Marketplace![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (24)
Share link
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
 The Heartland Corn Products ethanol plant in Winthrop, Minn., is a farmer-owned cooperative that produces 16 million gallons per year of corn-derived ethanol. Two planned ethanol plants along Nash Road could produce 231 million gallons of ethanol per year. (GLEN STUBBE ~ Minneapolis Star Tribune) [Click to enlarge] |
If built, Ethanex and Renewable Power will add 690 tons of pollutants annually to the nearly 8,600 tons currently produced by the area's industries. Buzzi Unicem, the cement kiln, is by far the largest producer of pollutants at 8,500 tons annually. More than 7,000 tons of the pollutants Buzzi Unicem produces are in the form of carbon monoxide.
The largest percentage increase in emissions from the new plants will be in the form of hazardous air pollutants, or HAPs.
Computers can crunch numbers on emissions but can't draw a picture of how the plants could affect the quality of life locally.
Additional particulate matter and new sources of sulfur dioxide will be a concern to people who have asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, often the result of smoking. The particulate matter also will cause more nasal symptoms for allergic or nonallergic rhinitis, said Dr. Janna Tuck, a Cape Girardeau allergist. Sulfur dioxide is a known airway irritant.
For people with allergies, air pollution "definitely increases their symptoms," Tuck said. "In larger cities we tell patients if there are yellow or red alert days to stay inside."
Scott City Councilman Rob Henderson has concerns about the wisdom of ethanol as an alternative fuel and about the air pollution each of the plants can contribute to the local atmosphere. "Three hundred tons of something that's lighter than air," he said. "That's huge."
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources uses air quality computer models to determine whether to issue an air permit to a company proposing to build an ethanol plant. The models help the DNR determine how much pollution is within acceptable limits when considering the approval of a construction permit for a new source of pollutants. The models evaluate the amount of pollution solely at the location of the plant, using information provided by the applicant and by other industrial sources in the area. If a hypothetical fourth plant applied to build on Nash Road it probably would be denied unless situated in the middle of about 1,000 acres of land, said Kyra Moore, Permits Section chief for the DNR Air Pollution Control Program.
"That is currently a very concentrated area in particulate emissions," she said.
The DNR approved the construction permit for Renewable Power in June and for Ethanex in September. The agency has asked First Missouri Energy to provide more information for its construction permit application.
Moore said the DNR staff took locational readings where the Ethanex and Renewable Power stacks would be. She said the pollution models also account for the considerable truck traffic expected at the plants. Ethanex projects 45,000 truck shipments annually, receiving and shipping grain and loading out ethanol. The number for Renewable Power is closer to 60,000.
The Ethanex Energy plant will produce 138 million gallons of ethanol per year. Spokeswoman Leslie Turner in the company's offices in Charleston, S.C., said negotiations are continuing on a joint venture with SEMO Milling, a local company that makes food-grade corn products.
Renewable Power plans a smaller plant with a capacity of 93 million gallons. The First Missouri Energy plant would be capable of producing 65 million gallons annually. Together the three plants would provide up to 150 jobs.
Renewable Power continues to work on acquiring financing, said Mitch Robinson, executive director of the Cape Girardeau Area Magnet. He doubts whether all three ethanol plants will be able to locate here because of the high demand for corn. "That is why companies are locating on the river or rail or both," he said. "There is concern that if there was a blight situation that they would be able to bring corn in from outside the region."
Missouri has five operational ethanol plants. Four plants have current air permits to build and operate. Six applications for plants are pending.
Ethanol plants produce a variety of air pollutants, including particulate matter in the 10-micron range. The HAPs include acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, 2-furaldehyde, methanol and acetic acid.
A yeasty smell
Henderson has visited ethanol plants in Missouri and Illinois. Some were not cleanly run, he said. "I'm afraid it's going to smell so bad I have to sell my house and move somewhere else," he said.
The smell is a yeasty odor associated with a brewery, said Kendall Hale, chief of reviewing new sources of air pollution for the DNR.
