Company wants to turn fat into fuel at Iowa plant
By AMY LORENTZEN (AP) – 23 hours ago
DES MOINES, Iowa — A central Iowa plant could soon begin producing jet fuel from poultry fat.
Bolingbrook, Ill.-based Elevance Renewable Sciences plans to build a $15 million plant in Newton, adding onto an existing biodiesel operation.
The experimental operation plans to use plant oils and poultry fat as building blocks to replace petroleum-based chemicals used to make myriad products, including jet fuel, lubricants, adhesives and even cosmetics and candles.
"It allows us to make a very interesting slate of products, which is different and somewhat in contrast to how poultry fat is used today," said K'Lynne Johnson, Elevance's chief executive. "We are taking a waste stream of products ... and using it in a higher value manner."
Using Elevance's technology, that fat could produce about 250 million gallons of products including diesel fuel, jet fuel and specialty chemicals that can replace petroleum products, Johnson said. A biofuels processor needs the fat from about 50 chickens to make one gallon of fuel. Read More
It’s exciting to see how many uses can be found for the co-products of livestock production. Not only can we accomplish our main goal of providing a safe nutritious food source, but on top of that many other products are being developed, including energy. Homegrown food and energy are two of the most important things our country needs in order to remain successful.
Showing posts with label renewable energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label renewable energy. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Betting On Green Costs Sierra Club
Risky 'green' investments could put Sierra Club in the red
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
12/10/09 11:28 AM EST
High electrical bills this winter? You don't have to look far for someone to blame. The Sierra Club volunteers to take the blame with this gleeful announcement that it has killed 100 coal-fired power plants nationwide.
But if green energy is such a great investment, then why is a hundred-million-dollar donor to the Sierra Club Foundation informing his favorite charities that they might have cost him his shirt, and that therefore he will be curtailing his gifts for the time being?
David Gelbaum, a major donor to the Sierra Club Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and an organization that provides services to military personnel, said he would cut donations next year because investments in alternative-energy firms have "placed me in a highly illiquid position."
Gelbaum, who had been an anonymous donor, revealed himself so that his beneficiaries would know to seek new sources of funding this year. Link
It’s more than a little ironic that one of the Sierra Club’s biggest donors will not be able to give them money this year because of the person’s investments in renewable energy. The Sierra Club recklessly advocates polices that will cost hard working families a lot of money in increased energy costs. This time, however, it seems that it has come back to bite them. ~TH
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
12/10/09 11:28 AM EST
High electrical bills this winter? You don't have to look far for someone to blame. The Sierra Club volunteers to take the blame with this gleeful announcement that it has killed 100 coal-fired power plants nationwide.
But if green energy is such a great investment, then why is a hundred-million-dollar donor to the Sierra Club Foundation informing his favorite charities that they might have cost him his shirt, and that therefore he will be curtailing his gifts for the time being?
David Gelbaum, a major donor to the Sierra Club Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and an organization that provides services to military personnel, said he would cut donations next year because investments in alternative-energy firms have "placed me in a highly illiquid position."
Gelbaum, who had been an anonymous donor, revealed himself so that his beneficiaries would know to seek new sources of funding this year. Link
It’s more than a little ironic that one of the Sierra Club’s biggest donors will not be able to give them money this year because of the person’s investments in renewable energy. The Sierra Club recklessly advocates polices that will cost hard working families a lot of money in increased energy costs. This time, however, it seems that it has come back to bite them. ~TH
Monday, September 21, 2009
Give Up Coal? No, Let's Not
Give up coal? No, let’s not
By Hasso Hering, Commentary
Posted: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:00 am
The Sierra Club is trying to get students at universities including Oregon State to agitate against the use of coal as an energy source. The campaign is misguided. Let's hope it fails.
The organization has launched what it calls a coal-free campus campaign. There's no coal at Oregon State, so the campaign has won before it started. But if they mean they don't want colleges to buy electricity generated from coal, OSU would have to give up buying from Pacific Power.
Pacific has sources of alternative energy, but by far most of its supply, some 70 percent according to one recent brochure, comes from burning coal, mostly in Wyoming.
