Skip to main contentdfsdf

Brands's List: CHP Cogen and Recycled Energy

  • Jun 05, 12

    "What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.

    So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.

    For some reason, however, neither the press nor Mr. Obama’s political team has done a very good job of exposing the con.

    "... for all practical purposes this is already a Republican economy."

    What do I mean by saying that this is already a Republican economy? Look first at total government spending — federal, state and local. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War.

    How is that possible? Isn’t Mr. Obama a big spender? Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us. Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers; meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though unemployment remains extremely high.

    Over all, the picture for America in 2012 bears a stunning resemblance to the great mistake of 1937, when F.D.R. prematurely slashed spending, sending the U.S. economy — which had actually been recovering fairly fast until that point — into the second leg of the Great Depression. In F.D.R.’s case, however, this was an unforced error, since he had a solidly Democratic Congress. In President Obama’s case, much though not all of the responsibility for the policy wrong turn lies with a completely obstructionist Republican majority in the House.

    That same obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the president into continuing all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so that federal taxes as a share of G.D.P. are near historic lows — much lower, in particular, than at any point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

    As I said, for all practical purposes this is already a Republican economy."

  • Oct 23, 14

    "What more proof is needed that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested of ethanol is negative? They’re losing money and getting corporate welfare to keep the scam going, meanwhile destroying prime topsoil, poisoning the land with pesticides, and eutrophying the Gulf of Mexico (see Peak Soil for details).
    This is only part of the article, see the rest here.
    Updated: Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels Fact Sheet. June 2014. Taxpayers for common sense.
    Large Corn Biofuels Facilities Receiving Taxpayer Funding
    The highest payments per project, by far, were awarded to large agribusinesses operating corn and soy biofuels facilities.
    This is despite the fact that corn ethanol facilities are not even eligible for funding through this program or defined as an advanced biofuel in any current federal legislation.
    Regardless, USDA is still funneling money to this mature industry, in addition to soy biodiesel facilities.

    From 2009 to 2014, 21 corn ethanol facilities and three corn oil biodiesel facilities received $60 million in federal subsidies, an average of $2.5 million per project. See Table 2 for more information. The corn ethanol industry has already received more than its fair share of federal subsidies over the past 30 years, including energy and commodity subsidies in the farm bill, production tax credits, import tariffs, taxpayer-backed loans, and infrastructure support. In addition, corn ethanol production is mandated through the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS); more specifically, the RFS mandate requires that 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol be used in U.S. motor gasoline by 2015.

    Even though the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels was intended to spur production of advanced biofuels, as the program’s title suggests, its funding stream reveals a different story. Instead of assisting small, rural residents or small businesses obtain financing to help second-generation biofuels derived from non-food feedstocks get off the ground, the program is instead funneling taxpayer dollars to large, profitable, and well-known agribusinesses. Government funding is also spent on mature biofuels industries like corn ethanol and soy biodiesel, which have enjoyed taxpayer backing for more than 30 years. Now more than ever, taxpayers should not be forced to fund corporate welfare and mature technologies, so the BPAB program must not be renewed in the next farm bill and spending should be reined in until then.

    Table 2: Corn Biofuels Facilities Receiving Advanced Biofuels Payments, 2009-14
    Facility Name (* notes the facility produces biodiesel) State Feedstock Total Payments
    White Energy Inc TX corn/milo $10,442,369
    Arkalon Ethanol LLC KS corn/milo $9,935,595
    Western Plains Energy KS corn/milo $8,302,242
    Kansas Ethanol LLC KS corn/milo $5,914,342
    Pinal Energy LLC AZ corn $4,651,731
    Prairie Horizon Agri-Energy LLC KS corn/milo $4,428,160
    Levelland/Hockley Co. Ethanol (now Diamond Ethanol) TX corn/milo $3,308,326
    Abengoa Bioenergy Corp. MO corn/milo $3,108,385
    Bonanza Bioenergy LLC KS corn/milo $3,082,023
    Chief Ethanol Fuel Inc NE corn/milo $2,308,795
    Reeve Agri Energy Inc KS corn/milo $1,723,906
    Nesika Energy LLC KS corn $771,812
    Central Indiana Ethanol LLC IN corn $482,973
    Corn Plus LP MN corn $311,081
    Walsh Bio Fuels, LLC* WI corn $267,030
    Trenton Agri Products LLC KS corn/milo $231,620
    Nugen Energy LLC SD corn $98,591
    East Kansas Agri-Energy LLC KS corn $58,834
    Cornhusker Energy Lexington, LLC NE corn $14,871
    Chippewa Valley Ethanol Coop MN corn $14,597
    Best Biodiesel Cashton, LLC* WI corn/soy $10,487
    Kappa Ethanol, LLC NE corn $8,693
    Maple River Energy, LLC* IA corn/soy $7,845
    TOTAL $59,618,433
    Large Agribusinesses Receiving Subsidies for Biodiesel Production