Robin Cole, a Cape Girardeau businessman who chairs the state Small Business Compliance Advisory Committee, has visited the 50 million-gallon ethanol plant in Laddonia, Mo., which began operating in December. He calls it "a marvel of modern industrial production." He did not see any visible pollution that concerned him. "Based on what I know I do not see negative impacts coming from these plants," he said. "But my mind is open."
He invited anyone with a small business who has fears about the impact of the plants to talk to him.
Hale doesn't think either of the planned plants will emit the amount of pollutants they have projected. "I've never seen one that doesn't try to build in a cushion," he said.
Since 2002, ethanol plants in Missouri have been cited 17 times for violating air pollution control rules. The most frequent violator has been Golden Triangle Energy in Holt County in extreme northwestern Missouri. The company has been cited three times for emission violations and once for an odor violation.
Kat Smith, executive director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment in St. Louis, said her organization is focusing primarily on the effects ethanol production is having on groundwater. Ethanol production requires large amounts of water -- 4.3 to 4.8 gallons to produce one gallon of ethanol. In addition, boosting the production of heavily fertilized corn puts more fertilizer into streams and groundwater.
Air pollution is not the most important issue surrounding ethanol production, but it is an issue, she said. "We're looking critically at it."
Smith said subsidizing ethanol production doesn't make sense. "The numbers don't add up. The plants are polluting their communities and increasing water pollution. A serious change is in order here."
Robinson said the intensity of the DNR's modeling process should alleviate concerns about additional air pollution. "I don't believe it's going to adversely impact residents in the region or I wouldn't want it either," he said.
335-6611, extension 137
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please 
Great, now people with allergies are going to have to stay indoors. The quality of life in Cape Girardeau, including your property values, will take an irreparable hit if these ethanol plants are approved.
Not one but two or maybe three plants in the area. I also suspect that ethanol will be a passing fancy as other technologies will supercede the efficiency of ethanol.
I now work in South Bend In and the Plant there stinks and smokes all the time,No way will anyone be happy with that down there.
Will be the Biggest Mistake ever made to Cape and area
E-mail Kyra Moore and Kendall Hale at Missouri Department of Natural Resourses and let them know your opposition to this. This is contrary to common sense and safety.
Director- MO Department Of Natural Resources 1.800.361.4827
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY,
So, you want to have energy to run your cars, truck , farm EQ, but don't want a refinery within a thousand miles?
Also, have the folks who print this paper ever been to a pulp mill and seen what kind of pollution they produce,
hypocrites, I say.
An ethanol refinery does not have to smell bad, I have been inside this one.
http://www.ekaellc.com/
it is state-of-the-art and have no bad odor inside or out.
RGM
I have tried e-85 many times, in my experience it ranks a big failure.
Ethanol's Water Shortage
October 17, 2007
If the Senate's new "renewable fuels" mandate becomes law, get ready for a giant slurping sound as Midwest water supplies are siphoned off to slake Big Ethanol. House and Senate negotiators are preparing for an energy-bill conference, and if the Senate's language prevails, America's economy will be forced to consume more than five times current ethanol production.
Heavily subsidized and absurdly inefficient, corn-based ethanol has already driven up food prices. But the Senate's plan to increase production to 36 billion gallons by 2022, from less than seven billion today, will place even greater pressure on farm-belt aquifers.
Ethanol plants consume roughly four gallons of water to produce each gallon of fuel, but that's only a fraction of ethanol's total water habit. Cornell ecology professor David Pimentel says that when you count the water needed to grow the corn, one gallon of ethanol requires a staggering 1,700 gallons of H2O. Backers of the Senate bill say that less-thirsty technologies are just around the corner, which is what we've been hearing for years.
Some corn-producing regions are already scrapping over dwindling supply. The Journal's Joe Barrett recently reported that Kansas is threatening to sue neighboring Nebraska for consuming more than its share of the Republican River. The Grand Forks Herald reports local opposition to a proposed ethanol plant in Erskine, Minnesota, with anti-refinery yard signs sprouting up and residents concerned about well water. Backers of a proposed plant in Jamestown, North Dakota, recently withdrew their application when it became clear that the plant's million-gallon-a-day appetite would drain too much from a local aquifer. In Wisconsin, new ethanol plants are encountering opposition in Sparta and Milton.