Coal has environmental drawbacks, but so do other forms of generating vast amounts of electricity. Writing in the Wall Street Journal last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee notes that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has announced plans to cover 1,000 square miles in the desert Southwest with solar collectors. Other federal energy goals call for 186,000 50-story windmills, covering an area the size of West Virginia. Alexander calls this a "massive intrusion into the natural landscape." By comparison, coal plants and the mines on which they depend occupy only a few square miles each. Read More
There are many environmentalists that would try to tell you it’s impossible to use coal energy and not destroy the planet. However, there is technology to deal with many of these environmental issues. It’s irresponsible to advocate for the elimination of a energy source that powers half the country without first having an equally affordable system ready to replace it. There is no doubt that our society will evolve into using different forms of energy, but it shouldn’t be done if it is going to bankrupt our nation and leave us with massive amounts of people that can't afford electricity.
By Hasso Hering, Commentary
Posted: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:00 am
The Sierra Club is trying to get students at universities including Oregon State to agitate against the use of coal as an energy source. The campaign is misguided. Let's hope it fails.
The organization has launched what it calls a coal-free campus campaign. There's no coal at Oregon State, so the campaign has won before it started. But if they mean they don't want colleges to buy electricity generated from coal, OSU would have to give up buying from Pacific Power.
Pacific has sources of alternative energy, but by far most of its supply, some 70 percent according to one recent brochure, comes from burning coal, mostly in Wyoming.
Coal has environmental drawbacks, but so do other forms of generating vast amounts of electricity. Writing in the Wall Street Journal last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee notes that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has announced plans to cover 1,000 square miles in the desert Southwest with solar collectors. Other federal energy goals call for 186,000 50-story windmills, covering an area the size of West Virginia. Alexander calls this a "massive intrusion into the natural landscape." By comparison, coal plants and the mines on which they depend occupy only a few square miles each. Read More
There are many environmentalists that would try to tell you it’s impossible to use coal energy and not destroy the planet. However, there is technology to deal with many of these environmental issues. It’s irresponsible to advocate for the elimination of a energy source that powers half the country without first having an equally affordable system ready to replace it. There is no doubt that our society will evolve into using different forms of energy, but it shouldn’t be done if it is going to bankrupt our nation and leave us with massive amounts of people that can't afford electricity.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Pricing Electricity Out of Reach
Renewable power will cost consumers more
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 13, 2009
California's push for renewable power could prove costly to consumers.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to get one-third of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 could cost $115 billion in new infrastructure, according to a report released Friday by the California Public Utilities Commission. Last year, a similar report from the commission estimated the cost at $60 billion.
That money would come from Californians' utility bills.
By 2020, the state's average price for electricity could rise as much as 28 percent above today's levels, based on current dollars. However, the report says most of that increase will happen even if the state abandons its drive to build more wind farms and solar power plants. Without adding any renewable power, prices would rise 17 percent.
That alarms consumer advocates, who have long complained about California's high electricity prices.
"The notion of California struggling under (28) percent higher prices - it's a sobering picture for the California economy," said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a watchdog group.
"This would be a bargain," said Carl Zichella, regional director for the Sierra Club. "Early actions are by far the most cost-effective, and they have the biggest bang for the buck in fighting climate change." Read More
Again, we see the Sierra Club put hard working families at the bottom of their list of things they are concerned about. Advocating for higher prices for electricity is an elitist view point, especially when so many families are struggling to pay their bills already. I doubt the Sierra Club has ever looked into how this would affect young families since that isn’t their concern. A reasonable balance needs to be struck in situations like this.
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 13, 2009
California's push for renewable power could prove costly to consumers.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to get one-third of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 could cost $115 billion in new infrastructure, according to a report released Friday by the California Public Utilities Commission. Last year, a similar report from the commission estimated the cost at $60 billion.
That money would come from Californians' utility bills.
By 2020, the state's average price for electricity could rise as much as 28 percent above today's levels, based on current dollars. However, the report says most of that increase will happen even if the state abandons its drive to build more wind farms and solar power plants. Without adding any renewable power, prices would rise 17 percent.
That alarms consumer advocates, who have long complained about California's high electricity prices.
"The notion of California struggling under (28) percent higher prices - it's a sobering picture for the California economy," said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a watchdog group.
"This would be a bargain," said Carl Zichella, regional director for the Sierra Club. "Early actions are by far the most cost-effective, and they have the biggest bang for the buck in fighting climate change." Read More
Again, we see the Sierra Club put hard working families at the bottom of their list of things they are concerned about. Advocating for higher prices for electricity is an elitist view point, especially when so many families are struggling to pay their bills already. I doubt the Sierra Club has ever looked into how this would affect young families since that isn’t their concern. A reasonable balance needs to be struck in situations like this.
