Not in my back yard!
Posted on 05/06/2007 9:18:04 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
TOWN OF DOVER, Wis. (AP) -- Barney Lavin ought to be the poster child for ethanol.
A fifth-generation corn farmer, working the land his family homesteaded in 1842, Lavin should see dollar signs over a proposed ethanol plant in this small southeastern Wisconsin town.
Instead, Lavin put down his pitchfork and picked up his cell phone, joining the ranks of other unlikely opponents organizing against ethanol plants, fearing air pollution, increased traffic and groundwater depletion.
"I'm unwilling to give up the obvious quality of life we have here for some added income," said Lavin, who grows corn on a 300-acre farm on rolling hills that include a recently restored wetlands. "We feel very strongly about this area and we don't want it ruined."
Across the corn belt and beyond -- from Minnesota to Missouri, Illinois to Pennsylvania, Kansas to Indiana -- residents in areas targeted for ethanol plants are refusing to go along with politicians who say it is a more sustainable alternative to foreign oil and a way to save dying Main Streets.
There are 115 ethanol plants operating in the U.S. -- most of them are in Midwest states including top producers Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois and Minnesota. Another 79 are under construction or planned, according to the Renewable Fuels Association trade group.
Debbie Krogh lives next door to one of two proposed sites for the Dover plant.
"I can't tell you how sad this has actually made me," Krogh said. "We have had to fight for our lives here."
In most places, ethanol plants are welcomed, said Robert Dinneen, Renewable Fuels Association president.
According to the association, the ethanol industry created more than 153,000 jobs as of 2005 and boosted U.S. household income by $5.7 billion. The association also said ethanol industry operations and spending for new construction added $1.9 billion in federal tax revenue and $1.6 billion for state and local governments.
When ethanol plants are properly sited, and the benefits explained, opposition disappears, said Josh Morby, executive director of the Wisconsin Bio Industry Alliance, a group consisting primarily of businesses and labor organizations that benefit from increased ethanol production.
"Those of us in the industry are excited and encouraged by the technology and developments that are taking place, but it's important to remember the average citizen still doesn't know what ethanol is, where to get it, or the benefits of ethanol," Morby said.
Lack of community support was one reason South Dakota-based VeraSun Energy Corp. backed out of plans in March to build an ethanol plant in the town of Milford, Ind., population 1,500. Residents argued the proposed location was dangerous, would increase trucking truck traffic and posed a threat to the environment and quality of life. In South Dakota, Davison County officials want an ethanol company to help pay for some $2 million in road repairs blamed on increased truck traffic. In Illinois, a citizens' group filed a federal lawsuit to block further construction of an ethanol plant, and there are ethanol plant challenges elsewhere across the Midwest.
Lisa Glon, a 39-year-old stay-at-home mom who sells soaps and other products at a farmers' market, said she and other opponents thought the Indiana plant would be too close to residents and a school.
"We never took a stand against ethanol production," she said. "We simply said this site was bad. An ethanol refinery is a fuel refinery. And I don't believe that fuel refineries belong in back yards."
Ethanol is alcohol made from plants, usually corn, and it is blended with fuel to make it burn cleaner. In the process, pollution-causing chemicals and compounds are emitted along with a smell that supporters liken to popcorn but critics compare to manure.
Ethanol can help rural communities, said Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs, a nonprofit farm advocacy group in Lyons, Neb. But he said policy makers must address the impact of ethanol facilities on the environment and dangers of overproduction.
"The nearly unlimited demand for liquid fuels cannot become the basis to simply rape our land and water," he said.
Christa Westerberg, a Madison, Wis., attorney whose firm has helped opponents fight ethanol plants since 2002, said the backlash is coming from people with no common thread -- young and old, environmentalists and farmers.
People like Lavin.
The 56-year-old Lavin grows corn on about 150 acres and feeds about 70 percent of it to cattle he raises under the shadow of a 127-year-old red barn with the family name painted on the side.
He said opponents to the Dover plant include farmers, longtime residents like Krogh and people who left the nearby cities of Milwaukee and Chicago. The town board recently voted against the plant, 836-291, though the developer is still looking for a location in Dover or elsewhere in Wisconsin.
A group of residents in Cambria, Wis., successfully fought a plant plan, but the developer simply moved to a site just outside the village's borders. It is scheduled to open in November.
