Puppeteer

Author Topic: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics  (Read 93029 times)

rbodell

  • Guest
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #90 on: May 17, 2007, 09:58:45 PM »
$300/gal,
  Mabe we should have invaded Brasil instead of Iraq??  Probably shouldnt say that, some idiot in DC will take me literally and do it.
Zeke

Too little too late, I already work for those greasy Brazilian SOBs. Lovely thing free markets, they let THEM in to make you a servant in your own home.

I don't remember if you already have a generator yet or if you are still in the planning stage, But aren't you prouder of he fact that you are taking steps to counter that than you are pissed at it happening?

Like I said my reason id being pissed at the electric company, but when mine is going, I am just going here http://www.opec.org/home/contact/contact.aspx and sending a a link to pictures of my setup. I am going to rub it in a little too about using waste oil as fuel and how their prices are driving a lot of people to taking the same steps. Anybody else out there got a webage about their lister? send them a link and grin while you do it. 


Those who control the resources in the new century are new Super powers.

It probably is that now, just that mobody has tried to take advanyage of it. What if the Arabs all of a sudden shut off the oil?

Yes I am a very bitter little man.......

villageidjit

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #91 on: May 18, 2007, 01:44:20 PM »
I just copied this from the infopop biodiesel forum - - -

NBB Praises Bill to Close Tax Loophole in U.S. Energy Policy
Rep. Doggett introduces bill to properly define “renewable diesel”

WASHINGTON, D.C.– The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) praised bipartisan legislation introduced today by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) to prevent large integrated oil companies from exploiting a federal tax incentive designed to stimulate biodiesel and renewable diesel production.

The bill, entitled the Responsible Renewable Energy Tax Credit Act of 2007, would prevent oil companies from claiming a one dollar-per-gallon tax credit when using small amounts of biomass as an ingredient in making diesel fuel. Under the Doggett legislation, producers making renewable diesel solely from renewable sources, and as it was originally defined, would continue to be eligible for the credit.

“Unless the abuse of this tax credit is prohibited, it will have the exact opposite effect of what Congress intended - it will discourage the creation of real renewable diesel fuel - and all on the taxpayer's dime,” said Congressman Doggett, a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. “Green energy initiatives must not be converted into public boondoggles.”

In April, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) approved a request to expand the definition of “renewable diesel” in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to include the act of adding biomass to conventional refinery processes.

“The recent IRS ruling could lead to unintended recipients taking advantage of the renewable diesel credit,” said Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-MO), an original cosponsor of the bill and longtime champion of biodiesel. “This bill fixes that problem. We should take every available step to encourage the use of renewable, homegrown fuels like biodiesel. This bill is designed to protect and encourage that potential.”

Joe Jobe, NBB CEO, noted that the bill has 50 cosponsors, many on the Ways and Means Committee.

“This is a question about what makes sound energy policy: do you take limited taxpayer dollars and invest them in new energy companies and technologies built from the ground up, or do you take those same dollars and give them to already large, mature, highly profitable oil companies? It is very encouraging to see Rep. Doggett and so many others recognize the flawed policy that has resulted here, and try to correct it,” Jobe said.

“Sustainable biofuels are essential to breaking our dangerous oil addiction and solving global warming,” said Jim Presswood, an energy policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Jobe noted that Congress recognized the need to reduce dependence on foreign oil when it enacted the biodiesel and renewable diesel tax incentives. As a result, the country now has a domestic biodiesel industry with 105 small biodiesel plants capable of producing 864 million gallons of fuel.

“This capacity and the future growth of the industry represents new capacity of environmentally friendly biodiesel and renewable diesel. Economic analysis shows that biodiesel production will create at least 40,000 new jobs and will add $24 billion to the U.S. economy,” Jobe said. “By contrast, subsidizing the existing operations of oil refineries accomplishes none of these goals, and in fact, could endanger free-standing biodiesel and renewable diesel producers by artificially inflating feedstock costs.”

The NBB is the national trade association of the biodiesel industry and is the coordinating body for biodiesel research and development in the U.S.

NBB’s membership is comprised of state, national, and international feedstock and feedstock processor organizations, biodiesel suppliers, fuel marketers and distributors, and technology providers.

Readers can learn more about biodiesel by visiting www.biodiesel.org.


This is more like the solution I had in mind!
Vic
Somewhere in the Ozark Mountains, the Village Idiot is missing!

rmchambers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #92 on: May 18, 2007, 04:47:29 PM »
A little common sense out of D.C.  surprising but better than a corporate give-away.

rbodell

  • Guest
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #93 on: May 18, 2007, 09:47:34 PM »
A little common sense out of D.C.  surprising but better than a corporate give-away.