"There are going to be conflicts," says Iowa State hydrogeologist Bill Simpkins, "and there are going to be lawsuits." Even in Iowa, which enjoys abundant rainfall, there are no guarantees that supply can meet the new demand. "The problem is we don't know enough about some of these areas to say whether people can pump out a lot more water," Mr. Simpkins says.
The political fights could get ugly, because plants tend to pop up near cities, not necessarily near the biggest water supplies. Ethanol needs a rail system to be distributed, and ethanol factories save money on boiler maintenance when they get the same kind of high-quality water that humans prefer. In states like Iowa, where ethanol plants are considered agricultural projects deserving of preferential treatment, ethanol can also muscle out other business uses.
Ethanol's big environmental footprint is not limited to water, because biofuels like ethanol are highly inefficient. In September, the Chairman of the OECD's Roundtable on Sustainable Development released a report entitled, "Biofuels: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?" Authors Richard Doornbosch and Ronald Steenblik compared the power density of different energy sources, measured in energy production per unit of the earth's area. Oil -- because it requires only a narrow hole in the earth and is extracted as a highly concentrated form of energy -- is up to 1,000 times more efficient than solar energy, which requires large panels collecting a less-concentrated form of energy known as the midday sun.
But even solar power is roughly 10 times as efficient as biomass-derived fuels like ethanol. In other words, growing the corn to produce ethanol means clearing land and killing animals on a massive scale, or converting land from food production to fuel production. Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute says that the best-case scenario promoted by ethanol cheerleaders will actually cause the greatest environmental disaster. If people can actually refine cheap, low-maintenance production techniques that don't require huge water supplies, Mr. Huber predicts a world-wide leveling of forestland as farmers turn vegetation into fuel.
Writing in Science magazine, Renton Righelato and Dominick Spracklen estimate that in order to replace just 10% of gasoline and diesel consumption, the U.S. would need to convert a full 43% of its cropland to ethanol production. The alternative approach -- clearing wilderness -- would mean more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than simply sticking with gasoline, because the CO2-munching trees cut down to make way for King Ethanol absorb more emissions than ethanol saves.
Slowly but surely, these problems are beginning to alert public opinion to the huge costs of force-feeding corn ethanol as an energy savior. The ethanol lobby is still hoping it can keep all of this under wraps long enough to shove one more big mandate through Congress, but the Members need to know the problems they'll be creating. We hope that House conferees, who did not include a new mandate in their energy bill, insist that any final bill is ethanol-free.
I speak to both Kendall Hale Kyra Moore, Tim Hienz and Chi-way Young regularly.
What is really disturbing though is there boss. According to â*¿½*¿½Missouri Corn Onlineâ*¿½*¿½ Missouriâ*¿½*¿½s representative on this Coalition is Doyle Childers, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources along with Anita Randolph, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Energy Center. Since D.N.R. is the agency responsible for issuing permits to new ethanol plants, etc., this is a direct conflict of interest. Where is the protection for local residents, when the â*¿½*¿½permittingâ*¿½*¿½ agency is both promoting the production of ethanol for companies like Gulfstream Bioflex and at the same time responsible for the protection of the resources such as groundwater?
Rockerman,
It may not have to smell really bad, it still spews VOC's and crcinogen into he air.
Dexterite - E-85 would need to sell for about 75% of the price of unleaded to get the same heat content (relates to mileage) per dollar.
There is research being done with direct-injection of ethanol as a means to significantly boost the efficiency of gasoline-fueled engines. Here is one link discussing that concept:
http://www.ethanolboost.com/LFEE-2005-01...
As I understand it, carbon dioxide is not officially considered a pollutant, yet is one of the components that allegedly contribute to global warming. Given this, just how 'green' is ethanol?
Haven't really seen anything on the amount of CO2 produced through the fermentation process, nor any figures on additional CO2 loading due to either the plant's own fossil-fueled process boilers or its electricity demand.
Somewhere in the back of my mind, I recall something like 2.1 lbs CO2 per kilowatt-hour is produced via coal-based generation, 1.3 lbs CO2 per KWH when produced via natural gas-based generation.