Friday, April 18, 2008
No more Electricity?
Junk Science: A New 'Green' Body Count Begins
Thursday , April 17, 2008
By Steven Milloy
The world has an ever-growing population that needs more and more energy, but the greens are doing everything they can to constrict the world’s energy supply.
As the Sierra Club campaigns to shut down our coal-fired electricity capabilities, the Natural Resources Defense Council campaigns to prevent nuclear power from taking its place. The demise of coal-fired power and the blockage of increased nuclear power will increase the demand for supply constraints on, and the prices for, natural gas.
But then again, environmental advocacy group Earth First perhaps is helping to alleviate the looming natural gas crisis by campaigning against power plants that use the fuel. In a recent campaign against a South Florida power plant, an Earth First campaigner stated that the environment ought not be threatened "so that people can fuel their greedy energy desires." "Just say 'no' to electricity," seems to be the bottom line of eco-think.
Even wind power is becoming more and more politically incorrect. Environmentalist-friendly Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley this week announced that wind farms will not be allowed on state lands because they are eyesores. Read More
There won’t be much left to generate electricity with if we let the environmentalist have their way. One way we use now that wasn’t mentioned in this article was hydro-electric. Can you imagine what would happen if the government wanted to dam a river to generate electricity today? We should all feel fortunate that our grandfather’s generation realized the importance of utilizing this resource because my generation probably never will.
Thursday , April 17, 2008
By Steven Milloy
The world has an ever-growing population that needs more and more energy, but the greens are doing everything they can to constrict the world’s energy supply.
As the Sierra Club campaigns to shut down our coal-fired electricity capabilities, the Natural Resources Defense Council campaigns to prevent nuclear power from taking its place. The demise of coal-fired power and the blockage of increased nuclear power will increase the demand for supply constraints on, and the prices for, natural gas.
But then again, environmental advocacy group Earth First perhaps is helping to alleviate the looming natural gas crisis by campaigning against power plants that use the fuel. In a recent campaign against a South Florida power plant, an Earth First campaigner stated that the environment ought not be threatened "so that people can fuel their greedy energy desires." "Just say 'no' to electricity," seems to be the bottom line of eco-think.
Even wind power is becoming more and more politically incorrect. Environmentalist-friendly Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley this week announced that wind farms will not be allowed on state lands because they are eyesores. Read More
There won’t be much left to generate electricity with if we let the environmentalist have their way. One way we use now that wasn’t mentioned in this article was hydro-electric. Can you imagine what would happen if the government wanted to dam a river to generate electricity today? We should all feel fortunate that our grandfather’s generation realized the importance of utilizing this resource because my generation probably never will.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Manure is a Renewable Resource, Not Toxic Waste
Poultry Litter Power Company To Build In Sampson Co.
Wednesday, Apr 16, 2008
By NBC17
SAMPSON COUNTY, N.C. -- A company that creates energy from poultry litter has selected Sampson County for its next plant.
Fibrowatt announced Wednesday that it will build a new plant in Sampson County -- its first plant in North Carolina. This will be the second plant of its kind in the nation.
The plant will be located in the middle of North Carolina's poultry industry.
According to the company's press release, the plant will offer three benefits:
A new source of biomass energy, helping the state meet its commitment to renewable energy and providing important greenhouse gas benefits
An alternative, beneficial use for poultry litter that will reduce a grower’s exclusive reliance on land application
The creation of about 100 new jobs in the Sampson County area Read More
This is the latest article of several articles that I have brought to you showing that manure is not toxic waste but rather a commodity that contains valuable nutrients. Manure isn’t waste but rather a co-product of food production.
Wednesday, Apr 16, 2008
By NBC17
SAMPSON COUNTY, N.C. -- A company that creates energy from poultry litter has selected Sampson County for its next plant.
Fibrowatt announced Wednesday that it will build a new plant in Sampson County -- its first plant in North Carolina. This will be the second plant of its kind in the nation.
The plant will be located in the middle of North Carolina's poultry industry.
According to the company's press release, the plant will offer three benefits:
A new source of biomass energy, helping the state meet its commitment to renewable energy and providing important greenhouse gas benefits
An alternative, beneficial use for poultry litter that will reduce a grower’s exclusive reliance on land application
The creation of about 100 new jobs in the Sampson County area Read More
This is the latest article of several articles that I have brought to you showing that manure is not toxic waste but rather a commodity that contains valuable nutrients. Manure isn’t waste but rather a co-product of food production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)