I had to think on that one for a minute. On one side the oil industry starts to wean itself away from oil and on the other side is the oil companies buying the waste cooking oil at a price thet the home biodiesel producer not being able to get the waste cooking oil.

I did a search on biodiesel prices here in texas and found this place where they sell biodiesel at $3.50 a gallon http://www.houstonbiodiesel.com/buy.htm . I find it hard to beleive they stay in buisiness knowing what it costs to make it. They say they even have short lines at times. I might have to rethink my opinion thaty people go for alternative energy because it is cheaper. Granted it does help, but 3.50 a gallon? That is amazing.

My guess is that they pay restaurants for the waste oil, and a pretty good price too. I wonder of anybody here is from Houston that uses waste cooking oil who would coment on how hard it is to find?

biobill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
  • 'riods make good houseguests if fed right
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #94 on: May 23, 2007, 11:33:26 AM »
rbodel,
  Not from Houston but in my area, upstate NY, the eateries were paying $58 a barrel to get rid of it two years ago. I started picking up for free and most places were happy to see me. The waste oil company wasn't too thrilled though - they sent sales teams around saying that what I was doing was illegal and generally pissed people off. They now pick up for free too.
  I see Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) has introduced a bill to make oil company price gouging a federal crime. Think we'll see any CEO's in jail?
                                            Bill
Off grid since 1990
6/1 Metro DI living in basement, cogen
6/1 Metro IDI running barn & biodiesel processer
VW 1.6 diesels all over the place
Isuzu Boxtruck, Ford Backhoe, all running on biodiesel
Needs diesel lawnmower & chainsaw

rbodell

  • Guest
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #95 on: May 23, 2007, 04:24:53 PM »
rbodel,
  Not from Houston but in my area, upstate NY, the eateries were paying $58 a barrel to get rid of it two years ago. I started picking up for free and most places were happy to see me. The waste oil company wasn't too thrilled though - they sent sales teams around saying that what I was doing was illegal and generally pissed people off. They now pick up for free too.

Congratulations, I bet a lot of restraunt owners love you.

Funny thing, A lot of biodiesel places charge as much or more than gasoline. These people were also getting that $58 a barrel on top of that. Heck they could have given it away and made money.

Is it any wonde that biodiesel is not as popular as it should be?


  I see Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) has introduced a bill to make oil company price gouging a federal crime. Think we'll see any CEO's in jail?
                                            Bill

phaedrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #96 on: May 23, 2007, 04:35:46 PM »
I finished reading the CIS full report. What it sums up to is that while there is indeed a small place in the overall fuel stream for biologically derived fuels, expanding this in absolute terms comes at a “risk” to species, including man, primarily due to habitat destruction. They go on to say that this “risk” can be mitigated by proper regulation. Maybe so, in countries with responsible governments. Being realistic though, it looks like another example of a give-away of money to special interests, at least when it is of large scale – as in the us corn-ethanol racket.

Given the current wild-west atmosphere and ethical shortcomings of government and capital it seems obvious that the actually adopted bio-fuel policies are, in terms of realpolitic, going to increase political instability, especially in the undeveloped countries.

Based on the CIS report it looks like Castro is approximately correct – making fuel from food, as a policy, is going to create increased poverty and political stress.

Looking in focused detail I ask myself – what does it hurt if I make 500 gallons per year on my place? Carefully done such a project seems more or less harmless, not so many acorns for the critters – not so many oaks either, but this is because the project is so small and isolated. The only food grown on that acreage is mice, rabbit and venison – most of which is eaten by coyotes and mountain lions. The damage would be, in that case anyway, real, but minor. Political instability in the coyotes and lions is ok with me. (Don't know 'bout a pissed off bear though - might have to shoot 'em.)

Looking at the idea even more carefully it looks to me like a better way to spend my money is on PV panels. The actual cash outlay is similar, and the PV’s don’t require any serious work, especially not ongoing work.

In order to avoid guerrilla conflicts, which we have seen are unsustainable by developed states, a significant turn to bio-fuel is going to require fundamental changes to the present human economy and way of knowing. Since this does not seem to be in the offing, bio-fuels are going to create guerrilla conflicts – and undermine those states that engage those forces.

This is not to say that farmers are not in a position to grow some tractor fuel. Just as they used to set aside pasture-land for the mule, they can just as well make some fuel. Just not very much. Similarly the used grease from the fryer - but it's a tiny fraction overall.
 