My concern is that the entire picture of ethanol production has not been thoroughly evaluated towards an overall net cost or benefit value. Only hearing scattered pieces-parts that supporters of either side use to promote their specific agenda.
In the efforts toward energy independence and environmental-friendliness - still not convinced that ethanol is the 'ace-in-the-hole'.
It would seem that, based on comments, the plant's odor stems as a result of housekeeping and process control / efficiency issues.
CO2 release is very significant. Surprisingly, they are NOT required to capture any of it. Some plants do and sell it to soda companies or make dry ice. Interesting that when there is a problem the recommended evacuation radius is 2 miles. A stay inside order for 5 miles.
Does fuel ethanol increase oil profit and oil use?
Some folks think so
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Capturing CO2 is a relatively expensive operation.
Any plant that either burns a carbon-based (fossil) fuel, or uses electricity for whatever is being produced contributes to the area-wide CO2 loading to some degree.
My question is if the plant is intended to provide environmental benefits, then are its CO2 emissions considered in the overall picture?
Or, another way, if the CO2 reduced through the use of its product is exceeded by the product's production - is anything really gained? Maybe, maybe not - I don't know - just asking.
If the plant is promoted towards energy independence, then the problem of assessing a cost for its emissions arises.
This is the difficult part with emissions - there is no known, accepted formula for the overall cost to the public in terms of future health hazards and the like to make an apples-to-apples comparison for emitting vs. not emitting.
Improving plant efficiencies can serve to lower emissions while yielding a benefit to the company.
For example, carbon monoxide and methanol are combustible products that theoretically could be re-burned as a fuel benefit to the plant as well as lowering the pollutant level.
The challenge is that the cost of re-capture often far exceeds the current cost of emitting.
And there's always former Chrysler chairman, Lee Iacocca (sp?), thought to consider - "just how much clean air do we really need?"
Excessive (open to interpretation) regulations will cripple businesses and the economy as we know it, excessive emissions will harm people. Where's the happy medium?
Yes, of course it's about the money. Don't know of many that would enter a venture projected to lose money from the get-go.
I suggest that grain farmers would like to see higher prices for their product, and thus a greater return for their efforts.
It's my understanding that one of the ethanol plants in central MO was started by a farmers' cooperative effort.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/...
Look at the subsidy - somewhere in the $0.50/gallon range? Then look at the millions of gallons expected to be produced from each plant. Pretty firm return for investors no matter where the market price of corn or ethanol is or happens to go.
Yes, it is about the money regardless of whether the project is touted as environmentally-friendly fuel, or as a step toward energy independence, or regional jobs, or whatever the reason.
Is ethanol really where all this money and effort needs to be going as compared to stepping up efficiency and conservation measures with current fuels, or as compared with some other alternative fuels that yield a better energy output vs. energy input ratio?
Quite simply---ethanol production as a supplement to fossil fuels is a scam.
Its a political football that makes it appear as though our politicians are acutally doing something to reduce dependance upon foreign oil. Large corporations stand much to gain (such as ADM)As mentioned before, this will pass, but at what cost????
You are correct when you say it's all about money. But did you know that their investment is guaranteed returned if they go out of business? It is MO state law now, thank you Governor.
Should have clarified that last post. It is YOUR tax dollars that guarantee their investment. Some risk indeed.
So, let's see -
A subsidy for its production, various legislation coming into play requiring its use, additional environmental and health risks, lingering questions about its overall net energy benefit - eh, now what was the upside?
Blunt brothers deny connection to cousin's ethanol plant
By Matt Wagner - 11/13/2006
Springfield Business Journal Staff
The CEO of a Mount Vernon-based limited liability company said his cousin â*¿½*¿½ Gov. Matt Blunt â*¿½*¿½ isnâ*¿½*¿½t directly or indirectly involved in his companyâ*¿½*¿½s plans to build at least three ethanol plants in Missouri, including one near Rogersville.
