Let’s talk first about what didn’t cause the failure, because there have been many attempts to blame the wrong people.

First of all, we didn’t fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence … points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.

Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers —… “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action…

Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation block action? No. … All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy’s growth rate.

So it wasn’t the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it?

The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.

If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn’t be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.

Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you’ll find that they’re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.

Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer.

By itself, however, greed wouldn’t have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment.

There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in particular: Senator John McCain.

There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in the White House. But he didn’t — and it’s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and humanity’s future, for the sake of a few years added to his political career.

Alas, Mr. McCain wasn’t alone; and there will be no climate bill. Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price.

Renewable Energy in the U.S. at 5:39 AM