Some people might be inclined to disagree with CIS and with Castro. They should read the report and also what “El Supremo” has written on the subject.
if ya don't ask permission they can't deny it...

mkdutchman

  • mkdutchman at gmail dot com
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #97 on: May 23, 2007, 06:05:21 PM »
I finished reading the CIS full report. What it sums up to is that while there is indeed a small place in the overall fuel stream for biologically derived fuels, expanding this in absolute terms comes at a “risk” to species, including man, primarily due to habitat destruction. They go on to say that this “risk” can be mitigated by proper regulation. Maybe so, in countries with responsible governments. Being realistic though, it looks like another example of a give-away of money to special interests, at least when it is of large scale – as in the us corn-ethanol racket.

Given the current wild-west atmosphere and ethical shortcomings of government and capital it seems obvious that the actually adopted bio-fuel policies are, in terms of realpolitic, going to increase political instability, especially in the undeveloped countries.

Based on the CIS report it looks like Castro is approximately correct – making fuel from food, as a policy, is going to create increased poverty and political stress.

Looking in focused detail I ask myself – what does it hurt if I make 500 gallons per year on my place? Carefully done such a project seems more or less harmless, not so many acorns for the critters – not so many oaks either, but this is because the project is so small and isolated. The only food grown on that acreage is mice, rabbit and venison – most of which is eaten by coyotes and mountain lions. The damage would be, in that case anyway, real, but minor. Political instability in the coyotes and lions is ok with me. (Don't know 'bout a pissed off bear though - might have to shoot 'em.)

Looking at the idea even more carefully it looks to me like a better way to spend my money is on PV panels. The actual cash outlay is similar, and the PV’s don’t require any serious work, especially not ongoing work.

In order to avoid guerrilla conflicts, which we have seen are unsustainable by developed states, a significant turn to bio-fuel is going to require fundamental changes to the present human economy and way of knowing. Since this does not seem to be in the offing, bio-fuels are going to create guerrilla conflicts – and undermine those states that engage those forces.

This is not to say that farmers are not in a position to grow some tractor fuel. Just as they used to set aside pasture-land for the mule, they can just as well make some fuel. Just not very much. Similarly the used grease from the fryer - but it's a tiny fraction overall.
 
Some people might be inclined to disagree with CIS and with Castro. They should read the report and also what “El Supremo” has written on the subject.


What exactly are you trying to say? ???

phaedrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #98 on: May 23, 2007, 07:23:56 PM »
Hi MK, I'm sorry, it does not seem to be in any way unclear. It simply says what it says.

It may be that you have not read all the relevant prior posts and that this is the reason that it does not seem to you to be clear.

CIS is an investment company based, I believe, in UK. Their report is mentioned in previous posts. Fidel has also written on this matter recently and is particularly of interest as he calls up the work of several experts. They're also worth reading. He too is mentioned in prior posts. Castro is attempting, I think, to make political hay out of a developing problem. For a man is his 80's that's impressive. He must be pretty sure of himself.

My personal opinions regarding biofuel-politics are logically irrelevant to these sources. Nevertheless the implications of the experts views are obvious - significantly large bio-fuel policies in the "developed world" are probably going to cause asymmetrical violence. If this is an acceptable cost then those policies will go ahead. My opinion is that the universal availability of atomic "options", in the context of violence, makes the cost too high. Violence has an effect on all parties, man does not fight alone. This opinion is based on expert views on nuclear technology, Ted Taylor and others. The observation that the developed states cannot sustain (or prevail) against a guerrilla force simply states the obvious - they haven't.( CIS sees this as a risk that can, maybe, be avoided. I don't.)

The idea that PV is, especially on the scale involved, a better investment strategy, is based on the true-cost. This true- cost is necessarily subjective. Others will, if history is our guide, hold that violence is an acceptable cost. This may be particularly true if they themselves do not have to do the dying. 

Of course others may come to different views. But since this relates to the CIS report and to Castro's written statements, those who would like to criticize these should read those reports first. I had no trouble getting this data - and neither should anybody else. URLs are, I believe, included with the prior posts, but a thoughtful internet search would reveal these and much more, I should think.

if ya don't ask permission they can't deny it...

mkdutchman

  • mkdutchman at gmail dot com
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #99 on: May 23, 2007, 07:42:17 PM »
Hi MK, I'm sorry, it does not seem to be in any way unclear. It simply says what it says.

It may be that you have not read all the relevant prior posts and that this is the reason that it does not seem to you to be clear.