Greg Wilmoth, of Mount Vernon, is a first cousin once-removed to Blunt, who signed new ethanol standards into law this summer that will require gasoline sold in Missouri to contain at least 10 percent ethanol by Jan. 1, 2008. Bluntâ*¿½*¿½s grandmother, Betty Ray, and Wilmothâ*¿½*¿½s mother, Helen Wilmoth, are sisters.
Blunt spokesman Brian Hauswirth said the governor is not affiliated in any way with Gulfstream Bioflex Energy, the company Wilmoth formed in May to finance and construct the plants, which will produce ethanol fuel from corn.
â*¿½*¿½No member of the Blunt family â*¿½Â* has any direct or indirect financial or personal involvement with Gulfstream Bioflex Energy or any of my other businesses,â*¿½*¿½ Wilmoth said in a Nov. 7 statement.
Hauswirth said the governor did not refer any investors to GBE, which is financing the plants through a combination of private equity groups, senior lenders, subordinated lenders and possibly government incentives. GBE has secured an estimated $600 million needed to build the three plants, according to Wilmoth.
The first plant is planned on 252 acres east of Rogersville, where GBE is drilling test wells to determine if the groundwater supply can deliver the 880 gallons per minute needed for ethanol production. The company hasnâ*¿½*¿½t said where the other two plants would be built.
A group of property owners concerned about the plantâ*¿½*¿½s impact on their groundwater filed a lawsuit against GBE in August. At GBEâ*¿½*¿½s request, the case has been reassigned to a circuit judge in Boone County who will hear arguments on the plaintiffsâ*¿½*¿½ motion for a court injunction Nov. 20.
Lobbyist Blunt says no, too
Gov. Bluntâ*¿½*¿½s brother, Jefferson City lobbyist Andy Blunt, likewise dispelled rumors that he had invested in GBE or assisted the company in its fund-raising efforts.
Andy Blunt said he doesnâ*¿½*¿½t have a financial stake in GBE and sounded surprised to learn that his cousin was behind the proposed plant near Rogersville.
â*¿½*¿½Oh, is he?â*¿½*¿½ Blunt said. â*¿½*¿½I donâ*¿½*¿½t have anything to do with that.â*¿½*¿½
Andy Blunt is familiar with ethanol production, though.
Last month, the Associated Press reported that he had invested in Central Missouri Biofuels LLC. The company had 10 percent ownership in Show Me Ethanol, which plans to build an ethanol plant in the northeast Missouri town of Carrolton.
Show Me Ethanol has applied for a $48 million linked-deposit loan administered by the state treasurerâ*¿½*¿½s office, which has a conflict-of-interest policy that prohibits elected officials or their family members from participating in the program.
The loan program deposits state money collateralized with a treasury certificate or irrevocable letter of credit into Missouri banks at a reduced interest rate. The lower interest rate is then transferred to qualifying borrowers whose value-added agricultural business is expected to create jobs and expand markets for farm products.
â*¿½*¿½We have not been contacted by Gulfstream,â*¿½*¿½ said state treasury spokesman Mark Hughes.
GBE has made contact with the Missouri Department of Economic Development regarding various economic development and tax incentive programs. DED spokesman Gregg Ochoa said he could not discuss details regarding the companyâ*¿½*¿½s inquiry.
DED offers discretionary tax breaks to ethanol production companies owned by a majority of farmers, and in August, Gov. Blunt barred the state from extending the tax breaks to corporately owned ethanol plants.
Plant contractor chosen
GBE wonâ*¿½*¿½t know whether its proposed ethanol plant is feasible until test drilling at the site is complete, Wilmoth said, suggesting the test wells are almost complete.
Even if GBE decides to build the plant, construction canâ*¿½*¿½t begin until the company obtains the necessary permits from the state Department of Natural Resources, Wilmoth said.
Kansas City-based Walton Construction Co. has been selected as the general contractor for the plant, which will be able to produce 100 million gallons of fuel-grade ethanol each year.
Wilmoth said construction on a plant that size generally takes 15 months, depending on weather.
Walton Construction has never built an ethanol plant, said Rick Quint, senior vice president and managing director of the companyâ*¿½*¿½s Springfield office.
Wilmoth said GBE has selected an engineering firm, corn supplier and resellers for ethanol fuel and dried-distillers grains, a byproduct that can be reused as livestock feed, although he declined to name any of the firms.
