Ohio Bioenergy Corporation Owes Over $50K in Taxes, Fees

- by David E. Malloy, December 29, 2014, Herald Dispatch

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"366","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"264","style":"width: 264px; height: 264px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"264"}}]]Biomass, a Kentucky-based company that owns the former South Point Ethanol property adjacent to The Point industrial park, will have to pay more than $53,000 in back taxes, penalties and costs by Jan. 27 to maintain the 78-acre parcel.

Lawrence County Prosecuting Attorney Brigham Anderson filed suit earlier this year at the request of County Treasurer Stephen Dale Burcham for back taxes.

The company owns six parcels valued at $827,880 in Perry Township. The back taxes, interest and fees due on the property now is more than $53,000, according to court records.

Biomass announced plans more than a decade ago to use the property to set up a biomass generating plant and produce electricity as part of a multi-million dollar project. No such project has been started. The firm has been delinquent on its taxes on several occasions over the years, only to pay before a lien is filed.

Rim Fire Forests Fuel Biomass Energy

- December 29, 2014, The Recorder

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"365","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"311","style":"width: 333px; height: 216px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"480"}}]]Nearly 40,000 tons of forest residue from the Rim Fire area in Tuolumne County has been removed for use to generate biomass energy, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Meanwhile, the USDA said it has made funds available to help California landowners conserve natural resources damaged or threatened as a result of wildfires during the past 18 months.

 

 

Biofuel Hell

- by Richard Adrian Reese, February 17, 2013, Wild Ancestors

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"364","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"350","style":"width: 333px; height: 243px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"480"}}]]I keep having nightmares about one possible future: biofuel hell.  Clearly, they are visions sent by ancestral spirits, and they are meant to be shared.  Perhaps they will inspire writers, movie makers, and other creative people to produce healing, mind-altering work.  Perhaps they will inspire contemplation and sincere conversations.  At this point, I’m just going to dump a bag of jigsaw puzzle pieces on the table.  See what you can do with them.

During World War II, when gasoline was rationed, or unavailable to civilians, hundreds of thousands of vehicles in dozens of nations were converted to run on wood gas.  Car owners installed equipment that weighed 400 to 500 pounds (180 to 225 kg), plus another 50 to 100 pounds (22 to 45 kg) of fuel — wood chips or charcoal. 

In the firebox, fuel was ignited to release the gasses, primarily nitrogen and carbon monoxide.  Carbon monoxide was the flammable and explosive energy source.  It was also extremely poisonous, much to the delight of morticians.  Many folks drove with their windows rolled down.  The gas contained twice as much non-flammable nitrogen as carbon monoxide, which meant that it was not a high-powered fuel. 

In wartime Germany, 500,000 wood gas vehicles were in use, including cars, buses, tractors, motorcycles, ships, and trains.  These vehicles were also used in Denmark, Sweden, France, Finland, Switzerland, Russia, Japan, Korea, and Australia.

Charcoal-powered cars were developed in China in 1931, and they remained popular into the 1950s.  Before World War II, the French were consuming 50,000 tons of wood for vehicle fuel.  This increased to 500,000 tons by 1943. 

Readers who want to get a better feel for what life was like in an era of wood-fuelled transport should read Producer Gas & the Australian Motorist by Don Bartlett.  It’s a 26 page discussion of what Australian drivers experienced during World War II, when little gasoline was available. 

Today, rising gasoline prices are renewing interest in wood-power.  Modern technology allows wood-powered cars to cruise at 68 mph (110 km/h), with a driving range of 62 miles (100 km), consuming 66 pounds (30 kg) of wood.  There’s just one little drawback with biofuels.  “If we were to convert every vehicle, or even just a significant number, to wood gas, all the trees in the world would be gone and we would die of hunger because all agricultural land would be sacrificed for energy crops.  Indeed, the woodmobile caused severe deforestation in France during the Second World War.”  France was not alone.  Remember that there were far, far fewer cars in the world 70 years ago.

Americans are fiercely defensive about their sacred guns, but this passion is trivial in comparison to our God-given right to drive energy-guzzling motorized wheelchairs.  Most of us would rather be stoned to death by an angry crowd of Taliban than switch to bikes or buses.  Have no doubt that when gas rises above $20 or $30 a gallon, or when filling stations are out of gas for days or weeks at a time, countless hucksters will fall out of the sky, selling wood gas conversion units — and every one of them will be bought.

Study Finds Ethanol Worse For Air Quality Than Gasoline

- by Bill Hudson, December 17, 2014, CBS Minnesota

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"358","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"183","style":"width: 275px; height: 183px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"275"}}]]For years, the state’s corn and ethanol industries have touted the environmental benefits of burning the alternative fuel in our vehicles.

But newly released research from the University of Minnesota College of Science and Engineering is raising eyebrows.

The study compared pollution levels from gasoline fuel and 10 alternative energy vehicles, including hybrid electric, natural gas and corn-based ethanol.

One of the most surprising findings is that ethanol might actually be worse for air quality than conventional gasoline fueled transportation.

Minnesota Ethanol Plant Fined $25K for Air Pollution and Noise

- December 11, 2014, Associated Press

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"349","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 332px; height: 187px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]The Corn Plus ethanol plant in the south-central Minnesota city of Winnebago has agreed to pay a $25,000 penalty and take steps to reduce its air pollution and noise levels.