"I think almost every plant that's been proposed in the state has been opposed," attorney Westerberg said. "They realize ethanol plants make pretty poor neighbors."
Will it come down to NIMBY vs. Kelo?
Irresistable forces vs. immovable objects?
Damn! It’s just a big whisky still.
“uisge baugh”
Look at the picture more closely. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to find a bigger version of it online. My local fishwrap published a very large version. Do you see the irony?
Just what is the guy’s back yard? A water retention pond?
The low res picture doesn't show it too well, but that looks like a junked car and a junk pile in his yard.
Any true redneck would have the cars in the front yard.
Mebbe if VeraSun Energy Corp. offered it’s product free to the locals, opposition might dry up.
I hate to assume things about people but that photo would lead one towards certain assumptions about the kind of people involved here...
Another ill-conceived move with unintended consequences. If more farmers feel like this one, the ones who plant corn for ethanol will get a still higher price for it, thus encouraging more farmers to plant corn next year.
If you want to see this trend reversed, everyone should plant corn fence-row-to-fence-row, which would result in a corn surplus, a crash in prices, and fewer farmers growing corn in the future.
You don’t know much about farming. You don’t throw anything away that you might find a use for someday.
Eventually he will identify stuff that has little furture use and it will go to the scrap yard or be burned.
For an answer...take a look at the stock price of Cameco (CCJ) the worlds largest uranium producer.
Water of Life
Ancient Gaelic
I've not seen that phrase in a long time...
My guess is, that as fertilizers (growing corn is fertilizer intensive) which are derived from natural gas become more expensive and as arable land is increasingly needed for production of FOOD (as the billions grow into more billions), ethanol for SUV’s will be a dead issue. Even now, producing ethanol for fuel involves a net energy loss.
I’d rather have the corn flakes.
You’re preaching to the choir. What’s even worse is that farmers in states like Kansas use nonrenewable water from aquifers to grow corn that is used to make ethanol as a source of “renewable engegy”.
With the planting season now behind us, I can say with certainty that your wish has been granted.
Opps, only a PART of your wish has been granted. The fence to fence part.
Agreed. They sure aren't blow-dried John Edwards liberals, I bet! Good thrifty Americans, I'd wager.
Actually it's not so much a refinery as it is a giant distillery (a still) and the only way ethanol will economically replace petroleum - unless you live in Iowa - is if you distill your own ethanol in your backyard to eliminate the transportation costs. But you must get rid of that swimming pool and plant corn now.
Hey, I think I saw that yard on Blue Collar TV’s “Redneck Yard of the Week”.
Right now it’s raining in the midwest. Farmers have some of their crop planted, but it’s going to be after Mothers Day for the bulk. This has the futures market rattled, got to. The economists say that corn and soybean farmers are not going to “mud-in” their corn, that they are going to be very careful about yields and doing everything right.
That sounds just like the environmentalists on the East Coast who support wind energy ...until someone figures out that the best way to get wind energy is to place the turbines offshore, right where these snobs have to look at them through the windows of their huge beach houses. Then, all of a sudden, wind energy isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Isn’t that right, Ted Kennedy? Isn’t that right, Al Gore?
Uh, what do you think a refinery is? It's just a huge still that instead of distilling ethanol, distills' petroleum.
Mom and pop refineries disappeared over a century ago when John D. Rockefeller forced them out of business. There are huge economies of scale in refining. A whole bunch of small refineries are less efficient and emit more pollution than one large modern refinery. The same think goes for stills. A huge industrial sized still wastes less heat than a bunch of back yard stills and emits less pollution.
[”We never took a stand against ethanol production,” she said. “We simply said this site was bad. An ethanol refinery is a fuel refinery. And I don’t believe that fuel refineries belong in back yards.”]
I would agree. Refineries don't belong close to homes. The refineries in the refinery district in Corpus Christi bought up all the homes between the refineries and I-37. Everyone made out pretty well on that program. The home owners got above market value premiums for their homes. The refineries eliminated the risk of people living nearby getting injured or killed by chemical releases or fires. This lead to less risk of being sued and lower insurance premiums. With all the low end housing near the refineries torn down, the area between I-37 and the refineries has become a green belt.