Wilmoth also has declined to name any of GBEâ*¿½*¿½s investors. He did, however, indicate that Missouri farmers have ownership in the plant but said GBE would remain a privately held company.
Ethanol production companies in Missouri that are majority-owned by agriculture producers are eligible for an attractive financial incentive administered by the state Department of Agriculture.
Under the Ethanol Incentive Fund, ethanol producers receive 20 cents a gallon for the first 12.5 million gallons of fuel produced and 5 cents a gallon for the second 12.5 million gallons.
When Gov. Blunt signed the new ethanol standards into law this summer, a news release emphasized that he was the first Missouri governor to recommend full funding for the Ethanol Incentive Fund in his budget to the General Assembly. Since taking office in 2004, Blunt has directed $16.5 million to the fund, according to the release.
Family Ties
Greg Wilmothâ*¿½*¿½s family has been in the transportation and fuel distribution industries since the 1950s. His familyâ*¿½*¿½s holdings include Wilmoth Enterprises, Ozark Mountain Petroleum and Nickâ*¿½*¿½s Transport, a trucking company.
Wilmoth also is CEO and President of Gulfstream Bioflex Energy, a limited liability company that plans to build at least three ethanol plants in Missouri.
In February, Wilmoth was elected to a four-year term on the Missouri Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association Board of Directors. The association, which represents some 570 independent petroleum marketers and convenience store operators, suppliers and associated industry companies, is a member of Petroleum Marketers Association of America, a national lobbying organization.
Since 1999, PMAA has given $9,000 in campaign contributions to southwest Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt, according to Federal Election Commission records. Blunt is the father of Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt.
In 2003 and 2004, Jeff Negre, vice president of Gulfstream Bioflex Energy, gave $2,425 to Gov. Blunt, an outspoken ethanol proponent. Gov. Blunt and Wilmoth are first cousins once-removed.
Last month, Gov. Blunt urged an Illinois clearinghouse that certifies and approves consumer products to speed up its approval of pumps that will dispense gasoline containing 85 percent ethanol. Blunt noted a potential detriment to proposed ethanol production plants and to the market for the fuel if no timetable is established for approval of the pumps.
________________________________________
Springfield Business Journal, Copyright © 2007, All Rights Reserved.
Here is something you might be able to use to put this water use into perspective. If an ethanol plant is capable of extracting 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM) of groundwater. The actual gallons used by the plant would be about 880 GPM or 1,260,000 gallons per day.
Big Springs (Missouri's largets spring) = 289 million gallons of water per day.
Every 23 days the plant would remove the same amount of water from the ground equal to Big Springs at Van Buren, Missouri.
Bennett Spring = 114 million gallons of water per day.
Every 9 days the plant would remove the same amount of water from the ground equal to Bennett Springs at Lebanon.
Not a good use of groundwater, in my opinion.
â*¿½*¿½FOODâ*¿½*¿½ ETHANOL IS NOT SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Last August (2006) I questioned the morality of burning food or corn/ethanol in our vehicles. That valid question is even more real to me now, since a proposed corn/ethanol plant would be nearly visible from my home. I remain convinced that the production of â*¿½*¿½foodâ*¿½*¿½/ethanol is simply wrong and others around the world are beginning to agree.
A June 12, 2007 article states; â*¿½*¿½Chinaâ*¿½*¿½s communist rulers announced a moratorium on the production of ethanol from corn and other food crops yesterday at the very time that Western leaders are rushing to embrace alternative food-based fuel technology. Another Chinese decision states that â*¿½*¿½...as droughts, and pollution have led to hundreds of millions of people going without regular drinking waterâ*¿½Â* calculated each gallon of ethanol required 8.310 gallons of water for growing corn and another 30-37 gallons for conversion to fuelâ*¿½Â*if they are using corn for fuel, they are not going to get the water freeâ*¿½*¿½.
In America, the land of free flowing streams and clean lakes, we have yet to consider water as a limiting factor. During my career, I often told students and anyone who might listen that we would one day pay a very high price for drinking water and may see bloodshed over water rights. Those days are here sooner than I expected. We are now paying eight dollars or more per gallon for drinking water just to appear fashionable. This could easily become mandatory as competition for clean water increases.