CIS is an investment company based, I believe, in UK. Their report is mentioned in previous posts. Fidel has also written on this matter recently and is particularly of interest as he calls up the work of several experts. They're also worth reading. He too is mentioned in prior posts. Castro is attempting, I think, to make political hay out of a developing problem. For a man is his 80's that's impressive. He must be pretty sure of himself.

My personal opinions regarding biofuel-politics are logically irrelevant to these sources. Nevertheless the implications of the experts views are obvious - significantly large bio-fuel policies in the "developed world" are probably going to cause asymmetrical violence. If this is an acceptable cost then those policies will go ahead. My opinion is that the universal availability of atomic "options", in the context of violence, makes the cost too high. Violence has an effect on all parties, man does not fight alone. This opinion is based on expert views on nuclear technology, Ted Taylor and others. The observation that the developed states cannot sustain (or prevail) against a guerrilla force simply states the obvious - they haven't.( CIS sees this as a risk that can, maybe, be avoided. I don't.)

The idea that PV is, especially on the scale involved, a better investment strategy, is based on the true-cost. This true- cost is necessarily subjective. Others will, if history is our guide, hold that violence is an acceptable cost. This may be particularly true if they themselves do not have to do the dying.

Of course others may come to different views. But since this relates to the CIS report and to Castro's written statements, those who would like to criticize these should read those reports first. I had no trouble getting this data - and neither should anybody else. URLs are, I believe, included with the prior posts, but a thoughtful internet search would reveal these and much more, I should think.



Hmmm, after due deliberation I think I'd stick with biofuel ;D

phaedrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #100 on: May 23, 2007, 09:47:25 PM »
I applaud your bravery and hope that it turns out that the promise of bio-fuels comes without too high a price.
if ya don't ask permission they can't deny it...

mkdutchman

  • mkdutchman at gmail dot com
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #101 on: May 23, 2007, 10:23:27 PM »
I'll take that chance ;D

okiezeke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #102 on: May 24, 2007, 04:15:18 AM »
Biofuel,
What ever became of algae.  Supposed to be 80% oil and grow on any pond.  Seems like about any hillbilly could grow pond scum.  Could even harvest it naked to make all natural.  Never heard of anyone actually making any.  Could be an urban legend. 
Zeke
Changfa type 25hp with 15kw ST head
Lovson 20-2 in blueprinting/rebuild
International TD-15 B  1962 dozer
Changfa 8 hp., 280 A battery charger

phaedrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #103 on: May 24, 2007, 04:54:40 AM »
well said oz.

google "algae + biofuel" and there's quite a bit. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html and so forth.

The implication I think I see is the there's not necessarily a connection, a competition, between growing food and growing fuel. This aspect is what CIS would have their investors exploit as an ethical approach to bio-fuel production.

It may be technically viable and ethical. The wiki article( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture) says: "...(algae-oil) may be the only viable method by which to produce enough automotive fuel to replace current world gasoline usage."


I suspect that it is politically inconsistent with past and present practice, and thus, while it could, maybe, work, at least in the short-term food will remain and increase as a fuel feedstock. Seems to be a political matter, not an engineering problem. The history of western civilization has often been that when poor people have something that powerful people want, the poor people either give it up or fight, and then give it up. There are exceptions though - the poor do not always lose the fight. The lack of funding for research in this area seems to imply the political agenda does not include algae derived fuels. Contra-wise, considerable funding (and blood)  has gone into the control of petroleum. This continues.
if ya don't ask permission they can't deny it...

haganes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • captain
    • View Profile
    • Haganes Cruises of Southeast Asia
Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
« Reply #104 on: May 24, 2007, 08:05:25 AM »
what i like about this discussion is that it forces me to read up on outside references such as Ted Taylor.  Some of my knowledge is from the petrified 70's.

the problem with discussing these issues is that we use logic to put across our points.  there is no logic in the real world.  we have people who have seen so much death and distruction that they have no problem ending their lives as well as many other people's lives.  we have most world leaders who have philosophical beliefs at odds with pragmatic solutions.

since we are not aware of all the obstacles ahead, we should not limit our options until it becomes indisputably clear that a particular option is bad.  the opinions of bush or castro on whether a particular energy option is good or bad may be interesting to contemplate, but i would rather hear the opinons of people who have no axe to grind.
B & W Alpha 404 (280 hp @ 350 rpm)
Mercedes D231 (100 hp)
Lister TS2
Lister TR1
GTC 10/1 Listeroid