[Gasification] new studies on GHG footprint ofbiofuelsdarkensthe picture

Fri Feb 8 15:38:35 CST 2008

Ed and all
l
They don't have to put in a carbon tax, they could pay a carbon bounty of
$50/tonne of CO2 offset to all renewables (or call it a green carbon
incentive based on the CO2 offset by the biofuel or renewable). They also
could put in a modest carbon tax and then make the rest on green carbon
incentives (ie $25/tonne carbon tax and $25/tnne green carbon incentives).
Our calculation was in Canada, taxpayers are paying $379/tonne of CO2 abated
with corn ethanol while a number of renewables will do the same job for less
than $50/tonne of CO2 abated. Quebec is the only district in North America
to see the light on this, they abandoned corn ethanol last fall as a
provincial policy. I predict the Canadian government will abandon corn
ethanol as policy because of voter backlash. It's a useless greenhouse gas
policy and everybody knows it now. The increasing impact of food inflation
on feeding the family during the recession is likely going to be the extra
dollar that will break the taxpayers back. 

It seems that conservative governments don't believe in capitalism anymore,
what they believe in is corporate welfare for their friends. 

Switchgrass pellets efficiently farms the sun 
Corn ethanol efficiently farms the taxpayer 

cheers
Roger

 -----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Ed Woolsey
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 3:45 PM
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
Subject: Re: [Gasification] new studies on GHG footprint
ofbiofuelsdarkensthe picture

Roger...all,

Here is a new report on switchgrass production costs from Iowa State
University's   Prof. Mike Duffy.

Shortcut to: 
https://www.extension.iastate.edu/store/ItemDetail.aspx?ProductID=12708&

Roger...I'm afraid you may be correct on the incentive methods.  We (US)
sure seem to have shown how to do it completely wrong.  Perhaps we'll figure
out a better pathway soon....fingers crossed here.  

Carbon taxes seem to be "off the table" for political reasons even though it
seems the most direct method to "level the field". "Paying for producing
renewable fuels" seems the current pathway and the one with momentum, and
political horsepower.  

What would you think of the idea of implementing a two tier support
structure....keep the current and then add another level of support for the
"additional lifecycle benefits" we all want...things like CO2 reduction,
rural jobs, soil erosion, water/air cleanup, wildlife...etc...all the things
we know we can get with biomass if we do it "right"???  

Ed
Iowa

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Roger Samson
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:46 AM
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
Subject: Re: [Gasification] new studies on GHG footprint of
biofuelsdarkensthe picture

Here is our new 2008 study on GHG's from biofuels in Canada. We rank the
effectiveness of technologies by % reduction and the cost of GHG mitigation.

http://www.reap-canada.com/library/Bioenergy/BIOCAP_REAP_bioenergy_policy_in
centives08Jan18-Final.pdf

The problem of GHG is not going to be solved by paying for producing
renewable fuels. Its going to be solved by paying for CO2 reduction. You can
produce renewable fuels without reducing CO2 (like corn ethanol in the US).
However all biofuels which reduce CO2 effectively are also excellent energy
security strategies.

The whole strategy of CO2 mitigation can be resolved through governments
implementing results based management rather than letting governments
picking technology winners. Sustainable bioenergy systems won't emerge until
effective policy programs are in place. You need to manage for desired
outcomes (both energy security and GHG mitigation). This will avoid the
current approach where technology development has in effect become the focus
with the hoped for happenstance that the new technologies will reduce CO2
and increase energy security. This is proving to be a  failed approach that
is wasteful of taxpayers money and environmentally destructive.

In sum ....Its not a technology problem, it's a policy crisis.  

Roger Samson

Executive Director
Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP)-Canada
Box 125 Centennial Centre CCB13
Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9
T: (514) 398-7743
T: (514) 398-7972
E: rsamson at reap-canada.com
W: www.reap-canada.com 

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1266 - Release Date: 2/8/2008
10:06 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1266 - Release Date: 2/8/2008
10:06 AM

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org