Also, I believe it is morally wrong for any company to have unlimited use of our groundwater and then return their polluted water to our streams. That is just what Gulfstream Bioflex, LLC, has stated in court will happen if their plant is constructed east of Rogersville. This should alarm everyone within a hundred mile radius, not just a few of us who live near this site! I have full confidence in the professional staff of MDNR to see that this does not happen through their permitting system. Our objective now, is to insure that each and every questionable detail is covered prior to the issuance of any and all permits.
Oh yes, just in case you thought you would be burning ethanol â*¿½*¿½Made in Americaâ*¿½*¿½ to help our farmers, you should know this. On top of the federal ethanol mandate, federal law grants a 50-cent tax credit for each gallon of ethanol a blender buys. Both domestic and imported ethanol qualifies for these subsidies. Chinese ethanol, however, benefits from one additional U.S. subsidy. In 2004, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), a federal agency that finances the exports of U.S. companies, subsidized construction of an â*¿½*¿½ethanol dehydration facilityâ*¿½*¿½ in Trinidad and Tobagoâ*¿½*¿½exactly the sort of facility through which foreign ethanol passes duty-free into the U.S. So much for â*¿½*¿½made in Americaâ*¿½*¿½!
In his essay Who Owns America? Dr. John Ikerd, University of Missouri, said it best. â*¿½*¿½Many issues concerning the natural environment are fundamentally moral or ethical issues. We should not be buying and selling pollution rights, because no individual has the moral right to pollute in the first place, and thus, has no right to sell itâ*¿½Â*Pollution of the environment is fundamentally, morally wrong, the same as it is morally wrong to kill, to steal, or enslave.â*¿½*¿½
To further quote Dr. Ikerd, â*¿½*¿½Any system of development that is not ecologically sound and economically viable and socially responsible just quite simply is not sustainable over time.â*¿½*¿½ In my opinion, the ethanol scam fails the test of all three. The high use of water, natural gas, corn and the resultant pollution of air and water make it ecologically unsound. Without tax subsidies it is not economically viable. And due to both of these, the production of ethanol is most certainly not socially responsible. Given time, the ethanol initiative will ultimately fail. The landscape will be left with tax constructed monuments to short-sighted greed and to a governmentâ*¿½*¿½s rush to quick-fix the fuel problem.
David E. Pitts, Certified Biologist
Rogersville, Mo.
Neither Rogersville nor Fordland, Mo. (Webster County) much less the adjacent landowners, are prepared to cope with an ethanol plant located nearby. Important information is ignored by promoters of ethanol as a quick-fix to the foreign oil problem. We should listen to others across the U.S. as they deal with ethanol plants located in their communities.
For example, â*¿½*¿½evacuation plans for the Penn-Mar Ethanol plant proposed for Lancaster County, PA., calls for immediate evacuation within 2.5 miles in all directions from the plant, and within 5 miles, residents must be sheltered indoorsâ*¿½*¿½. â*¿½*¿½Ã¢*¿½Â*The Evacuation Plan would also cover people near the rail cars and trucks used to carry the dangerous chemicals and products to and from the ethanol plantâ*¿½*¿½. Also, more than one study concludes that due to air pollution and the potential for a disaster, â*¿½*¿½Schools should be located at least 5 miles away from any ethanol plantâ*¿½*¿½.