The corrective actions announced by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on Wednesday mark the latest step by officials to bring the plant into compliance with environmental regulations.

Corn Plus has paid about $660,000 in state and federal penalties for air and water quality violations and agreed to environmental improvements costing nearly $700,000 since 2009.

Corn Plus has an application pending with the MPCA for renewal of its environmental permits. Under its latest agreement with the agency, the company must submit more information for that application to move forward.

$181,000 Fine for Ethanol Air Pollution in Albany, NY

- by Brian Nearing, December 12, 2014, Times Union

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"348","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 333px; height: 118px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]An oil terminal operator at the Port of Albany has been hit with a $181,000 penalty by the state Department of Environmental Conservation for air pollution violations that lasted nearly a year.

Buckeye Partners failed to properly control vapor emissions from ethanol — a corn-based biofuel used as a gasoline additive — from trucks being loaded at the port, according to a DEC news release issued late Friday. The violations "did not result in any material air quality impacts," according to the release.

As part of a consent order reached last month, the penalty includes a $145,000 "community benefit project" that Buckeye will pay for in the neighborhood around the port. DEC will work with the community to identify the project.

Tampa Man Sentenced for $3 Million Biofuels Fraud

- by Susan Salisbury, December 9, 2014, Palm Beach Post      

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"344","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 244px; height: 233px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]A Tampa man was sentenced today on charges he scammed investors out of more than $3 million after promising returns on bio-energy crops such as camelina that were not even planted

 

William A. Vasden Jr. who once headed the Florida Feedstock Growers Association, was sentenced to four years in federal prison in a Fort Myers courtrom.

Vasden was also charged with fraudulently applying for federal grant funds for alternative energy projects that never materialized.

The scam was uncovered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services during a top-to-bottom audit of outstanding grants and projects conducted immediately after the department assumed responsibility of the state’s Office of Energy.

“Our audit exposed several cases of fraud, saving more than $2.4 million in taxpayer dollars,” said Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam. “Misuse of public funds is unacceptable, and those who have committed fraud will be held accountable.”

Industry Take: How Will 2014 Elections Impact Biomass?

- by Bob Cleaves, November 23, 2014, Biomass Magazine

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"343","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 198px; height: 198px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]On Nov. 4, Americans voted. This election was a decisive victory for Republicans. Senate, House, gubernatorial and even state legislature races across the country saw conservatives prevail. These results were expected, surprising to political types only in the thoroughness of the wins across the board.

What does this mean for biomass? It’s clear that this election signals the need to adjust our interactions with elected officials, but it’s not yet clear what shape that change will take. We will have a better sense of the new Congress’s direction after it is sworn in. The initial signs, however, indicate that there will be a lot we can work with, beginning with an emphasis on the economic benefits of biomass.

We expect that renewable energy, which had been gaining momentum as a key issue among Democratic leadership, will not be as high a priority for this Congress. Rather than focusing on the environmental benefits of biomass, there will likely be a renewed interest in biomass as an energy source that employs tens of thousands of Americans in rural areas.

Is Cellulosic Ethanol All it’s Cracked Up to Be?

- by Edward Dodge, December 10, 2014, Breaking Energy

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"341","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"321","style":"color: rgb(73, 73, 73); font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20.671998977661133px; width: 300px; height: 201px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"480"}}]]

The EPA has long promoted cellulosic ethanol as the future of biofuels, but technical challenges have kept production far below targets. A recent rule change allows RNG, renewable natural gas, to qualify as cellulosic biofuel even though RNG is not cellulosic, but this helps EPA appear to be meeting their goals.

RNG growth has been dramatic and is the lowest carbon vehicle fuel available today. Perhaps the EPA should be promoting a Renewable Gas Standard instead of a Renewable Fuel Standard.

In 2013, production of cellulosic ethanol was effectively zero, even though the legislated target volume for for 2013 was 1 billion gallons. In August 2013, EPA reduced the target to 6 million gallons, and again reduced the target retroactively to 810,185 gallons, less than 1 million. By all accounts this represents a complete failure of the cellulosic ethanol program. In July 2014 the EPA revised the cellulosic biofuel rules to allow RNG to be categorized as cellulosic.

Windfarms More Efficient than Biofuels?

- by Aidan Harrison, December 5, 2014, Northumberland Gazette

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"337","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"320","style":"width: 333px; height: 222px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"480"}}]]Its obsession with ‘markets’ has already placed our railways and utilities in the hands of big foreign state and corporate-owned monopolies.

The first thing to make clear is that the technology of wind power is nothing like as inefficient as its fanatical detractors claim.

In terms of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI), it is better than nuclear and shale gas, yet safe and clean.

It is infinitely more energy-efficient than utilising good farmland for biofuel production. Ninety-seven per cent of the dash for turbines is outside the UK, with such politically diverse places as China, Chile and Texas piling into wind power. Can the rest of the world really be so wrong?

The latest figures show that in October, Scotland’s wind turbines produced more Kw/hrs than the country consumed.

Yes, they receive taxpayer support, but only a tiny fraction of the money which our Government has promised to France and Communist China for building two nuclear power stations in Somerset.