Right now it’s raining in the midwest. Farmers have some of their crop planted, but it’s going to be after Mothers Day for the bulk. This has the futures market rattled, got to. The economists say that corn and soybean farmers are not going to “mud-in” their corn, that they are going to be very careful about yields and doing everything right.”
As a kid raised on a dairy farm in Wis, I have said all along that we are totally crazy to put so many eggs into a basket that is at the complete control of Mother Nature.
One year of drought or too much rain, and we will all be walking. I get to ride my horse, tho. Maybe I can make a few bucks on that.....
Using corn to manufacture ethanol is a thinly veiled subsidy for agribusiness.
Regards
GtG
Meanwhile, just a few miles away, Pemex can drill with rigs which our envro-nazis can't do a damn thing about. Mexico can sell the same oil to us or trade it for corn. Of course, it is easier to colonize us with illegals.
If ethanol was an economically viable automotive fuel technology, Congress wouldn’t have to steal your tax dollars to subsidize ADM and other multi-billion dollar companies to get in the business. I’m all for letting the sheiks drown in their worthless oil, but ethanol isn’t going to be the savior (unless you’re ADM or have a buddy in Congress).
I completely agree. Ethanol is just a pork program.
“Using corn to manufacture ethanol is a thinly veiled subsidy for agribusiness.”
_________________________________________________________________-
You only just figure that out? This whole ethanol fraud is the culmination of a quarter-century long project by Archer Daniels Midland to prostate-milk the american taxpayer and make billions in the process.
Away from arguing the pros v. cons of Ethanol, the Liberals already have us over a barrel by not letting us drill for oil on our own soil or coastal waters where we know there is oil.
The next group that is a danger to this country is the NIMBYS. It doesn’t matter what form of energy production it it, they are against it.
MINE!!! When Congress mandates ethanol additive in my fuel, and subsidizes the industry (via tax break, take giveaway, direct payment, whatever you want to call it) it forces me to PAY for a fuel additive/substitute that is a net loser in the fossil/plant fuel equation. My apologies to all the moonshine drinking hillbillies out there but the only thing ethanol is useful for is a good buzz on Saturday night.
So when an ethanol producer gets a cut in *their* taxes you feel it is *your* money?
First of all you apparently need to be reminded that businesses do not pay taxes. Their consumers pay taxes. Businesses are Congress’ tax collectors. So the tax credit game is zero sum. You can pay full price now(including excise tax)for the ethanol when you use it, or you pay the subsidized lower price now and pay the rest later when Congress hands out the tax breaks (from the Treasury) to the big farmers (ADM) and their buddies building the stills in Iowa. The production cost of ethanol is the same. The difference is that all taxpayers get to contribute a little to the ethanol (including the bribes and kickbacks to the politicians) that goes into my tank.
Classic Keynesian argument; the money belongs to the government and if someone gets a tax break it’s the equivalent of a “giveaway”.
These “managed economy” and “wealth redistribution” ideas are just plain WRONG and they should have been abandoned as unworkable years ago. But for some reason they haven’t (because a more powerful government benefits politicians who make the laws), and it’s sad to see this type of thinking showing up here at FR.
Alcohol production for use as fuel, which can be made from many different plants beside corn, is inherently no more costly to produce than it is to refine crude oil into usable fuel.
No actually, I've been an engineer for over forty years and have a degree in internal combustion engine design which among other things includes the study of fuels and lubricants. To put things into perspective I was in the F&L lab conducting an experiment to measure the higher heating value of a sample using a Parr bomb calorimeter when the intercom announced Kennedy's assignation. I know for a fact that ethanol is, at best, a mediocre fuel that realistically should be priced no higher then 60% of petroleum products based on its energy content. We in SE Wisconsin, however, pay an increased cost for a 10% ethanol blend to satisfy the tree huggers in Washington and are gifted with decreased milage for our trouble.
My comments were intended to point out that if we must burn a crappy fuel, lets at least manufacture it in an efficient manner. If no one points out the flaws of the fermentation/distillation process that's what will be rammed down our throats.
Regards
GtG
Congratulations!
Tripod!! ROFLMAO you are Hilarious aren't you. And the boyfriend thing...that was punishing. I can't top that. Well I guess you win. By the looks of your profile you're obviously a legend in your own mind. That's exactly what my profile would look like if I followed your example and made up a bunch of self-aggrandizing bullshi+ to post on a who-gives-a-freeping flip website.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.