Gulfstream Bioflex Energies (GBE) stated the proposed Rogersville/Fordland plant would have a rated capacity of 88 million gallons per year. GBE failed to provide written plans for their proposed plant as requested during the on-going trial. As a result, we are forced to rely on similar ethanol plants as to what will be stored on-site. A plant producing 60 million gallons of fuel ethanol per year will have the following stored on-site (the larger GBE plant might have even larger capacities of these chemicals): five 13,333 cubic foot carbon dioxide (co2) storage tanks; 8,000 lbs anhydrous ammonia would be at the distillery;18,000 gallons of aqueous ammonia would be in an aboveground storage tank;165,000 gallons 95% ethanol - aboveground storage tank;165,000 gallons 100% ethanol - aboveground storage tank;1.5 million gallons fuel ethanol - 2 aboveground storage tanks (ast); 7,000 gallons sulfuric acid - aboveground storage tank; 5,700 gallons sulfamic acid - aboveground storage tank; 8,000 gallons sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) - aboveground storage tank; 8,400 gallons glucose amylase - aboveground storage tank; 8,400 gallons alpha amylase - aboveground storage tank; 4 fermentation tanks: 745,000 gallons each (2,980,000 gal.); and a 1,000,000 gallons - beer well and 75,000 gallons of gasoline for denaturing in aboveground storage tank. [NOTE: one gallon of gasoline has the explosive power of six or more sticks of dynamite. In this case, 450,000 sticks of dynamite].
An article in The Fayetteville Observer (NC) shows concern about a proposed ethanol plant in their city industrial parkâ*¿½Â*â*¿½*¿½In addition to the question of odors, the plant will store (according to the company named E85) 2.8 million gallons of ethanol, 105,000 gallons of gasoline, 150,000 pounds of sulfuric acid, 50,000 lbs. of caustic sodium hydroxide, 11,000 pounds of phosphoric acid, 190,000 pounds of urea and 98,000 pounds of ammonia. It could generate nearly 1,000 tractor-trailer visits a week or hundreds of rail-car arrivals and departures. It will use more than a thousand gallons of municipal water a minute and put millions of gallons of effluent-laden water through local sewer plants. Those figures are filled with questions about environmental and infrastructural impacts, and what they will cost the communityâ*¿½*¿½.
â*¿½*¿½Ethanol production facilities are a significant source of air pollutants and a number of compounds that EPA has designated Hazardous Air Pollutants. In addition to contributing to ground-level ozone (smog), volatile organic compounds (VOC's) can cause serious health problems such as cancer and other effects; CO2 is harmful because it reduces oxygen delivery to the body's organs and tissuesâ*¿½*¿½. VOCs include ethanol, methanol, acetic acid, lactic acid, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde both of which are known cancer causing chemicals. Increased exposure to ethanol also raises the risk of inhalation, which has significant health consequences: developmental toxicity, central nervous system dysfunction, birth defects, and cancer. Combustion in the boilers primarily produces carbon monoxide, and various oxides. Carbon monoxide is extremely toxic, and if inhaled, could lead to brain death. Wastewater treatment produces hydrogen sulfides, and some of the VOCs listed above. Cooling towers emit miniscule particulate matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) and if inhaled in large quantities, could potentially affect respiratory function.
The study found that â*¿½*¿½Many citizens experienced reactions rather quickly from breathing air that was saturated with these emissions. Symptoms were burning eyes, lungs, and throat; you'd get headaches, cramps in your sides and feel nauseous.â*¿½*¿½
In addition, the smaller â*¿½*¿½Ã¢*¿½Â*Penn-Mar Ethanol's Description of Proposed Use submitted to Greene Township (PA) states it would use: 220,000 cubic feet Natural Gas per hour (cfh); 8.0 megawatts (MW) of electricity; 135,000 gallons of sewage per day (gpd)..."
Source: â*¿½*¿½Study For The Proposed Penn-Mar Ethanol Facility Conoy Township, Lancaster County, Pa." and The Fayetteville Observer (NC).
Do we really want an ethanol plant located near our schools or in our communities? I donâ*¿½*¿½t think so!
David E. Pitts, Certified Biologist, Rogersville, Mo.
Here is a good song concerning ethanol, "Subsidized Ethanol Blues"
http://www.jeffparnell.com/
Also, a website where you can see that many people are fighting a similar battle against ethanol plants.
http://missouricitizensagainstethanol.co...
http://www.c4aqe.org/Others_oppoosing_et...
The hype about corn/ethanol has turned 180 degrees during the past year as people wake up to the fact that this whole ethanol scheme is nothing but a scam to make a few some big money. The water a plant uses should support around 5,000 jobs compared to the 30 that it will have. All the product is shipped away and you are left with the pollutants and no water.
Fight it with all you soul!!!