    Table 3 identifies several large agribusinesses receiving more than $1 million of taxpayer subsidies for biodiesel production. Biodiesel can be produced from corn oil, as noted above, or other feedstocks such as soy or other types of vegetable oil, animal fats, recycled cooking oil, etc. Notable companies receiving taxpayer support from 2009-2013 include the Renewable Energy Group, Louis Dreyfus, Ag Processing, Archer Daniels Midland, MN Soybean Processors, and Cargill Inc. Similar to the generous taxpayer supports corn ethanol has received over the past 30 years, biodiesel companies have also benefited from a $1 per gallon production tax credit for several years, on top of several other federal incentives.

    Table 3: Biodiesel Facilities Receiving Advanced Biofuels Payments, 2009-14
    Facility Name State Feedstock Total Payment
    Lake Erie Biofuels, LLC Dba Hero Bx PA multi $16,842,034
    Renewable Energy Group, Inc. IA canola $15,308,992
    Louis Dreyfus Agricultural Industries IN soy $12,468,872
    High Plains Bioenergy, LLC OK animal fats $11,915,721
    AG Processing Inc NE soy $11,221,637
    Mid-America Biofuels, LLC MO soy $10,530,741
    Paseo Cargill Energy, LLC MO soy $9,690,338
    Archer Daniels Midland Company IL, ND canola $7,744,279
    Deerfield Energy LLC MO multi $6,846,753
    MN Soybean Processors MN soy $5,914,635
    Owensboro Grain Company, LLC. KY soy $5,668,413
    Cargill Inc. MN soy $5,562,689
    Smarter Fuel, Inc. PA cooking oil $5,202,080
    Incobrasa Industries, Ltd. IL soy $4,897,378
    FutureFuels Chemical Company AR animal fats/soy $4,661,016
    Imperium Grays Harbor LLC WA canola $3,849,794
    Rbf Port Neches, LLC. TX multi $3,710,752
    E Biofuels LLC IN animal fats/cooking oil $3,440,667
    Western Iowa Energy IA multi $3,020,233
    American Biodiesel, Inc CA multi $2,741,786
    Crimson Renewable Energy LP CA multi $2,703,216
    Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC IA canola $2,569,989
    Sequential‐Pacific Biodiesel OR cooking oil $2,516,531
    Jatrodiesel, Inc. OH multi $2,144,479
    Midwest Biodiesel Product, LLC. IL soy $2,011,805
    Green Earth Fuels Of Houston, LLC. TX multi $1,924,678
    Environmental Energy Recycling Corp. PA cooking oil $1,758,853
    Scott Petroleum Corporation MS multi $1,726,854
    Imperial Western Products, Inc. CA animal fats/veg oil $1,654,933
    Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC IA animal fats/veg oil $1,441,303
    Other Feedstocks Receiving Taxpayer Subsidies

    As Table 1 illustrated, projects receiving the last few million dollars of BPAB payments converted either woody biomass, sorghum, or seed waste into biofuels or used anaerobic digesters or landfill gas to power bioenergy facilities. On average, these payments were three to ten times smaller than the average checks sent to corn ethanol facilities. The remaining projects were filed in the unknown category since too little detail was provided by USDA to determine which types of feedstocks are used in the facilities."

1 - 16 of 16
20 items/page
List Comments (0)